how did the NRA morph

[zukiphile]

Read Wayne Lapierre's unsubstantiated rant in the March,2018 Rifleman magazine. The article is entitled: In Today's Democratic Party, Democrat Equals Socialist.

La Pierre rants about the media, journalists, "the socialists of academia", "socialist judges" and the "socialist agenda".

Good. Since LaPierre wrote that Ocasio-Cortez was elected.

LaPierre correctly notes the growth of an idea that one's individual rights held against the state are to be subordinated to new and increasingly invasive state authority. One's rights to his income, his freedom to speak or not (in the form of "hate" speech criminal enhancements and state compelled speech, and limits on campaign speech), freedom of association in insurance and medical matters, freedom of religious practice, and right to keep and bear arms come under attack from a recognizable portion of the political spectrum. Those attacks rest on an analysis hostile to the concept of principled and enduring limits on state power.

An analysis hostile to individual rights is entitled to opposition.

 

[dogtown tom]

Colorado Redneck I knew my post would result in my getting flamed.

It should. Especially being that you are from Colorado.
Colorado voters didn't pay attention to the NRA did they?

And hows that working out for ya?

Predicting that Obama or Hillary or whoever will be coming for your guns is hysterical behavior and over reaction. IMO. The very fact that some of us may not buy into the claims made by the NRA before 2008 and 2012 elections seems treasonous, judging by some (most) of the responses.

See above.

Not being politically aligned is not treasonous. If we only want to live in an echo chamber, where every post is validation of a certain political or social view point, that is dangerous and troubling to me.

Perception is reality.
When Obama and Hillary advocate gun control we should take them at their word.

The outcome of those political brochures from the NRA was interesting. First, it caused a major pain in the rear for anyone wishing to purchase reloading supplies and ammunition. The easily swayed gun people got all bug eyed and started hoarding those commodities.

Your memory is short, faulty or nonexistent.
Do you not remember the Assault Weapons ban?
Do you not remember the ban on "high capacity" magazines?

Those "easily swayed gun people" did. They remember what Bill Clinton did and didn't want to experience that again.

Secondly,the proliferation of firearms, particularly AR's, was ratcheted up. The more guns the better! All except when gangs, street thugs, drug rings, and nutballs get their hands on them. The more guns in circulation the easier it becomes to black market them.

So only a special class should be able to lawfully possess firearms?
There are already laws prohibiting criminals from possessing guns, but that doesn't stop them.
And who did your research on firearm production vs the "black market"?
I'm embarrassed for you for having written this.

Thirdly, the actual outcome should, to any critical thinker, expose the NRA as hysteria inducing chicken littles.

Ask your fellow Coloradans how they like not being able to buy certain firearms, magazines, etc. before you call anyone a chicken little. Specifically and notably in YOUR case the NRA was spot on correct. Critically think about that.

I disavowed the NRA for those reasons. I recently opted to again become a member. But, in the interest of not being a hypocrite, the next time the NRA tries to incite hysteria, I am done with them.

I don't think the NRA will miss you much, but rest assured, Gabby Giffords will be delighted that you side with her.....because that's where you are at.

 

[turkeestalker]

Barack Obama was the greatest gun salesman in history. The NRA should be thankful for his eight years and should put him on the cover of their magazine as Man of the Year.

That fact just makes me grin ear to ear every time it crosses my mind.
His lasting legacy.

 

[TailGator]

I understand that the majority of the politicians and voters in one party vote one way on gun issues, and the majority of the other party in the other. But polls usually show something on the order of 1/3 of voters differ from the registered party on gun issues. So let's consider the math of that. The census bureau says there are about 157 million people registered to vote, and that they are roughly evenly divided. So when we say that all member of a particular party are some combination of unpatriotic, idiots, or other derogatory terms, we basically reject something on the order of 25 million voters. And when we assume that anyone who registers the "right" way is on our side, we embrace a similar number of people who actually oppose us on our issue. That seems like a bad strategy to me, but I am neither a politician nor a political scientist. I would like to see our primary organization use rhetoric that increases our base by inclusiveness rather than that which preaches only to the choir and alienates prospects. Fund raising is apparently quite effective with current methods, though, so who knows what the best strategy will be long term.

