No, I’m not talking about the Paraguayan political party. During much of the last two decades, various gun control advocates, Democratic partisans, and hard-rightists have claimed that the National Rifle Association of America was really just part of the Republican political machine. ”NRA” really stood for “National Republican Association,” they said.
Some typical examples of the claim: The 2006 book Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run ‘em Out, written by Democratic political strategists Steve Jarding, Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, and Bob Kerrey (p. 258 “The NRA–Now Republican Altogether,” part of long attack on the NRA with numerous factual errors). From the head of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, approvingly quoted in The American Prospect. From the head of the Kentucky AFL-CIO. In a column on the Lew Rockwell website. From Handgun Control, Inc. (which later renamed itself “the Brady Campaign”).
But this year, the NRA is endorsing Democrats all over the country. Ohio’s major pro-Second Amendment organization is the Buckeye Firearms Association, and both BFA and NRA have endorsed Ohio Democratic Governor Ted Strickland for re-election. As they should, since he compiled a perfect voting record when he was in the U.S. House of Representatives, and as Governor, has taken a leadership role in protecting the right to arms and promoting the shooting sports. The Republican nominee, John Kasich, provided the crucial vote in 1994 that resulted in the enactement of the Clinton ban on so-called “assault weapons” (19 guns by name, 200 more by generic definition, and all magazines holding more than 10 rounds).
Likewise, many of the Blue Dog Democrats who hold the balance of the power in the current U.S. House of Representatives have perfect or near-perfect voting records, and have helped enact positive legislation–such as allowing firearms carry in National Parks under the same conditions that carry is allowed in the rest of a particular state, and changing the federal statute on switchblade knives so as to thwart the Obama administration’s proposal to administratively ban the import of about 3/4 of folding knives.
So now, some Republican activists are furious that the NRA is endorsing Democrats. (The Sept. issue of The American Spectator covers the controversy, and includes some quotes from me.) Well, if you follow the advice of people who insist that the only candidates who can be endorsed are hard-right Republicans, then when you face (as in 2009) a Congress with an overwhelming Democratic majority, blocking anti-gun legislation will be extremely difficult, and passing constructive laws will be close to impossible.
From the very earliest days of the NRA, which was founded in 1871, the Association has understood that preservation of Second Amendment rights depends on broad support across the political spectrum. Shortly after Republican Ulysses Grant finished serving his second term as President of the United States of America in 1877, he was elected President of the National Rifle Association of America. In 1880, another Union hero of the Civil War, General Winfield Scott Hancock, became the Democratic nominee for President. Had he won the swing state of New York, he would have been inaugerated President of the USA in March 1881. Instead, in 1881 the NRA chose Hancock as its own President.
Civil liberties organizations which tie themselves exclusively to one party put liberty at risk. In a two-party system, it is inevitable that each party will dominate some of the time. Civil liberties are safer in the long run when they have friends in both parties, and when those friends know that civil liberty organizations will reciprocrate their support, especially during tough elections.
Carl N. Brown says:
I think the difference today is that pro-gun rights Democrats are more likely to buck the party dogma and the NRA will grade and support based on gun rights vote and position, not on party label. In other words some Democrats have changed, not the NRA.
October 6, 2010, 2:41 pmCrust says:
Organizations change over time; look for instance at the Chamber of Commerce which seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Clearly the NRA is not the “National Republican Association” today. That doesn’t necessarily mean people were wrong in thinking so in the past (I don’t have an informed view either way). The angry reaction from Erick Erickson et al on the right suggests that they had a similar view of the NRA as Mudcat Saunders et al. had on the left.
Or maybe not. Like I said, I’m not fully informed on this; I just wanted to make the point that the NRA may have changed over the last two decades or even the last four years.
October 6, 2010, 3:12 pmrilkefan says:
If there ever was a “dogma”, there certainly hasn’t been one for years. We liberals are fully aware that this we lost this one for the forseeable future (though that’s in the context of consolidating or being well on the way to wins on most other social issues).
October 6, 2010, 3:45 pmRepeal 16-17 says:
That’s from the second paragraph from the bottom. Please replace “understand” with “understood”.
