Matthew Yglesias » NRA vs. Obama

Sep 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

NRA vs. Obama

Hey check it out — issues! Gun control! I’m honestly a bit surprised that the NRA is that emotionally invested in attacking Obama, I feel like the Democratic Party has pretty much given up on gun control as an issue and John McCain’s never been the most gun-friendly Republican anyway.

Comments
47

47 Responses to “NRA vs. Obama”

Don Williams Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “I’m honestly a bit surprised that the NRA is that emotionally invested in attacking Obama ”
———-
Then you are not very knowledgeable. I gave up my NRA membership years ago –because it became clear that it was a giant con game. A Potemkin village.

Wayne LaPierre ranted about “jackbooted federal thugs” at Waco –when the Clinton Administration enforced a legal search warrent issued by an independent judge. Wayne LaPierre says we have to keep guns to defend ourselves if the federal government ever becomes a dictatorship in the distant future.

But Wayne LaPierre did NOT say shit when the Republicans and Bush/Cheney began setting up a dictatorship TODAY. When they overthrew major Constitutional protections. Torture. Long Term imprisonment without trial. Military Tribunals. Massive surveillance without judicial warrants and oversight. Diversion of $60 BILLION/YEAR to “Homeland Security”.

I actually support the Second Amendment and believe that widespread possession of unregistered firearms is a major protection of our civil rights.

But it only works if you are willing to shoot people like Wayne LaPierre.

No, Wayne Lapierre INSTALLED and supported that tyranny — giving over 90 percent of NRA donations to Republicans.
JRVJ Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
McCain’s into bombs, not guns.
msw Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Obama is going take moose hunting weaponry away from our kindergartens.
Palin/McCain
we’re the white ones
ME Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
That’s because the NRA is run by a bunch of right-wing ideologues who are working to elect McCain for other reasons. Gun control is just a cover that they use to get money and trust from single-issue voting gun nuts.
Tyrone Slothrop Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
If the NRA stopped arguing that Democrats like Obama are going to take guns away, they’d have to stop using the issue to fundraise, and they’d have to find something else to do with themselves. And they don’t want to do that. Educating hunters and promoting gun safety are not lucrative. This is lucrative.
Don Williams Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
It does remind us that the Clintons and Chuck Schumer were the ones who did much to drive blue collar citizens — even suburban dwellers and union members –away from the Democratic Party.
Nick Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
The NRA has long since ceased to be (or maybe never was) an issue advocacy organization. It now exists primarily as a method of protecting gun culture, and that means attacking people for things that are only peripherally related to gun control, if at all related.
hey norm Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
the supremes took guns out of this election. the far right fringe just can’t give up their talking points.
MAX HATS Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The NRA is just an unofficial wing of the republican party. It’s that simple. Priority number one is electing republicans. They know this, their members know this, I thought everyone knew it.
dukej Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
isn’t Grover still on the Board of the NRA? That ought to give you a clue: it’s not about gun rights, it’s all about maintaining Republican hegemony.
E. O'Neal Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
This could move the polls a couple of points in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, where millions of hunters “bitterly cling” to their guns. Obama, alas for the loons, is on record for wanting to outlaw handguns.

The pictures of BHO in the brochure are great! Obambi’s going down! More ‘cuda!
Alex F Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
The NRA needs to keep telling its members that they’re only one election away from every gun in private hands being confiscated. The fact that this has never been true and that Democrats have now cut back to a gun control agenda so modest that even Dubya officially supports most of it is irrelevant. The threat of imminent confiscation keeps the money coming in, and the folks sending the money aren’t in the reality based community.
fostert Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I own ten guns and have never been a member of the NRA. The comments above pretty much explain why.
MAX HATS Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
O’Neal, how many members of the NRA are swing voters? Honestly. Followup: what fraction of the things you type on this blog do you honestly believe?
55 Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I have yet to hear a real reason why “‘cuda” would make a good VP. Unless you actually think she’s some kind of “fiscal conservative” despite her record of raising taxes and creating debt.
santamonicamr Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The NRA is like the March of Dimes. Well, in an evil, reverse-universe kind of way. Once polio was cured, the March of Dimes could have packed up shop and disappeared. But organizations don’t like to disappear so they found other things to do. The NRA only exists to stoke fear about Democrats prying guns out of cold, dead hands. Well, they won. The Democrats gave up. By all rights, the NRA should go away. But Wayne LaPierre *likes* being a media celebrity. So manning the barricades against the nefarious Democrats will go on until their followers get tired of the charade and how their membership funds are being spent.

