NationStates Jolt Archive


N.R.A. Betrays Freedom (New York Times)

Allanea
16-04-2004, 11:55
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/politics/campaign/16NRA.html

THE GUN GROUP
N.R.A. Opens an All-Out Drive for Bush and Its Views
By JAMES DAO

Published: April 16, 2004


ITTSBURGH, April 15 - When the National Rifle Association opens its annual
meeting here on Friday, it will do more than celebrate hunting, weaponry and
the Second Amendment. It will also kick off a vigorous campaign to whip up
support among its nearly four million members for President Bush's
re-election.
Before tens of thousands of gun owners at the Pittsburgh Convention Center,
the association's leadership plans to label Mr. Bush's likely Democratic
opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, as a liberal threat to gun
ownership. It is a message they will repeat ag\ain and again until Election
Day, using the Internet, mailings, television advertising and their
formidable nationwide network of gun clubs.
"What you see in John Kerry," Wayne LaPierre, the association's executive
vice president said in an interview this week, "is a politician that spent
his life voting against the Second Amendment. What I see is the same thing I
saw in Michael Dukakis and Al Gore. It's an elitist arrogance."
It is no accident, N.R.A. officials said, that this year's convention is
being held in Pittsburgh. Two-thirds of the attendees are expected to come
from within a 100-mile radius that spans three battleground states:
Pennsylvania, which voted for Mr. Gore in 2000, and Ohio and West Virginia,
which voted for Mr. Bush.
"These are states where the N.R.A. can make a difference," said G. Terry
Madonna, director of the Keystone Poll at Franklin & Marshall College in
Lancaster, Pa.
At the convention, the association also plans to unveil plans for an N.R.A.
news company that would produce programs for the Internet, radio and
possibly television, Mr. LaPierre said. A daily Internet news talk show
featuring a conservative host will begin broadcasting online on Friday. The
association hopes to announce acquisition of a radio station within two
months, he said.
Creating a private news company would allow the association to disseminate
its gun-rights views without having to follow new federal campaign finance
restrictions, which prohibit the use of unlimited "soft money" close to a
presidential or Congressional election, Mr. LaPierre said. The association
and other groups challenged those restrictions, but lost.
"We have every bit as much a right to provide news and information to the
American public as Disney has through ABC, Time-Warner has through CNN and
News Corporation does through Fox," Mr. LaPierre said. "If you own the
outlet, you can say whatever you want. This an act of defiance, but it is
completely in keeping with the law."
The boost from the rifle association also comes at an opportune time for Mr.
Bush, who is facing unexpectedly sharp criticism from some gun rights
activists for his position on a federal ban of assault weapons.
The president has said he would sign legislation renewing the 1994 law that
bans 19 types of semiautomatic weapons. That almost certainly will not
happen this year because of opposition to the legislation in the
Republican-controlled House. Many conservatives consider the bill a deep
infringement of their rights under the Second Amendment, which they contend
gives individual Americans the right to own firearms.
"Gun owners who know the issues know that Bush is all talk," said Angel
Shamaya, executive director of KeepAndBearArms.com, which is encouraging gun
owners to vote for anyone but Mr. Bush. "He's turned out to be a phony in so
many ways, I'm embarrassed I voted for him in 2000."
The Bush campaign has begun trying to mend fences with gun groups by meeting
with members and appointing liaisons to the groups in almost every state. A
27,000 member Sportsmen for Bush group has reactivated. And the president
met with leaders of the N.R.A. and an array of hunting and fishing groups at
his ranch in Crawford, Tex., last week.
But the White House's biggest move has been to dispatch Vice President Dick
Cheney, a popular figure among gun owners, to the convention, where he will
deliver the keynote speech on Saturday night.
"There is a clear choice in this election between President Bush, who is a
strong supporter of the Second Amendment and bill of rights, and Senator
Kerry, who has a record of weakening those rights," said Scott Stanzel, a
spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign. On Monday, the president is
scheduled to be at the Pittsburgh convention center for a campaign event for
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. Though the White House
said Mr. Bush did not have plans to stop by an N.R.A. board meeting that
will be going on next door, officials of the association say they hope he
will, to send a strong message of support to gun owners.
Grover Norquist, an influential conservative strategist and association
board member who is close to the White House, called the president's
position on the assault weapon ban "a hiccup," but nevertheless a potential
problem. "The president has been so good both in the campaign and in
governing," Mr. Norquist said. "This is the one high profile part of the
center-right coalition's agenda that they got wrong."

