The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part I and II: The NRA’s Ineffective Spending and Overrated Endorsements

[ellisonz]

By Guest Blogger on Feb 9, 2012 at 11:30 am

The following is the first of a multi-part series by Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor at The American Prospect, on the National Rifle Association’s exaggerated role in American politics.

Last Sunday, Americans watching the Super Bowl saw New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Tom Menino in an ad sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, arguing that “America must do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” The next day, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler wrote an article for the Daily Beast, arguing that Democrats shouldn’t bring up the gun issue, lest the National Rifle Association and its congressional allies rise up and weaken gun laws further. Inevitably, when the issue of guns arises, the myth of the fearsomely potent NRA comes right along. But it is just that – a myth.

To determine just how powerful the NRA really is on election day, in recent months I assembled a database covering the last four federal elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. These years cover two presidential and non-presidential years, as well as two significant Democratic victories and two significant Republican victories. I gathered data on the outcome of every House and Senate election, including the margins of victory, the money spent by each candidate, the partisan character of each district, and whether the NRA made an endorsement in the race and how much money they spent.

The conclusion to be drawn from these data will be surprising to many: The NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections. The NRA endorsement, so coveted by so many politicians, is almost meaningless. Nor does the money the organization spends have any demonstrable impact on the outcome of races. In short, when it comes to elections, the NRA is a paper tiger.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/09/421893/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-i-the-nras-ineffective-spending/?mobile=nc

The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part II: Overrated Endorsements

By Guest Blogger on Feb 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm

The following is the second of a multi-part series by Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor at The American Prospect, on the National Rifle Association’s exaggerated role in American politics.

In the first post in this series on the myth of the National Rifle Association’s power, I took apart the myth of the influence of NRA spending on congressional elections. In today’s installment, I will address the question of the NRA endorsement, something sought by not only Republicans but many Democrats as well. The organization’s stamp of approval, it is believed, not only sends a clear message to Americans who own guns, but brings with it indispensable grassroots organizing muscle that can make all the difference in House and Senate races.

The NRA endorsement, however, is seldom examined in anything resembling a systematic way. When we do so, we find that like the alleged power of the NRA’s money, the power of the NRA’s endorsement is largely a myth. There are some kinds of races where the endorsement might make a small difference, but these are only a tiny fraction of all the endorsements the group makes.

There are a few critical things to understand about NRA endorsements. First, they are overwhelmingly given to Republicans, as one might expect. But just as important, they are overwhelmingly given to incumbents. Over the last four elections, 86 percent of NRA House endorsements went to incumbents. In fact, not a single Democratic challenger won the group’s endorsement (though some certainly tried). And if you’re a Republican incumbent, the endorsement is almost guaranteed: 90 percent of GOP House incumbents got the endorsement in 2004, 91 percent in 2006, 96 percent in 2008, and 97 percent in 2010.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/13/424213/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-ii-overrated-endorsements/

The NRA is just another cog in the right-wing machine...

[TheWraith]

1. If it's ineffective and overrated, you can't complain they're "scaring" Democrats into compliance.

Therefore the many Democrats in the House and Senate, and thousands more in state legislatures across the country, who oppose silly and restrictive gun laws are doing it because they believe it's right.

Although speaking of NRA endorsements, guess who got said endorsement 8 times in his career for various offices? Howard Dean.

[ellisonz]

2. That doesn't stop the meme of NRA-power from being spread.

The gun lobby makes a lot of noise, but at the ballot box they're rather ineffective. Furthermore, with the rise of Republican obstructionism getting anything done is quite a feat.

Howard Dean has reconsidered some of his positions on gun control, here are his most recent comments:

I wouldn't extrapolate too much from Vermont, it is a very politically unique state. I mean, they elect Bernie Sanders a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist.

[DonP]

10. And what office is Dr. Dean running for this year?

I'm sure it's purely coincidental that he decides the NRA is evil a few years after he's received their endorsements. They wren't horrible then, but they are now I guess. How convenient.

[ellisonz]

12. He's semi-retired. n/t

[rl6214]

17. If they're SO ineffective, why all the whining from the anti-gun zealots about how

terrible the big bad NRA is?

[ellisonz]

20. Because the one thing they succeed in is fooling...

...many into thinking that we don't need sensible gun control reform. They're obstructionist, but they're not all that effective in swinging elections.

[rl6214]

24. But how can they be succeding if, according to the OP, they are irrelevant in the elections.

It can't be both, it's got to be one or the other.

[ellisonz]

25. They are irrelevant in swinging close elections...

...they have no effect on those who already agree with their agenda (mostly Republicans).

