Wednesday, March 04, 2009

For Those of You Who Dis' the NRA...

...the boys and girls in Virginia show you how the war is fought. From The Hill this AM:
NRA forces Pelosi retreat

Democrats may be running the House, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) can still stop a bill in its tracks.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday pulled legislation from the floor that seemingly had nothing to do with guns because the NRA disliked it.

The bill in question would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. The gun-rights lobby prefers a Senate version, which includes language amending the District’s gun policies, and some suggest the NRA could make life difficult for conservative Democrats if that language is not included in the House version.

There was no official call to arms, nothing on the NRA website, no alerts floating around. Just speculation among Democrats and Republicans that the NRA would make a procedural vote on legislation that would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress a “test vote.”
That means that if centrist Democrats voted with their leadership, they could lose their prized “A-ratings” from the NRA, which many consider essential to keeping their jobs in rural, Southern and Western districts.
So the D.C. Voting Rights Act was pulled from consideration for Wednesday. Aides stressed that negotiations are continuing and it could be brought back soon.

The reluctance to bring the vote to the floor highlights the continuing clout of the NRA, as well as the difficulty faced by Democrats, whose majority comes from an increasing number of members elected in Republican districts.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Many who dis the NRA live in commie states like CA where the legislative/executive branch is dominated by the commiecrats. No amount of lobbying by the NRA can defeat legislation where commiecrats are in control and in no danger of losing their seats.

Anonymous said...

I agree with what you are saying. I live in NYS and see no hope and nothing coming from the NRA. It definately jades your view of things. I can see that if I lived in Texas I probably would be a NRA homer.

Anonymous said...

But, but, but, it's so much FUN to dis the NRA as a bunch of jello-spined sellouts and incompetent idiots, and even as gun-grabbing power mongers in disguise.

I mean it makes us feel like such independent, self-sufficient uber men to bash the NRA and call them a bunch of weenies and ineffective sellouts.

I mean only super-macho independent, strong-willed and clear-eyed individualists can actually see what a bunch of sellout weenies the NRA is.

I mean if we stop dissing the NRA, that'll mean one less chance for us to thump our chests each day.

ericire12 said...

Now they are hardcore pushing a line item veto law to get passed......

Hellooooooooooooo, that was passed into law under Clinton, and the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional. And they say Bush was a criminal.

George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Woulda been nice if they'd used that clout to insist that Senators who voted for the confirmation for Holder would lose their "Prized A ratings". We would probably be in a better position. Look, I support the NRA, life member! But they made a major blunder on not acting in regard to Holder. Their recent action is actually due to a sweeping effort of ticked off members threatening to pull memberships and/or oust board members and officials. It's hard to be satisfied with their lack of effort on Holder. They're the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and that's the only reason many people still support them. Myself included.

Anonymous said...

NRA did the right thing on Holder's confirmation. They kept their powder dry for a fight they could win instead of squandering their political capital on an unwinable fight. While they knew he was anti-gun, they also knew they couldn't beat him. He was recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee 17-2 and got the votes of 6 Republicans in committee, including Specter, Graham, Grassley, Sessions. Ultimately he was confirmed with 75 votes including 18 Republicans and all 57 Democrats. NRA could not have beaten his nomination.

Formally opposing Holder and scoring a vote on his confirmation would have weakened NRA's position on Capital Hill and cost it crucial support from their pro-gun Democratic friends in the Senate. The fact is that it's the support from these pro-gun Dems that is keeping the anti-gunners from pushing much of their agenda and why Pelosi and read both quickly changed the subject regarding another assault weapons ban. Would you rather NRA scored Holder's confirmation and pissed off and downgrade the few pro-gun Dems in the Senate or a vote on the gun ban? The fact is that the prevailing view among Senators is that the President deserves his or her nominee, unless their is proof of serious wrongdoing. Even Geitner was confirmed and he didn't pay his taxes.

Dave S. said...

"But, but, but, it's so much FUN to dis the NRA... it makes us feel like such independent, self-sufficient uber men to bash the NRA and call them a bunch of weenies and ineffective sellouts."

Plus we get to hang out with all the cool kids who sat out the election because McCain was only about a 70% conservative, thus insuring the election of a 0% conservative! Our funnest game is "Pin The Nose On The Guy Who Cut It Off to Spite His Face", and everybody wins!

Oh, and you "I live in a gun-hating state, therefore the NRA can kiss my a**" folks - thanks for nothing. Maybe I should ask the NRA for a refund of my dues from when I lived in New York. On second thought, no - I was happy to help gun owners everywhere.

seeker_two said...

I've been looking for reasons to re-join the NRA....seeing them prevent Congress from getting another anti-2A vote just gave me one....well done!

Question: If the $35 NRA dues don't go to the ILA fund (the branch that does the lobbying), why should I not skip the dues & send the money directly to ILA?

Anonymous said...

Whatever people say about the good things the NRA does, I can't get away from the harsh fact that with two exceptions (including one that proves the rule), every major Federal gun control law has passed with the approval of the NRA.

(The exceptions are the '94 AW ban and Lautenburg; the latter was a half-page in the usual huge omnibius bill and the NRA didn't know about it.)

The NRA is the nation's most effective gun-control organization.

Anonymous said...

"Whatever people say about the good things the NRA does, I can't get away from the harsh fact that with two exceptions (including one that proves the rule), every major Federal gun control law has passed with the approval of the NRA."

Nonsense. NRA opposed the Brady Bill, Assault Weapons bill of 94, fought for its repeal in '96 and opposed its renewal in 2004. They also opposed Lautenberg. This is a myth put forth by NRA's detractors/competitors. The reality is that the legislative division of NRA wasn't even formed until '75 or '76, after GCA 68 or NFA.

Dave S. said...

"The NRA is the nation's most effective gun-control organization."

Seriously?

I mean ... seriously?

[shakes head]

Anonymous said...

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Look at what they do, not what they say. And it's not insane on its face, they'd not be the first Washington lobby group to get overly comfortable with the political establishment vs. who they're supposed to represent. (Look at the AARP for just one example of that.)

Contrary to Anonymous 12:24 PM, I don't remember the NRA opposing Lautenberg, or the Brady Bill when it finally passed the Senate in the dead of night. Evidence contrary for the former would be easy to find, did the NRA send out anything before the bill was signed? (I need to get my pre-97 email back on line to check myself.)

For the former ... well, what was their posture towards Bob Dole (who's quote about letting it pass is a classic) afterwards? Hmmm, they didn't endorse him vs. Clinton in 1996.

However, they are just too enthusiastic about the NICS ... and wasn't that their "compromise" to end the Brady 3 day waiting period? (Scare quotes since we didn't gain anything in return.)

I note that Anonymous 12:24 PM doesn't deny it for any of the other laws, e.g. the "cop killer" bullet ban, another fine "compromise". And the NRA didn't have to have an distinct ILA to have influence on legislation; look at _The American Rifleman_ in the '60s and you'll see plenty of political stuff, back when they were fighting Dodd the father.

And, yes, they also worked out "compromises" for the NFA (e.g. removal of handguns) and GCA. Most recently, they worked with the usual suspects for the post-VT shooting "Veterans Disarmament Act", which did improve one or two things (thanks to ... Coburn?) but also turned a very nasty ATF rule into statutory law, one that has fantastic potential for abuse.

Anonymous said...

Y'know the most ridiculous thing I've heard is "why should the NRA get involved in a fight they know they can't win?" How about, because it's what its members expect of them. If they had really made some noise, perhaps even if Holder got confirmed he'd be more cautious on the issue of "common sense gun laws". The fact that anyone is satisfied with a "no effort" speaks to the validity of their lack of real enthusiasm and passion that most of us have for our rights. Michael has this passion, it carries over into his podcasts and even his tv shows. But the "established" & "comfortable" officials or faces that most of us recognize from the magazines don't always share our passion. If they did, our numbers would be far greater and our legislators would be far less likely to "sponsor" bills that further handicap our rights. I'm just pointing out what they didn't do on Holder because I fell for the hype. Meaning the "Join the NRA, they're the group that represents and fights for us." As well as the "The larger our membership, the more clout we have!" Well, we only have clout if they use it. I've recruited and recruited - got 16 new members in my community - only to read such ridiculous jibberish about the NRA telling Senators that a vote FOR Holder's confirmation would NOT count against their prized ratings from the NRA. I have had enough of them. They have not stood at the gate steadfastly and I for one have taken my money and support to other organizations that are at the forefront. Such as the Second Amendment Foundation, The Right TO Keep & Bear Arms, NSSF and so on. Every one of them are days if not weeks ahead in notifying their members of potential risks of legislation that could negatively impact us as lawful gun owners. I prefer to see my money well invested in what I'm passionate about, by those just as passionate. I call and email my Senators and Representatives 2 to 3 times a week BEFORE legislation is to be debated and proposed. This is the best way to be heard. However it isn't a fool proof solution. We must unite and if the NRA isn't cutting it, then we move on to someone who is. I suggest people go to http://www.firearmscoalition.org or http://www.gunvoter.org and do the research on the NRA officials up for "election" and cast your vote for people who will represent us the way only passionate individuals can. Let's do what is right because it is right, not because we can or can't win. It's an attitude change at the core.