Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"NRA Has strangle hold on congress"-John Byrne

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
yay Donating Member (509 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:29 PM
Original message
"NRA Has strangle hold on congress"-John Byrne

John Byrne
Published: Monday April 13, 2009

NRA has 'stranglehold' on Congress, senator says
As firearms sales in the United States hit new highs, the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress are squelching talk of a renewal of the assault weapons ban passed by Congress that lapsed in 2004, saying they don't want a distraction from their agenda and don't have the votes in Congress.

Seven million people have applied for criminal background checks since November in an effort to buy guns, according to the FBI. That figure doesn't include Virginia, whose gun shows don't require any background checks.

The buying bonanza has stripped some stores almost bare of assault weapons and yielded a national ammunition shortage.

As gun sales blossom, Democrats' interest in regulating gun sales appear to be waning, despite the recent spate of high-profile gun violence.

Two recent reports have fingered the Obama Administration and the assault weapons ban's most ardent supporter in Congress –– Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) –– as putting off any effort to regulate high-powered weapons. Congressional officials told a reporter in comments published Saturday that Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned a push for tighter gun control, indicating they can't stomach a fight with the National Rifle Association when they're focused on other issues.

"He and other White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform," congressional officials said.

"The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose effort to extend the assault weapons ban failed in the Senate 9-80 in 2004, signaled on 60 Minutes Sunday that she won't currently pursue the ban's renewal. Feinstein authored the original ban, which was in place from 1994 until 2004.

She said she "agrees" that an effort to renew the ban now would pose a distraction to Obama's agenda and spark a culture war.

"So you are going to hold off?" 60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl asked.

"That's correct," Feinstein said. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about it."

Feinstein said there isn't support for the assault weapons ban in Congress. Pro-gun Democrats picked up seats in the last election.

"The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress," Feinstein said.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was a prominent advocate for the bill while serving in the House, but now appears to be silent.

"It's weird," Peter Hamm, the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told Newsweek. "When you see people like Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, 'What's up?' "

Gun control advocates blame Americans' disapproval of tighter gun control on misleading efforts by the National Rifle Association and gun advocates to suggest that President Obama would "take away" citizens' guns.

"That extreme position apparently prompted a man, who told friends he was afraid the government would take his guns away, to shoot three police officers in Pittsburgh last week," notes the Guardian. "But more commonly such views are boosting gun sales, from Ohio to Texas and from Wyoming to Virginia."


Probably going to get yelled at for posting another "RW lunitic POS writer" or something...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. i love the NRA boogeyman stranglehold crap
do people say "NARAL has a stranglehold on congress" because congress is rightfully protecting abortion rights?

no

do people say "ACLU has a stranglehold on Obama" because Obama is doing the right thing by stopping torture in our name?

no

do people say "NORML has a stranglehold on Obama admin" because they are doing away with the stupid medical mj raids?

no


but when it comes to our rights to keep and bear arms it's the EVUL NRA BOOGEYMAN THAT HAS A STRANGLEHOLD on congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Furyataurus Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Of course!!!!!
Who else are they going to "blame"???? Criminals????? No, that would be too logical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. hell yes they do -- even pro gun folk on this board have been co-opted by their language
their way of parsing gun issues into us vs. them, all or nothing, even the merest whiff of registration -- approaching what we have for cars, for Crissakes -- causing screams of Constitutional Implosion, troops at the door "gun grabbing, " etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yay Donating Member (509 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. You must not be able to read
Or just have selective... eyesight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yay, what the hell are you talking about,?
Edited on Mon Apr-13-09 07:49 PM by villager
... he inquired politely, viz. his post.

I was agreeing with the article -- the stranglehold's there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. would you say that about
NARAL, ACLU, NORML, etc?

of course not

only the NRA has this magickal power .

they are all civil rights orgs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. well, the ACLU suffers more legislative defeat than the NRA,
for starters....

Democrats are more terrified of the NRA than the ACLU for seconders...

And if you think NORML has a "stranglehold" on congress, I want some of what you're smoking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. the ACLU
has a broader focus than the NRA, so naturally they have more defeats.

and the NRA has seen nowhere near the success for civil rights that it espouses.

for example, until EVERY state is a "shall issue " state for CCW's, our civil rights are still being significantly curtailed.

i happen to be lucky enough (i moved here) to live in a state that IS shall issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Paulsby, we agree unequivocally on this line:
"the NRA has seen nowhere near the success for civil rights that it espouses."

