You and Grover Norquist. Some classy company you’re keeping, there.
During the election cycle I would hear from some of my more excitable acquaintances or read on Facebook about how Obama was planning on taking their guns. I laughed it off and assured them there is no way that he was going to go after guns and the 2nd amendment. Now I look at the news and I think holy shit he is planning on taking their guns. It doesn’t look unwarranted now.
Don’t forget Tom Selleck!
Seriously, do you have a point?
Again, bullshit. From CNN
You aren’t the NRA-you are the customer and the shield. You’ve got so much emotional investment in the cause that you can’t even denounce a nutcase like Wayne LaPierre for fear that other NRA members might turn on you.
What the fuck is in the news that could possibly make you think the nutcases might be right?
You are correct in your overall point. The NRA has been heavy handed with Obama to the point where they risk becoming viewed as a partisan group that Democrats can safely ignore.
However, your examples are all wrong. Of course the NRA has been fighting Holder on Fast and Furious. That was a back door attempt to get gun control back on the radar. It’s a huge scandal and very much the sort of red meat that you’d expect the NRA to go after.
Similarly, the Heller decision was only decided by one vote. Of course the NRA is going to oppose anti-gun justices to SCOTUS. That’s exactly where they should be focusing their efforts.
I personally think they are right about Obama and that he’s very anti-gun but just has been biding his time until he politically is able to take on gun control. However, they shouldn’t have gone after him as aggressively as they have given that up until now (with the exception of Fast and Furious) the administration hasn’t taken up gun control. They would have been wise to wait for Obama to make the first move.
If the NRA is hostile to Democrats like Obama no matter what they do, they might as well go ahead and just consider the NRA their enemy and propose gun legislation. It’s not like it matters if the NRA is seen as opposing them regardless.
Also, now that the shooting in CT has given Obama enough political cover to attempt gun control efforts, the NRA doesn’t have much more they can do to oppose him. What are they going to do? Send letters to their members saying how awful Obama is? They’ve been doing that for six years already.
They should have waited.
Yes, I made exactly the same point in another thread. In the month leading up to the shooting, the NRA-ILA website was chock full of “Obama’s taking guns” rubbish. They’re Chicken Little, only they were telling members the sky had already fallen.
Perhaps you can point to Obama’s plan to “take their guns”, then?
First hit for “Biden” on Google news:
Biden launches post-Newtown push on guns
You seriously hadn’t heard of this?
Really?
And what is so damn nafarious about looking for ways to lessen gun violence?
I don’t see how you can say that by tinkering with some gun laws (and that’s the most that will be considered) he’s “taking their guns” or “going after the 2nd amendment”.
Makes you think he didn’t really think his friends were all that crazy in the first place if this is all it takes to change his mind.
What’s “bullshit”? I didn’t say anything about the NRA raising money in relation to anti-gun groups. Of course they raise more than them. They have lots more members and popular support.
I said that the NRA doesn’t have more money than other lobbying groups such as big oil.
Here are the top ten lobbying groups.
The NRA spent 7.2 million in the 2010 elections.
Big oil spent $150 million.
The tech industry spent $120 million. Microsoft alone spent about the same as the entire NRA with 6.9 million. Just one company!
No one would argue that Microsoft’s political power rivals that of the NRA. That would be absurd, despite the fact that they have the same lobbying budget.
My original point stands. The NRA’s power comes not primarily from money, but from its influence because of its voting members and supporters.
I’m proud of the good work that LaPierre does. I’m glad he’s fighting every day for my freedom to own guns. I have no idea why you think I’m fearful of other NRA members, as I’ve said nothing that would indicate this. Why do you feel the need to make this up and attribute this emotion to me?
The news talking about bringing back the assault weapon ban. In the office yesterday, there was a catalogue being passed around and several people were planning purchases before the year ends.
Yes, the NRA gets a lot of money from firearms manufacturers. Their real power is still the ability to rally the Troops (and I am another one of them). One of the strongest single-issue-voter groups out there is those who believe in gun rights.
Do they use hyperbole? Of course they do - it sadly works with the modern electorate (you know - those people calling NASA about the end of the world tomorrow). I get emails from the NRA, from the Sierra Club, from the Nature Conservancy and a few others. They are regularly full of “If you don’t act NOW - it will all be over!” messages.
I posted that before I realized that you actually bought into is fear-based propaganda/rantings.
What makes you say this? There’s no evidence this is true.
I think it’s quite likely that Biden’s efforts will come back with a recommendation to take away some guns, such as “assault weapons” or rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines. If you own one of these, or were planning to you’d absolutely be correct to say that they are “taking away your guns”, and indeed “going after the 2nd amendment”.
If you don’t think that there will be any such recommendations you have far more faith in Obama and Biden’s loyalty to the constitution then I do.
Algher beat me to the punch on this, but of course I don’t buy into all the hyperbole that the NRA puts out there. I already posted in this thread that I think they have been to aggressive in attacking Obama without merit.
But that type of language in mailings is effective, apparently. As Algher points out, there is a reason that basically every advocacy group uses it.
But even if I don’t agree with every single thing the NRA does I’m certainly glad they exist and I think gun owners are undoubtedly better off because of the work they do to protect our rights.
Who?
Common sense, but we’ll see.
When someone says “taking your guns”, I think most people are hearing “taking all your guns”. And I’m comfortable that the SCOTUS would uphold an “assault weapon ban”, so I don’t see an assault on the 2nd amendment.