As for the substance of the post, the NRA is a single issue organization. If you support gun rights, the NRA will support you; if you don’t, it won’t. Both parties have mistakenly believed that the NRA was an automatic endorsement for any Republican. The NRA is not bound by that mistaken impression. Kopel is correct in that showing willingness to support either party will gain a civil rights organization support from both parties.
[DK: Thanks. I fixed the typo.]
October 6, 2010, 3:47 pmMatthew Carberry says:
The history is clear, the NRA has never been shy about endorsing pro-gun legislators from any party. Any claim to the contrary misstates facts (or is a bald-faced lie).
They do have a bit of incumbent bias, in that one is a known quantity from their voting record as opposed to simply saying the right things on a questionnaire, but if you have the best gun vote record you’re getting the endorsement, always have, always will.
The problem is that the Democrats on a national level allowed gun control to be made one of their planks. It’s hard to attract pro-gun candidates, or convince pro-gun voters to support you, when you make it clear they aren’t really welcome.
October 6, 2010, 3:50 pmmikeyes says:
One of the advantages of having pro-gun candidates in both parties is that it makes the gun control issue secondary at best. While the Republicans are knee jerk pro gun, the Democrats now have to be quiet about the issue if they want to retain power in Congress.
Second Amendment rights are now an established fact which will be parsed at both a state and federal level until all the details are worked out. It is better to have friends on both sides of the aisle diminishing the effect of the issue than not.
October 6, 2010, 4:03 pmnotaclue says:
Way to go, NRA (of which I’m a life member). No political party owns the 2nd Amendment issue.
October 6, 2010, 4:27 pmMike says:
It is an interesting problem, since at least from my experience the vast majority of the membership is fairly hard-right republican. There have been so many arguments on the Buckeye Firearms boards about BFA endorsing Strickland, but the leadership has stood firm in promoting whoever will actually vote for gun rights, and released press release after press release to that effect.
It’s been a very strange situation in Ohio, that almost all gun control measures come from Democrats, but that the majority of legislation advancing gun rights has come from them as well. Concealed carry had to pass over the Republican governor’s veto.
October 6, 2010, 4:29 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Are these activists correct that the NRA previously tilted heavily toward Republicans? I.e., were Jarding, Saunders, and Kerrey wrong in making that claim in 2006?
Of course, even if the allegation was true back then, it wouldn’t really be a valid criticism of the NRA unless the NRA was letting partisanship affect its issue advocacy, e.g., unless the NRA was endorsing weak pro-gun Repubicans over strong pro-gun Democrats.
October 6, 2010, 4:39 pmmack says:
Yes, the NRA has always supported candidates based on their votes and positions on the RKBA, such that this year some Republicans are attacking the NRA for supporting Democratic candidates – i.e. RedState. Personally if a candidate does not support the RKBA, I will not vote for him/her. If they support the RKBA – then I may or may not vote for them – depending on their positions and votes on other issues.
This year the NRA has a board member who is running for office as a Republican – they endorsed his opponent because he has an actual voting record that is pro-RKBA – which by NRA policy trumps stated positions alone without a voting record. It is such integrity when it comes to endorsements and support from the NRA on the issue of the RKBA that gives the organization credibilty with politicians – you want our endorsement – then support the RKBA (they list specific votes and let the politicains know the votes that will be scored) and we will give it to you regardless of party. Harry Reid in the past got the NRA’s endorsement – not this year though – and he pretty much shut down Eric Holder when he started to make noise about a renewal of the AW ban. So, it definitely pays to support all those that support your civil rights issue.
Maybe the NAACP, the Unions, etc… could learn a lesson.
October 6, 2010, 4:43 pmThorley Winston says:
I do not have any disagreement in principal with the NRA’s decision to endorse pro-RTKBA regardless of their party affiliation but with one possible caveat. The courts have not yet picked a standard of review in evaluating restrictions on the Second Amendment and that standard of review is going to be determined in large part, by who gets to appoint and confirm federal judges. In which case, it may be prudent for them to think not just in terms of how they voted on legislation concerning RTKBA but also in terms of how party affiliation will likely affect the makeup of courts that will be making decisions on Second Amendment jurisprudence.
