Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Untold Story of Election 2008: The Death of the NRA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , Colorado, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    "Although the gun group unleashed everything in its arsenal to defeat Barack Obama and dozens of down ticket gun-control candidates, it lost by a margin as historic as the war chest it opened in an attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment. Despite expending nearly $7 million in a national fear campaign, NRA-endorsed candidates lost 80 percent of their races against gun-control candidates. More than 90 percent of candidates endorsed by the NRA's nemesis, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, won their races. If 2008 was, in the NRA's own words, "arguably the most important year in its history," then the election results suggest that the gun group is arguably the most overhyped and impotent special-interest lobby in the country. The NRA even got its chamber cleaned in its home state of Virginia."

    http://www.alternet.org/rights/10984...th_of_the_nra/

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    The election was win-win for the NRA:

    They could claim credit if their candidates won;

    They would clean up on donationsif their candidates lost;

    NRA is laughing all the way to the bank about Obama.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    If I may, that article is a bunch of horse do-do.

    First, the NRA did not "attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment." The NRA endorses several democratic candidates. Despite what the Brady campaign (and the neo-cons for that matter) would have you believe, gun rights is not a partisan issue. While democrats are more often on the side of gun control than not, it is by no means a defining democratic party principle. Nor are all republicans on the side of gun owners. James Brady, anyone? The NRA is far from perfect, but it is certainly not a republican organization.

    Second, the article would have you believe that the AHSA is actually a legitimate gun-rights activist group that caters to those gun owners who are in favor of "reasonable restrictions." B.S. They are exactly what the NRA calls them: a gun control advocacy group, bankrolled by the Brady campaign, that pretends to be on the side of gun rights in order to confuse uninformed gun owners (which unfortunately happens to be the vast majority, just like the vast majority of all types of voters are uninformed).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Clearly a biased article. But, while I disagree with their "the NRA lost because they are wrong" spin, I agree with their main principle. By not being able to stop this blatant gun grabber from getting into office, we have proven to politicians and the MSM that people who care about the bill of rights are not politically powerful and they can remove our rights at will.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Yea well look who posted it Equinox

    He's posted quite a few Topics that are off course.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623

    Post imported post

    Yeap, NRA doesn't care which ***** gets elected whetherDemocrat or Republican. They only care which ***** bestsupports ourgun rights.
    Revelation 1911 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

  7. #7
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    thorvaldr wrote:
    Clearly a biased article. But, while I disagree with their "the NRA lost because they are wrong" spin, I agree with their main principle. By not being able to stop this blatant gun grabber from getting into office, we have proven to politicians and the MSM that people who care about the bill of rights are not politically powerful and they can remove our rights at will.
    +1, and look how quickly they are moving to do so. Not only do we have a gun grabber in the head office, but now that gun grabber is electing more gun grabbers to all the important spots as well. If people can't see what's going on here, they either need glasses or need to get their head out of the sand.......

    Unfortunately, we no longer have the upper hand in politics.....if we attempt to win this by playing the political game, we WILL LOSE. We have to find another way to put the pressure on the people in charge, whatever that takes. Otherwise we will all be sitting here on the day we decide to rise up and overthrow our tyrannical government, none of us having arms with which to fight.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , Colorado, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    He's posted quite a few Topics that are off course.
    Just sharing news articles that I've come across. Just because I share them does not mean that I also share their views. People should know what's going on in the media, as media can smear the images of gun owners in a good or bad light.

    Perhaps the articles should have been placed under General Discussion. And/Or My Bad.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Equinox wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    He's posted quite a few Topics that are off course.
    Just sharing news articles that I've come across. Just because I share them does not mean that I also share their views. People should know what's going on in the media, as media can smear the images of gun owners in a good or bad light.

    Perhaps the articles should have been placed under General Discussion. And/Or My Bad.
    Well if we wanted to read the news we would. Otherwise what's the point. You've created about 15 topics in this thread alone, just seems a little overboard. :?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Equinox wrote:
    SNIP Just sharing news articles that I've come across. Just because I share them does not mean that I also share their views.
    What causes the friction is the forwarding of enemy propaganda without first disavowing it, or identifying it as such.

    Its automatically assumed, and fairly, that the person forwarding it wants it to be accepted.

    All you would have to do is preface the post with some textidentifying it as enemy propaganda, criticizing it in some way, or some such.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Equinox wrote:
    SNIP Just sharing news articles that I've come across. Just because I share them does not mean that I also share their views.
    What causes the friction is the forwarding of enemy propaganda without first disavowing it, or identifying it as such.

    Its automatically assumed, and fairly, that the person forwarding it wants it to be accepted.