For its part, the rifle association will try to paint Mr. Kerry, a decorated
Vietnam veteran who says he has been a lifelong hunter, as a Kennedy-style
liberal who supports strong gun restrictions - a gun grabber," in the
group's lingo.

Though the association's political action committee has yet to make an
endorsement in the presidential race, its support for Mr. Bush is a foregone
conclusion. The association backed him in 2000.

One of the first things convention attendees will receive in Pittsburgh is
the latest issue of the association's monthly magazine, which features a
cover photograph of Mr. Kerry posing triumphantly with Senators Edward M.
Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Diane Feinstein after they helped defeat
legislation intended to protect the gun industry from lawsuits. The
association had made the bill one of its top priorities this year.

"You talk about the four horsemen of apocalypse - that's the picture," Mr.
LaPierre said.

The rifle association has also created a Web site devoted to attacking the
federal ban on assault weapons, Clintongunban.com. The name of the site
underscores the association's central strategy: to link Mr. Kerry to former
President Bill Clinton, who remains widely reviled by conservative gun
owners.

Mr. LaPierre declined to say how much the group plans to spend on campaigns
this year. The association has been plagued by operating deficits, but its
political action committee still has more than $4 million on hand, according
to recent federal reports. In 2000, it spent $16.8 million on federal
campaigns.

Clearly, the Bush administration values the rifle association's help.

At last year's N.R.A. convention in Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's
brother, told members, "If it were not for your active involvement, it is
safe to say that my brother would not have been elected president."

Aides to Mr. Kerry contend the association's influence has been grossly
exaggerated. Most gun owners are more concerned about the economy and Iraq
this year than gun control, the aides contend.

But they acknowledge that the N.R.A. was effective in defining Mr. Gore as a
threat to gun owners' rights in 2000, and vowed that Mr. Kerry will be
quicker to counter such assertions.

The Democrats expect to recruit labor unions to disseminate Mr. Kerry's
positions on guns, and to have Mr. Kerry meet with sportsmen's groups and
perhaps go hunting. Chad Clanton, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, said
Mr. Kerry intended to present himself as "a lifelong hunter and gun owner"
who believes in protecting the Second Amendment but also supports "common
sense" laws restricting military-style assault weapons and requiring
gun-safety locks.
Salishe
16-04-2004, 12:44
Could your topic by any more deceiving then it already is?...The 2nd Amendment protects all the others from being taken away..it is the shield upon which the other Amendments is protected....the NRA is the warrior behind that shield..may Unequa grant it favor in its pursuits.
Allanea
16-04-2004, 12:55
Salishe: You are right, but, unfortunately, the NRA is not the protector of the 2nd Amendment it wishes to be seen as.
16-04-2004, 13:46
OK, I’ve read it, and they’re betraying freedom how exactly? Or are you just bashing them because of who they support. The NRA is a single topic lobby group. They’ll support any major player who if for their cause. And since many Democrats want to take away their rights, and many Republicans support their rights, of course they’re going to support Republicans. But I fail to see how they’re betraying freedom. Maybe you could elaborate a bit more.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man
Incertonia
16-04-2004, 13:54
I don't know--this article seems to be suggesting that the NRA is divided against itself a bit--that the NRA will officially be pushing for Bush but that there are those who think that even Bush isn't pro-gun enough. Those people are scary--think Timothy McVeigh's brother from "Bowling for Columbine" scary; think "you ought to be allowed to own a nuke without a license" scary.

Look--I think the NRA, like any single issue group, has a necessarily limited worldview, but even though they oppose some things I support, I'm still glad for them, just like I'm glad for PETA. Groups that push the envelope of acceptability allow for a larger middle for compromise and discussion. I don't own a gun and I never have, but I'm glad the NRA is there making sure that my potential ownership of a gun isn't threatened.