October 6, 2010, 5:23 pmkarrde says:
While it is true that no political party owns the issue, it is also true that one political party has recently decided to distance itself from opposition to that issue.
On the other hand, the other political party may have been an ally of convenience on the issue, and not a dedicated supporter of the NRA.
As a note of humor, I’ve been seeing the phrase “R does not stand for Republican” on gun-blogs for about three months. That phrase is now leaking out into the general blogosphere, and the wider media.
October 6, 2010, 5:25 pm11-B.2O/B4 says:
All this is well and as it should be. I’m a lifetime NRA member, and I fully support my organization supporting whoever has the record to advance our cause. Instead of whining, Repubs on the outs with the NRA might look to their Dem colleagues, who were so excoriated by the NRA over the AWB they started dropping like flies. Dems learned their lesson, they weren’t going to get strong majorities with Gun Control as a major plank. The debate is truly won when your opponents start working for your side. If republicans want our endorsement, you best be absolutely perfect on the issue, because your opponent might be too.
October 6, 2010, 6:16 pmIlya Somin says:
The NRA is a single issue organization. It’s not surprising that they support Democrats who endorse their cause. It’s also not surprising that they have (at least until recently) tended to support Republicans more often than Dems. In recent decades, the former have, on average, been much more sympathetic to gun rights. But when opportunities arise for the NRA to ally with like-minded Democrats, they would be fools to pass it up. The organization and its cause benefit from getting bipartisan support, so they don’t totally get the shaft when the Democrats control the White House and/or Congress.
October 6, 2010, 6:20 pmN says:
More then not totally getting the shaft, it is why they’ve been able to get pro-RKBA legislation passed in the two years that the Democrats have controlled the White House and Congress.
The same holds true for the incumbent bias. Some seem to argue that the NRA should support challengers who are ostensibly more pro-gun rights against incumbents who have demonstrated pro-gun votes. If the NRA withdrew support from an incumbent who then wins, they’ve burned the bridge and lost credibility. It’d be a quick way to ensure that pro-gun Democratic politicians stop voting for pro-gun policies, at the least, and would likely embolden anti-gun politicians.
October 6, 2010, 6:56 pmcarr1on says:
As Prof. Somin states, it’s smart politics for the NRA to endorse any politician that has shown a sympathetic history of voting for their causes.
My issue with the NRA is that their behavior is no different than PETA in some regards. Both organizations manufacture crises and generate outrage over ridiculous and frivolous occurrences just to keep the dollars flowing in. For example: just because some politico suggests that maybe perhaps we evaluate the gun show purchase loophole laws, doesn’t require that we send out thousands of mass mailers decrying the impending Obama Gun Apocalypse & Constitutional Crisis, and oh by the way, can you send in $50 bucks to help out the cause.
Anyone remember the prominent writer and speaker (I can’t remember his name) for one of the major gun enthusiast magazines who was fired overnight because he had the temerity to say that perhaps armor piercing ammo isn’t really required to hunt most game in North America? The nerve of that guy! He was probably a commie too.
The way the NRA and other 2nd Amendment organizations stifle discussion about gun related topics is counter productive (and ironic?). We ought to be able to have public debates on the topics of gun control and usage and hunting, etc, without being labeled gun haters. And no “slippery slope” arguments please.
BTW, I know the NRA has a great track record of education, especially for kids and teens, and does good works in communities around America.
[DK: Minor point. The case you’re thinking of involved Jim Zumbo, in Feb. 2007. The reaction against him (for claiming that AR rifles are terrorist weapons) was fast and furious, and came from the grassroots Internet, not the NRA. http://www.fieldandstream.com/pages/zumbomania-david-e-petzal%E2%80%99s-take-jim-zumbo-fiasco. Zumbo apologized promptly, and his public rehabilitation was considerably aided by NRA Board Member Ted Nugent. As a result, Zumbo’s TV shows were back on the air by July 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo.
