Skip to comments.NRA President shilling for gun banner Romney
Posted on 06/13/2011 11:52:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
National Rifle Association President David Keene is predicting a Mitt Romney victory in the 2012 Republican presidential nominating process , and working to burnish the credentials of the liberal former Governor of Massachusetts.
Here's the problem:
As Governor, Mitt Romney banned guns.
From July, 2004:
Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.
I'm thinking that perhaps NRA members, and anyone else who cares about the protection of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, might want to ask Mr. Keene how much money he and/or the organizations he represents have received from Mr. Romney and his closest allies.
Because, the way I see it, such considerations are the only thing that can explain why the head of the nation's largest gun organization would be shilling for someone who banned exactly the sort of weapons that in 1775 the British went to Lexington and Concord to seize.
In my experience, the desire not to serve in the military says something about a man.
“And how many Freepers donate to this RINO organization which gave so much money to the Dumocrats? The NRA is a Dem org.”
It sucks when blowhards jump in with BS statements like this. NRA is a 2nd Amendment, single issue org, not a political party. I have personally lambasted them for stupid endorsements like Reid, and they subsequently dropped their endorsement of him and became more circumspect. If you’re bound and determined to bitch about them, at least drop the blatant lies, OK? It makes you (and the rest of us Freepers, by association) look stupid. The NRA-ILA has an e-mail address that they monitor almost 24/7 and even answered me Saturday a week ago with an info request I submitted on Friday afternoon late. They were a bit slow on the “Gunwalker” scandal, but now are also fully up to speed, so give credit where credit is due!
Google “the NRA supports Dems” and maybe you would eat your words, right NRA stooge?
What’s the use of handing out money to defend 2nd AR when most of the money just funds Dem re-election chances? So basically, in order to defend the 2nd amendment...
it’s perfectly alright to fund Dem re-elections as long as the 2nd AM IS PROTECTED, eh? (hear the cuckoo clock?)
Actually, now that we are “name calling mode with the word stupid”, maybe you are the “stupid’ one and cannot even look at the big picture.
You’re a moron! I apologize to the rest of you for wasting bandwidth on this bloviator!
Time to withhold money from the NRA the way we’ve been withholding money from the RNC.
the NRA whine box is in another forum...
As a WWII vet I have off and on had membership in the NRA. I was debating recently whether to rejoin or not because of NRA people supporting Harry Reid in Nevada. I ended up signing up for another year. However, with NRA executives supporting Romney there will not be another year.
“I’m guessing you’re not a member of the NRA, never read who they endorsed/did not endorse last year and are speaking out of ignorance. Educate yourself before making false statements and bashing the NRA.”
Former member here. Membership expired in Jan. The Keene statement speaks for itself. I also have my copy of the American Rifleman where Chris Cox defends the NRA support of sleazy Dems. Agree they didn’t endorse Reid, but they didn’t endorse Angle either. Like the AARP, they are becoming too political, in the wrong way, ie “go along to get along.”
None of what follows should be misunderstood as saying Romney would make a good president. At one point during the last election campaign I liked Romney because of his business background and his claim to affirm traditional family values, which was at least better than the positions of McCain and some of the other Republican candidates. The more I learned about Romney, the less I liked him, and I eventually voted for Mike Huckabee. At this point I don't trust Romney, period.
However, let's be honest — military service today is rare, and becomes even rarer at the upper echelons of income. Show me the son of a wealthy man who joins the military, and he'll probably either be from a family with a long heritage of military service or someone who got really mad after 9/11 and decided to do something that had never entered his mind before we got attacked by Islamofascists. Good for them, but they are rare. Even at West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy, how many cadets are from upper-class families like Romney? There was a day that all the Kennedy sons joined the military, and both Bushes served, but the day of upper-class people viewing it as their duty to serve in the officer corps is long past.
Furthermore, most people with enough experience to be president would have been of military age during Vietnam or the years immediately following Vietnam when our military was being gutted by Congressional funding cuts, and that wasn't exactly the era of long lines of people thanking veterans for their service.
Given how incredibly unpopular the military was during the late 1960s and the 1970s, I'm happy to give “extra credit” to a person who chose to join the military during that period who is now running for office, but I am not at all sure that lack of military service, especially during the Vietnam and post-Vietnam eras, is something we should hold against people if they're otherwise pro-defense.