Of course, their support of Bush is one of those places I disagree with them, but if I ever get to the point where I'm supporting a candidate simply because the NRA supports him or her, then I've changed so much as a person as to be unrecognizable.
Allanea
16-04-2004, 14:07
Incertonia:

"Bowling for Columbine" is scary in itself. The Nuclear Weapon Paradigm ("Should People Own Nukes") is really a bogus one, being that nukes are weapons that ALWAYS hurt innocents, unlike, say, a rifle, or a tank, or canno, which can be easily used for entertainment or safety without hurting people.

My main dig with BFC that Moore never interviewed a pro-gun person with a brain, making it seem that all of them are like that McVeigh's brother.

Not true.

Angel Shamaya is an example of a pretty coherent anti-NRA guy. Here's his info site on the NRA.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=175

The NRA's basic problem is that they have actively supported most federal laws in place today, and have no interest in repeals. Thus, they are supporting gun control, albeit at a slower pace.

http://www.jpfo.org/speech.htm - the following is Aaron Zelman's speech to the NRA board.

The NRA are supporting people like George W Bush, who, with all due respect, is an enemy of freedom. Bush supports the Assault Weapons Ban, and all current firearms laws - even the most ridiculous ones.
Bush support the Campaign Finance Reform law, which, among other stuff, tramples on groups like the NRA. See my point?
Allanea
16-04-2004, 17:05
BUMP!
Incertonia
16-04-2004, 19:35
Allanea, I know that McVeigh's brother is a nutcase and isn't representative of the average NRA member, or even of the average gun rights extremist, but there are a small and vocal minority of people that are like that and are scary. They're usually linked to militia movements and the like--I've served these guys beer in the past during my bartending life, so I know of what I speak.

And I don't know where you're getting the idea that the NRA is supporting gun control laws. They've actively fought against both the Brady Bill and the assault weapons bill and have been vehement in the opposition to the renewal of the second of those. They've been unsuccessful in their attempts, but it's not because they haven't tried.
Allanea
16-04-2004, 22:30
Incertonia, the NRA supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms act of 1934, and the Brady Bill

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3653

I feel deeply offended by your statement that "gun rights extremists" are resemblant of Terry Nichols. I am sorry, but I know dozens of such people who are nothing like him.
Genaia
16-04-2004, 23:45
Could your topic by any more deceiving then it already is?...The 2nd Amendment protects all the others from being taken away..it is the shield upon which the other Amendments is protected....the NRA is the warrior behind that shield..may Unequa grant it favor in its pursuits.

Absolutely right, you know what - every time I walk down the street, if I'm not carrying some sort of firearm with me I always worry that some government organisation is going to drag me into a dark car and take away my freedoms to say what I think and worship whoever I like. Having a gun makes me feel safe because I know that if that ever happens at least I'll have a fighting chance to take a few people with me.
Genaia
16-04-2004, 23:45
DP
Genaia
16-04-2004, 23:50
DP
Genaia
16-04-2004, 23:58
I have a question. I hear a lot from people who support the right to "bear arms" argue that to do so is necessary to protect their civil liberties and freedoms from the expansion of central government etc. I was wondering if this translates as being prepared to use violence and terrorist attacks as a means of furthering their political objectives.
Allanea
17-04-2004, 00:24
I have a question. I hear a lot from people who support the right to "bear arms" argue that to do so is necessary to protect their civil liberties and freedoms from the expansion of central government etc. I was wondering if this translates as being prepared to use violence and terrorist attacks as a means of furthering their political objectives.

Other people carry guns as means of defense of personal aggression (rape, murder, etc.). Does it mean they are prepared to use a gun to further their personal objectives (i.e. rob banks)? No.

To the same tune, I am not willing to commit an act of terror? No. But when the Huttu were mass murdering the Tutsi, and the Tutsi overthew that regime, than guns were a cool thing.

On a more important note - a society that is more permissive of guns is one that trusts is citizens and thus is usually more free in general.

However, that is of little relation to the topic.
Smeagol-Gollum
17-04-2004, 00:26
Could your topic by any more deceiving then it already is?...The 2nd Amendment protects all the others from being taken away..it is the shield upon which the other Amendments is protected....the NRA is the warrior behind that shield..may Unequa grant it favor in its pursuits.