"Nor does the money the organization spends have any demonstrable impact on the outcome of races." - They are not a game-changer. How is this not clear?

[rl6214]

30. Perfectly clear

But why the outrage from the NRA haters that they are buying elections with the POWERFUL NRA LOBBY as they like to call it. If they are irrelevant, why the outrage. Just laugh them off if they are so irrelevant. Why the name calling (douchebag NRA like one of our more vocal members here likes to call them) if they are so irrelevant. It really makes the haters look juvenile with nothing real to say.

[SteveW]

103. Yes. They fooled a bunch of Democrats, including Slick Willie himself. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. And How Did That Work Out?

For the record, tell us if Dean was endorsed by NRA for President.

[Clames]

3. More like...

...the ineffective spending and overwhelming failure of policies by hysterical gun control advocates....

[spin]

4. It's my belief that an NRA endorsement might make the difference in a close election...

especially if one candidate is proposing draconian gun laws in a state that has a large number of gun owners.

Obviously it is far easier to be a politician who favors extreme gun control in Illinois or California than one that favors such laws in states like Texas or Florida. I find it extremely hard to imagine that any politician running for Congress from Florida could ever seriously propose, for example, implementing a $65 registration fee for the legal ownership of each and every handgun in Florida and win an election against an opponent who favored continuing Florida's current laws that do not require registration. However, such a politician MIGHT win an election to the Florida Legislature or become successful as a elected official in some areas of the state.

Rahm Emanuel proposes $65 per-gun fee and registry
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter [e-mail] February 9, 2012 6:00PM

Illinois handgun owners would be required to register their weapons with the state — and pay a $65-per-gun registration fee — under a mayoral plan proposed Thursday to arm police with the information they need to solve crimes and reduce illegal firearm transfers.

Even as he picked up the gun control mantle from former Mayor Richard M. Daley, Mayor Rahm Emanuel acknowledged that he’s facing an uphill battle.

It comes at a time when the National Rifle Association and its allies among Downstate lawmakers are making a major push for concealed carry legislation. Illinois is the only state in the nation that does not allow its residents to carry concealed weapons.

But Emanuel, who helped pass the Brady Bill during his days in the Clinton White House, said he’s willing to wage the tough fight if that’s what it takes to make Chicago streets safer.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/10541702-418/rahm-emanuel-proposes-65-per-gun-fee-and-registry.html

The overwhelming majority of gun owners do not have a membership in the NRA but they value the firearms they own for sporting and self defense purposes. They will show up at the polls to vote against any candidate who threatens their hobby and their investment.

[Clames]

7. As long as there are groups like VPC,

MAIG, Brady Campaign, NGVAC, etc there will still be a need for the NRA, SAF, and others. Don't like the NRA but it's necessary to balance against even more distasteful entities.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. Yea....

....groups dedicated to ending gun violence can be, how did you say it, .......so 'distasteful'. Good grief.

[DonP]

37. So how long have you been a Brady member?

Since you're so quick to stand up for them we must assume you are one of their few dues paying members, right?

You wouldn't just be another loudmouth that only talks about supporting gun control, would you? You know the kind that doesn't ever really do jack shit except spout off online. You must be a mover and shaker in gun control, right?

You probably have petitions going to repeal concealed carry in your home state and in National Parks, right?

Tell us all about your active support for the gun control cause, so we can all be impressed with your dedication.

Or are you just another in a long line of "all talk no action" gun control "supporters"?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. So Many questions.

1. Not one.
2. Same answer...not one.
3. No.
4. LOL.
5. No.
6. Decline.
7. Which is it, you want to ridicule for being a member or not? LOL.

[DonP]

39. So very disappointing.

Just another keyboard commando on gun control. Well, you have plenty of company here.

We have yet to find anyone that actually belongs to a gun control group in the real world. They just blather on, but never get around to actually doing anything.

But we also have yet to find any gun control web sites that allow comments either for that matter.

I just wanted to ascertain how serious you were in your beliefs to guide us all in how seriously we should take your comments.

Thanks for so quickly confirming what we all pretty much already suspected.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Talk about Blather

Want to talk about the subject of this board or just your personal disdain for me?

If my 'commando' posts upset you so much, DU has an ignore feature.

[DonP]

43. What? And miss the hysterical humor you offer? Never.

Don't flatter yourself.

In about a decade I've only used ignore once and that poster was TS'd about a week after Skinner put in his new rules of civility in the Gungeon. You aren't worth bothering about.

Your posts are worth a laugh or two. Besides, as long as all you do is post about gun control, we have nothing to seriously be concerned about or even pay attention to.