That being said, it troubles me that apparently nobody from the Romney family has **EVER** served in the military. AAABest may be on to something about a history of being opposed to military service. In the early days that's probably explainable because of the anti-federal attitudes in the Mormon Church, and maybe that applies as late as World War I, but I'd like to see a good biographical explanation of what the Romney family was doing during World War II. (Yes, I already know that during Vietnam, Mitt Romney was doing the standard tour of Mormon mission work and obtained a legitimate religious worker deferment.)
I realize the Mormons place a high priority on young men doing their mission work after high school and that's probably part of the low rate of enlistment cited by people here about Utah. On the other hand, I know that the Defense Language Institute gets a fair number of Mormons who decide to learn a foreign language for future mission work courtesy of Uncle Sam, and I think we need to respect Mormons who choose to serve their country in that way, even if I cannot in any way endorse what they plan to teach after getting out of the military.
Well I wondered how long you'd last before you'd resort to a slur. I can always tell who the people are who have no logic or facts - nothing to back up their feelings. When challenged they quickly resort to insults. That would be you. You going to answer my question sonny boy? (That is with something that supports your position)
I won't but I'll be doing some digging and voting for a few different people next elections.
You are/were a voting member, right?
You see, I'm not about to abandon the largest and oldest Civil Rights organization to the RINO types, the wafflers, nor those who would be overjoyed at fudding those 'ugly black rifles' out of existence in favor of something in a mannlicher stock.
You follow your own concience, but mine tells me to fight for an organization we expect to fight for us.
Yes, there it is as published in the NRA records, but it was filed late and is not part of the court record. Yes, the NRA is correct the brief was filed with the court, however it is not part of the court record.
Search the Supreme Court Records sunshine and you will not find the NRA Amicus in the official record for the Heller case, 9 other Amicus briefs are there, but due to not submitting on time or some other reason, the NRA brief is not in the official record, there for the NRA did not support the Heller case, other than making statement and giving out rather tainted ideas the NRA was a part of the Heller sucess. Do some research other than taking the Party Propaganda as facts..... You may actually learn something....such as the NRA is not the organization it represents its self to be.... Wow is that a surprise to you? Do you still think RINO’s don’t exist? Facts are stubborn things.
You can start here or go to any Law School Library:
OFFICIAL OPINION SOURCES
United States Reports
Reporter of Decisions
Supreme Court of the United States
One First St, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Copies of recent bench and slip opinions
Public Information Office
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543
Copies of recent slip opinions, preliminary prints, and bound volumes
Superintendent of Documents
U. S. Government Printing Office
Mail: Stop IDCC
Washington, DC 20402-0001
Phone: 202-512-1800 or 866-512-1800
Project Hermes (bench opinionsby subscription only) Director of Data Systems Supreme Court of the United States Washington, DC 20543
Scotusblog is not the official court records,Go to the Court Records, not listed.
Your original point was the the NRA did nothing for Heller. I provided what they did for Heller and you won’t admit you’re wrong. I notice not a peep about McDonald which is equally as important as Heller. Who did the heavy lifting for that?
The NRA is not the end all for the 2nd Amendment like some believe.
Unfortunately money and the DC Beltway mentality are showing too much lately in the NRA by electing Keene. Just the way it is...
The Harry Reid situation is about the Clark County Range and nothing more
A slur? that is an observation I have gained from life, it is you that is going personal because of my own hard earned insights into men, you are getting worked up in some personal manner about something and getting very hostile for no obvious reason, at least not obvious to me.
After Heller, McDonald was a slam dunk
I do have a hard time giving any credit to an organization that has been instrumental is giving away my 2nd Amendment Rights:
1934 NFA, NRA sponsored
1968 Gun Control Act, supported by the NRA and NSSF. Essentially protected the SAAMI and NSSF domestic companies at the expense of the US Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights
1986 Gun Owners Act, Threw a big chunk of the 2nd amendment away by creating a prohibited class of weapons, called “machine guns”.
