You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For those who claim the NRA does not support Democrats.
- Thread starter Musketeer
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
My question is if you figured out the number of pro-gun house members of either party would we have a majority?
Check out this analysis of the elections by Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Short version: We lost 14 or 15 pro-gun votes in the House; but still hold a majority (though no chance of overturning a Presidential veto now). We lost 4 pro-gun votes in the Senate; but with Gillibrand we will actually pick up one. Either way, we have enough votes to filibuster in the Senate.
All in all, looks like we lack the votes to get any positive legislation passed for the next two years; but we are still in a decent position to block negative legislation. It also helps that unlike the House, the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid D-NV) has come out against a renewal of the AWB. That is definitely an important point in our favor as long as he feels more heat from his constituents than he does from his anti-leaning colleagues.
MeekAndMild
New member
NRA is a non-partisan organization which has as its end purpose the furtherence of civilian marksmanship in America so as to maintain a populace which can serve in the military if needed. It was originally created by former US Army officers who had personally witnessed spectacular battlefield failures as the result of poor marksmanship training and lack of weapons familiarity among the troops.Look at that, the NRA supported a Dem over a Republican... You would think that was impossible given some of the anti NRA rants of late.
I'd think more urban versus rural than Republican versus Democrat.
Buckshot Bill
New member
Well, ANYTHING that gives that Mccarthy a belly ache is alright with me!
Pro-Gun replacement for Hillary's Senate Seat
I'm almost shocked. A pro-gun Senator from NY who appears to be able to prioritize issues important to her constituents.
New Sen. Gillibrand Puts President Obama On Hold
After months of public and private dithering and a very public dis of Caroline Kennedy, New York Gov. David Paterson named Hudson County Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.
Gillibrand, a relatively unknown, is 42 and the mother of two.
For all the dysfunction of the event the governor never mentioned Kennedy, nor took questions about her. There were some high points -- President Barack Obama called in the middle of Gillibrand's speech.
Gillibrand finished her remarks before she went to the side of the stage to take the call.
Gillibrand's pro-gun stance hung over the event, but she said she was willing to work with people against gun violence.
"I'm going to be an advocate for hunter's rights, but there is so much area where there is common ground, where I can work together with really solving the problem of gun violence," Gillibrand said.
When she takes office on Sunday she will be 99th in seniority in the Senate.
Here's where Gillibrand stands on some key issues: She supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights and withdrawing troops from Iraq, but is against providing drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
http://wcbstv.com/politics/kirsten.gillibrand.us.2.916380.html
I'm almost shocked. A pro-gun Senator from NY who appears to be able to prioritize issues important to her constituents.
New Sen. Gillibrand Puts President Obama On Hold
After months of public and private dithering and a very public dis of Caroline Kennedy, New York Gov. David Paterson named Hudson County Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.
Gillibrand, a relatively unknown, is 42 and the mother of two.
For all the dysfunction of the event the governor never mentioned Kennedy, nor took questions about her. There were some high points -- President Barack Obama called in the middle of Gillibrand's speech.
Gillibrand finished her remarks before she went to the side of the stage to take the call.
Gillibrand's pro-gun stance hung over the event, but she said she was willing to work with people against gun violence.
"I'm going to be an advocate for hunter's rights, but there is so much area where there is common ground, where I can work together with really solving the problem of gun violence," Gillibrand said.
When she takes office on Sunday she will be 99th in seniority in the Senate.
Here's where Gillibrand stands on some key issues: She supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights and withdrawing troops from Iraq, but is against providing drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
http://wcbstv.com/politics/kirsten.gillibrand.us.2.916380.html
Wildalaska
Moderator
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Musketeer said:No matter. As a NY resident this is the best bit of news on the 2A I have seen related to this state in a long while!
Seeing that NY is one of the most abusive states on the 2A as well as other rights of the individual, I must say that this could be a huge step in swinging NY back to restoring your rights.
I must still be aprehensive, though. Just because she's been given a good grade by the NRA doesn't necessarily mean she won't give in to political pressure. You think she will stand her ground when we really need her, Musketeer?
El Paso Joe
New member
She is my kind of Democrat. I am a shooter, gun owner, CCW, and advocate for 2A & RKBA. I am also a Democrat. The discussions with my fellow gun owners has gotten dicey but nowhere near the rancor of the discussions with my fellow Democrats. But that is how it is - what you see is what you get. That is why she is my kind of Democrat.
But the issue (and this is the point of this post) is not support of hunters (which you hear a lot in the press) but rather the right of the rank and file citizens to keep and bear arms. This is as important as the right of free speech and assembly. In my (not so) humble opinion, the NRA and ACLU need to open a dialog toward mutual goals - ie the preservation of ALL of our constitutional rights.
But the issue (and this is the point of this post) is not support of hunters (which you hear a lot in the press) but rather the right of the rank and file citizens to keep and bear arms. This is as important as the right of free speech and assembly. In my (not so) humble opinion, the NRA and ACLU need to open a dialog toward mutual goals - ie the preservation of ALL of our constitutional rights.
jakeswensonmt
New member
Both of our senators, John Tester and Max Baucus, democrats, both graded "A" by the NRA.and the one from Montana are NRA 100%
Montana's governor Schweitzer, democrat, also got an A from the NRA. He keeps a rifle in his office (and a dog.)
In Montana, being anti-gun means losing every election, no matter party affiliation.
The bottom line is gunowners ARE the majority in the US, and, from the ObamaMania gunsales, I would say by a huge margin. We have a Senate leader from Nevada, one of the most gun friendly states in the union, as long as you don't use one in a crime. What a novel idea.
I can accept that after being facist-democrats for a long time, they actually might look at the data, and, find that their facist position has not worked, and, might be willing to examine changing their mantra, in particular after loosing control thanks to GCL a couple elections back.
It would seem a politically unwise move to pass legislation that makes the majority of the people in the United States criminals....
I can accept that after being facist-democrats for a long time, they actually might look at the data, and, find that their facist position has not worked, and, might be willing to examine changing their mantra, in particular after loosing control thanks to GCL a couple elections back.
It would seem a politically unwise move to pass legislation that makes the majority of the people in the United States criminals....
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Socrates - a note from the rules of this forum:
Using 'facist' - BTW - spelling counts - is getting mighty close to the edge. As we know there a progun democrats and antigun republicans. There are actions that either party takes that one might describe as antithetical to freedom. Looking at data (here's comes Pax!) is not a strong point of most politicians. Let's discuss the issue itself and drop the invective.
GEM
The indiscriminate use of invectives such as Demon-crat or Repugnican, or otherwise twisting personal or group names, necessarily embodies negative emotional content.
Using 'facist' - BTW - spelling counts - is getting mighty close to the edge. As we know there a progun democrats and antigun republicans. There are actions that either party takes that one might describe as antithetical to freedom. Looking at data (here's comes Pax!) is not a strong point of most politicians. Let's discuss the issue itself and drop the invective.
GEM
Glenn sorry about the spelling. I use that term because it is exactly what occurs in this area. The original concept of 'liberal', and, in the true sense I am a liberal, is one that objectively and rationally looks at both sides of an issue, and comes to a reasoned response.
What exists in this area is a 'liberal' that has no tolerance for any thought but their own. They will not accept that another side might exist, and, they will attack your very ability to vocalize opposition to their position, while at the same time crying at the top of their lungs that they have the right to free speech, and you can't stop them from expressing their opinion in public.
They will drive you out of your position at work if you disagree with their party line. They will, if you, for example believe in the Second Amendment and actually discuss it cut your income by 75%, before getting rid of you entirely. Earlier in their lives, they may well have blown up your building, torched your car, or try and kill you.
I argue that this definition fits pretty much what the 'liberal' is here:
While it maybe somewhat inflamatory to put the two words together, it is none the less, describes perfectly the
focus and mentality, and methods of these so called 'liberals'.
I'm open to other ways of describing these folks...
Since this is a thread about the NRA, and the Second Amendment, I was trying to point out that the anti-gun position that is so common in 'liberals'
in Kali is not justified by facts, or rational thinking in Kali. It is not a reasoned argument, because the facts developed in my lifetime do not support
the concept that controlling guns leads to less crime, and less violence. The reverse is true, yet these people continue their anti-gun crusade.
It is, really, a class warfare tactic, rich against poor. And, that position is fueled by a somewhat justified fear of having their lives, and property taken away by poor people with guns, read the gangs that are only going to get stronger as the economy gets worse. The failure is in realizing that the only thing writing anti-gun laws does is make it impossible for law abiding citizens to have a chance to protect themselves. The very rich have their own, armed security, and essentially fortresses, and, they band together in times of crisis, read Rodney King riots.
I will say one more time that Nevada, with their enhancement of penalties if you use a gun in a crime, have, and use the right technique.
Making the majority of US citizens criminals by drachonian gun legislation is NOT a wise move.
What exists in this area is a 'liberal' that has no tolerance for any thought but their own. They will not accept that another side might exist, and, they will attack your very ability to vocalize opposition to their position, while at the same time crying at the top of their lungs that they have the right to free speech, and you can't stop them from expressing their opinion in public.
They will drive you out of your position at work if you disagree with their party line. They will, if you, for example believe in the Second Amendment and actually discuss it cut your income by 75%, before getting rid of you entirely. Earlier in their lives, they may well have blown up your building, torched your car, or try and kill you.