Besides I'm in a good mood, the sun is out and I'm just back from a range trip and brunch with my daughter (Chicago school teacher, union member and department head) this morning at the GAT guns manufacturers Open House. All the gun makers show up with their new stuff and you can test drive their newest equipment on the range for just the cost of some ammunition. It makes for a fun morning.

For a state entirely run by Democrats there were sure a lot of gun owners and shooters there this morning. You'd almost think that some of the Obama Biden stickers in the parking lot were actual Dems.

Now, while we're all waiting for the "backlash" I'm due for renewing my "useless" NRA membership this month. What you never seem to get is, unlike gun control "supporters" we actually DO things to support our point of view.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. By support....

.....do you mean like supporting your Democratic President against the lies you pay for everytime the NRA attacks President Obama?

[gejohnston]

47. that is when you change the

board of directors, the people who actually run the place. The rank and file can sometimes believe the BS, but not always. It kind of reminds me of when my brother was in the navy in the mid 1960s. His submarine pulled into a port neutral next to an East German sub. While NATO and Warsaw Pact politicians made their fear mongering and MIC funding rants, the sub crews went out and partied together, traded uniform parts, and some woke up on the wrong sub.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

48. Got It

Your analogy only makes sense if your love of sea is greater than your love of country.

I don't care if the NRA rank and file believe what you call is 'BS'. I don't support organizations who spout BS.

And I sure as heck don't support organizations that want to destroy a Democratic presidency.

[Oneka]

58. Got it

"I don't support organizations who spout BS."

a fine reason to answer

"not one"

to this question.

"So how long have you been a Brady member?"

And the same answer to this question.

"Since you're so quick to stand up for them we must assume you are one of their few dues paying members, right? "

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Do You Want Me to Join?

Are you or have you ever been a member of........

Good grief! I thought that went out of vogue in the early 50s.

[SteveW]

105. Well, Don, is there really anything there to join? nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

61. Asked and Answered

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. Assume

....all you want. I suspect you are very good at it.

[DonP]

64. So, all you really do is talk about gun control - got it

That's pretty much what I thought.

A lot of whining and kerfuffle, but no real activity or support for what you supposedly believe in.

That's why gun control has become a political and legal punch line for the last 10 years or so.

That "whine a lot about it and do nothing" attitude might explain why you DC residents never really get around to getting any representation in Congress, even when Dems run both legislative houses and the WH.

Keep up the "effective" and good work.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

65. Right

.....because 'whining' people shouldn't be given the right to vote.....according to you.

But heh....live with the ignorance of knowing or NOT knowing what I've done to fight easy access to guns and voting rights for DC taxpaying citizens....or any other just cause.

[beevul]

66. DC had a chance for voting rights, representation, et al.

Delegate Norton pulled the bill that would have given DC voting rights,, becuase it would have eliminated much of the "effective gun prohibition" regs that DC had at the time.



Do you support that?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. Yep

Voting Rights should not be depended on how you vote.

Let's face it, that's exactly why Republicans don't support DC voting rights. They don't want two more Dem House members and another Dem Senator.

[beevul]

68. Then YOU have nothing to complain about.

Of course, you could keep complaining.

I'll be happy to point out that you support the choice by Delegate Norton to deep six voting rights in favor of gun control, when you do.

To highlight where your priorities are, dontchaknow.

Maybe I'll highlight them to you, first:

You support all the people of DC not having voting rights, in favor of those same people - and only some of those people would exercise them - being denied their rights where firearms are concerned.

You support EVERYONE in DC being denied voter status, in favor of making sure that a FEW could not legally own guns in any reasonable manor.


Yup.

Yup.

Yup.


Get your bookmarks folks, while they're hot.

On edit: What does extremist mean?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. I Leave You to Your Circular Arguments

I get it- you you think I should have the right to vote only if I agree with you.

[beevul]

70. Now shares...err I mean FTGFN...it isnt nice to put words in peoples mouths.

Now shares...err I mean FTGFN...it isnt nice to put words in peoples mouths.


"I get it- you you think I should have the right to vote only if I agree with you."

I never said, nor implied such. You should probably retract that false and filthy assertion.

I'll state here and now, for all to see:

I think DC should have voting rights.

That being said...

That you support the deep sixing of bill that would have given DC voting rights, in favor of maintaining what was at the time clearly and unequivocally DRACONIAN gun control...

Well, that speaks volumes - both about how important voting right really are in your view, and how important draconian gun control is in your view. Specifically that clearly draconian levels of gun control are higher on your list of priorities that voting rights for DC is.

Like I said:

What does extremist mean?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

71. Draconian?

The only thing Draconian is adding your BUT after you tepid endorsement of DC voting rights.

