Posted on 07/13/2010 3:54:30 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
Fresh off a string of victories in the courts and Congress, the National Rifle Association is flexing political muscle outside its normal domain, with both Democrats and Republicans courting its favor and avoiding its wrath on issues that sometimes seem to have little to do with guns.
The N.R.A., long a powerful lobby on gun rights issues, has in recent months also weighed in on such varied issues as health care, campaign finance, credit card regulations and Supreme Court nominees.
*
The N.R.A.’s expanding portfolio is an outgrowth of its success in the courts, Congressional officials and political analysts said. With the Supreme Court ruling last month for the second time since 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to have a gun, the N.R.A. now finds that its defining battle is a matter of settled law, and it has the resources to expand into other areas.
When the N.R.A. had a narrower range of targets, it relied on a core group of political figures and met with stiffer resistance from vocal gun control advocates in Congress and outside groups. It now has freer rein to leave its mark politically on issues that once seemed out of its reach.
“The last two years have been a disaster for us,” said Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat and a longtime advocate of increased gun control. “A lot of members are just afraid of the N.R.A.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“A lot of members are just afraid of the N.R.A.”
Funny, you never hear the libs talk about being afraid of the GOA.
...”The headline on a recent blog post from a rival faction, the Gun Owners of America,...”
...this is NOT a rival faction...is is a tiny anti-gun group pretending to be for gun rights....they are sabateurs.
“A lot of members are just afraid of the N.R.A.”
That’s the whole point of the second amendment.. to defend ourselves physically against tyranny and is essential to the defense of liberty.
The NRA should focus on the Second Amendment, and that is all. Singleness of purpose is essential.
You don’t hear of the GOA supporting things like the Disclose Act or Harry Reid either.
Kind of ironic to see NRA taking credit for Heller though.
With the idiocy of the courts, "we made a silly decision on one topic, so that decision serves as a precedent for an equally silly ruling on a seemingly unrelated topic," the NRA has moved outside a narrow interpretation of protecting those God-given rights that acquired legal force through the Second Amendment. They are still just protecting gun rights, but they were forced to put that responsibility in a broader context. Other encroachments on the Bill of Rights endanger the Second Amendment, and the NRA is just doing what the ACLU would do if they really supported the Constitution. Now if they would just stop doing silly things like supporting Reid or even staying neutral on that race, I'd fall in love with them again.
So why did the NRA make the ‘secret’ deal regarding the Disclose Act?
The NRA didn’t support the Disclose Act. They agreed not to fight it on the floor vote in exchange for an exemption in order to ensure the privacy of their members whether it passed or not. There’s a big difference.
“They agreed not to fight it on the floor vote in exchange for an exemption in order to ensure the privacy of their members whether it passed or not. There’s a big difference.”
Ahhh yes that makes such a huge difference. That they were OK with unconstitutional actions as long as they received a get out of jail for free card. Riiigggghhtttt
The NRA is part of the problem. They want to keep their jobs and keep the money rolling in. That will only happen if the 2nd stays under threat.
The NRA should focus on the Second Amendment, and that is all. Singleness of purpose is essential.
I don't know about credit card issues but the other two bills both had heavy doses of crap concerning firearms, including destruction of the FIRST AMENDMENT in a quest to destroy the Second Amendment. Credit card companies like Citigroup also discriminate against gun owners (many won't do online legitimate gun transactions) and all give heavily to antigun groups so they should be hurt to keep them out of the arena.
As a believer in being single issue, then I guess you'd be supportive of the deal NRA made on the DISCLOSE ACT which specifically exempts THEM from sanctions affecting others of their allies. Or their endorsement of Harry Reid because he supposedly keeps antigun bills out of the judiciary committee and his replacement would be our old pal little chuckie schumer? You agree with that cold set of calculations?
Because while as you said, singleness of purpose is essential so is integrity. Those two HAVE to go together or neither is valid. It's kind of like prioritizing the Bill of Rights. Either they're all of equal value or none have any value. I know, the 2nd FRAMES the rest, but without the First and the 10th and oh yeah as both the Chicago and DC case showed, the 14th ... there is no reality to our RIGHTS, at all.
I wish posts like that always had some kind of link or explanation. I had never heard that in any context.
I have heard many times that the NRA should push harder than they do.
And I personally expect any large group to be contantly attacked by leftist infiltrators. And history has shown me that they eventually get in, and start subverting things.
Thanks for the laugh.
Without the NRA the gun-grabbers would have won a long time ago, and that's a fact. They had a choice to make. The last time (McCain-Feingold) they fought tooth and nail, and it passed anyway, and they had to live under it. Everyone assumed that would be thrown out, but it was years and two new justices before it was. If they had not taken that deal, and Disclose passed, the Obama administration would have access to the membership rolls of the NRA, and they would be effectively crippled in their ability fight over gun control until when/if the law was overturned. They weren't willing to take that gamble. You can agree or disagree with that choice, but please don't misrepresent it as "supporting" soemthing they clearly opposed. In the real world choices aren't as easy as when you have no responisbility for the outcome, and there often are pros and cons to both courses of action.
I am curious as to why you think this? Why shouldn't the NRA support other conservative causes. Not that they do, but why shouldn't they?
“Without the NRA the gun-grabbers would have won a long time ago, and that’s a fact.”
Really? The NRA has supported ‘common sense’ gun control. They’ve made deals with the devils.
They agreed not to oppose the Disclose Act. They made a secret deal to gain preferential treatment for agreeing not to oppose the Disclose Act.
Perhaps in your world thats not the same as supporting something. In the real world they helped.
There are no misrepresentations about it.
Much of the NRA’s power is they represent a lot of independents and even some Dems who care about gun rights, the very people who swing elections. If they become just another conservative group, they lose those folks, and with it their clout.
You are exactly right, to my mind.
They get a pass in exchange for their silence? How cheaply they sold themselves!
If the NRA chooses to endorse Reid openly as they are toying with doing, they will get my membership card back in little pieces.
Thank you for articulating that. Unfortunately, most here won’t get it, and continue to cancel their NRA memberships (how many times can a single FR member cancel?) when the NRA endorses a pro-gun Dem candidate like Ted Strickland (ignoring the fact that his gun record IS better than the Republican’s).
See what I mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.