# When did the NRA become a hyper-partisan anathema to rational thought? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2011, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568 "2011-11-11T04:04:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/141 "2011-11-12T18:58:23Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > If you’re trying to make the point that NARAL’s advocacy against the nomination of Robert Bork is somehow similar to the NRA making crazy, unsupported accusations against Obama, you’ve chosen a poor example. Bork made it clear that he felt that civil rights decisions like \*Roe v. Wade \*were contrary to the original intent of the Constitution and that they were glaring examples of judicial activism. So it’s not like NARAL drew a connection from appointing Bork to an eventual weakening or overturning of _Roe_ out of thin air. His judicial philosophy was no secret. Obama has made it clear what he wants to do in black and white, supported by his voting record. Eric Holder, his Attorney General, floated a trial balloon two weeks into the administration’s tenure. His principles on guns are even less ambiguous than Bork’s principles were on abortion. But straight-arming Bork was perfectly legitimate, whereas Obama is apparently beyond reproach. Like I said, it depends on whose ox is being gored. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/142 "2011-11-12T19:00:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To be specific, do you believe the NRA lied when stated that Obama has proposed to eliminate the right to use firearms in self-defense in one’s home? Do you have a cite that they claimed that? Maybe you do and I just missed it. I’ve never seen that one except from you. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/143 "2011-11-12T19:03:01Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Do you have a cite that they claimed that? Maybe you do and I just missed it. I’ve never seen that one except from you. I first mentioned it and cited it in post 125. > **[NRA Targets Obama - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/)** > > Summary A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition. The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms... ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/144 "2011-11-12T19:07:37Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Obama has made it clear what he wants to do in black and white, supported by his voting record. He wants to engage in a massive conspiracy to destroy the Second Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/145 "2011-11-12T19:08:05Z")
Having read the link, I do object to that. They took something, puffed it up, and made it much more than it was. Were it me I wouldn’t have said that. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/146 "2011-11-12T19:09:06Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > He wants to engage in a massive conspiracy to destroy the Second Amendment? I’d thank you to read what he actually said before commenting with nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/147 "2011-11-12T19:09:53Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Having read the link, I do object to that. They took something, puffed it up, and made it much more than it was. Were it me I wouldn’t have said that. Do you consider such statements to be a lie? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/148 "2011-11-12T19:12:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you consider such statements to be a lie? Yes. At best a gross exaggeration. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/149 "2011-11-12T19:16:26Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > I’d thank you to read what he actually said before commenting with nonsense. You didn’t link to anything for me to read. How do you even reconcile Obama’s almost total silence on gun issues during his presidency, and his ‘F’ ratings from the Brady Campaign, with your belief that he’s trying to severely limit the Second Amendment? I don’t think you can. And that’s what we’re complaining about. If NARAL had made the argument that Bork, if appointed, would seek to smash the boundaries of church and state so that state governments could install theocracies that would end abortion, that would be akin to the claim that Obama is letting guns flow into Mexico to build a case against gun rights. It’s dishonest conspiracy theorizing. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/150 "2011-11-12T19:20:53Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Yes. At best a gross exaggeration. I would be pleased to show you other lies or gross exaggerations by the NRA, but I think you are more or less advancing the point that the NRA, along with other single issue lobbying organizations, routinely use lies and distortions to advance their agenda. Setting aside the question of whether this is effective, do you believe that it is ethical? I think most people would say that politicians, businesses, individuals, charities, and any other institution I can think of should be expected to apply a little of their own spin to the facts, but that a line ought to be drawn at repeated patterns of lies or spreading disinformation. Would you agree with that sentiment? If so, is there a reason why lobbying organizations should not be judged on the same standard as pretty much every other institution? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/151 "2011-11-12T19:23:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I would be pleased to show you other lies or gross exaggerations by the NRA, but I think you are more or less advancing the point that the NRA, along with other single issue lobbying organizations, routinely use lies and distortions to advance their agenda. Setting aside the question of whether this is effective, do you believe that it is ethical? I think he answered that in post #135-the ends justify the means. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/152 "2011-11-12T19:30:36Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > You didn’t link to anything for me to read. How do you even reconcile Obama’s almost total silence on gun issues during his presidency, and his ‘F’ ratings from the Brady Campaign, with your belief that he’s trying to severely limit the Second Amendment? I don’t think you can. I linked it earlier in this page. [But here you go](http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/). I’ll even quote it again: > [@](#): > > Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. That is a Brady campaign dream. And it’s on Obama’s website under his policy initiatives. > [@](#): > > And that’s what we’re complaining about. If NARAL had made the argument that Bork, if appointed, would seek to smash the boundaries of church and state so that state governments could install theocracies that would end abortion, that would be akin to the claim that Obama is letting guns flow into Mexico to build a case against gun rights. It’s dishonest conspiracy theorizing. Except for the fact that his administration DID let guns flow into Mexico, and Eric Holder DID say that [more restrictions were necessary](http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/FAST_AND_FURIOUS_STATEMENT_OF_ATTORNEY_GENERAL_ERIC_HOLDER_BEFORE_THE_SENATE_JUDICIARY_COMMITTEE/52623): > [@](#): > > ATF agents who testified before a House committee this summer explained that the agency’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. One critical first step should be for Congressional leaders to work with us to provide ATF with the resources and statutory tools it needs to be effective. Another would be for Congress to fully fund our request for teams of agents to fight gun trafficking. Unfortunately, earlier this year the House of Representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest border gun shops. Providing law enforcement with the tools to detect and disrupt illegal gun trafficking is entirely consistent with the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and it is critical to addressing the public safety crisis on the Southwest border. The problem was of his own making. Oh, and if you read about “Fast and Furious”, you’ll find that the gun dealers in question [were told to allow the purchases to be made](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious#Congressional_investigation). I suppose it could be a fortuitous mistake that gave ammunition to gun-control advocates. I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/153 "2011-11-12T23:34:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think he answered that in post #135-the ends justify the means. If _you_ truly believe that _gun owners believe_ that the ends justify the means, then anti-gun politicians would’ve perished by lead-poisoning two, three decades ago. Stop with the hysterical, hyper-partisan bullshit and the political “woe is me” breast-beating. The NRA under LaPierre practices many of the same political tactics as the Brady Campaign and other lefty political advocacy groups. Are we supposed to criticize the gun-rights advocates for their tactics while giving the gun-control advocates a free pass for using the exact same ones? IOW, why do _you_ expect your opposition to take the high road and be straight, true, and upright, when _your_ side wallows in filth? **Una’s** post cover’s everything I saw and went through in the 90’s, and I think she was too kind by half. After having put up with that, I will _not_ go back to giving _any_ gun-control advocate the time of day. If Sarah Brady told me that grass was green, I’d call her a liar to her face. And she’s also right about the hypocrisy being displayed by gun-control advocates here and and inthe larger political arena. The double-standard is blatant to everyone but you. These is no compromise. We have compromised again and again over the last four decades. And after every gun control scheme has failed to yield results, after Sarah Brady and her ilk have returned to the well again and again with outright lies about “evil gun owners” and the “gun lobby conspiracy,” after I have read the filthy bile spewed at gun owners in the lame-stream media and right here on this message board, having been called a racist, a homophobe, a sheet-wearing Klansman ready to stuff minorities and undesireables into concentration camps and ovens for nothing more than defending my Second Amendment rights, I will not engage in discourse with anyone regarding one more “reasonable gun control” measure. Ever. The well has been poisoned, and you can only thank people like Sarah Brady, and yourself, **Czarcasm.** ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/154 "2011-11-12T23:47:46Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > If _you_ truly believe that _gun owners believe_ that the ends justify the means, then anti-gun politicians would’ve perished by lead-poisoning two, three decades ago. It isn’t a matter of belief, but a matter of _fact_ that at least one gun owner in this thread believes that the ends justify the means-he said so. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/155 "2011-11-12T23:48:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I would be pleased to show you other lies or gross exaggerations by the NRA, but I think you are more or less advancing the point that the NRA, along with other single issue lobbying organizations, routinely use lies and distortions to advance their agenda. Setting aside the question of whether this is effective, do you believe that it is ethical? > > I think most people would say that politicians, businesses, individuals, charities, and any other institution I can think of should be expected to apply a little of their own spin to the facts, but that a line ought to be drawn at repeated patterns of lies or spreading disinformation. Would you agree with that sentiment? If so, is there a reason why lobbying organizations should not be judged on the same standard as pretty much every other institution? I’m doing my best not to laugh at the earnestness of this. You cannot possibly believe that politics is about integrity, honesty, or ethics. You show me an “honest” politician and I’ll show you someone who just hasn’t been caught doing something yet. If you want to tilt at this particular windmill, be my guest. But demanding behavior that is well above the standard demanded of anybody else involved in politics is a joke. Regardless, the bottom line (getting back to the OP) is that the NRA is not partisan. Hell, they went after Bush more than a few times, and he was one of the most gun-friendly Presidents we’ve had in decades. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/156 "2011-11-13T02:01:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It isn’t a matter of belief, but a matter of _fact_ that at least one gun owner in this thread believes that the ends justify the means-he said so. How about my thought: The NRA has flaws and some in the leadership engage in fear-mongering and deception, but overall they do more good than harm. The ends _don’t_ justify the means, but also one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Also, there is a bit of a disconnect between the National Leadership of the NRA, and the local groups and members. Sort of like how the National Boy Scouts are homophobes and God-botherers, but here on the SDMB many have posted about how their local troops don’t discriminate and don’t ever bring up religion, or lack thereof. I don’t like any group which engage in patterns of either deception or willful ignorance. If it’s bad when Sarah Brady and Charles Schumer do it, it’s bad when Wayne LaPierre does it. Everyone’s bad; spankings all around. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/157 "2011-11-13T02:15:26Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > What’s a “high-powered hand gun”? What’s an “assault rifle”? What, exactly, do you think people ought not be allowed to hunt with? Well, maybe you should define what “hunting” is first. Then we could decide whether or not a particular firearm was appropriate for that purpose. For example, if “hunting” is “killing animals in order to eat or utilize their remains”, then clearly a RPG would not be appropriate for that purpose, as it would leave behind little to no trace of the animal that could be used for anything. So, what is your definition of “hunt” and/or “hunting”? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/158 "2011-11-13T03:31:25Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > The well has been poisoned, and you can only thank people like Sarah Brady, and yourself, **Czarcasm.** Not really. The change in NRA politics in the mid-1970s was led by people as fervent as LaPierre who were no more committed to “truth” than LaPierre is. The “assault gun” bans, (among other nonsense laws), were truly stupid, of course, but they, in turn, found support among more moderate people with no particular involvement in the dispute who reacted to some of the sillier stuff that the NRA promoted after 1977. There is quite enough blame to go around between gun rights advocates and gun rights deniers without making a claim that only “the other guy” is responsible. I have the same problem with Airman Door’s characterization that the NRA is just doing what all such groups do. Much like the more extreme partisans of the people protesting abortion, the NRA has chosen a specific political path. Both groups have ignored the number of pro-life Democrats and pro-gun rights Democrats, creating a situation in which they actively worked for the defeat of Democrats who were actually on their side. This has had the effect of further polarizing the debates so that they have become “Republican/Democrat” issues rather than issues fought on their own terms. The laws tend to get written as victory dances without any balance from the opposite political party, (either for or against gun rights or abortion rights), and often wind up thrown out by the courts as so much unconstitutional drivel. I suspect that had the various lobbying groups supported legislators based on their actual positions, rather than by applying the false litmus test of “Democrat” or “Republican,” the various state and national legislatures would have been less polarized on the issues and there would have been fewer (dumb) laws enacted and those that were passed would have been more likely to be better thought out. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/159 "2011-11-13T03:46:09Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Well, maybe you should define what “hunting” is first. Then we could decide whether or not a particular firearm was appropriate for that purpose. > > For example, if “hunting” is “killing animals in order to eat or utilize their remains”, then clearly a RPG would not be appropriate for that purpose, as it would leave behind little to no trace of the animal that could be used for anything. > > So, what is your definition of “hunt” and/or “hunting”? Of course, this sort of post tends to support ExTank’s claims. With a couple of hundred thousand years of human experience, most people, (and all people with a grasp of langauge), can pretty well figure out what hunting means and starting up a secondary argument on the topic, (one that will assuredly be perceived by gun rights advocates as some sort of “gotcha” trap), does nothing to promote a serious discussion of the topic. Armored vests intended to stop the sort of small caliber field weapons currently employed by nearly all militaries or larger bore pistols that police might face, are not going to provide serious protection from a .30-06 rifle used to target game. Trying to outlaw any weapon that can defeat armor that was never designed to face it makes the people proposing such laws appear to be plotting something sinister that they are afraid to announce or to be too stupid to be permitted to write or support legislation of any sort. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/160 "2011-11-13T04:09:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The change in NRA politics in the mid-1970s was led by people as fervent as LaPierre who were no more committed to “truth” than LaPierre is. The “assault gun” bans, (among other nonsense laws), were truly stupid, of course, but they, in turn, found support among more moderate people with no particular involvement in the dispute who reacted to some of the sillier stuff that the NRA promoted after 1977. To be really honest and truthful, the NRA was exceptionally weak during the 1980s and into the 1990s. They couldn’t stop the two biggest pieces of gun control legislation since 1968 from being passed. Back in the 1980s the NRA was an ad in the back of Boys’ Life magazine to me, I don’t remember anything silly until 1992, and after 1992 when there was a real possibility of UK-style gun bans (no exaggeration) they had to be as aggressive as possible. And it worked. Say what you will, it worked. Gun owners haven’t been in this good a position in a long time. There’s no reason to get complacent now. > [@](#): > > There is quite enough blame to go around between gun rights advocates and gun rights deniers without making a claim that only “the other guy” is responsible. There is, but gun control issues have long since reached the “no compromise” stage, and when people are so completely opposed to each other’s viewpoints all that’s left is finger pointing. > [@](#): > > I have the same problem with Airman Door’s characterization that the NRA is just doing what all such groups do. Much like the more extreme partisans of the people protesting abortion, the NRA has chosen a specific political path. Both groups have ignored the number of pro-life Democrats and pro-gun rights Democrats, creating a situation in which they actively worked for the defeat of Democrats who were actually on their side. This has had the effect of further polarizing the debates so that they have become “Republican/Democrat” issues rather than issues fought on their own terms. The laws tend to get written as victory dances without any balance from the opposite political party, (either for or against gun rights or abortion rights), and often wind up thrown out by the courts as so much unconstitutional drivel. Not so. Rare is the case when the NRA opposes a gun-rights Democrat that is more in favor of gun rights than their opponent, or in the case of an incumbent, equal to. They are somewhat few and far between, I think you’ll agree. Yet there they are, all 58 of them for House seats, getting endorsements and very thoroughly pissing off the Republicans, who claim that a Democratic victory puts anti-gun Nancy Pelosi in the catbird seat to introduce and push through gun-control legislation. > [@](#): > > I suspect that had the various lobbying groups supported legislators based on their actual positions, rather than by applying the false litmus test of “Democrat” or “Republican,” the various state and national legislatures would have been less polarized on the issues and there would have been fewer (dumb) laws enacted and those that were passed would have been more likely to be better thought out. The NRA does. Demonstrably. After two days of arguing in this thread, I’m feeling kind of dirty. I said up front that I’m not a big fan of the NRA and I think Wayne LaPierre is a jerk, yet here I am defending them. Strange bedfellows, I guess. More important to me are the rights that they protect. Again, that’s the bottom line. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568.md?page=9)