Calm
America’s most powerful political lobby, the National Rifle Association, is having a torrid time: Nobody wants to fight with it and so far gun control is not an issue in the 2008 presidential election campaign.
25 Responses to “Calm”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
It should be part of the campaign issue set. Why isn’t it? Why isn’t the NRA pushing for direct answers from candidates on the issue. If they are so powerful, wouldn’t this be a good time to flex a little muscle and get the questions out there?
Shouldn’t we be hearing ads and other communications from the NRA in an effort to crack the wall of silence on the issue? Why are they content to allow the candidates to operate in stealth mode without, at least, raising a ruckus about it?
Yeah, yeah, I know the NRA doesn’t get to ask the questions in the misnomered debates , but I don’t recall any really hard nosed push for real answers at the NRA function where they were addressed by the candidates, either.
If the 800 lb. gorilla won’t bring it up, then who? Chris Wallace? Who is opposed to the free exercise of the second amendment? And we know he did it to torpedo a Republican, not because he is trying to use his influence to protect civil liberties.
The NRA could be using its vaunted influence to put all the candidates on the hot seat until the question is answered. They could be emphasizing the difference between past actions of the candidates and their present position during the primary campaign. I don’t see that happening.
What I am pretty sure is happening, is that they are waiting to determine who most likely will win the primary then hop on board and tell the membership “We have influence with this candidate.” Sorry but that is just ass backwards. It is not our job to please the candidates, it is their job to please us. I don’t see the NRA speaking to that. That is pretty poor performance for the “most powerful lobby in Washington” , don’t you think.
Quid pro quo ring any bells?
November 5th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Just because candidates don’t want to talk about it, (other than “oh yeah, I support hunter’s right to own guns”) doesn’t mean that the NRA can’t make a concerted effort _right_ before the election to let people know that Hillary will sign any gun control legislation that the democrat congress puts in front of her. I figure they are waiting. Why waste resources now? It doesn’t matter much until after the primaries, when you have a bigger target, who is easier to attack. If you have to attack 7 or 8 anti-gun candidates, that gets expensive.
I remember back in WV, during the ’00 election, getting phone calls and door-to-door flyers saying “Al Gore will take your guns.” Anyone wonder why a historically blue state voted for George W? It wasn’t because Al Gore made a huge stink about being for gun control, it was because the NRA did.
Of course, all the anti-gun candidates know that, but when the NRA decides to act and start the PR push, it won’t matter what the candidates think. I’ll join the NRA handing out flyers, making phone calls and doing whatever else is necessary to win.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Well said; more and more I think they are a lackey of the R party and are more worried about their image and fund raising than any useful attempt to battle in the war on guns.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Supreme court case coming up. Be patient, NRA, you will have stuff worth fighting over soon enough.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Yeah, yeah, I know the NRA doesn’t get to ask the questions in the misnomered debates , but I don’t recall any really hard nosed push for real answers at the NRA function where they were addressed by the candidates, either.
Because that wasn’t the place for it. The Celebration of American Values had a lot more to do with Washington DC than getting answers for the membership. When you get a lot of candidates lined up to kiss your ass in front of the media, it’s a good thing. It shows politicians, the media, and everyone else in the DC culture that you’re a major player inside the beltway. It didn’t matter what Rudy said, what mattered is that he came. The message was that even Rudy Guiliani has to get down on his knees and kiss our asses if he wants to be elected president.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Also, consider that you can’t make a candidate talk about something he/she doesn’t want to talk about. If you bring up something in public that pisses a candidate off, you lose access. Reporters typically won’t risk it.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
They can’t even help but mischaracterize and screw it up in the FIRST sentence.
It’s not a “political” lobby, it’s a Rights lobby – but they can ONLY see it as a Rightwing Nutcase Lobby simply because it involves self-defense and guns – and they stand with the Kum-Bah-Jah singing guitar playing corner picket-sign holders…
November 5th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
They keep beating that “nobody will touch gun control” drum. Meanwhile, they won a HUGE victory in California with microstamping, banned 50 cals, Schumer moved tactically to require more oversight during NICs checks, (setting up the expansion later), the BATFE make it though hearings with just a little dust kicked around while they make war on gun owners and businesses, the Federal No-sue law is being ignored…
But yes, no one will TOUCH gun control as a campaign issue, especially the folks who are suppossed to support the second amendment.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
[…] noticed Uncle linked to this piece in the Seattle PI. It’s worthwhile to remind everyone exactly who Richard […]
November 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
No one is touching it at the federal level. California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and the other “lost cause” states will continue to pass gun control because they can. Anti-gun democrats are in charge of Congress. They aren’t going to go out of their way to be nice to gun owners, but they are too afraid to screw us. If the Democrats are going to be in charge for a while, which seems increasingly likely, I’ll take that over what happened in the early 90s.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The NRA Is more powerful than the trial lawyers or the AARP?
Doubt it.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Trial lawyers maybe. AARP has a huge membership base. Much larger than the NRA. The question is, can AARP deliver the votes of their membership?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
” I figure they are waiting. Why waste resources now? It doesn’t matter much until after the primaries, when you have a bigger target, who is easier to attack. If you have to attack 7 or 8 anti-gun candidates, that gets expensive.” Greg Morris
Which is a perfect way to ensure we end up with both candidates being anti-gun, don’t you think?