2002 Homeland Security Act - Moving the BATFE into the Justice Department, a huge infringement of the Constitiution by moving a TAX collection/enforcement function into the Judicial Branch as now a Law Enforcement Agency on par with the FBI. NRA??? Cricket Cricket
Commerce 922c ruling: NRA help draft the language so the Commerce Department could have a confict in the language so an Administrative Ruling would result, The result is “no machine gun” barrels can be imported. Thank you NRA again and the SAAMI voting members strangely benefited and the US Citizens access to parts for weapons is reduced significantly....hmmmm
Add to the personally observed and engaged converstations in Washington, DC on several occasions prior the Heller case with NRA Staff and retained Lawyers, going “off” about how “stupid”, “moronic” “doomed for judicial failure” or “ill planned” the Heller case was prior to the Oral Arguements. Yeah, the NRA was really supportive......NOT. Facts are stubborn things
The NRA created the problem ie, 1986 gun owners act, then turns around and benefits from the very act they help write some months later by claiming the Federal Government is infringing upon the 2nd amendment. Typical plan by a wholly political machine. Much like a lawyer, lawyers thrive on the conflict, not on the resolution, the NRA thrives on the conflict, sometimes as a party to creating the conflict, thus keeping the conflict going, I have yet to see the NRA with a plan to litigate or legislate the Rights of the 2nd Amendment. When the NRA starts acting like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood/NARAL about my “Gun Rights” then I will respect the NRA, till then they are a Washington DC, boondogle outfit more interested in being thought of nicely at some Beltway country club on the weekend and ensuring the SAAMI voting member Companies are happy and the unsuspecting American gun owners keep the money flowing to them. The Keene election proves this.
I thank Al Gore every day for inventing the internet.
And dishonest too. You going to answer the questions or not? On second thought don’t bother.
What is dishonest? What has you so angry and nasty?
Are you really so freaked out that a patriotic, conservative American believes that others of the same should try to join the military, it is the manly, patriotic thing to do.
“..Look, the reason that the NRA can move legislation on this issue is because they focus on this one issue..”
Wrong! Read some of Cox’s editorials about freedom of speech issues. There are indirect issues that impact on gun rights and when a politician supports those issues with and indirect negative impact on gun rights, that politician should not be endorsed by NRA. If Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner were ardent supporters of gun rights but maintained their views on everything else, are you arguing that it would be okay to endorse them?
While I agree that NRA can impact elections like no other gun group, they do tend to be the RINOs of the gun right’s movement. Hawking Harry Reid at the Nevada range opening (I think it’s now closed) was STUPID! They are probably losing members right now because of that “one issue” stance and will continue to do so unless the Obamanation wins re-election (heaven forbid).
There is little chance of restrictive gun laws getting through Congress prior to 2012 elections. The biggest risk is executive fiats that the Socialist tries to impose, eg the dealer gun sales BS currently under consideration.
You are. You've called me "nasty" "angry" and "freaked out" as a distraction because you refuse to answer the questions of why you think men are inferior to women amd why you think everyone should join the military. I consider this to be dishonest. You made the statements, and you refuse to state WHY you hold these opinions.
You may or may not be patriotic, but you sure don't have a clue about the military. It has been my personal observation that there are about the same proportion of idiots and a..holes* in the military as anywhere else (actually maybe a slightly higher proportion), and military service neither made them smarter nor improved their personalities - look at Juan McCain and Colin Powell as two prime examples
*Look up the term "ring knocker"
I don’t think men are inferior to women and I don’t think that women, with rare exception, should join the military, my rule about men, at least patriotic men, conservative men, is that they should all try to serve in the military, that does not apply to women, women just do not belong there in large numbers, plus, the development of a male and female is different, it helps for men to be trained as warriors and to show their willingness to be a warrior.
You seem to have serious dislike for military service and those that serve, I’m starting to think you either refused to serve your nation, or that it went badly for you.
AIP??? Oh please. If the GOP conservs do not unite Indies, Libertarians, Reagan Dems no one will win. This is just absurd that Romney would ban guns. Or any Pub . He is not my first choice but this conspiracy stuff is nuts. I want a conserv and one who can win, perhaps Perry, perhaps Paws and or Santorum. I want a team who can bury Obama but to nit pick all the GOP people is just great for the socialist Bama and his re-election team. Enough. I want to win and this AIP stuff is just angry nuttiness.
What are you talking about? This is a public statement burnishing the fake credentials of Mitt Romney by the President of the NRA.
I work in the industry you just read the NRA propaganda.