On that note, I bid you a good evening! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. and you could make the EXACT same argument
about NARAL, ACLU, NORML or any # of other groups that fight for civil rights.

that's my point.

it's only the NRA that gets the boogeyman treatment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Car ownership or licensing is not in the constitution
Firearms ownership is and it says nothing about registration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I guess the NRA didn't tell you that you can still own things that are registered?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I don't belong to the NRA
So they don't tell me anything. I guess that comment of yours would be considered a snark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. You could reply to the substance of it
For, you know, a change of pace in the gungeon...

If you don't belong to the NRA though, why are you here in a thread defending them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. *i* defend them because they are advocating for our
meaning the citizenry's civil rights.

i don't belong to them either.

i support choice also, even though I don't belong to NARAL and will never have an abortion

i support CCW and gun rights even though such laws have zero effect on MY rights. i can carry regardless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. But you've allowed them to define what "gun rights" mean, so that you see red flags
...at the most reasonable of suggestions, and have been traduced into applauding Supreme Court decisions promulgated by the same rightwing cabal that installed Li'l Bush in the White House...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. no, i make my own determinations
NRA doesn't define words for me, nor does the ACLU or NARAL.

i look at evidence (a big push for me was prof. volokh's "the commonplace 2nd amendment") and my experience (in law enforcement and firefighting).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Your mimicking their rhetoric and positions is just coincidental, then?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yay Donating Member (509 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. You know what they say "Great mind's think alike"
Edited on Mon Apr-13-09 10:02 PM by yay
Oh BTW, you're supposed to put "N/T" in the title bar. It defeats the purpose to put it in the message box. Or did that concept escape your grasp?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. so if i refer to myself as "pro choice"
and for "reproductive rights", am i "mimicking" NARAL?

same logic.

the NRA imo has the correct constitutional pro-civil rights interpretation (generally speaking), so of course i use similar language.

if they are right, they are right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Your
You are=You're
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
31. I think there is a difference between defending the organization and pointing out a false statement
If the NRA had a stranglehold on Congress, we would be seeing a much greater loosening of restrictions on firearms. Instead, we see that there has been somewhat of a stop on further restriction. Gun owners and manufacturers are gaining anything, we just aren't loosing as much. Now, the financial industry has a stranglehold on Congress, hence the hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout money with ZERO strings attached. Employees who have run companies into the ground are given large bonuses. Thankfully their stranglehold is loosening a bit and regulations are coming back because they have nearly dragged the country down into disaster.

The NRA is a fairly strong lobby, because it represents 4 out of 80 million gun owners. I think that the NRA reminds Congress that 80 million is a pretty big number (4 million of which are more vocal) of people who are at least 18 which is the legal age to own a gun in most jurisdictions, which in turn means that we vote. Even though many people do not agree with the tactics that the NRA may use, we do understand that the government sometimes tries to address systemic problems with quick, "feel good" measures that do not actually deal with the core issues, but affect law abiding citizens adversely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Because I think it's just another example
Of how the anti gun crowd are dishonest in their attempts to take our guns away.

I am here because the reason I purchase firearms and ammo has absolutely nothing to do with the NRA and I think that's true with a majority of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yay Donating Member (509 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Don't belong to the NRA
Nor do I visit their website. So I guess technically speaking no they haven't... they haven't told me anything really.

Sorry if we still have a sour taste in our mouths after what happened in cali.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I have a sour taste in my mouth after all the recent shootings...
...and am unaware of anything, gun-wise, happening in Cali -- other than drive-bys, etc...

I mean Christ, you guys got the Bush-installers on the Supreme Court to give you the expected pro-gun ruling, as well. Ain't you folks *ever* happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yay Donating Member (509 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Registration then confinscation.
Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation.

FACT: It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 is the source being used to confiscate (without compensation) over 1/2 of the handguns in 2001. *Source-Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Civil Disobedience In Canada: It Just Happened To Be Guns", Idaho Observer, August 2000.

FACT: It did in Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists werre used for confiscating weapons.