What's extremist is the notion the right to vote should be dependent or held hostage to one's endorsement of your political speech.

[beevul]

73. Yes draconian.

Thats exactly what they were at that time.

"The only thing Draconian is adding your BUT after you tepid endorsement of DC voting rights."

I never added any "but".

Everything I added after my unequivocal unqualified statement, was commentary about YOUR priorities.

"What's extremist is the notion the right to vote should be dependent or held hostage to one's endorsement of your political speech."

Of course, I never said it should be.

I simply pointed out and clarified your priorities, as you've made them known by your support of the voting rights bill being pulled...and why.

If the shoe fits...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Huh?

Right.....so you brought the whole Republican procedural tactic up of disenfranchising DC voters up because you want me to believe you think our right to vote should have nothing to do with our position on guns?

Why did you bring it up?

Oh, nevermind.

[beevul]

75. Looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened.

"Right.....so you brought the whole Republican procedural tactic up of disenfranchising DC voters up because you want me to believe you think our right to vote should have nothing to do with our position on guns?"

I have no idea what you're talking about. DC voters were already DISENFRANCHISED. The bill on the table would have changed that, but was withdrawn, after the gun language was added by a DEMOCRAT by the name of...Travis Childers (iirc). I pointed out that DC had a shot at voting rights, one that was sure to pass, but that it was withdrawn by Delegate Norton (Democrat), because it undercut the "anti-gun-ness" of DC.

I asked you if you supported it being withdrawn.

You said you did, and its a foregone conclusion that your support of it being withdrawn is due to the gun language it contained.

None of those things are anything but fact.

If you support it being withdrawn in that situation because of the gun language added to it, YOU SIR, give higher priority to gun restrictions in DC, than you do on voting rights in DC.

Here, lets verify:

If the choice is voting rights for DC, or maintaining the restrictions on gun ownership that had at the time, and you can only choose one, which will you choose?

I think you'll choose maintaining gun restrictions, based on the fact that you've as much as said so.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Wrong

You are the one bartering rights as if I have to accept your interpretation of one right before I get another. That's not a 'choice' as you claim. That's tyranny.

I reject your assumption that I value one right over any or all other rights.

Play with your guns all you want but stop playing games with the voting rights of DC citizens.

You play these games from the gun lobby and the right plays these games with abortion and prayer in schools passing laws that apply just to this city by politicians we never elected or whose assembly we do not sit in. You think the gun lobby is the first to dangle a carrot in front of us? Not even close. And everytime we bite, the carrot gets pulled. 'If you ban abortion, we'll give you representation.' Not. This has been going for decades.

It's all a game to folks like you to push your political agenda (right or left) on us without our consent or participation. From my perspective, characterizing yourself a champion of (gun) rights is truly dispicable.

[beevul]

79. No. YOU are wrong.

"You are the one bartering rights as if I have to accept your interpretation of one right before I get another. That's not a 'choice' as you claim. That's tyranny."

I'm not bartering ANYTHING.

I'm speaking of the situation AS IT HAPPENED. That situation was NOT MY DOING. I had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT. Not in any way shape size or form.

The situation AS IT HAPPENED, was that a bill was introduced to grant voting rights to the citizenry to DC. Thats a fact.

Pro-gun language was added to the bill by a DEMOCRAT. Thats also a fact.

The CHOICE was made for the bill to be shelved, BECAUSE OF THE PRO GUN LANGUAGE it contained. Again, fact.

Unless I misunderstood, you support the choice to shelve that bill, the doing of which denied the granting of voting rights to DC, because of the pro-gun language it contained.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.

You either agree with that choice or you don't.

Which is it?


"Play with your guns all you want but stop playing games with the voting rights of DC citizens."

I play these games? I had nothing to do with it. Another fact.


"You play these games from the gun lobby and the right plays these games with abortion and prayer in schools passing laws that apply just to this city by politicians we never elected or whose assembly we do not sit in. You think the gun lobby is the first to dangle a carrot in front of us? Not even close. And everytime we bite, the carrot gets pulled. 'If you ban abortion, we'll give you representation.' Not. This has been going for decades."

Again, with accusing ME of playing games? And, I remind you, a Democrat added pro gun language to the bill.

And it was the DC delegate that "pulled the carrot". Not the gun lobby. Do you agree with the choice to pull the carrot or don't you?

"It's all a game to folks like you to push your political agenda (right or left) on us without our consent or participation."

I'm not pushing MY political agenda on you. Nobody will ever force you to own or posess a gun.


"From my perspective, characterizing yourself a champion of (gun) rights is truly dispicable."


Somehow, I think that would be true despite the voting rights status of DC.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. Start From the Top

What you characterize as a choice was not.

We did not choose opposing a gun rights law over voting rights for DC as you so craftfully have framed the question.

You are no different than the political right who employed the same tactic with school vouchers and needle exchange in DC.

If your point is that Democrats are as bad as Republicans at this BS, I agree. Shame on you.

[beevul]

88. "What you characterize as a choice was not."

"What you characterize as a choice was not."

Uh no. A choice is PRECISELY what it was.

"We did not choose opposing a gun rights law over voting rights for DC as you so craftfully have framed the question."

Delegate Norton (I assume you know who that is) chose to shelve the voting rights bill for DC, which was a shoe in to pass. This is historical fact.

That choice wasn't made by the gun lobby.

That choice wasn't made by republicans.

That choice -the choice to shelve the DC voting rights bill - was made by DC delegate norton.

That choice was made to preserve what at that time were clearly draconian gun ownership laws.

Thats all historical fact.

"You are no different than the political right who employed the same tactic with school vouchers and needle exchange in DC."

I had nothing to do with any of it, though I can understand your willingness to insult over this issue.


Do you support the CHOICE of Delegate Norton to shelve the DC voting rights bill or don't you?

Pretty simple question. How about being honest and answering it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. Should that 'Choice'

....even be put on the table?

Did a Democratic voting gun supporting member of Congress further the voting rights of a half million people 90% of whom are Democrats?

Heck, was he even successful with advancing his gun advocacy?

[beevul]

90. That really doesnt matter, because whats past is past.

That really doesnt matter, because whats past is past.

It happened as it happened.

I refer you to this:

Victory for gun-control advocates as Dems kill DC voting rights bill

Posted by
CNN Congressional Correspondent Brianna Keilar

(CNN) – House Democratic leaders have killed a bill that would have given Washington, DC a voting representative in Congress because the measure included a provision that would have wiped out the District's strict gun laws.

"I am extraordinarily disappointed," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said as he announced the House of Representatives will not vote on the measure this year.

It's a victory for gun control advocates but a disappointment for activists who have been working for decades to get a voting representative in Congress and saw this Democrat-controlled Congress as their best chance. The District has an elected delegate in the House of Representatives, Democrat Eleanor Holmes-Norton, but she cannot vote on the House floor.

"This legislation should be focused solely on the central premise of American democracy, that citizens have a fundamental right to be represented in the policy-making body of their country, a representative with not just a voice but a vote," Hoyer told reporters off camera.

When the Senate took up the DC voting rights bill last year, Republicans attached a gun provision that a number of pro-gun rights Democrats helped pass. It was expected to pass the House, which also has a pro-gun rights majority, as early as Wednesday. But Hoyer said "the price was too high," and the bill was scrapped, a decision ultimately made by Holmes-Norton.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/20/no-dc-voting-rights-this-congressional-session/

Do you agree with the choice to pull the bill, effectively denying DC voting rights in favor of gun control?

Yes or no will do.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. 'IT DOESN'T MATTER'

I'm well aware of what happened.

What I don't understand is why it doesn't matter to you.

Were either gun rights or voting rights advanced?

And what was loss? Two Dem House Seats.

[beevul]

92. I didn't say it didn't matter to me.

I didnt say it didn't matter to me.

I said:

That really doesnt matter, because whats past is past.

It happened as it happened.

- In response to you asking if the choice should even be on the table.

Thats how politics works. If you dont like it, I suggest you lobby for each and every bill to stand on its own, and to outlaw riders.

Back to the topic at hand:

Do you agree with the bill being pulled or do you disagree?

And why?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

94. ???

Right....THAT (whatever THAT is)... it doesn't matter, the past is past and that's how politics works, then your question is moot and the answer ..... taking your line....'doesn't matter.'

I'm sure that's why you brought it up to begin with....that's right.....YOU brought up the DC gun amendment to our voting rights bill.....because it 'doesn't matter'......oh ...you say it does matter....oh gosh make up your mind.

My questions remain and are as valid as yours. I've attempted to answer yours....but alas you just don't like my answer.

Not one benefit came out of the DC gun amendment to anyone....and the people who loss were a half million disenfranchised voters and the Democratic party.

[beevul]

99. I'll make this REALLY simple for you:

"Right....THAT (whatever THAT is)... it doesn't matter, the past is past and that's how politics works, then your question is moot and the answer ..... taking your line....'doesn't matter.'"

The THAT, you're referring to there, is your question :

"Should that 'Choice'...even be put on the table?"

"I'm sure that's why you brought it up to begin with....that's right.....YOU brought up the DC gun amendment to our voting rights bill.....because it 'doesn't matter'......oh ...you say it does matter....oh gosh make up your mind."

Close but no cigar. I brought up the DC voting rights bill, which was shelved BECAUSE of the amendments to it. Make no mistake, what I brought up was the bill itself when I said:

"Delegate Norton pulled the bill that would have given DC voting rights,, because it would have eliminated much of the "effective gun prohibition" regs that DC had at the time."

You are trying to characterize me doing something I did not do. And failing.

"My questions remain and are as valid as yours. I've attempted to answer yours....but alas you just don't like my answer."

Really? You've attempted to answer these questions:

Do you agree with the bill being pulled or do you disagree?

And why?

Please point out where you've answered those questions in any way shape size or form. (other than the "yep" in post 67 which would appear to be an answer to the question of whether you support the bill being pulled because of the gun language - I'm looking for confirmation or denial of whether that is your stance or not.)

"Not one benefit came out of the DC gun amendment to anyone....and the people who loss were a half million disenfranchised voters and the Democratic party."

Perhaps you should direct your disapointment to those that pulled the bill then, eh?

Unless of course, you agree with it being pulled because of the gun language added to it.

Do you?

Is your position so fragile that you can not answer that one simple question?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. Let Me Be REALLY Simple

I'm bored.

Go back and read the thread if you want. I've answered your questions....and I'm betting everyone else is bored as well. A hundred posts by each of us will not move the discussion.

[beevul]

102. There can be no discussion if youre unwilling to make your position crystal clear.

Do you support the withdrawing of the voting rights bill for DC, based on the gun language, or do you not support it?

If you support its withdrawl, based on the gun language that was added to it, then you admit by default that gun control in DC is more important than voting rights , to YOU.

If you DONT support its withdrawl, then you ought to stop harping on the gun lobby, and start shouting into the ear of Delegate Norton for giving the word to have it withdrawn.


State your position.

Of course, since all you seem to want to do is blame the gun lobby, and say not so much as a word about those who actually withdrew the bill which was basically guaranteed to pass, and in doing so, denying voting rights to those half million people 90% of whom are Democrats...


It paints quite the picture of an anti-gun extremist all by itself.

[SteveW]

106. We don't expect you to join the NRA or the Bradys; they're both GOP. nt

[Clames]

59. Well when they actually....

...advocate measures that end gun violence they won't be so distasteful. Nothing they do or promote has a significant impact on any kind of violence so it seems they are dedicated to doing nothing but creating hysterical rhetoric.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Like What

Do tell us what measure(s) you have in mind.

[Clames]

96. Oh you know...

...simple things like better enforcement of the thousands of laws that currently exist, making sure states are turning in records to the NICS properly, keeping children in school and out of gangs, etc. All things that are truely common sense and are vastly better ideas than anything the VPC, MAIG, Brady Group, NGVC, Joyce Foundation, and others have cooked up in the last few years. Let us know when you start having some good ideas. Understandably, I'm not holding my breath for you...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. Just What I Thought

....more of the same.

Expect the same results.

[gejohnston]

98. to quote H.L. Mencken

For every complex problem there is a simple solution... and it is wrong.

[Clames]

101. No...

Just What I Thought

no you didn't... Still waiting for that part.

[SteveW]

107. Point of order: Didn't Beevul ask you to "state your position?" nt

[shadowrider]

110. He did

And all I've seen as a response is someone running around in circles when all that's required is a simple:

Yes

or

No

That's it and I ain't seen it yet.

[SteveW]

104. Sure Emanuel will "wage the tough fight." It ain't his money. nt

[ileus]

6. The 2A isn't left or right....

[spin]

9. Very true. (n/t)

[Hoyt]

16. It's been used by right for some nasty things?

[krispos42]

11. The NRA could be a cog in the left-wing machine...

...except that the left, very deliberately, does exactly the opposite of what the NRA stands for. Ergo, the NRA will not be a cog in the left-wing machine. Which is, I dare say, exactly what you want.

In the same way that the left, very deliberately, does the opposite of what the homophobes and forced-childbirth legions want.




Having said that, you've posted an article that says the NRA is a paper tiger, therefore a figurehead cog in the wheel, not a real cog like the fundies and the forced-childbirth legions.

And yet, gun laws in America continue to get more and more liberal.

So if the gunnies are winning, and it's NOT because of the NRA or any other gun-rights organization, then where does it come from? The grassroots?

And if the gunnies are winning, and it's NOT because of the NRA, this means that the anti-gun-groups are LOSING to no organized or powerful national organization.

Which speaks very poorly of the anti-gun groups!