Who authored the Hughes Amendment?
Not really as described by Mr. Farago, yes there was an issue on the committe vote,release but the bottom line is the NRA did nothing about it had ample opportunity to stop the entire thing and still has ignored it to this day. Yawn.... I guess being a machine gun is being like a former slave in Ohio around 1859 or having the name of Dred Scott. Get over it, the NRA is damaged goods and will be replaced in the near future by a real 2nd Amendment Organization. Till then enjoy.
It doesn't have to be this way. Military service is a good thing and should be honored. However, I think you're both missing the fact that the modern American military neither has, needs, or even wants large numbers of people in uniform.
If you doubt that, let me add that I spent part of Friday afternoon interviewing the four-star general who heads Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) about current trends in military service. I deal with one and two-star generals on a regular basis, and had an extended interview some time ago with the three-star general who at that time was in charge of Army recruitment.
In other words, when I say I'm getting this “from the horse's mouth,” I might just know what I'm talking about. Nothing I'm saying is anything other than the standard view from the Pentagon for at least a decade, and actually closer to three decades. You don't need to take it from me; this is not some sort of insider view, and you would hear most of what I'm saying coming from the majority of senior officers who have given much thought to alternatives to the current all-volunteer force.
The leaders of the modern Army recognized a full generation ago that the vast majority of Americans don't want to serve in uniform, and a substantial part of those who might want to serve aren't qualified for a wide variety of reasons. Rather than focusing on having a large mass of people wearing the uniform, the Army and Navy followed the model that both the Air Force and Marine Corps had begun using far earlier, namely, trying to recruit a smaller force of people with specialized skill sets that the military needs, and then providing them with high-tech weapons and training so one squad or one company can do the work that in World War I and World War II required hundreds or maybe thousands of people. The current combat operations are not called the “captains’ war” for nothing.
This simply is a reflection in our uniformed personnel of changes in our civilian workforce. How many people do we need on an assembly line today? One person, thanks to technology, can do the work that a generation ago took many more people. That applies to the military just as much as any other field which requires technical expertise and use of sophisticated equipment.
We now have a highly trained and professional force which is capable of doing much more than a draftee Army of people who in too many cases don't want to be there and got out as quickly as they could. Obviously, we still have numerous young men (and yes, some young women) who decide to join the Army for a few years to give them personal discipline, to see the world, to pay for college, or whatever other reason, but who definitely know that in the modern military, there is a very good probability they'll see time in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever some new problem blows up next.
The nice thing is that while many of those people never intended to make the military a career and only intended to volunteer for a few years, once they join, quite a few decide they like it and end up spending 20 years or more in uniform, either active duty or in the National Guard or the Reserves, and not uncommonly then decide to hang up their uniform and start doing similar work for the Department of Defense as a GS civilian or as a contractor. It's a good system — take people who are experienced but have reached an age or a medical condition where they might not be the best for combat operations, and put them in garrison environments as civilians doing work that frees someone else to go to the fight.
Our modern military is not a cross-section of society; maybe some think it should be, but it just isn't. It is heavily composed of people from small towns or rural areas, is disproportionately Southern, and has many people whose fathers or other relatives were in the military before them and modeled military service.
In other words, we have a professional military of people who want to be there and are assuming a burden that most Americans cannot or do not want to perform.
We can debate whether the military should be a cross-section of America, or whether most able-bodied men should serve. The fact is that is not going to happen without massive changes in our society, and the Pentagon doesn't even want that. There are enough generals who remember what it was like to be a young officer or young sergeant during the Vietnam and post-Vietnam eras, or whose fathers were serving during that era, to be very sure they don't want that kind of military ever again.
I said that patriotic, conservative men should try to enlist in the military, how can you find fault with that, regardless of the pool of manpower that you think we need.
The fact that we are accepting females, and moms in huge numbers as we shoot for 50% and even grandmothers, is evidence that we could improve our enlistment quality and that we are short of quality enlistment material.
Even that has little to do with my point, patriotic, conservative men, should try to enlist to serve their nation.
Interesting, informative post. Thanks.
My concern is that I think you and Occupied Ga are, at least to some extent, talking past each other.
