• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Untold Story of Election 2008: The Death of the NRA

Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
199
Location
, Texas, USA
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.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
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.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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 whores; 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.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
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.
 

LiveFreeOrDie

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
156
Location
New Hampshire, ,
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.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

LiveFreeOrDie wrote:
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.
As 9-11-2001 demonstrted, there' a first time for everythang
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

So if we are to believe the content of the thread starter, the NRA is responsible for not getting the intended election results? Correlation does not make cause/effect. Nor does the correlation make a case for ineffectual actions as alleged. It simply is a correlation.



We could use the same information (if correct) from the article to make a claim that the pro-gun candidates that DID get elected would have lost without the work of the NRA. Still only a correlation, and supposition, and no more valid than the PoV of the article.



And yes, if linking such a news item, it is wise to state your view on it first.
 
Top