The presence or absence of weapons does not prevent tyranny in any way.

Iraq is full of weapons, Saddam ruled for a considerable period.

Hitler and Mussolini both encouraged the ownership and use of guns.

The NRA is no warrior behind a shield, more like wankers behind a farce. The arms industry should not have the powerful political voice that it has in the US.

How many schoolyard massacres does it take to realise that the gun ownership issue is way out of control.
Incertonia
17-04-2004, 00:28
Incertonia, the NRA supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms act of 1934, and the Brady Bill

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3653

I feel deeply offended by your statement that "gun rights extremists" are resemblant of Terry Nichols. I am sorry, but I know dozens of such people who are nothing like him.All right--I'm getting a little defensive here.

Point one--you're talking about bills from 1934 and 1968 for crying out loud. Isn't it time you let something go? In recent years--and the last 20+ certainly counts as recent--the NRA has been adamantly opposed to any new regulation on gun ownership or registration. (I skimmed the articles you posted and saw nothing of any support for the Brady Bill, but I did skim--I could have missed it).

They've fought restrictions on closing the gun show loophole, not to mention the waiting period for handgun purchases. They fought the assault weapons ban with everything they had, and their loss on that bill was the first real evidence that the NRA wasn't as powerful as they once had been. And their recent defeat on the renewal of that ban is further evidence that their power is waning.

Secondly--I never mentioned Terry Nichols. I did mention McVeigh's brother and I also noted from the very beginning that McVeigh was not typical of gun rights activists, even the more extreme ones. But make no mistake--extremists of any stripe are frightening because they're willing to go to any ends to make a point. So no--I don't think the average NRA member is a closet psycho wearing a tinfoil hat to keep the CIA global satellite mind ray from controlling their actions. But just like in any movement, there are some extremists who are of that type, and those are the scary ones.
Allanea
17-04-2004, 00:30
Iraq is full of weapons, Saddam ruled for a considerable period.


Excep those parts of Iraq he did not rule?

Besides, Saddam only repealed his gun laws months before the invasion.


Hitler and Mussolini both encouraged the ownership and use of guns.

Nevermind the fact Hitler introduced extremely restrictive gun laws, and so did Mussolini?

How many schoolyard massacres does it take to realise that the gun ownership issue is way out of control.

Like Waco?
Allanea
17-04-2004, 00:30
Iraq is full of weapons, Saddam ruled for a considerable period.


Excep those parts of Iraq he did not rule?

Besides, Saddam only repealed his gun laws months before the invasion.


Hitler and Mussolini both encouraged the ownership and use of guns.

Nevermind the fact Hitler introduced extremely restrictive gun laws, and so did Mussolini?

How many schoolyard massacres does it take to realise that the gun ownership issue is way out of control.

Like Waco?
Allanea
17-04-2004, 00:38
But make no mistake--extremists of any stripe are frightening because they're willing to go to any ends to make a point.

So someone who believes gun laws should be repealed is someone who would go to any ends to make a point.

I believe in that. I would not go to the extreme ends you're hinting at!


And their recent defeat on the renewal of that ban is further evidence that their power is waning.


Where did you get THAT?

The Assault Weapons Ban was not renewed (yet). Don't believe me?
Check www.awbansunset.com (or www.bradycampaign.org if so inclined)

As per Brady, here's something a Yahoo! Search brought up:
http://www.rmgo.org/ol.html
Allanea
17-04-2004, 00:44
And here's some more links!

http://www.gunowners.org/bihow.htm

"Please realize that NRA acquiesced in passage of the Brady Bill only after we achieved a number of amendments to the bill, the most significant of which is a provision exempting holders of concealed weapons permits (among others) from the federal waiting period."
[v]-- Letter by Robert C. Nagle, NRA's Research and Information, writing on behalf of NRA President Wayne LaPierre, March 13, 1994 [/b]

Why did they "acquiesce" at all?
Smeagol-Gollum
17-04-2004, 00:47
Iraq is full of weapons, Saddam ruled for a considerable period.


Excep those parts of Iraq he did not rule?

Besides, Saddam only repealed his gun laws months before the invasion.