October 6, 2010, 7:05 pmJack B urton says:
The NRA is supporting the Dem candidate for Senator here in Indiana over former Republican senator, Dan Coats. The Dem is almost 100% on NRA judges votes, and Coates voted for the AWB of ’94. He’s never apologized for that, and certainly has not been forgiven (or forgotten). Coats is so far ahead that it won’t make a difference but if it was close I could see it tipping against him.
October 6, 2010, 7:07 pmLarryA says:
A majority, certainly, but I don’t think quite as “vast” as you might think. During the 2008 primaries there were a number of media articles noting large gun-owner minorities among Democrats, particularly among union members from northeastern states. On the order of one out of three voters.
Mr. Obama didn’t claim to respect the Second Amendment because he was trying to lure Republicans. He knew that coming out heavy on gun control could lose him millions of Democratic votes.
There are also lots of folks like the Pink Pistols, who tend to swing pretty far left.
Only on the national level. During the Clinton and Bush administrations the NRA mainly supported Republican Congressional candidates, primarily because there was a definite scarcity of Democrats with pro-gun records.
But here in Texas between a third and a half of the candidates who got NRA (and Texas State Rifle Association) endorsements were Democrats, because they voted pro-gun or answered questionnaires pro-gun. The same was true in many other states.
In the 2008 landslide about a third of the Democrats elected nationally were from flyover states with strong pro-gun constituencies. They turned out to be, of course, pro-gun senators and representatives. Those are the folks the NRA is endorsing for 2010.
I’ve known lots of gun owners who have started out as reasonable folks willing to debate common sense gun laws with rational advocates of moderate gun control. After nine months to a year of interacting with such “evenhanded” gun-control advocates the gun owners end up at gun shows purchasing AR-15s and stockpiling ammo.
Right. [snark] Because we have only a few historical examples of the slippery slope in action. [/snark]
October 6, 2010, 7:25 pmD. Laden says:
Nope!
October 6, 2010, 7:31 pmegd says:
More importantly, doesn’t the NRA endorsement of Democrats mean that support for the right to keep and bear arms is now a [i]bipartisan[/i] issue, and opposition to that right is virtual political suicide?
Alternatively, it could be the NRA extending a hand of friendship to Democrats in order to get them to support their preferred issue.
October 6, 2010, 10:20 pmLibertarian1 says:
I wish the leadership of Emily’s List would read this dialog.
October 6, 2010, 10:41 pmFree men own guns; slaves don't. says:
Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the 200+ year continuation of peril the political parties have caused at the expense of the common good.
To quote an interesting passage—
Political parties did not exist in 1789. Washington despised the idea of political associations, formed in such a way as to pit one group of citizens against another. In his farewell speech in 1796 he said:
[While speaking on the subject -- The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.]
“All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
Study up!
October 6, 2010, 10:47 pmnick056 says:
Eh. I’m admittedly very cynical here. I think NRA strategists are fully able to understand that supporting Republicans with ugly votes on hallmark NRA legislative battles undermines the NRA’s appearance of indepedence.
But I also think the current NRA leadership wants Republicans in power because it likes Republicans and sees supporting the occassional Democrat as a cost-effective manuever in the broader strategy to reinstall Republican majorities. The fact is, if people stop donating to you because they see you as partisan rather than governed by your stated principles alone, you have less money overall and less broad credibility, and of course if you’re the NRA most of your money and persuasive ammunition goes to Republicans.
Frankly I’m just not willing to accept NRA leadership as bipartisan at heart and driven exclusively by RKBA concerns when they’ve poured so much money into saying truly stupid things about Democrats, usually designed to solicit donations, in areas where gun rights were not, to me, a credible consideration at issue.
October 6, 2010, 11:25 pmAllan Walstad says:
nick056: Frankly, I don’t see anything more in your post than presumed mind-reading and bare assertion. Has the NRA been saying stupid things about dems, or have too many dems been saying stupid things about guns? The NRA supported my late Democratic congressman John Murtha for many years because he established a track record of supporting 2A. I think you can be damn sure that the NRA will support more dems and fewer repubs if and to the extent that more dems and fewer repubs support our right to keep and bear arms. You’re entitled to your cynicism and NRA members are entitled not to give a crap what you think.
