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