The Celebration of American Values wasn’t the place to ask about civil liberties and the candidates’ stance on the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in particular? Pray tell then, where would be a better place?
If a candidate doesn’t want to talk about an issue and refuses to and denies access over it, isn’t that worth noting and publicizing?
C’mon! I know you are a supporter, but do you not see how byzantine your reasoning has become to defend them?
November 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
If a candidate doesn’t want to talk about an issue and refuses to and denies access over it, isn’t that worth noting and publicizing?
Yes, but typically reporters won’t risk it by asking tough questions. No reporter is going to go up to Hillary and confront her with her record when she says “I support the second amendment”.
C’mon! I know you are a supporter, but do you not see how byzantine your reasoning has become to defend them?
Defending who? I’m not going to defend Rudy. His record speaks for itself. Just because Rudy kisses my ass doesn’t mean he gets my vote. But just for the record, if you look at the transcripts for the CAV conference the NRA put on, there were several questions asked about Rudy’s record:
“And question number one is, while mayor, you initiated New York City’s lawsuit against American firearms manufacturers, do you still believe that the American gun companies should be held liable for the unforeseeable criminal misuse of their products?”
“Question number two. If elected president, will you appoint judges that respect the individual right to keep and bear arms?”
“And the final question, Mr. Mayor: What is your position on waiting periods?”
Rudy’s answers are in there as well, and I think I skipped over a question about fighting crime. But he was forced to answer for his record at the conference. But like I said, the main purpose of the conference was to demonstrate to the DC establishment that NRA had the clout to get most of the major candidates, and several minor ones, to come genuflect before gun owners. That’s of considerable benefit to do things like that, because it is, unfortunately, how DC operates.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
This is BS. The antis are trying to suppress the gun vote so the Hildebeast gets elected.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Strightarrow says
“Which is a perfect way to ensure we end up with both candidates being anti-gun, don’t you think? ”
I wholeheartedly agree. Who will the NRA lobby for
if we get a Hillary/Rudy ticket? How would the NRA
calculate the score between these two? One has
passed anti-gun laws and the other never met a gun law
she didn’t like.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
You know I didn’t say you supported or defended Rudy. Nice misdirection.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Who am I supporting or defending then?
November 5th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I wholeheartedly agree. Who will the NRA lobby for if we get a Hillary/Rudy ticket?
If I were running NRA, you don’t lobby for either. You give them both bad grades, which they deserve, but you quietly make sure Rudy’s campaign knows you’ll be lobbying against Hillary, and don’t say much about Rudy. When it comes time to put people on the court, you hope Rudy kisses your ass again, since you went easy on him in the election.
Who gets placed on the Supreme Court in the next 4-8 years will be the single most important issue in the 2008 election for gun owners, no matter what happens with the Heller case. Rudy says he’ll put conservatives on the court. It’s a big question mark, but that’s what he’s saying. We know exactly the kind of people Hillary will put there, and that’s the problem.
Yes, it’s a lesser of two evils choices, but when was the last time you voted for someone you really liked?
November 6th, 2007 at 1:10 am
NRA, don’t pretend you’re dense. It’s unbecoming. And it emphasizes the byzantine measures you are taking to continue to do so.
What the Hell is wrong with lobbying against both when they are both opposed to your stated purpose and your civil rights, thereby maybe getting someone nominated who shares at least part of your belief? Then supporting him/her. You really wouldn’t say much against Rudy? Did you really say that? He and Hillary both deserve F’s, both are disingenuous, but you would only hold one of them to accountability? Why bother? One is no better than the other. So by what twisted logic do you arrive at that conclusion?
Remember disingenuous means they lie. You would take Rudy’s word?
I don’t ever want any of what you’re smoking.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Because if it comes down to Rudy or Hillary, one is better than the other. I’ll take the chance that Rudy might keep his word on Supreme Court justices over knowing exactly the kind of person Hillary will put on the highest court. The difference between Rudy and Hillary is that Rudy will know where his bread gets buttered, and he won’t be willing to piss off the Republican base by nominating wild eyed flaming liberals to the bench.
Don’t get me wrong, the choice between those two is enough to drive me to drink, especially on election day. But I’m not willing to kneecap the GOP if they nominate Rudy if that means I have to put up with Hillary Clinton for 8 years.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Remember disingenuous means they lie. You would take Rudy’s word?
I wouldn’t be surprised if he double crossed me, but I’ll take the chance that we won’t over knowing Hillary will screw me.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Since we’re gambling here, wouldn’t it be better to take a chance on getting someone nominated whom we could trust, rather than wait for the nomination of two equally bad choices then take a chance?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Yes, it would be. But right now Mitt the Shit and Rudy are the two leading candidates. Fred seems to be calling it in, which is disappointing. I will probably still vote for the man, but I worry he won’t campaign hard enough against Hillary. As a citizen, I’m pulling for Fred in the primary.
But if I were the leader of a pro-gun organization, I wouldn’t get involved this early. The risk is that you back the loser, and the winner holds it against you. There’s also a loss of political power in that situation too, because you’ve shown you couldn’t swing the election for your guy, so the winner, if he’s sufficiently feeling snubbed, knows he won with your opposition anyway, so he can feel better about ignoring you.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:23 am
and he also knows that if you waited to see if it was his ass you decided to kiss because of his success without you, he could still ignore you.