October 7, 2010, 1:17 amBrett Bellmore says:
I’d go further, and say that, were the Democratic leadership not typically anti-gun, the NRA would be even more inclined to support Democrats. One of the problems with endorsing Democrats, which the NRA has been frank about, is that even pro-gun Democrats end up placing anti-gun Democrats in leadership positions much of the time. The national, institutional Democratic party is still anti-gun even now, just temporarily intimidated into downplaying it.
A problem which a number of former Republican leaders, such as Bob Dole, demonstrated was not limited to the Democratic party… Neither George Bush was exactly a 2nd amendment paragon, either.
No, as a life member I’ve had occasional problems with the NRA’s endorsements and ratings. (They’ve graded ‘on a curve’ for incumbents likely to win reelection, to avoid pissing off the likely winner, for instance.) But that they’re partisan? Nope, that hasn’t been a problem.
If Democrats want an NRA more friendly to Democrats, the answer is as simple as being more pro-gun.
October 7, 2010, 6:56 amBill Twist says:
carr1on:
That is a manufactured crisis, but not in the way you actually mean: There is no ‘gun show purchase loophole’: The same exact federal laws apply at a gun show that apply outside of one.
October 7, 2010, 8:12 amD Palmer says:
I think the post is right on. I personally am tired of the idea that being a member of a particular political party is like joining a cult, all of your opinions are handed down to you from on high.
Oh, and I realize that in effect we have a “two party system” but it’s not actually the official setup.
October 7, 2010, 8:21 amLawrence Person says:
The problem is that as long as Nancy Pelosi is Speaker, no Democrat can be considered a “Pro-gun” vote any more than they can be considered a “Pro-life” vote. Remember how quickly Bart Stupak’s block caved when push came to shove?
Indeed, some of those same “pro-gun” blue dog Democrats are the very same “staunch pro-life Democrats” who rolled over to vote for ObamaCare when Pelosi snapped her fingers. What makes you think they’ll be any less willing to sell out the Second Amendment?
October 7, 2010, 8:51 amSteve Skubinna says:
D Palmer, you might want to take that discussion up with Joe Lieberman, who is as reliable a liberal as one could find. See what he thinks about Democrats who wander off the reservation on one single issue. For not opposing the war in Iraq he was booted.
The fact is, through the 1990s increased gun control was a basic plank of the national Democrat position. The NRA didn’t become an arm of the Republican Party (to be sure, there are some Republicans who are anti-gun, all from reliably urban, leftish constituencies), so much as the Democrats staked out a position diametrically opposed to them. Go back and examine the public statements of many Democrats of the time – you’ll get the impression that they were campaigning specifically against the NRA – because many of them were. The party’s current support for the Second Amendment is apparently only tactical, they having decided that it was a major factor in Al Gore’s loss in 2000.
Even still, it’s querulous Dems who periodically ask angrily why they can’t reimpose the so-called “assault weapons ban,” which only restricted sales of specific weapons based solely on cosmetic features unrelated to their lethality.
October 7, 2010, 8:52 amThe Packetman says:
Sharron Angle will be pleased to hear that …..
October 7, 2010, 9:22 amFatWhiteMan says:
In 1998 When Ted Strickland was running for re-election to his Congressional seat, Charlton Heston made an 11th hour radio ad supporting Strickland over his opponent, former Ohio Lt. Governor Nancy Hollister, Republican.
It was clear back then that they were backing Strickland because of his pro-gun voting record in Congress and were not just picking the Republican de Jour as they had long been accused of.
October 7, 2010, 9:22 amkarrde says:
Strange that you mention it.
A prominent gun-blogger managed to start a discussion with a member of Brady Campaign’s board. However, the discussion degenerated into the gun-blogger (and friends) answering questions, and the Brady Board member either ignored, deliberately misunderstood, or evaded most responses to her questions.
On another front, the same blogger has noticed that a prominent group that calls itself Mayors Against Illegal Guns is good at claiming that they’ve found the problem, but tends to ignore statistics that present evidence against their claims.
This isn’t the NRA, but it is a member of a large group of loosely-affiliated bloggers who support the general goals of the NRA. However, it is indicative of why there is so little reasoned debate on the topic of gun control.