I argue that this definition fits pretty much what the 'liberal' is here:
Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.[1][2][3][4] ...[5] Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.[6][7][8]
While it maybe somewhat inflamatory to put the two words together, it is none the less, describes perfectly the
focus and mentality, and methods of these so called 'liberals'.
I'm open to other ways of describing these folks...
Since this is a thread about the NRA, and the Second Amendment, I was trying to point out that the anti-gun position that is so common in 'liberals'
in Kali is not justified by facts, or rational thinking in Kali. It is not a reasoned argument, because the facts developed in my lifetime do not support
the concept that controlling guns leads to less crime, and less violence. The reverse is true, yet these people continue their anti-gun crusade.
It is, really, a class warfare tactic, rich against poor. And, that position is fueled by a somewhat justified fear of having their lives, and property taken away by poor people with guns, read the gangs that are only going to get stronger as the economy gets worse. The failure is in realizing that the only thing writing anti-gun laws does is make it impossible for law abiding citizens to have a chance to protect themselves. The very rich have their own, armed security, and essentially fortresses, and, they band together in times of crisis, read Rodney King riots.
I will say one more time that Nevada, with their enhancement of penalties if you use a gun in a crime, have, and use the right technique.
Making the majority of US citizens criminals by drachonian gun legislation is NOT a wise move.
Last edited:
maestro pistolero
New member
It's interesting that McCarthy objects to the nomination saying essentially that Gillibrand is pro-gun violence, which is absurd.
Isn't it possible for pro 2A rights folks to be pro-active against gun violence?
Gillibrand seems to have struck a nice balance here. Wouldn't the NRA do well to propose, support and campaign for aggressive anti-violence measures that don't affect 2A rights?
It's disheartening sometimes the extent to which 2A opponents seem to be better able to seize the moral high ground, in terms of PR. We know gun control doesn't work, so let's work to reduce violence in other, smarter ways.
Isn't it possible for pro 2A rights folks to be pro-active against gun violence?
Gillibrand seems to have struck a nice balance here. Wouldn't the NRA do well to propose, support and campaign for aggressive anti-violence measures that don't affect 2A rights?
It's disheartening sometimes the extent to which 2A opponents seem to be better able to seize the moral high ground, in terms of PR. We know gun control doesn't work, so let's work to reduce violence in other, smarter ways.
I will say one more time that Nevada, with their enhancement of penalties if you use a gun in a crime, have, and use the right technique.
I disagree. Murder is murder. Robbery is robbery. Rape is rape. It makes not one iota of difference if the weapon used is a gun, knife of club. In fact, murder committed with a knife or club may call for a harsher penalty than murder committed with a gun since the victim suffers more. I don't know about you, but if I'm to be murdered, I'd much prefer a clean, quick shot to the head than to be bludgeoned or hacked to death.
I do not support gun control, nor sentencing enhancements for crimes committed with guns.
Couple points. I'm listening to KSFO, and MY college, St. Mary's Moraga, is having Bill Ayers speak this Wednesday night, under the banner of free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
Folks from such wonderful terrorist groups retired, and, a LOT of them live in this area, or did at the time, and still live here.
Having also lived in the Berkeley area at the time, I can safely say that these groups are NOT 'liberal', and, my previous description should be more along the lines of Stalin.
Mr. Long:
The Nevada law that I've observed enhances legal penalty in the following ways.
If you are part of a group that conspires to commit a criminal act, ALL participants in the crime will be charged with the actions of the members who use guns, not sure about other weapons.
Also, they define kidnapping as almost any restraint in a confined area, by threat of force. In other words, if you use a gun to confine someone while you commit another crime, you are going to be charged with both robbery, and kidnapping. Then everyone in the group is going to be charged with using a weapon to commit the crime, in this case a gun, and both crimes as well.
I much prefer this method of law, rather then banning the private citizens ability to defend himself from armed felons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
Folks from such wonderful terrorist groups retired, and, a LOT of them live in this area, or did at the time, and still live here.
Having also lived in the Berkeley area at the time, I can safely say that these groups are NOT 'liberal', and, my previous description should be more along the lines of Stalin.
Mr. Long:
The Nevada law that I've observed enhances legal penalty in the following ways.
If you are part of a group that conspires to commit a criminal act, ALL participants in the crime will be charged with the actions of the members who use guns, not sure about other weapons.
Also, they define kidnapping as almost any restraint in a confined area, by threat of force. In other words, if you use a gun to confine someone while you commit another crime, you are going to be charged with both robbery, and kidnapping. Then everyone in the group is going to be charged with using a weapon to commit the crime, in this case a gun, and both crimes as well.
I much prefer this method of law, rather then banning the private citizens ability to defend himself from armed felons.
Last edited:
maestro pistolero
New member
What if I witness a crime and use a gun to hold the suspect for the police?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.