[Atypical Liberal]

28. Excellent post. If not from the NRA, whither come the decades of liberal gun laws?

Having said that, you've posted an article that says the NRA is a paper tiger, therefore a figurehead cog in the wheel, not a real cog like the fundies and the forced-childbirth legions.

And yet, gun laws in America continue to get more and more liberal.

So if the gunnies are winning, and it's NOT because of the NRA or any other gun-rights organization, then where does it come from? The grassroots?

And if the gunnies are winning, and it's NOT because of the NRA, this means that the anti-gun-groups are LOSING to no organized or powerful national organization.

Which speaks very poorly of the anti-gun groups!

Excellent post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Ergo (LOL)....

....the NRA should close it's doors.

[krispos42]

60. Or at least the ILA branch.

Along with, apparently, the VPC.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. Huh?

Wow......you've got it all rationalized. LOL...gosh...what
ever.

[krispos42]

86. You do realize you replied to that post last week, right? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. So?

.

[krispos42]

93. Just making sure. n/t

[Logical]

15. The NRAs job is to lie, scare people and raise money!

[rl6214]

18. But according to the OP they are SO ineffective, so what's the big deal?

You see a few of our resident anti-gun zealots go on and on about the terrible "douchebag" NRA but if they are so ineffective what's the big deal?

[Logical]

19. Well, being a liberal I dislike them lying about Obama. Should bother you also...

Just like when limbaugh and fox lie about him!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. How about Standing Up to the NRA....

.....for the lies they tell about Obama.

There is a whole lot more at stake than just guns as important as that issue is to me.

[oneshooter]

46. How about you standing up for, and supporting the VPC and the Brady's.

After all since they are fighting for what you believe in you should be willing to support them with a donation, or two.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. Good Advice

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. What Is It with You and Brady?

Do you want people to be members or not?

Let me know so I can do exactly what you want because clearly it's more important to you than why the Brady organization even exists.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Then how do you account for the following fact?

Over 50% of the House and almost 50% of the Senate has an NRA rating of "A". In state after state pro-gun legislation is getting passed while very little anti-gun legislation has been passed anywhere. Looks to me like the NRA is extremely effective.

[DonP]

22. Purely coincidental, I'm sure

Why, after this revealing expose, I'm sure every politician in DC will realize how foolish they have been paying any attention to the NRA at all. The entire NRA lobbying effort, not to mention all the state affiliated organizations will probably just fold up their tents based on this article.

(Does anyone actually think that a blog post is actually going to change the power structure in DC? If so, please raise your hand I have some swamp land to sell you that has a diamond mine on it.)

Now ... what they're going to do about the 100 million gun owners, that will still vote their issue in every election like freakin' clockwork along with their extended families and friends, is another matter.

[ellisonz]

26. You're missing the point...

...the NRA is not a game-changer. The races they would win in without spending any money they win anyway, but where you might expect to see an impact, there is no impact. Those who agree with the NRA are going to vote pro-NRA anyways and those that are going to vote against the NRA candidate are going to vote that way anyway. There is no "backlash" as some would maintain.

- NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.

- An NRA independent expenditure (IE) campaign does not improve a candidate’s chance of winning.

- The NRA’s endorsement, so eagerly sought by so many candidates, has almost no impact on the outcome of elections; the bulk of NRA endorsements go to incumbent Republicans with almost no chance of losing.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Myth?? LOL!! Take a look at these FACTS:

November, 2010 election.

U.S. Senate

19 of NRA-PVF's 25 endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won. This marks a pro-gun upgrade of eight Senate seats.
In the 111th Congress, there were 43 A-rated and 34 F-rated Senators. The 112th Congress will contain 50 A-rated (+7) and 33 F-rated Senators (-1).
There will be 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen.
U.S. House

Of the 262 candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF for the U.S. House, 225 were victorious, for an 85% winning percentage. In every case but one where an NRA-PVF endorsed candidate lost, a pro-gun challenger replaced him.
In the 111th Congress, there were 226 A-rated and 151 F-rated Representatives. The 112th Congress will contain 258 A-rated (+32) and 133 F-rated (-18) Members.
There were pro-gun election upgrades in 27 House districts.

Looks extremely effective to me.

[benEzra]

27. I actually tend to agree with you.

The NRA is only 4 million members. 4 million.

Out of ~80 million gun owners. That's only 1 in 20.

There are approximately twenty times as many gun owners in the United States as there are NRA members. Roughly five times as many "assault weapon" owners in the United States as NRA members; between twelve and fifteen times as many handgun owners; between three and four times as many hunters. Heck, there are probably more CHL holders alone in the United States than there are NRA members.

