Of course that’s how you saw it. Your entire posting history on the NRA and related topic poinrs that out with a tedious inevitability.
Of course a political activism organization is going to send out surveys to evaluate politicians. And of course they’re going to publish the results of those surveys. And if a politician doesn’t return the survey, they have to indicate that somehow, and a question mark is a simple, clear way to do so. And anyone reading that publication can interpret that refusal to return the survey in any way that they choose, and it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the politician who didn’t return the survey is opposed to the organization’s cause. And given that that’s true, and that the organization would prefer to have actual answers instead of question marks, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to say so.
What, in any of this, is surprising, nefarious, or otherwise bad?
He thinks anything and everything the NRA does is bad.
I know NARAL does it. Probably a bunch of others too.
I am of the opinion that the NRA is a passive aggressive hate group. Their time is past. They need to be marginalized.
If all politicians discounted them they would cease having power.
They don’t speak for my America.
I am a gun owner, I believe in the constitution and the 2nd amendment.
But this killing has to stop.
AK guns are not needed. Bump stocks are not needed.
Ammo amounts need to be regulated.
People with serious issues should be on a no-gun ownership list.
Schools should have armed personnel on duty.
All these things can be done quite easily.
America…STAND UP.
So candidates find it intimidating when political organizations imply that they might not support them? I would certainly hope so - that’s kind of the idea of campaigns.
Regards,
Shodan
You might say that I’m not exactly a fan of the NRA, either. But I’d rather criticize them for one of the many bad things they do, than over something as mundane and ordinary as this.
The questionnaire in isolation is not intimidating, though I can see it being a tad pushy and presumptuous (i.e. “answer us or risk being thought of as our enemy” - my instinctive response is “screw you, buddy”, no matter what the topic). It’s only intimidating if one is already disposed to view the NRA as intimidating, and I gather they like being thought so.
Yes, the NRA tells candidates that the people who will come out in force and defeat them at the polls are angry gun owners, not those who want better gun control. If they see a candidate is in favor of better gun control, they will fund and actively campaign for the opponent. Experience has shown that their strategy works, and it is very intimidating.
Not just “the last few years”; this started in earnest about two decades ago along the same lines as the Gingrich “Contract with America” that turned the GOP from a centrist-right organization that skewed mostly toward pragmatism despite pandering to conservative elements for votes into the neoconservative kleptocracy hell bent on imposing their particular worldview of how things aught to be regardless of evidence or effectiveness, e.g. invading Iraq, backing climate change denial, trying to undermine public education and objective science research, et cetera.
I used to be an NRA certified instructor. They provided good materials and have had a long history of rational support for responsible gun ownership and training for hunters, sportsman, and legitimate self-defense. But ever since Wayne LaPierre started running the so-called “Institute for Legislative Action” which is little more than a lobbying arm for hard-line conservative wackadoodles I haven’t been able to justify the NRA. I get that firearm owners feel ‘betrayed’ by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which had a poorly drafted ban on a variety of weapons and characteristics which arguably did more to promote the appearance of ‘doing something’ than actually reducing crime, and the general media mischaracterization of the technical aspects of firearms, but the reality is that the United States leads the industrialized world in gun-related violent crime and by far in mass shootings. When we’ve lost nearly half as many people in mass shootings over the last fifty years as we have in the active war zone of Afghanistan, we need to look for effective solutions that address the problem of not just pervasive firearms-related violence but the social adoption of militarization and anger that underlies those attacks, which includes tighter control and oversight on who can purchase firearms and ammunition.
Stranger
If this were a legislator I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with it. Since its a judicial candidate I’m a bit more squicked out. I don’t like the idea of judges thinking more about what the voters will say rather than what the law says when it comes to deciding cases. But that is more a problem of elected judgeships than this particular letter.
They meet the definitions of a terrorist organization. Except for being mostly Christian and white, that is.
Do tell…do you have anything but your reputation as an authority on gun law and terrorism to back that up?
It’d be fun to troll the shit out of the NRA by responding to this sort of letter. Maybe write a rabid pro-gun response, but execute the duties of my office according to my education and conscience anyway and see how long it takes anyone to notice. Or, as this particular case involves a judge, maybe a disingenuous and verbose legalese response talking about the 2nd at length (with entire paragraphs in parentheses to qualify some statement or other to be made later on in the response–and then forgetting to actually make that statement), all the while never really offering them what they’re looking for. Personally I’d say something along the lines of, “I dig guns, don’t think everyone should have equal access to them, and am suspicious of the members of any organization that pressures public figures on the matter.”
It turns out that the NRA letter became public because one of the state supreme court candidates (self-described progressive Tim Burns) released it. The NRA eventually endorsed another candidate, saying the other two in the race refused to respond to their survey.
The primary was Feb. 20, and Burns lost. The two other candidates (Screnock and Dallet) move on to a vote in April to replace one retiring jurist. They are described in this article as a right winger (Screnock, who got the NRA endorsement) and a left winger (Dallet). Dallet raised more campaign cash than other candidates by a wide margin. The NRA-endorsed candidate (Screnock) had the smallest amount of campaign money, a good-sized chunk of which was supplied by the Republican Party. So it’s doubtful the NRA bought his election and it’s debatable how much influence their endorsement had.
As to the letter, I think it has a somewhat arrogant tone; on the other hand advocacy groups have a right to call on politicians to be open about their positions (and candidates have a right not to fill out surveys, especially ones that may have slanted/push poll-type questions).
Gun control advocates have difficulty recognizing that the NRA is not what’s maintaining support for gun rights (many of its positions resonate with a lot of gun owners who are not NRA members or supporters). Similarly, anti-abortion types who think support for abortion will dissipate if they sufficiently demonize Planned Parenthood are badly mistaken.
Alex, I’m gonna go with…
What is Both?
In early 2007 i think, I got a robot call from the NRA, which I had become a member when I was working at a college in Texas. My office had shitty reception, so it went to voicemail. When I checked it, it was a message that went something like this-
…(first part a little cutoff)… candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are actively pursuing legislation that will enable the government to take your guns away! The government is coming for your guns, we recommend keeping them loaded and being prepared to fire upon any government official coming to take them away…(cut off time limit of voicemail)
The first thing I did was play the message again to the campus cop that walked by my office asking if I wanted an extra Dr. Pepper the machine spit out. He took my iPhone and went straight to the campus police station with it. The local police department then showed up to take the voicemail off the phone as a ditigal file and then send it to the FBI office in Dallas. I then was asked to give the police a printed copy of my phone bill so they would have a copy of the call time and whatnot.
Not sure what happened with it after that, but the NRA lost my support that day and has never gotten it again.
I’ve probably received a hundred calls from the NRA, and never once heard anything even remotely close to this level of hyperbole. I’m skeptical of your story, to say the least.
ETA: do you still have the audio that you could post? Perhaps a story of anyone else receiving a call similar to this?
Man I am not sure if it even was from the real NRA, it was from a random number. It was on an old iPhone 3G I had, and I never heard anything else from it, other than the campus PD told me the “real PD” sent it to the FBI office in Dallas.
I have no idea how they got my cel number to this day, but it was a port of my landline from rural Collin County, Texas.
It was spooky though. Maybe it’s posted on YouTube or something. I dunno.
It really happened though.
I do not know about that specific ad but do you want to make the reasonableness of NRA ads/propaganda the hill you want to defend for them?