October 7, 2010, 9:24 amajacksonian says:
About my only wish with endorsements is that when you have two good candidates with respect to the 2nd Amendment, that the support can and should be divided. In supporting gun rights you must support those running for office who do support them regardless of party and incumbency status. That may PO winners who are incumbents, but puts a stark and clear message out that just because you are an incumbent doesn’t mean you get any extra benefits from that incumbency. You already have the franking privilege, you write yourself out of most employment, health and safety laws, and numerous other laws, so why should an incumbent get yet another kudo on an issue that is one of equality for all citizens?
Either that or don’t endorse or support either candidate… or have a ‘good gun keeping’ seal of approval you can hand out. And the States should have a major say in helping their citizens protect their State in such times… which is outside of federal purview by definition.
As for the gun laws… nothing should infringe the individual’s right to keep and bear arms nor the sovereignty of the State to have a citizen run militia as that is a survival issue for the States when the federal government cannot or will not respond to invasion or other dangers which will not admit of delay.
October 7, 2010, 9:31 amOrenWithAnE says:
This isn’t a whole lot better than a multi-party (Westminster or variant) system where failure to vote party line (except when the leadership deigns to grant a conscience vote) means ejection from the legislature.
October 7, 2010, 9:42 amCousin Dave says:
“Civil liberties organizations which tie themselves exclusively to one party put liberty at risk.” I completely agree. I wish someone could get that across to the ACLU.
October 7, 2010, 9:47 ammariner says:
That is still the case. The Democratic Party Platform includes to this day promises to close “the gun show loophole” (there isn’t one) and to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban.
October 7, 2010, 9:51 amJohnM says:
Supporting pro-2A Dems proved that the NRA is single issue organization! Great! What could go go wrong?
Well, a lot, actually. Once the government controls the delivery of healthcare how long will it be before they regulate our exposure to what they deem to be health hazards? The Center for Disease Control has long characterized firearms as a “vector”. And how did the government come so perilously close to getting control of the delivery of healthcare? Pro 2A Democrats voted for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to be their leadership and set the legislative agenda.
Until such time as the Democrat party moves away from the far left statist extreme its leadership uniformly manifest, voting for ANY Democrat is a dangerous undertaking.
October 7, 2010, 10:19 amBartholomew Roberts says:
I understand that you may not be all that interested in firearms and therefore you do not understand these issues well; but you do realize that practically ANY centerfire rifle ammunition used for hunting game in North America will penetrate commonly used police body armor?
I think you are probably remembering key details wrong in this situation; but a key aspect in debating “armor piercing ammo” is “What kind of armor?” Body armor comes in many different levels. The type worn in Iraq by our soldiers will stop many rifle rounds; but it also weighs around 40lbs, is very warm, and limits mobility considerably. Ironically, the bullets that would successfully penetrate this type of armor are almost universally big-game hunting bullets used almost exclusively for hunting – things slike .300 Win Mag or .375 H&H.
So while your argument sounds very reasonable to people who know nothing about firearms, when you actually examine the substance, it can be seen as extremely prohibitive of even commonly accepted traditional firearms uses.
October 7, 2010, 10:29 amFred says:
Taken for granted by the Democrats that they can drive away gun owners without consequence.
Taken for granted by Republicans that they own gun owners because they see gun owners as having nowhere else to go.
Taken for granted that know-nothing blog comments can define the NRA with no knowledge beyond what the letters stand for.
October 7, 2010, 11:04 amQuote of the Day | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] From Dave Kopel over a Volokh: Civil liberties organizations which tie themselves exclusively to one party put liberty at risk. In a two-party system, it is inevitable that each party will dominate some of the time. Civil liberties are safer in the long run when they have friends in both parties, and when those friends know that civil liberty organizations will reciprocrate their support,especially during tough elections. [...]
October 7, 2010, 11:54 amrichard40 says:
I think most posters are right when they say that the NRA didn’t change, rather it was the dems that changed. The NRA always supported pro gun candidates, but in the past almost all of them were repub. Now that many dems are also pro gun, the NRA can support them as well.