I give it two more Presidential cycles.
sunsin Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
…believe that widespread possession of unregistered firearms is a major protection of our civil rights

Expand, please.

In the expansion, address this point: Every other Western democracy has a much more restrictive policy on gun control than the United States. Most of these polities are not noticeably more tyrannical than the United States. Why has their stance on gun control not affected their possession of civil rights?

Answers that state or imply that Americans need to be heavily armed because they are much less moral or much more inclined to violence than the citizens of other states will receive a mark of zero.
Mike Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The NRA is just one more front group for the RNC. This is obvious to any observer; it mystifies me that this need be pointed out to Matt.
hey norm Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
@ 55
because she’s a VPILF. what more does a good republican need? it’s not like they asre going to be busy governing.
E. O'Neal Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Max Hats, About 95% of what I write is sincere, 5% tongue in cheek. I have more fun with the 5% than the 95%.

America prefers a woman who kills her own food to a man who prances around on stage chanting, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”. They just can’t see Washington, Lincoln, TR, Harry Truman, JFK or any other president carrying on in such a comically grandiose manner. They’re laughing at your guy.
MAX HATS Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Indeed, O’Neal, if there’s one thing all of America agrees on, it’s that Obama is a poor public speaker. Laughable, really.

How is life on the moon?
Don Williams Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Re sunsin’s comment “Every other Western democracy has a much more restrictive policy on gun control than the United States. Most of these polities are not noticeably more tyrannical than the United States. ”
————
Oh PLEASE. Look at the fucking GINI coefficients. Including those of the United States. Do you think a small percentage of the population grabs most of the income –and wealth –by singing Kumbaya?

WHICH Western democracies? The Germany that killed Millions of Jews — many of them its own citizens –in the gas chambers?

Or the Vichy French — who saved the Germans the trouble of rounding up FRENCH citizens who were Jewish. As well as any non-Jewish French Citizens who didn’t go along with the collaboration. The French Resistance feared betrayal by their own government officials more than they feared the German occuptation.

Or maybe the Italians? Of Il Duce?

Or maybe the Japanese of Hirohito? Who massacred the Chinese of Nanking –well, except for those they saved for vivisection experiments.

Stalinist Russia? Well, ask a few million Ukranian peasants. Oh wait –we can’t.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Keep fapping, ‘E’.
PaulW Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Obama should come out and say: “Damn right I don’t like guns. Lightsabers are waaaay cooler!!!”
Don Williams Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
With the exception of Scandanavia, Every other Western Democracy exists –and treats its citizens decently — solely due to the power and influence of the United States.

For our own selfish ends of course — mostly in reaction to the demands of the Cold War.

In the Middle East and South America –er, not so much.
Don Williams Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Even the creation of democracy — a republic really — in the USA was a geographical accident.

The need for an elite to convince the mass of people to support an insurgency against a power on the other side of a vast ocean.

The need to come up with compelling propaganda that would tie together armed groups scattered across a largely trackless wilderness.

The post-war need of elites to avoid being destroyed by the same armed militias they had created by massive covert transfers of arms from France.

America circa 1783 was much like Afghanistan, really. And the American Founding Fathers had much more in common with Bin Laden than we would like to admit. READ George Bush’s definition of a “terrorist”.

Prior to the American Revolution, mankind had mostly lived under dictatorships for 1800 years. Ever since the collapse of the Greek democracies and the Roman Republic.

After 1800 years, liberty finally sent up a small , fragile bloom from a bloody ground.

Well not for the Negros, of course.
Or for the Redskins.
Or for women.
MAX HATS Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Is this a joke? Is there a running “how crazy can I sound” competition going on this blog that I do not know about?
E. O'Neal Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Max Hats, he’s a great orator. He loses altitude when the teleprompter is turned off, but as long as it’s on, he can intone with the best of them. If we were having an American Idol contest for best speechifier, I’d put all my money on Barry.

America, though, is auditioning for a president. Your guy is just not a credible commander-in-chief. You Dems should have vetted him better.
Don Williams Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“MORPHEUS: Do you want to know what it is? The Matrix is everywhere, it’s all around us, even here in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
NEO: What truth?
MORPHEUS: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage. Born inside a prison that you cannot smell, or taste, or touch. A prison for your mind.”
MAX HATS Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
America prefers a woman who kills her own food to a man who prances around on stage chanting, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”. They just can’t see Washington, Lincoln, TR, Harry Truman, JFK or any other president carrying on in such a comically grandiose manner.

he’s a great orator. He loses altitude when the teleprompter is turned off, but as long as it’s on, he can intone with the best of them.

So he’s a “great orator” who “prances,” “carrying on” in a “comically grandiose manner.” Sure, and I’m a great runner who lunges in a haphazard, uneven pace. What are you, some sort of wanna be hack? That’s. . .sad.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
The Situationists predated “The Matrix” by, oh, forty years. They called it “The Spectacle”.

But, like Chiun said, “Where are they now?”

The reality is that guns are tools, like computers. They’re only as useful as their possessors. And unfortunately for this country, the electorate are a bunch of well-fed, sloth-like pussies who will never use their tools to change the system.

In other words, might as well take their guns away from them – they aren’t going to use them anyway.

And that leaves more guns for us who will.
Don Williams Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Re Richard’s comment “In other words, might as well take their guns away from them – they aren’t going to use them anyway.

And that leaves more guns for us who will.”
————–
Richard. Richard. Richard.
I agree with you about the “well-fed, sloth-like pussies” but how are you going to find guns to steal if pussies don’t own them?

Wouldn’t you rather break into the home of someone like SLC than have to try to rip off a Crips member or a cop?

After all, only a moron uses a registered firearm. Well, except for hunting and legal protection of the home. (A stolen gun or one bought on the street has a history which you don’t know –so if you are caught with it,even legally, you are rolling the dice on what they will find in the databases.)

Oh, I forgot. This is academic for you, no?
Ed Marshall Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Wayne LaPierre ranted about “jackbooted federal thugs” at Waco

I’m not sure what he specifically said about Waco (I can make an educated guess), but the “jackbooted thugs” comment dates back to George the Elder and he dropped out of the NRA over over it. Maybe he was a bit ahead of his time but it would be nice to have an actual organization that thought federal law enforcement is out of control (because it really, really, is), that was something other than a republican fluff machine.
E. O'Neal Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Max Hats, I find him unlistenable, but the talking heads say he’s a great orator, so I am deferring to their expertise. The other part is my observation. I’ve heard a lot of people who might be inclined to vote Democrat comment on his over-the-top grandiosity. What plays well in the liberal part of the Democrat electorate (the people who’ve been waiting for themselves) doesn’t play as well with the lunch-pail Democrats and Independents. BHO got so caught up in the adoration of his followers that he overlooked this fact. Now he’s trying to figure out what went wrong and lashing out desperately at America’s newest sweetheart. Which makes him look really bad.
Helen Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I’m an Obama supporter, and I think that his failure to “get” the gun issue is contributing importantly to his current downtick in the polls. Neither Barack Obama nor most other Democratic politicians will attract the votes of the most extreme gunowners: those who join the Gunowners of America, or who are convinced that the Second Amendment is the only thing warding off tyranny. But, the Democratic party could attract the votes of the majority of gunowners — and even a large number of NRA members — if they would simply take the time to understand the gun issue and address the most seriously abusive current laws.

First of all, most NRA members don’t join because of politics. The NRA’s Institute of Legal Action (ILA) is their political and lobbying arm. Most gunowners just aren’t that interested, unless their personal ability to purchase firearms is directly threatened. Most members join because their local gun club is NRA-affiliated, and they want to be able to shoot in NRA-sanctioned competitions and take advantage of NRA training. The sporting shooting and training activities of the NRA are far more extensive than their lobbying and political activities.

Another thing most democratic politicians seem to refuse to understand is that “sport shooters” are not synonymous with “hunters.” There are many, many more target shooters than there are hunters. As soon as a politician starts talking about “hunting” when discussing gun issues, it’s an immediate dead giveaway that he does not know what he’s talking about.

What most gunowners would like to see is a commitment to keeping the firearms that they use for sporting purposes available, and a workable approach to restoring the availability of sporting firearms to those living in states where they are not available (under state law.) How many Democratic politicians are even aware that, until very recently, the State of Massachusetts prohibited the sale of Olympic-style target pistols? The MIT pistol team — probably the best college team in the country — could not legally purchase new pistols. How many Democratic politicians are aware that Massachusetts still prohibits the sale of single action revolvers, which are used in Cowboy Action Shooting? There is no legal way for a resident of Massachusetts to purchase the type of firearm required for this shooting discipline — even if he wants to store it in a secure safe at his out-of-state gun club. And, of course, until the recent Supreme Court decision, no resident of the District of Columbia could hope to be able to participate in the shooting sports — again, even if he simply wanted to keep his pistol in a safe at his gun club in Virginia.

State-level laws can make sporting firearms unavailable to their residents because the Gun Control Act of 1968 restricts people to purchasing firearms within their state of residence. This is true even if the purchaser never intends to bring the firearm into the state where it’s prohibited. This is why the statement “What works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago” rings so hollow. If a particular firearm cannot be sold in Illinois, the Chicago resident cannot obtain it legally and keep it at his summer place in Cheyenne.

The politician who demonstrates that he understands this and commits himself to finding a way to make sporting firearms available to target shooters wherever they live (even if they must store them away from home) will pick up a lot of support from target shooters. It shouldn’t be that tough — a change in the 1968 law to provide for federal registration of an out-of state purchase, and notification to the State Police in the state of residence. (It would probably prompt a letter from the State Police to the purchaser that he could not bring the firearm into the state.) But any acknowledgment at all from the Democrats of the frustrating situation for sport shooters in some states would be very, very welcome.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Don, you know as well as I do that if guns are outlawed, there will be a massive black market in them. More people than ever will buy them just because they’re outlawed. It will be like drugs – available on every street corner. And what weapons aren’t being smuggled into the US will be supplied from every US military stock available in bases all over the country. Supply sergeants will be selling them out of the back of 2-1/2 ton trucks on the street.

As I’ve said before, go ahead – ban guns. That will guarantee their availability to anyone who wants one.

Oh, and as for registered guns. I robbed a bank with a gun purchased under my own name. As long as I’m not caught, who cares? If I am caught, I got worse problems than being caught with an licensed or unlicensed gun. It’s a mandatory five years just for using a gun in a crime in this country – and that’s for the first offense. It goes to ten years on the second offense. Rob two banks with a gun – instead of one like I did – and get twenty years easy.

If we’re talking about fighting against the government, how many years do you think you’d get just for doing that with a baseball bat? The gun laws are irrelevant.

As the Arabs say, “When you challenge the prince, you must draw your sword and fling the scabbard as far away from you as you can.” In other words, once you decide to take up arms against the state, you go for broke.

Me, I know that it isn’t necessary to use guns any more – not when technology is the greatest weapon. But the principle remains – there is no second chance.
Ed Marshall Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 1:30 am
There are many, many more target shooters than there are hunters.

Seriously? That’s massively counter-intuitive to me. I’m not disagreeing, I don’t much give a piss about gun laws. I do think the current concealed-carry juggernaut that’s running through state legislatures is going to look about as smart in GWB talking up the economy on home ownership being up right before everyone got foreclosed on in a few year.

Maybe I’m blinkered by my own experience, but I know way, way, more hunters than I do sport shooters. I know one sports shooter. I know three people who hunt squirrel and actually eat them. I’m sort of ashamed to admit I’m related to all of them, but I can’t imagine them being outnumbered by target shooters.
Luke Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Helen–whatever happened to being the states’ rights party?

There are more people injured by gunshots in New York than there are registered gun owners in Wyoming. I just made that up, but it sounds good, and gets to my point.

The progressive argument ISN’T all that concerned about sport shooting (or hunting), it’s concerned about people dying. I understand that shooting is fun, it’s just done with toys that kill a whole lot of people. It’s more than a little heartless to argue that your fun is more important than people’s lives. A couple years ago in Cincinnati, a thug got his hands on an AK-47 and killed 7 people in 2 days. Thankfully, our thugs are usually too poor to afford assault weapons, but if they’re able to get them we get a lot more bodies.

The moderate argument, to which I largely subscribe, is that gun laxity should be like speed limits: higher some places than others.
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Incredible site!
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
viagra
Eckard Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Outstanding post and blog…..I’m very impressed with all the usefull information here! fat loss 4 idiots
Jasso Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Outstanding post and blog…..I’m very impressed with all the usefull information here! fat loss 4 idiots
Scruggs Says:
April 20th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Idk whether to laugh or cry…

Matt Yglesias

NRA vs. Obama

47 Responses to “NRA vs. Obama”

Blogroll