FACT: It did in Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 legal weapons from their citizens.

FACT: It did in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to changing definitions of "assault weapons", many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

FACT: It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and 'registered' owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

FACT: It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. You don't need to be in the NRA! You're one of their automatons already!
Edited on Mon Apr-13-09 09:39 PM by villager
Fact: There are guns all over California. None of the confiscated. Come out here and duck a few drive-bys sometime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yay Donating Member (509 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Illiterate?
ASSAULT WEAPONS, which resulted in the confiscation of some owners weapons.

What's your smart ass comment for the other examples eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Such a Bird Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. This is a good reason why gun control isn't working.
California has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation, but also some of the highest gun-crime rates.

Focus on the violent criminals themselves and the societal conditions that create them--not the tools that they use to perpetrate their crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. registration like cars.
their way of parsing gun issues into us vs. them, all or nothing, even the merest whiff of registration -- approaching what we have for cars, for Crissakes...

We already have registration approaching what we have for cars.

If you want to carry a firearm in public, you have to have a license.

If you want to operate a car in public, you have to have a license.

If you want to carry a firearm on private property, you do not need a license.

If you want to operate a car on private property, you do not need a license.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. They moved to the head of the stranglers' line by brandishing
their weapons. (Bulges in their clothes.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
17. The NRA holding off gun control all on their own? Seems 4 million members
make for a pretty strong lobby. Especially when combined with +/-90 million and rising gun owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
18. Stanglehold?
I don't think so. The NRA gives money to candidates of both parties. They are fairly silent in my area because my Democrat Congressman is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Ohio's Governor? Yeah, he's pretty safe on the firearm issue as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corruptmewithpower Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. What purpose was served when the weapons ban WAS in effect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. It sold massive numbers of AR-15's.....
.....without bayonet lugs or flash suppressors.

It should have been labeled "The Assault Weapon Promotion Act of 1994"


It could also be referred to as the "GOP Victory Platform"



what, that wasn't the intent???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
34. The NRA poses no threat to Sen. Feinstein
or any other member of Congress where the gun culture is not strong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
35. Right here is why I am a member of the NRA.
Two recent reports have fingered the Obama Administration and the assault weapons ban's most ardent supporter in Congress –– Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) –– as putting off any effort to regulate high-powered weapons. Congressional officials told a reporter in comments published Saturday that Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned a push for tighter gun control, indicating they can't stomach a fight with the National Rifle Association when they're focused on other issues.

"He and other White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform," congressional officials said.


This is precisely why I am a member of the NRA. It is doing exactly what they purport to do, and exactly what I want them to do. They have an energized, voting, spending block of constituents and they bust their asses to represent them, and they do a such a good job they have Congress and the President absolutely unwilling to infringe on my interests. FANTASTIC!

Gun control advocates blame Americans' disapproval of tighter gun control on misleading efforts by the National Rifle Association and gun advocates to suggest that President Obama would "take away" citizens' guns.

Gosh, why would anyone think such a thing might be on the horizon when we have a President who lists on his web site his intent to ban firearms, who hails from a state with some of the most draconian firearm restrictions in the country, along with a Speaker of the House of the president's party who is on the record as saying, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.", along with an Attorney General, appointed by President Obama, who has an extensive anti-firearm record, including opposing Heller.

All those gun owners are just suffering from an irrational fear and it's all the NRA's fault!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. +1 well said.
People say NRA is wrong for saying "they are trying to take your guns" and then same people here say 2nd amendment isn't an individual right, only police & military should have gones, or that they would ban all guns if they could.

WTF?

Then they wonder where is "fear people are going to try and take guns comes from". Everytime someone on the left says something like that it reinforces the belief that "they would take them if they could". Maybe they can't today but maybe they can next year.


Another logical fallacy is the view that NRA isn't needed because nobody has banned the guns. Well even ignoring the fact that classes of guns HAVE been banned maybe the reason why nobody has been able to ban guns is because they didn't have the vote and why didn't they have the votes????? Groups like NRA which will ensure some (not all) Congressmen will lose their seat if they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
39. As far as interest groups go, the NRA is pretty benign. At least they represent actual people.
Unlike business lobbies, who represent only rich corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC