PDA

View Full Version : US gun lobby weighs in on White House race


fasterbusa
05-19-2008, 02:28 AM
Something for us gun people to pay attention too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080518/ts_alt_afp/usvoteguns

LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AFP) - The powerful US gun lobby has painted the 2008 presidential race as a showdown over the right to bear arms, but the election could also prove to be a key test of its political firepower.

At its annual meeting in Kentucky this weekend, the National Rifle Association focused most of its energy on gearing up its members to defeat the Democratic nominee in November, whether it is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

NRA leaders warned that both risk eroding gun ownership rights. But their influence is hampered by a tough national climate for Republicans, after eight years of President George W. Bush, and a mixed record on past campaigns.

"Your presence here today will send a very strong message to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: we're watching," said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, at the group's leadership forum Friday.

He added that he expects the 6,500 people who attended the forum and the other 4.3 million NRA members to have a "very strong presence at the voting booth" in November.

While the group will not officially endorse a candidate until after the parties' national conventions this summer, it sent strong signals this weekend that likely Republican nominee John McCain would get its backing -- despite some differences with him in the past.

Addressing the NRA conference Friday, McCain sought to highlight his conservative credentials as he courted the gun owners' votes.

"For more than two decades, I've opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in 'modern' America," he said.

The NRA was widely credited with helping the Republicans take control of Congress in the 1994 election and make gains in 2000 and 2004, including Bush's election and re-election.

In 2006, the NRA's political arm boasted wins in 85 percent of the 276 US Senate and House of Representative races.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said those numbers are misleading. He said most of those races included safe incumbents, and the NRA struggled in expensive battleground campaigns.

"They've never been as strong as they pretended to be," said Helmke.

Like the NRA, the Brady Campaign is in the early stages of targeting which of November's congressional and governor's races to become involved in.

Another gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, began running ads in Kentucky this weekend in advance of that state's primary election on Tuesday and coinciding with the NRA conference.

The commercial features quotes from Clinton, Obama and McCain calling for background checks on people who purchase firearms at gun shows -- something the NRA opposes.

McCain acknowledged the divide on this issue but said the "real differences" were with the Democrats, saying Obama and Clinton had voted as senators "to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existence."

Other Republican speakers joined McCain and focused their rhetoric on Obama, who is currently leading his race with Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Karl Rove, Bush's former political director, said Obama has been disingenuous by claiming to support the second amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms, while voting against the NRA's positions.

Obama countered in a press conference Friday that it was not inconsistent to back people's right to hunt and protect themselves while also pushing for "some common sense gun laws so that we don't have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago."

The debate underscores a weakness Obama has exhibited throughout the campaign -- connecting with white, rural voters, many of whom are gun owners.

He has been haunted by his own remarks last month at a San Francisco fundraiser, in which he said small-town voters have become "bitter" over job losses and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy."

The NRA handed out stickers that read: "I'm a bitter gun owner and I vote."

Rove, who emphasized Obama's "bitter" comments, urged NRA members to fight on McCain's behalf because "victory in November is not going to be easy."

"In this election, the stakes are very, very high when it comes to the constitution and the second amendment," he said.

Flip
05-19-2008, 02:10 PM
great read good info

Prostreet1
05-19-2008, 03:53 PM
This is big news....Thanks for sharing. Something that all CCW holders as well as all other law abiding gun toting folks should be paying attention to come election time. :thumb2:

DocThee
05-19-2008, 04:23 PM
Good read...thanks for sharing!:icon14:

fasterbusa
05-19-2008, 06:27 PM
What is sad is that, as in the Penn Primary election, many of the progun people were believing all the "I am progun, I love guns" nonsense that both Hillary and Obama were spouting.

People need to pay attention and discover the truth about this issue (well, really all of them) from all the candidates.

Flip
05-19-2008, 06:29 PM
yea but the nra gave old man rivers aka John McCain a C+ So dont hold your Breath! :finger: :cussing: :finger:

fasterbusa
05-19-2008, 09:21 PM
It is true that Mr. McCain is not rated as an A+ person.

However, as is mentioned in the article, he has never been one of those who has wanted to ban the manufacture or sale of ammunition, as both Hillary and Obama are.

Again, it is important for people to discover who is a fan of the gun owners and who is not.
Hillary and Obama and not friends to gun owners.

AlmightyS
05-20-2008, 03:16 AM
It is true that Mr. McCain is not rated as an A+ person.

However, as is mentioned in the article, he has never been one of those who has wanted to ban the manufacture or sale of ammunition, as both Hillary and Obama are.

Again, it is important for people to discover who is a fan of the gun owners and who is not.
Hillary and Obama and not friends to gun owners.
unfortunately, i cant use this as my only reason to vote for one of these idiots

hellsnat
05-20-2008, 02:11 PM
one of these idiots

I'm pretty sure your saying this comment referring to all three. LOL

fasterbusa
05-20-2008, 03:27 PM
Certainly, there are other factors that people might take into consideration with regard to the upcoming elections.

Perhaps Steve, you can start a thread on that, commenting on your position and why.

However, for many gun people, how a candidate relates to the 2nd Amendment is very illuminating as to how they will relate to all of them.

Afterall, one should embrase all the Amendments, not pick and choose which ones they like or dislike and then base public policy accordingly.

Here is a nice article from the NRA magazine, the American Rifleman.

See what people think.

http://www.nrapublications.org/SG/index.asp

Standing guard
By Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President

Equality For All

With the sad passing of Charlton Heston, his lifelong record of courageously fighting for the restoration and preservation of the civil rights of all Americans comes sharply into our hearts and minds. Forty-five years ago, Chuck Heston marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to correct the wrongs of racial segregation—wrongs existing under the cover of unconstitutional state and local laws.
Knowing Chuck, spending time with him, understanding the depth of his feelings and commitment to preserving equality in America has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. Everyone who met him or heard him speak was touched by his power; his intellect; his honest, clear thinking; his towering ability to communicate his beliefs; and his truly humble view of himself. With his courage, his force of will, his ability to communicate with the American people, Chuck Heston had few peers.
During the last years of his life—as NRA members—we were blessed to march with Chuck Heston to preserve and strengthen the Second Amendment.
I can tell you that most of all, what he wanted under the Second Amendment—for all Americans—was equality.
Equality. If the fulfillment of the promise of the founders can be summed up in a single word, that is it.
Fifty years ago, there were places where children were denied access to public schools and to public universities because of the color of their skin. Signs at public accommodations warned, “No blacks,” or “Whites only.”
Most importantly, fifty years ago in America, there were places where people couldn’t vote because of color. It was a time of oppressive laws that have long been erased as unconstitutional, in part thanks to the courage of Americans like Chuck Heston.

During that ugly and evil time, the arguments most often put forth to perpetuate Jim Crow laws—separating Americans and denying some their full civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms—revolved around the notion that such discrimination was the business of local or state government.
Those excuses to promote inequality have a contemporary and shameful ring.
Today, in this presidential primary election, we are hearing that exact same argument about some people’s civil rights from politicians who should know better. They are saying it is acceptable that some citizens are more equal than others.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make a hollow claim that they believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, but they say it only applies to some Americans in some places. They call denying that right to others because of political geography “common sense,” or “reasonable.”
Was there ever anything “common sense” or “reasonable” about denying some Americans the right to vote? It doesn’t occur to Obama or Clinton, or any other like-minded politicians or members of the media, or their followers that the right to own a firearm is as sacred to all individual Americans as the right to vote.
The Second Amendment is indeed like the right to vote. It’s your choice, but it cannot, it must not be denied to law-abiding Americans. It is not a local option. It is not a state option.
Specifically with respect to the D.C. gun ban, ABC News reported that Obama expressed “broad support for the rights of local jurisdictions to make such decisions for themselves.”
“The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, D.C.,” Obama said. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws ... isn’t born out by our Constitution.”
Gun safety? That translates to a ban on armed self-defense in the home. For some Americans—based solely on political geography, it translates to confiscatory bans on whole classes of ordinary firearms most other Americans own.
Equality? No way.
For the sake of clarity, let me change a word or two. What would be the public reaction if any public official said:
“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate a poll tax or literacy laws for voting ... isn’t born out by our Constitution.”
An unfair comparison? Hardly.
I know some people will say, “How dare you make such a comparison?”
My answer, is, “How dare you not see it?” Liberty belongs to us all.
When it comes to gun laws, D.C. residents—a large majority of whom are African Americans—are rendered second-class citizens by a local jurisdiction that has denied them a fundamental right and has denied equal protection under the law. In D.C., self-defense in one’s home with a working firearm is a crime.
In Obama’s hometown of Chicago, the political machine took the same tack as D.C. in banning handguns for law-abiding citizens. They outlawed compliance with a long-existing gun registration law.
Gun bans via local option? That’s what New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s coalition of urban politicians is all about. Denying civil liberties one city at a time.
Denial of liberty at local option was an affront when Chuck Heston marched with Dr. King and it is an affront now.
Civil rights. That’s what the NRA has been all about from the beginning. Charlton Heston knew it. You and I know it. That’s what gives us our extraordinary strength. We must always remember Chuck Heston, and like him, never back down in our fight to protect the Second Amendment—America’s First Freedom.

AlmightyS
05-21-2008, 02:10 AM
Certainly, there are other factors that people might take into consideration with regard to the upcoming elections.

Perhaps Steve, you can start a thread on that, commenting on your position and why.



I think that is my problem, I dont have a strong enough opinion that any of them can really do the job any better than how poorly its being done now.

fasterbusa
05-21-2008, 04:23 AM
Well Steve, it would seem that if you think none of them can do the job better than any of the others, you should be thinking McCain.

Both Democrats are for higher taxes and all other kinds of things like that as well as taking guns away from the people. That is not a good idea at all.

Cage
05-21-2008, 10:13 PM
it's not going to change until we get someone in office that isn't in the hip pocket of all the other scumbags in Washington. I don't think any of the three should be allowed to run on the republican ticket. IMO they have all voted on the democratic side far too many times to get my vote.

fasterbusa
05-21-2008, 10:24 PM
Well, welcome to the site!
It is true that, often, the person (people) running in the election might not encompass all that one holds near and dear with regard to the various platforms.

However, the wiser path is to pick the one who has the most in common with one's beliefs, or to word it another way, the one who will do the least amount of damage.

Regardless of whether someone likes person "A" or "B" the best, it is an absolute certainly that one of the 2 candidates will become the next President. Nothing will change that.

So people should vote accordingly.

If people are lethargic during the election process or decide not to vote for their party's candidate because he does not reflect thier thinking 100%, well, then one has handed their vote to the other side.

No one should let their vote not count or count for the other guy.

However, there are still several months before the election.

Cage
05-21-2008, 10:36 PM
I agree, and will probably vote the same way I always do. I am 100% opposed to a government that takes my guns so that criminals can have an easier time breaking the law, so don't think that I will not vote because I will. I am just sick of having to pick the lesser of two evils every 4 years.

Cage
05-21-2008, 10:37 PM
and thank you for the welcome. So far this is a pretty cool site.

fasterbusa
05-21-2008, 10:38 PM
Good for you!
There are thousands of people who just say "to hell with it" and do not vote.

Such a sad thing, given how many of us have died to ensure that right for others.

Cage
05-21-2008, 10:46 PM
Good for you!
There are thousands of people who just say "to hell with it" and do not vote.

Such a sad thing, given how many of us have died to ensure that right for others.

I lost a cousin in Iraq this winter, I assure you I know how expensive freedom is. Besides, if you don't vote then you don't have the right to bitch about how things are going.



......just my :2cents:

BigC
05-21-2008, 10:55 PM
I lost a cousin in Iraq this winter, I assure you I know how expensive freedom is. Besides, if you don't vote then you don't have the right to bitch about how things are going.



......just my :2cents:

Sorry to hear about your cousin!! I also would like to thank him for what he and so many others have done!! They are the true Hero's of this country. All of the men and women of the United States Military!!

hellsnat
05-22-2008, 02:58 AM
it's not going to change until we get someone in office that isn't in the hip pocket of all the other scumbags in Washington. I don't think any of the three should be allowed to run on the republican ticket. IMO they have all voted on the democratic side far too many times to get my vote.

Dude, I love it!

Welcome!

And I appreciate everything your family has done for our freedom.