    All you would have to do is preface the post with some textidentifying it as enemy propaganda, criticizing it in some way, or some such.
    That's horse hockey Private!!

    I can't post a story without first declaring 'my thoughts' on it?
    So if I post a news story about a family being murdered in a Home Invasion I must first declare I am against Home Invasion or everybody will think I am for Home Invasion? I used to think you were a smart guy.....
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Equinox wrote:
    SNIP Just sharing news articles that I've come across. Just because I share them does not mean that I also share their views.
    What causes the friction is the forwarding of enemy propaganda without first disavowing it, or identifying it as such.

    Its automatically assumed, and fairly, that the person forwarding it wants it to be accepted.

    All you would have to do is preface the post with some textidentifying it as enemy propaganda, criticizing it in some way, or some such.
    That's horse hockey Private!!

    I can't post a story without first declaring 'my thoughts' on it?
    So if I post a news story about a family being murdered in a Home Invasion I must first declare I am against Home Invasion or everybody will think I am for Home Invasion? I used to think you were a smart guy.....

    You weren't listening, recruit!

    What were you doing? Dreaming of Susie? Don't talk to me without snapping your body to attention!! When I talk to you, you WILL LOCK IT UP! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?!

    I said, "forwarding ENEMY PROPAGANDA!" Not any old information!

    See that cloud of sand-fleas over there!?! Stroll over there and SIT DOWN until I decide you're ready to attend my class!



    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    That reminds me of one of the funnier boot camp scenes I witnessed.

    (See? Now, you've done it.)

    Location--Confidence Course. Obstacle--Slide for Life (or whatever we called the tower with downhill cables leading out over water)

    Two drill instructors were trash talking each other over whose recruits were the best disciplined.

    One DI said, "I'll prove it." Of course, here it comes. Somebody's gonna experience something more unpleasant than the usual Parris Islandbuffet of pain and humiliation.

    One of his recruits had just started out from the tower, on the cable, over the water. The DI chose him as the victim.

    DI: "Private, what are the eight steps in the cycle of operation of the M16A1 service rifle?"

    Recruit: "Sir?"

    DI: "(repeats question)"

    Recruit: "Firing, unlocking, extraction..."

    DI: "You know better than to talk to me without assuming the position of attention."

    Recruit: "Yes, sir." (Rotates under cable, lets go with his feet, hangs down by his hands and says) "Firing, unlocking, extraction..."

    DI: "That is NOT the position of attention!"

    (The readersees what's coming by now, don't you?)

    Recruit: (Takes a deep breath, snaps his hands to his sides, and says) "Firing, unlocking, extr...[KER-SPLASH].



    God, I can barely type I'm laughing so hard.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I don't normally look at new posters as annoyances, but when the first 15+ posts by a person are to a series of articles INSTEAD of learning about our cause it makes me wonder and suspicious.

    But maybe it is just me.

    Equinox, welcome to the forum. I hope that you can lay off the "NEWS" posts and work in the forum and let us get to know you.

    Thanks.

  15. #15
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, ,
    Posts
    156

    Post imported post

    The NRA couldn't overcome the fact that Republicans suck and hadn't learned a thing from their losses in 2006. They couldn't overcome the fact that the GOP nominated a power-hungry and slightly-insane octogenarian liberal who's sole difference with Obama was his desire to have unconstitutional wars so that he could re-live his childhood. They couldn't overcome the fact that this same liberal couldn't think of anything to talk about except an unpopular and unnecessary war and how Americans' freedom was making us unsafe.

    This election wasn't about guns. It was about the last 8 years of big government socio-fascism that the GOP gave us and the disastrous economic, geo-poltical and freedom-related consequences of the same.

    I was glad to see the GOP lose. I didn't vote GOP and I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

    Maybe the GOP can nominate someone worth voting for in 2008, like Mark Sanford of SC.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    LiveFreeOrDie wrote:
    The NRA couldn't overcome the fact that Republicans suck and hadn't learned a thing from their losses in 2006.
    The lost learning opportunity for the GOP was when they failed to learn a thing after their victory in 1994.

    The "contract with America" proved that when they run with a clear, consistent, and principled message of smaller government and lower taxes, they win. Every election since then has proved that when they try to out-Democrat the Democrats, they lose.

    The election and re-election of Bush was a fluke; Gore and Kerry could not have been better candidates to run against if the RNC had hand-picked them. The GOP returned the favor in 2008 by pitching them a slow fat one right down the middle.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Boone, NC, ,
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    I think its important to remember that although Obama has the most anti gun voting record of any president elect, he did a great job selling his pro gun message (with a little help from his media cronies) that he was pro-2A, and even some harcore gun owners took him at his word.

    Then again, when you're better option, John McCain, is somewhat of an anti-gunner too, supports illegal immigration, and wants $100s of billions in bailouts, it should be no surprise many conservatives stayed home.

    And its true not all Democrats are bad. In my district, we've had Democrat Jason Altmire in Congress since 2006, and he's arguably more pro-gun than the republican we had before him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    I suppose there are all sorts of reasons the Republicans got their clocks cleaned when it shouldn't have happened. IMHO when McCain dropped his campaign and went to DC over the first bailout brouhaha, he ought to have stumped for the lenders to re-negotiate loans and for arrest warrants. Dodd and Frank should have been named - he said he would name names, right??? but nooooooooo......

    While I respect those who like Ron Paul, Ron's a bit of a lunatic. I like hisrespect for thletter of our Constitution but he was wrong on the war and most foreign policy. Romney's a Mormon, and for President that would probably have made him unelectable what with the polygamist scandals and the story of that Utah massacre being hyped all over, even though it took place in the late 19th Century. He would have made a better choice for Veep than Palin, probably.

    The Dems made two brilliant moves: Practically no Dem candidate ran against his opponent, from the most junior Representative to Obama himself they all ran against George Bush, who wasn't even running for dog catcher. Obama also ran against Palin, painting her as a nut who would surely become President as McCain was bound to croak as soon as he completed the Oath of Office.

    And Obama ran on a short and simple sound bite. While McCain and the Republicans had to explain their positions, the Dems had a simple mantra: Things are rotten and wrong and it is time for a "CHANGE".

    And lots of white folks wanted to put a little gold star on their personal report card and/or "Make History" by electing the first black President. I personally watched two neighbors go across the street to Ubamanista Central, pick up their yard signs, and carry them home held out in front of them, smiling like toddlers who have just pooped in the potty and think they deserve a toy. Well, they pooped all right. What a mess.

    WHAT IS SIGNIFIGANT is that almost no Dems ran on or even went anywhere near guns. THAT issue is STILL a very live wire, and they damn well know it. This is where the NRA has resources we cannot do without. The assault on the RTKBA will come as riders quietly slipped into bills and snuck past debate. Look for some Democrat to sponsor a bill ratcheting up the penalties for possession of Kiddie Porn another 5 years for example, so that his buds can sneak anti-gun riders and amendments into it (also to protect the kids, natch) and accuse anyone who objects of "coddling child-abusing perverts" or some such. It takes a very vigilant atchdog to detect such subterfuge and nip it in the bud. OCDO, VCDL, etc. do not have the money or the people or the expertise or the connections to do this.

    The National Rifle Association does. You all know I have a short ton of 2A cred. I am also an NRA member. I don't always agree with the NRA either. But as Benjamin Franklin said, if we do not hang together, we will assuredly hang separately.

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, ,
    Posts
    156

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    While I respect those who like Ron Paul, Ron's a bit of a lunatic. I like hisrespect for thletter of our Constitution but he was wrong on the war and most foreign policy.
    As long as the GOP continues to be married to debt-funded, unconstitutional, unnecessary made-for-tv adventures that decrease our liberty and increase our debt here at home, you can count on losing more elections than just '06 and '08.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    The funerals for the NRA have been replayed many times, many eulogized as a dead paper tiger. During the last year of the George H Bush administration, the NRA was down to 2.8 million member. The organization lost membership over a jack-booted thug remark made by NRA leadership in defining the ATF. The NRA continued to lose members until the beginning of the Clinton Administration. During the 8 years of Clinton, the NRA went from 2.7 million members to 4 million. Under OBama, the organization will again grow by great numbers, as it always does during anti-gun adminstations.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    I suppose there are all sorts of reasons the Republicans got their clocks cleaned when it shouldn't have happened.¬* IMHO when McCain dropped his campaign and went to DC over the first bailout brouhaha, he ought to have stumped for the lenders to re-negotiate loans and for arrest warrants.¬* Dodd and Frank should have been named - he said he would name names, right???¬* but nooooooooo......

    While I respect those who like Ron Paul,¬* Ron's a bit of a lunatic.¬* I like hisrespect for thletter of our Constitution but he was wrong on the war and most foreign policy.¬* Romney's a Mormon,¬* and for President that would probably have made him unelectable what with the polygamist scandals and the story of that Utah massacre being hyped all over, even though it took place in the late 19th Century.¬* He would have made a better choice for Veep than Palin, probably.¬*¬*

    The Dems made two brilliant moves:¬* Practically no Dem candidate ran against his opponent, from the most junior Representative to Obama himself they all ran against George Bush, who wasn't even running for dog catcher.¬* Obama also ran against Palin, painting her as a nut who would surely become President as McCain was bound to croak as soon as he completed the Oath of Office.

    And Obama ran on a short and simple sound bite. While McCain and the Republicans had to explain their positions, the Dems had a simple mantra: Things are rotten and wrong and it is time for a "CHANGE".

    And lots of white folks wanted to put a little gold star on their personal report card and/or "Make History" by electing the first black President.¬*¬* I personally watched two neighbors go across the street to Ubamanista Central, pick up their yard signs, and carry them home held out in front of them, smiling like toddlers who have just pooped in the potty and think they deserve a toy.¬*¬* Well, they pooped all right.¬* What a mess.

    WHAT IS SIGNIFIGANT is that almost no Dems ran on or even went anywhere near guns.¬* THAT issue is STILL a very live wire, and they damn well know it.¬* This is where the NRA has resources we cannot do without.¬*¬* The assault on the RTKBA will come as riders quietly slipped into bills and snuck past debate.¬* Look for some Democrat to sponsor a bill ratcheting up the penalties for possession of Kiddie Porn another 5 years for example, so that his buds can sneak anti-gun riders and amendments into it (also to protect the kids, natch) and accuse anyone who objects of "coddling child-abusing perverts" or some such.¬*¬* It takes a very vigilant atchdog to detect such subterfuge and nip it in the bud.¬* OCDO, VCDL, etc. do not have the money or the people or the expertise or the connections to do this.

    The National Rifle Association does.¬* You all know I have a short ton of 2A cred.¬* I am also an NRA member.¬* I don't always agree with the NRA either.¬* But as Benjamin Franklin said, if we do not hang together, we will assuredly hang separately.

    SIC¬* SEMPER¬* TYRANNIS
    I agree with you on this Alex. You nailed it.



    For the rest if you....We have to stick togther on those things we have in common, we have to much to lose.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    While I respect those who like Ron Paul, Ron's a bit of a lunatic. I like hisrespect for thletter of our Constitution but he was wrong on the war and most foreign policy.
    I can't understand why not wanting to slow down and follow the constitution before going overseas to kill thousands of civilians gets you labeled a "lunatic" in this country, but it certainly explains why the GOP deserved to lose this election. Paul was also called "lunatic" when he said the economy was going to take a nose dive. I plan to keep voting for "lunatics" for while, since they seem to be the only sane ones.

    As someone above said, this election was't even remotely about guns. For us, RKBA is a major issue, but most of the country was voting on the war and economy. And the article in the OP has it wrong: the NRA has never been good at getting presidents elected, but it has always had more influence in lawmaking.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    EXACTLY Tomahawk. And defense against legislative subterfuge is what we have to defend against. Obama may appoint Federal judgeships but the Judicial Authority is vested in "one Supreme Court".. Of those nine the conservatives are the youngest and the dying fossils are libs like Ginsberg and Souter. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and (why cannot I remenber the 4th Conservative?) and Kennedy are all fairly young and not going anywhere lately.

    Ginsberg probably wants to take macrame lessons somewhere, Souter could use some time to re-arrange the furniture in his mom's basement where he lives. Breyer needs to find a safer place to pick up male ******; and Stevens is just plain tired. Obama could not possibly replace this tribe of idiots with worse and in fact may get a big surprise out of what he does nominate. In any case the four conservatives and Swingin Tony Kennedy are all pretty young and robust and not going anywhere. Obama will just be replacing rad-lib with rad-lib and may just wind up appointing a Conservative. Just s Eisenhower thought Warren would be a Strict Constructionist but was infuriated by his man's independent bent so could Obama wind up appointing a Justice who would bring him to ruin. It would be the ultimate irony for Obama to appoint an erstwhile Lib who turns out to be the most conservative Justice ever to take the Bench. And it is entirely possible.

    Sneaky "Parliamentary" tricks ae what to watch out for. The antis dare not take us on in a full frontal assault. Like it or not the NRA is the ONLY 2A org that can accomplish the task of idebntifying the threat and quelling it. Most of the rest of us have to work.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    That's quite possible, actually.

    Obama's agenda for appointed a justice will (like most democrats) be concentrated on finding one that will not overturn Roe v Wade. Gun control MAY not be that high on his list. One can only hope.

  25. #25
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, ,
    Posts
    156

    Post imported post

    It doesn't work that way. Republicans are the only ones who appoint liberals/moderates when they intend otherwise (e.g., Stevens, O'Conner, Kennedy, Souter). You've also got Eisenhower's two picks. I don't know of any such examples for Democrats appointing conservatives.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •