Beyond Guns: N.R.A. Expands Agenda

[groovedaddy]

WASHINGTON — Fresh off a string of victories in the courts and Congress, the National Rifle Association is flexing political muscle outside its normal domain, with both Democrats and Republicans courting its favor and avoiding its wrath on issues that sometimes seem to have little to do with guns.

The N.R.A., long a powerful lobby on gun rights issues, has in recent months also weighed in on such varied issues as health care, campaign finance, credit card regulations and Supreme Court nominees.

In the health care debate this year, for instance, the N.R.A.’s lobbyists worked with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to include a little-noticed provision banning insurance companies from charging higher premiums for people with guns in their homes.

The N.R.A. worked out a deal last month exempting itself from a proposal requiring groups active in political spending to disclose their financial donors. Its push this spring for greater gun rights in the District of Columbia served to effectively kill a measure — once seemingly assured of passage — to give the district a voting seat in Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/us/politics/13nra.html?th&emc=th

[katandmoon]

1. Fuck the fucking NRA.

[groovedaddy]

2. You just made Charlton Heston roll over in his grave! n.t

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Only his rifle sticking out keeps him from rotating continuously.

I can still see him, half out of is mind, on that stage waving the rifle around like an idiot............

[damntexdem]

8. Hear, hear!

A RW stalking horse with all-too-many fans on DU.

[Statistical]

13. Supporting Constitutional rights isn't right-wing. Denying rights isn't progressive.

NRA supports candidates / bills/ policies / officials that support RKBA.
NRA opposes candidates / bills / policies / officials that violate the RKBA.

Pretty simple concept. Many Democratic candidates get endorsements & support from NRA. Some Republicans are on the wrong end of the NRA for their views/votes/policies.

We can't control what support Republicans get but if more Democrats supported RKBA then the party would get more support on average.
Failed gun control policies have been an albatross around the neck of the Democratic party for far too long.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

25. The usual tag-team approach by the "controllers." nt

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Both. She has never made a civil post in the Guns forum.

Prior to the new civility rules she always made sexual insults against gun owners.

[Glassunion]

31. Yeah!!

Fuck the fucking NRA in their fuck-holes with a fuck-stick.

Well, fuckityfuckfuckfuck.

[Statistical]

3. Oh NYT. I dispute these have "little to do with guns".

Lets see:

"banning insurance companies from charging higher premiums for people with guns in their homes." - hmm seems like it has to do with guns.

"Its push this spring for greater gun rights in the District of Columbia" - yeah still seems to be guns.

"credit card regulation" - Not quite. It was simply shrewed political move to attach the National Park carry amendment to the ultra popular "credit card reform" bill. It would have worked with any popular bill (like Unemployment extension or stimulus bill).

"block Kagan" - Oh yeah due to RKBA stance.

So yeah looks like it is about RKBA. The gun control agenda has just failed so spectacularly in last decade or so (compare 1994 to 2010) that it has given NRA ability to move on the offense and strike into the periphery. If there is a shift back towards core infringe NRA will become more focused just like the NRA essentially played defense from about 1980s - 2000.

I like this quote though.
“The last two years have been a disaster for us, a lot of members are just afraid of the N.R.A.,”
- Representative Carolyn McCarthy

GOOD! Now if the NRA could just cause you to lose your seat (hopefully to a progressive primary challenger who supports RKBA) then it would be even better.

[onehandle]

4. The NRA supporting the conservative agenda?

Say it ain't so.

[Statistical]

5. What exactly in there was the conservative agenda?

N.R.A. officials say they are determined to protect gun rights even if it means using the group’s $307 million budget and membership of more than four million gun owners to influence ancillary issues.

“What you’re seeing is a recognition that support for the Second Amendment is not only a very powerful voting bloc, but a very powerful political force.” Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said in an interview last week at the group’s Washington office, a few blocks from the Capitol.

He pointed to the debate this spring over loosening gun laws in the District of Columbia after a 2008 Supreme Court ruling found the city’s gun ban unconstitutional. At the time, advocates for district voting rights saw their best chance in many years to gain a voting seat in the House, but they abandoned their own proposal after gun rights supporters attached a provision weakening local gun laws.

“I honestly don’t care about D.C. voting rights,” Mr. Cox said of the legislative maneuvering. “I care about reforming D.C. gun laws, and we’re going to use voting rights or any other vehicle at our disposal to address what we consider a blatant disregard for the Constitution.”

---------------

If gun control members in the Democratic party cared more about DC voting rights than pushing failed gun control policies the bill with amendment would have passed. DC would have both voting rights and sane gun regulation right now. They care more about the same old failed policies so DC has neither.

[onehandle]

6. Killing DC voting rights and stopping Democratic nominees. nt

[Statistical]

7. Loss of DC voting rights was done 100% by Democratic Congress

They cared more about failed gun control policies than universal sufferage so they derailed their own bill. The Republicans had nothing to do with it. The RKBA protections in the amendment were modest at best (likely didn't go far enough) it simply undid some of the worst abuses by DC. Abuses that will eventually be repealed by lawsuits (at huge expense to taxpayer, they pay for both sides). The advantage of the amendment is lawsuits take a long time and are expensive. The amendment was free and immediate.

Today DC could have voting right and reasonable gun rights if Democratic leadership had supported both or even if they had accepted gun rights to be an acceptable compromise for universal suffrage.

On Kagan, the NRA is a single issue group. Her answers on RKBA are vague and evasive at best. If she had similar answers on the right to choose NARAL would be pushing to block her too. Obama could have nominated someone who actually respects the RKBA; that person would have gotten an endorsement from NRA.

Someday the majority of the Democratic party will support the right to keep and bear arms.

[onehandle]

15. Uh-huh. Meanwhile...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4463100

The conservative base of the NRA is revolting. In more ways than one.

[Statistical]

17. So you admit the NRA supports Democratic candidates.

Why is this "right wing" organization supporting enough Democratic party candidates to rile up its own base? If they are "right wing" why are they even supporting a single candidate? How many Republicans has the DNC supported this year? How many Democrats has RNC supported?

Anyone "opposed" by the NRA has only their own views/votes/policies to blame for it.

As far as DC goes, Pelosi had the votes to pass it. She had more than enough votes to pass it, like 50-60 more than needed. That is why she pulled the vote. She had the votes to pass the bill but not the votes to defeat the amendment.

Today this very day the residents of DC have no suffrage soley because of the actions of Democratic leadership. Period. Failed gun control policies were more important than universal suffrage.

[beevul]

22. Statistical, I have to disagree with you.

"Today this very day the residents of DC have no suffrage soley because of the actions of Democratic leadership. Period. Failed gun control policies were more important than universal suffrage."


This would be more accurate:

Today this very day the residents of DC have no suffrage soley because of the actions of anti-gun Democratic leadership. Period. Failed gun control policies were more important than universal suffrage.


Just a nit, but accuracy is important. Its not because they were Democrats, its because they were anti-gun.


Certain posters around here need to own the fact that THIER positions made manifest in the political arena, cost DC voting rights.


You know who you are. Own it.

[SteveM]

27. The Modern NRA is made by gun-control advocates. Who can't let up. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. That bill was pulled by DEMOCRATS and was never allowed to go to the floor for vote.

DEMOCRATS pulled it because they saw it might actually pass...
Giving DC representation AND gun rights.

Evidently DEMOCRATS favored repressing gun rights over allowing voting rights.

[Callisto32]

20. Be careful.

You are toeing that party line pretty tightly.

It might just break.

People capable of independent thought disagree with their political party all the time.

How does this kill D.C. voting rights, exactly?

[SteveM]

26. No, stopping D.C.'s anti-2A stance, stopping others' anti-2A stance. Questions? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

9. If they stick to RKBA, I'm ok with the NRA

and that 'increased premium for people with a gun in the home' is exactly the sort of thing they should be working against.

However, I don't see how they should have any opinion on whether DC gets a vote? This is unrelated to the NRA's mission, as far as I can tell.


What did the NRA say about Credit Card reform? I missed that completely.
Edit: Oh right, the CCW in National Parks rider on the Credit Card bill...

That's not really 'having an opinion' on the CC bill, that's just throwing shit at every bill that passes by until something sticks, a time honored congressional tactic.

[Statistical]

11. Likewise they had no opinon on DC voting rights.

"They" (well more like endorsed representatives) attached an amendment which forced changes on some of DC worst gun laws (like considering any semi-auto pistol a machinegun).

When the amendment passes the Democratic leadership pulled the bill from consideration.

Pelosi would rather see DC residents not gain voting rights then some abusive gun control laws (which violate the spirit if not letter of DC v. Heller) be stripped.

Democratic leadership pulled the bill from consideration, not the NRA, and not Republicans. Given the amendment passed it is more than likely the final bill would have passed also. Pelosi never allowed a vote.

Per the article:
“I honestly don’t care about D.C. voting rights,” Mr. Cox said of the legislative maneuvering. “I care about reforming D.C. gun laws, and we’re going to use voting rights or any other vehicle at our disposal to address what we consider a blatant disregard for the Constitution.”

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Here is the connection.

The NRA was able to get a pro-gun rider on the DC vote bill. Just like they did with with the credit card reform bill. The NRA was actually hoping that the DC vote bill would pass so that their rider would also pass. NRA wasn't against DC voting.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Thanks. (and statistical too)

I was pretty sure I didn't have the complete picture there. Thanks for clarifying.

[ManiacJoe]

18. The quality of NYT reporting has greatly gone down hill.

Every one of their examples was actually gun related, according to the article.

[MisterBill45]

23. What do you expect from a newspaper

that won't use the word torture to describe water boarding by the U.S. but doesn't hesitate to call it that when someone else does it?

The NYT has become a joke.

[Callisto32]

19. Wait.

The article says they go beyond guns, then explains how each issue affects gun rights, or

This is beyond the purview of the NRA how?

Riders on bills that have nothing to do with the rest of the bill are commonplace. They are balderdash, but they are commonplace.

I think this article is a bit confused.

[Glassunion]

21. Still on Guns: NRA Maintains agenda. (nothing to see here, move on)

[SteveM]

28. Pretty punk reporting. The NYT is becoming a mediocre anti-2A rag...

"In the health care debate this year, for instance, the N.R.A.’s lobbyists worked with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to include a little-noticed provision banning insurance companies from charging higher premiums for people with guns in their homes."

Why should an insurance company charge higher premiums? What is the data to support this charge? Nothing provided, I see. Perhaps someone in the "gun-control movement" has suggested such, but nothing here, either. So the NYT sees this as a shift into "health care?" Re-e-e-a-a-l-l-y.

As for the "exemption" for diclosing financial donors, I believe such suspicious outfits as the Sierra Club and AARP are also included in that exemption.

[benEzra]

30. The Sierra Club and AARP are a bunch of right-wing yahoos, dontcha know. (n/t)