As has already been mentioned party hate will likely get this thread closed fast. The hole in your theory is that after the Democrats gained the White House the PAtriot Act and Homeland Security hasn't gone away. I am a member of no political party. I would prefer a zero party system to a two party system. As someone who isn't vesting in keeping score of either side's "victories" I can see both sides getting into our business and freedoms too much from differing directions.
NRA political endorsements
- Thread starter MLeake
- Start date
As has already been mentioned party hate will likely get this thread closed fast. The hole in your theory is that after the Democrats gained the White House the PAtriot Act and Homeland Security hasn't gone away. I am a member of no political party. I would prefer a zero party system to a two party system. As someone who isn't vesting in keeping score of either side's "victories" I can see both sides getting into our business and freedoms too much from differing directions.
I personally see both parties, in the whole, as being interchangeable. I suspect some of the issues one side is "for" are simply a result of that party wanting to be the opposite of the "con" side, and not really about the issues themselves.
(Note I did not specify which party, nor which issue.)
I think a lot of what goes on, does so simply to distract us from other realities. While we here focus on gun control, for instance, how many billion dollars in aid get sent to Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan?
So to me it is entirely conceivable that a lot of the gun control fight is political theater to distract the masses, with collusion from both major parties.
That said, the NRA is NOT a political organization, per se, and for sunaj to think it is the job of a pro-gun organization to act as clearinghouse for politics as a whole...
Well, put it another way, I doubt Planned Parenthood endorses many party line Republicans, even though there are many pro-choice Republicans in the US; the party line types will not be openly pro-choice, unless they are willing to relegate themselves to never having influential committee positions and to enduring primary challenge after primary challenge. I don't fault Planned Parenthood for that reality.
Similarly, sunaj et al should not fault the NRA if (at present) most pro-gun politicians are Republicans.
How much of that is due to true individual beliefs, or to truly held party beliefs, or merely to the role chosen in that particular bit of battle theater by each party's leadership is another issue, entirely.
(Note I did not specify which party, nor which issue.)
I think a lot of what goes on, does so simply to distract us from other realities. While we here focus on gun control, for instance, how many billion dollars in aid get sent to Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan?
So to me it is entirely conceivable that a lot of the gun control fight is political theater to distract the masses, with collusion from both major parties.
That said, the NRA is NOT a political organization, per se, and for sunaj to think it is the job of a pro-gun organization to act as clearinghouse for politics as a whole...
Well, put it another way, I doubt Planned Parenthood endorses many party line Republicans, even though there are many pro-choice Republicans in the US; the party line types will not be openly pro-choice, unless they are willing to relegate themselves to never having influential committee positions and to enduring primary challenge after primary challenge. I don't fault Planned Parenthood for that reality.
Similarly, sunaj et al should not fault the NRA if (at present) most pro-gun politicians are Republicans.
How much of that is due to true individual beliefs, or to truly held party beliefs, or merely to the role chosen in that particular bit of battle theater by each party's leadership is another issue, entirely.
zincwarrior, a copout? Really?
Do you suggest that pro-1A organizations should invite would-be book banners and book burners as keynote speakers?
Do you suggest that LGBT organizations should ask for speakers from Westboro Baptist?
It is not particularly common for advocacy groups to invite opposition speakers, unless they are hosting a debate. I don't care what issue you bring up, this will hold true.
So, again, if you can think of some pro gun Dems you'd like to have as speakers, try to get them.
If you really want to try to get Eric Holder, then you need to sell the NRA on the idea of a debate as a reason to hold an event.
Do you suggest that pro-1A organizations should invite would-be book banners and book burners as keynote speakers?
Do you suggest that LGBT organizations should ask for speakers from Westboro Baptist?
It is not particularly common for advocacy groups to invite opposition speakers, unless they are hosting a debate. I don't care what issue you bring up, this will hold true.
So, again, if you can think of some pro gun Dems you'd like to have as speakers, try to get them.
If you really want to try to get Eric Holder, then you need to sell the NRA on the idea of a debate as a reason to hold an event.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
This is exactly correct, as far as I'm concerned, except I'd phrase it "...distract and divide the masses..."MLeake said:
This, not so much. It is considered a political organization: a PAC (political action committee), to be exact. It just happens to be a one-issue political organization. OpenSecrets.org has some good information on where their money goes; some of it may surprise you.
Vanya, of course you are correct, but what I meant in context was that the NRA is not a political organization in the sense of the Republican, Democratic, Socialist, Green, Libertarian, Bull Moose, or ENGSOC parties (ok, the last was fictional).
The NRA is, as you said, a single issue PAC.
The NRA is, as you said, a single issue PAC.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
It may be just as well they're not a political party. 
Bring back the Bull Moose party, say I! TR knew what was what.
Bring back the Bull Moose party, say I! TR knew what was what.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
JimDandy, You're right -- it is the NRA-PVF. The OpenSecrets data do make interesting reading, though.
No one is suggesting that. What I said quite clearly is that the NRA is a SINGLE ISSUE organization.sunaj said:
That doesn't mean it's the only issue that's important, it means that it's the only issue that the NRA tracks.
Again, if other factors are important to you (and no one is saying that they shouldn't be) then you need to get that information elsewhere. You can not get it from the NRA because they only collect and disseminate information based on one factor.
That is not the NRA's fault, it is because that is their only focus and charter. It is as unreasonable to criticize them for being a single issue organization as it is to criticize a hammer because it can't be used as a wrench. It was never intended to be anything but a hammer just as the NRA was never intended to be anything other than a single issue organization focused on firearms.
Think again. Google Mark Brophy. The idea that this complex issue can be dumbed down to a "vote party X and you're always good" is not based in reality.
Remember too that the biggest critic of the NRA and the group that dumps the most labels in them is the media. Nationwide there are numerous politicians from both. Parties and independents that receive NRA backing. Historically this ebbs and flows. There are numerous liberal politician who have been members of the NRA. Politicians will chose what is best for them based in their local landscape.
mrbatchelor
New member
But it isn't any party in Washington. It's the system itself in Washington.
It wouldn't matter if we had three major parties, so long as we have people who become entrenched into Washington. We need turnover, not more parties.
If you took a dozen congressional critters split evenly between the parties, then got half a dozen staunchly right leaning ordinary web posters from a gun site and half a dozen staunchly left leaning ordinary web posters from a (you pick it) web site, then put all 24 of them on an island for two weeks, the congress critters would collect together and the regular citizens would collect together.
The conservative Congresscritters and conservative citizens would have no truck with one another. Likewise the liberal Congresscritters would have nothing to do with the liberal citizens.
(In all likelihood the Congresscritters would be trying to coerce food from the citizens by the end of a few days.)