Hitler and Mussolini both encouraged the ownership and use of guns.

Nevermind the fact Hitler introduced extremely restrictive gun laws, and so did Mussolini?

How many schoolyard massacres does it take to realise that the gun ownership issue is way out of control.

Like Waco?

Waco is a good example, yes.

Do you think it a good idea that religious cults are able to easily acquire large stores of weapons.

And, as to the schoolyard massacres, there is no other nation that so regularly undergoes these traumatic events. Have you ever wondered why.

And do you really believe that a "citizens militia", if one were to exist, could compete in a meaningful way with the resources of a modern state?
Incertonia
17-04-2004, 00:50
But make no mistake--extremists of any stripe are frightening because they're willing to go to any ends to make a point.

So someone who believes gun laws should be repealed is someone who would go to any ends to make a point.

I believe in that. I would not go to the extreme ends you're hinting at!


And their recent defeat on the renewal of that ban is further evidence that their power is waning.


Where did you get THAT?

The Assault Weapons Ban was not renewed (yet). Don't believe me?
Check www.awbansunset.com (or www.bradycampaign.org if so inclined)

As per Brady, here's something a Yahoo! Search brought up:
http://www.rmgo.org/ol.htmlI'm going to answer this and then leave it alone because, quote frankly, you've got a martyr complex going and I don't care enough about your feelings to worry about treading lightly.

Point one--I did not refer to you personally as an extremist. I was talking about extremists in general. But if you believe that any and all gun laws should be repealed, then yes, you are an extremist--not one willing to resort to violenceyet, perhaps, but still an extremist.

Secondly, the assault weapons ban has not been officially renewed, but word on the Hill is that it's going to happen, mainly because of the politics involved--Bush needs to appeal to moderates to have any chance of getting elected and this isn't a winning issue for moderate voters. So it will be renewed, but without much fanfare, and honestly, that's fine with me.
Allanea
17-04-2004, 00:54
Do you think it a good idea that religious cults are able to easily acquire large stores of weapons.

Why not? After all, the Branch Davidians were around for decades without harming anyone.

Besides, I would not qualify their stock of weapons as "large"


And, as to the schoolyard massacres, there is no other nation that so regularly undergoes these traumatic events. Have you ever wondered why.


How many such massacres this year? Last year?
Many countries, in fact, constantly suffer from random, unmotivated violence. It's not a gun problem. It's a cultural problem and a security problem. Note that Israel stopped school shootings (common here is the early 80's) outright by posting an armed guard at every school and encouraging teachers to get armed.

NO school shootings since. Worked like a dream.



And do you really believe that a "citizens militia", if one were to exist, could compete in a meaningful way with the resources of a modern state?

Why not?

Think of Chechnya, Fallujah, the PLO, and so forth.
Allanea
17-04-2004, 01:21
Point one--I did not refer to you personally as an extremist. I was talking about extremists in general. But if you believe that any and all gun laws should be repealed, then yes, you are an extremist--not one willing to resort to violenceyet, perhaps, but still an extremist.

Not "any". "Almost all" would be good.


Secondly, the assault weapons ban has not been officially renewed, but word on the Hill is that it's going to happen, mainly because of the politics involved--Bush needs to appeal to moderates to have any chance of getting elected and this isn't a winning issue for moderate voters. So it will be renewed, but without much fanfare, and honestly, that's fine with me.

I just checked, and it's set to expire in 148 days, so I'll remind you of this quote.
Allanea
17-04-2004, 01:21
Point one--I did not refer to you personally as an extremist. I was talking about extremists in general. But if you believe that any and all gun laws should be repealed, then yes, you are an extremist--not one willing to resort to violenceyet, perhaps, but still an extremist.

Not "any". "Almost all" would be good.


Secondly, the assault weapons ban has not been officially renewed, but word on the Hill is that it's going to happen, mainly because of the politics involved--Bush needs to appeal to moderates to have any chance of getting elected and this isn't a winning issue for moderate voters. So it will be renewed, but without much fanfare, and honestly, that's fine with me.

I just checked, and it's set to expire in 146 days, so I'll remind you of this quote.
Allanea
17-04-2004, 15:45
Sorry for the double post, people.