Is the modern military accepting older people? Absolutely. I have no problem with people in their 30s enlisting and I think if they can do the job they should be encouraged. I've seen 42-year-old PFCs and E4s, though the age limits have been dialed back a bit for people without prior service since due to our current economic situation we now have an abundance of younger people talking to recruiters. It's also quite possible that a person in his 30s, 40s, or even 50s who has a useful military-related skill is going to be able to work as a civilian DOD employee or as a contractor if that person can't qualify to wear the uniform, and that's a good thing, too.
The modern military is very, very different from the military in which my father served. There was a day that the United States needed large numbers of people to combat or to deter traditional battlefield operations against such enemies as the Germans, the Japanese, and the Soviet Union. Even as late as Korea and Vietnam, we were dealing with fairly large unit operations in proxy wars, knowing full well that a proxy war could spill over and erupt in full-scale combat in Europe if things went seriously wrong, and that would lead to a nuclear option if it couldn't be quickly contained. We needed to not only fight the North Koreans and North Vietnamese but also be prepared to fight in Europe against the Soviets and in the Pacific against a full-scale Chinese assault.
By contrast, today's military, even at the “point-of-the-spear” level, is largely dealing with groups with names like “brigade combat teams” and is heavily involved in counterinsurgency work. The company or battalion level is the main place at which key combat decisions get made today, and commanders need forces numbered in the dozens, hundreds, or thousands to carry out their commands, not huge World War II-era armies of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
Furthermore, many positions that once required uniformed servicemembers can now be filled with civilian employees or by contractors, often (NOT ALWAYS!) resulting in better quality at lower cost. Who would you rather have as an instructor in the Military Police School? A young 23-year-old E5 or a retired master sergeant who did 20 years in uniform and now that he's retired, wants to do the same thing as a civilian employee that he did as a uniformed MP, and at the same time he's working off-post as a reserve officer in a local police department having obtained his civilian law enforcement certification? Both bring benefits; the value of recent combat experience in a young instructor can never be minimized. But we also need to remember that time in the chair counts, and older experienced personnel who are beyond the age that they can serve effectively overseas can be a tremendous force multiplier when used in training or garrison environments.
I'm not going to go down the road of debating women in the military. I know too many female colonels and senior NCOs to think women can't serve effectively, and if things go well, I will shortly have a woman in my family report for basic training who hopes to be career military as an Army officer following initial service as an enlisted Army medic. But that's an issue on which people have strongly held convictions and I very much respect the convictions of those who believe, often on religious grounds, that there's no role for women in the military other than nurses. I don't agree, and neither does the Department of Defense, but I'm not going to argue against people who have sincere convictions on this issue.
You wrote: “Interesting, informative post. Thanks.”
Thanks for your thanks!
Nope you are incorrect by a wide margin, GOA has its place just as the NRA does. Both Organizations have major issues and chase the almight dollar.
Soon an organization will come into exsistance outside of Washington DC with a promise to members the only time it will be in DC is when it is required at the Supreme Court, kinda of like the ACLU for the 2nd Amendment. The NRA will be at the cocktial parties and country clubs wondering what happen..... and with no small amount of disgust fight it.
What you don’t like is industry professionals like me, that run medium sized corporations calling out the NRA when it makes blatant mistakes. I will call out any organization or person when they are screwing up and the NRA is doing such a thing right now and has done on numerous occasions, more so lately. The NRA Business Support Programs are preditory in pricing, most of the industry rejects them. the current NRA=eyewash
There is a whole lot more to this industry than what you saw as a retail consumer at the NRA convention. The NRA in some ways is like a Plantation owner, about 1850 in NC or Virginia having a converstaion about Slavery with a Northerner, a Brit or a Canadian. Yes it may be legal or make some since but you’re kinda barking up the wrong tree with the prevailing winds and even touting some wins in Congress and at the Supreme Court, How did that turn out? I believe the NRA is on a parallel path with a similar end result.
The NRA is slowing losing support with the consumers, and industry folks, like me who see and understand what and where the NRA is selling the 2nd Amend short and keeping the fight alive, kinda like the NAACP and on a sour note atune to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, with Keene getting elected. Keep waving the NRA flag, it is good exercise and it might keep your close neighbor cool on a hot day!
I’m not going to wade through that looking for a point.
You just can't keep from the insults can you?
Your lashing out and nastiness, and anger, tells me that something is going on between you and military service.