The NRA likes to take a lot of credit for pro-gun activism, but IMO it is a relatively small part of it, and were the NRA to disappear tomorrow, I don't see the gun-control landscape changing much.

The backlash against the 1994 Feinstein non-ban that culminated in nationwide CHL reform, the repeal of the Feinstein law, and the implosion of the gun control lobby wasn't the NRA; it was gun-owning voters, many of whom don't even like the NRA.

I used to be a NRA member; joined back in 1988 or 1989 to get the magazine and kept my membership active off and on until two or three years ago, when I finally let it expire. They have allowed themselves to become co-opted by the Repubs, when they once were much more proudly bipartisan, and some of their rhetoric has become ridiculous if you look at how they treat (say) Romney vs. how they treat Obama. Obama has, on the whole, been pretty good to gun owners, with the possible exception of allowing Holder too much rope.

But yeah, the NRA is less than it's made out to be. But don't mistake NRA for the driving force behind the gun rights movement post-1994. It's amateurs like me, and the pro-gun blogosphere, and activists at the community and state level, that are the real reason 1994 changed the entire landscape. In addition to selling lots of AK's and AR's post-1994, the Feinstein "ban" motivated casual and apathetic gun owners like me into speaking out, and in many cases into political activism, like no issue ever has before or since.

[ellisonz]

32. Honest answer. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

29. The NRA could be just anohter cog in the left-wing machine.

The NRA is just another cog in the right-wing machine

It could be just another cog in the left-wing machine - overnight.

[cleanhippie]

31. Oh, if its just a myth, then we can expect to stop hearing about the influence of the NRA then?

[Simo 1939_1940]

33. Sorry, ch -- pro-restriction supporters get to have it both ways. Those are the rules.

A reference to "the eeeeeebil gunz lobby" is right around the corner.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Is that like saying......

'Guns don't kill people....people do.'

Both ways indeed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Actually, guns *don't* kill people- unless one believes in animism.

And following your line of reasoning-
Perhaps you should explain to a former co-worker of mine that her parents weren't actually killed by a drunk driver, it was his Ford (or Toyota, or Dodge, etc.)
that did them in...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. Right

You bought a gun because they are so not designed for killing.

Like I said .... both ways indeed.

As for your friend, my sympathies.

Is it illegal to drink and carry?

[gejohnston]

53. in most states

yes it is a felony to drink and carry.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. Do You Support Changing

....the law in the other states?

[gejohnston]

55. if not all states

but of course.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

56. Do You Support Laws

....that ban serving alcohol to individuals carrying guns?

[gejohnston]

57. I don't know a state that does

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

allow, unless you mean places like Wyoming that don't allow carrying in bars to begin with. To answer your question, maybe only if bartender knows he is armed.

[cleanhippie]

62. Would you support laws

that ban serving alcohol to individuals with car keys in their pocket?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

77. No

No....because you can't carry a car inside a bar.

You can, however, carry a gun with bullets into a bar.

[oneshooter]

78. You are right, however you can operate that vehicle outside that bar

after drinking to excess. That would put a drunk in control of a 2000# machine capable of killing/injuring multiple people.

And you say that is ok with you?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fightthegoodfightnow]

83. Of Course Not

And by the way, same is true with a gun.

You cannot, however, drink excessively and kill someone INSIDE a bar with a car. You can with a gun.

[oneshooter]

84. Acually you can, simply by driving the car into the bar, Remember you are drunk!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. Yea well....

...not without doing harm to both yourself and others.

Not the case with a drunk and a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. What's your over/under on when we get a lecture about the malign influence of the NRA...

...from the very person that posted the OP? I say six months, tops.
Yea for the "Bookmark This Thread" feature!

[aikoaiko]

42. I'd have to see a lot more details (operational definitions and real numbers) before commenting.

And I would agree that politicians need to be concerned with pro-RKBA voters more than the NRA.

[caseymoz]

108. The question is whether they're perceived to be powerful.

The NRA can certainly get a lot of calls and letters sent to senators, representatives and candidates. And if that doesn't translate into votes, (probably because the membership is already actively voting Republican) it gives the impression that it can.

[gejohnston]

109. they vote Republican

only because of the gun issue. Some are working class and rural folks who associate the entire party with snobbish and bigoted assholes like Bill Maher. Unfortunately, there are a few progressive sites that let the anti rural and anti working class bigots run wild with rants about trailer trash, drives a pick up truck because of small penis, religious nut, etc.

[caseymoz]

111. I'll add:

If they're perceived to be powerful, they are powerful. Social and political power comes only from the minds of human beings.