I’m also hoping a similar thing can happen with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is primarilly concerned with small governmant fiscal conservatism, and are mostly neutral on social issues. Right now they look like a strictly repub group, because the dems all followed Obama off the big government cliff. But if, in the future, we start seeing true dem fiscal conservatives, running against a repub that is less fiscal conservative, that won their repub primary on social issues, I hope that the Tea Party will endorse the dem. If that does happen often enough, then I wil know that fiscal conservatism has won in both parties, just like gun rights has already.
October 7, 2010, 11:55 amCDHands says:
The purpose of our rights concerning fire arms are NOT founded on the necessity of shooting tasty animals, or poking spiffy holes at paper targets. They are because the founders wanted us to have the ability to fight back against an oppressive government.
So to answer your pseudo-question, AP ammunition is indeed necessary to hunt in this country, if the “game” in question gets “big” enough.
Glad my father had the presence of mind to buy 4 flats of the stuff in 7.62×39 before the ban went into effect. Was the best thing I inherited from him when he died.
October 7, 2010, 12:11 pmjdkchem says:
By armor piercing are you referring to body armor or armored vehicles?
October 7, 2010, 12:57 pmIf you’re referring to armored vehicles than you’re not going to be able to get armor piercing ammo from your local Gander Mtn. or Cabelas or an ad in Shotgun News. You’re talking military only.
If you’re talking body armor than yes you can get 30-30 or 30.06 ammo at just about anyplace that sells ammo. The idiot who got fired for his comment got what he deserved and he should be thanking Ted Kennedy for pushing an ignorant “armor piercing ammo” ban. The entire premise of that ban was based on feel good ignorance and not facts. When you can bring down an elk with a .22 let me know. Until that time you need an armor piercing 30.06 round at a minimum.
If the person was a prominent writer or enthusiast he/she/it should have known better.
jdkchem says:
I believe they did just that in Idaho.
October 7, 2010, 1:02 pmyankev says:
And the Democratic governor signed an amendment that removed a silly and unsafe restriction from the earlier law, thereby legalizing concealed carry in automobiles and reducing the risk of accidentally discharging the firearm while getting in or out of the vehicle.
October 8, 2010, 9:48 amyankev says:
And marauding Indians, bandits and other enemies of the public.
October 8, 2010, 9:50 amyankev says:
False accusations of partisanship are a cheap and easy way for a politician to deflect substantive criticism. “The NRA doesn’t lime me or my party-mates? Of course not, because they are bought and paid for by (or have bought and paid for) the opposing party. Never mind what they say about my record or whether my position on the issues makes sense.”
October 8, 2010, 9:53 amThorley Winston says:
I think that raises a good point – when the NRA evaluates an incumbent Senator’s record do they look at whether the incumbent voted to confirm a judicial nominee who issued anti-RTKBA opinions or advocated anti-RTKBA positions as part of the scorecard?
What then about voting for Congressional leadership, who gets to set the agenda, with an anti-RTKBA voting record? If Democrats lose the House but decide to try to ram through some final legislation in a lame duck session – some of which might adversely impact the RTKBA – does the NRA dock otherwise pro-RTKBA Congressmen who enabled the leadership to do this (even if they vote against the legislation)?
October 8, 2010, 10:21 amBarnacle Bill says:
On a related note, if every Senator who voted “No” on the 1994 AWB had stood firm for a filibuster (which they would have done if their “No” was sincere), it would never have reached Clinton’s desk. There were 40-something “No” votes. I hope the NRA pays attention to that sort of thing as well.
October 8, 2010, 11:29 amNRA Supports Pro-Gun Democrats, and Many Democrats Support the Second Amendment | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] this week, I wrote that NRA would be foolish obey the wishes of Republican activists who want the NRA to endorse [...]
October 9, 2010, 12:00 pmHenry Bowman says:
Clearly, a lot of the right-wing disagreement over whether it is wise for the NRA to endorse individual Democrats arises from second-order effects, to wit: if endorsement of a Democrat assists a party whose LEADERSHIP is virulently anti-gun to gain control of a legislative house, is this really defending the Second Amendment? The national agenda will be controlled for the next several years by this leadership, not by the particular politician endorsed.
October 9, 2010, 4:48 pm