 

[44 AMP]

So when we say that all member of a particular party are some combination of unpatriotic, idiots, or other derogatory terms,....

Ok, so what are the "basket of deplorables" supposed to do, just shut up, sit quietly and cling to our guns and religion??

 

[zukiphile]

So when we say that all member of a particular party are some combination of unpatriotic, idiots, or other derogatory terms...

Emphasis added.

Who has done that?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let’s just cut to the chase. Which Democrat should the NRA be supporting that they are not currently supporting? Perhaps someone can provide me with an example of this political bias by pointing out a pro-Second Amendment Democrat not getting support over a worse opponent?

I mean, Georgia members were upset that their Governor got an NRA endorsement with a mixed record on gun rights and better candidates in the primary. I believe a lot of Florida members feel the same about Rick Scott. If that is happening within the GOP then surely there is a Democrat out there in a similar situation?

And if there isn’t, what exactly does that say?

 

[rickyrick]

It’s only going to get more polarized as some politicians that have had extreme views in the past are getting slammed for not being radical enough now.

 

[natman]

It’s only going to get more polarized as some politicians that have had extreme views in the past are getting slammed for not being radical enough now.

For example:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article214913325.html

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There used to be overlap across the political spectrum from both parties. The turning point in recent history was with Goldwater and Nixon moving the GOP to the right and using racial bias at times to garner votes. The Democrats moved more to the left.

It is tribal blindness not to see that the NRA has wedded itself to the right side of the political spectrum. If you live in that lake, you think it is all peaches and cream to read Wayne's screed about socialism. However, the whole Democratic base is not socialist, nor are the entire GOP base racist right wingers. But the blather from extreme viewpoints dominates the conversation.

Both parties then adopted litmus tests for membership that cater to their fringes that have serious issues with personal liberty. The Sex Police vs. the Gun Police, for example (guess who is which). Using racial dog whistles depending on your constituency, which masks real racial divides and exacerbating conflict.

The NRA should not be fringe party. Wayne's editoral mentioned above was moronic if you wanted to try to encourage cross party support of the 2nd Amend. I don't give a crap about his views on issues outside of the 2nd Amend.

If we continue the litmus test world view and trying to keep gun rights based on one side of the spectrum, given the wrong electoral fringe outcome and you will lose the show. What Democrat supports gun rights can be a question similar to what GOP candidate will support Medicare for All? Maybe parties working together can have rational debates about gun policy or health care?

However, we are caught up with tribal idiocy.

If you are happy with Wayne blathering about socialism or liberals, then send him your money. However, if you want to try to have some general support of the 2nd Amend. (there are liberal and Democratic gun owners), then he should think about what he is saying. I do think the fringe right strategy is seen as a money maker - which perhaps is most important to the organization. Aren't they going broke?

Remember, that many conservatives are not strong gun supporters and will turn on the issue in a flash if it benefits them personally. The issue has to be above fringe identity. The NRA isn't trying to do that.

Progun Democrats got their marching orders to switch sides. The GOP has made their folks heel to their litmus tests. What else is new? But it stinks.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Remember, that many conservatives are not strong gun supporters and will turn on the issue in a flash if it benefits them personally. The issue has to be above fringe identity. The NRA isn't trying to do that.

Why should they? How many Democrats stood fast when 2013 rolled around? Kristen Gillibrand was A-rated. Joe Manchin was A-rated. Bill Clinton was A-rated as a Governor. John Dingell was an NRA Board of Directors member and voted for the AWB. I’d love to see the Second be a bipartisan issue; but wishing won’t make it so and in 20 years of gun votes, Democrats have consistently failed to support the NRA in general.

Not that you are wrong about conservatives, the current President has shown plenty of willingness to push gun control since he was elected. Put the Democrats in a position to impeach him and I can tell you what the “Art of the Deal” will get you.

 

[thallub]

Remember, that many conservatives are not strong gun supporters and will turn on the issue in a flash if it benefits them personally.

This is especially true here in Oklahoma. Years ago the Republican legislature voted for constitutional carry knowing the Democrat governor would veto same. After the governors veto the Republican legislature demanded we vote in a Republican governor who would sign constitutional carry into law.

First session under Republican governor Mary Fallin some of the Republican senators who claimed to love constitutional carry sabotaged the bill. This year the Republicans ran the clock out.

On 25 April, 2018 the Oklahoma House passed constitutional carry. On 2 May, 2018 the OK Senate passed constitutional carry. On 4 May, 2018 the Oklahoma legislature adjourned. On 14 May, 2018 Governor Fallin vetoed constitutional carry. Our wonderful gun loving Republican lead legislature lacked the guts for a special session to override Fallin's veto.

Folks in Oklahoma are tired of lying legislators. If the legislature and governor continue to play games with our gun rights we will eventually pass constitutional carry by referendum. We killed cock fighting by referendum after the legislature refused to consider outlawing same.

 

[zukiphile]

There used to be overlap across the political spectrum from both parties.

Yes, the parties once reflected geographic and social identities more than they do now.

The turning point in recent history was with Goldwater and Nixon moving the GOP to the right and using racial bias at times to garner votes. The Democrats moved more to the left.

That analysis is often repeated, but doesn't withstand much scrunity.

The seeds of the change began with with FDR and the leftward lurch he represented. FDR kept the democrat coalition together while those voters were still largely poor. When that constituency came to see themselves as less reliant on federal help, they began voting more like their northern neighbors. This happened not only in the south, but also with northern roman catholic populations as they moved out of their democrat governed urban ghettos and into suburbs. They are no longer looking for a Robin Hood government.

They stopped seeing the federal government as protection and started seeing it as a problem. Couple that with the flight of high-profile anti-communists from the democrat party in the 1970s, and these populations realized they had little reason to remain in a party just because it was their parents' party. By the time Zell Miller spoke at a repub convention his journey had been made by a large number of former democrats in both the north and south.

Reagan democrats were working class northern catholics and bible belt christians who the democrat party had alienated on abortion and feminism as well as insufficient anti-communism in the mid-1970s. That's when the southern democrat sway that put JEC into office was really broken.

Repubs got real working numbers in the south in 1980. The notion that a southern christians in 1980 weren't reacting to democrat positions on abortion, feminism and US military decline but to a piece of then 16 year old civil rights legislation can't survive an understanding of the other issues of the period.

Both parties then adopted litmus tests for membership that cater to their fringes that have serious issues with personal liberty. The Sex Police vs. the Gun Police, for example (guess who is which).

Given that no mainstream repub officeholder advocates for federal policing of sex, evaluating them as equivalent isn't sound.

The NRA should not be fringe party. Wayne's editoral mentioned above was moronic if you wanted to try to encourage cross party support of the 2nd Amend. I don't give a crap about his views on issues outside of the 2nd Amend.

You appear to just from the frequency with which you write about it. You may not be concerned about expansions of federal authority except as they pertain to firearms, but many people with a principled commitment to limited government do care. Addressing people with that concern can be persuasive and place 2d Am. rights in a context of other constitutional rights.

Those rights aren't a fringe concern.

What Democrat supports gun rights can be a question similar to what GOP candidate will support Medicare for All?

Agreed. There may be repubs who want completely nationalized medical insurance, but opposition of socialised medical services is part of the reason people become repubs. Imagining that repubs would be fertile ground for support of greater socialization would fail to recognize that.

The issue has to be above fringe identity. The NRA isn't trying to do that.

The idea that constitutionally limited government is a fringe issue isn't any more credible than calling (to use your example) medicare expansion a fringe issue. There is a constituency for each.

There is no reason that 2d Am. civil liberties rationally would be viewed as a stand alone civil liberty when it can be more persuasively described as part of our constitutional fabric.

Which Democrat should the NRA be supporting that they are not currently supporting? Perhaps someone can provide me with an example of this political bias by pointing out a pro-Second Amendment Democrat not getting support over a worse opponent?

Indeed. If there are a slew of John Dingell hued dem candidates, let's give them their due.

 

[amd6547]

On other firearms forums, I have seen leftist trolls attempt to express their Democratic underground talking points. I wonder if that is what I’m seeing here.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Closed.