search
top

Those Ineffective NRA Weenies

We are told the NRA are a bunch of ineffective weenies, who do nothing to fight for our gun rights, and exhibit demonstrably poor leadership on the issue.  Demonstrably poor leadership like capitalizing on Holder’s gaffe to actually ram a repeal of an “assault weapons” ban though an overwhelmingly Democratic controlled Senate.  It’s a local repeal, but if this passes the House in tact, and is signed by Obama, it’ll be legal to buy an AR-15 in DC with just a 4473 and NICS check.

The benefit of this, even if the gun rights language does not survive the conference committee, has been to force Senators, and soon House members, to put their cards on the table.  This lets us know far better where we stand in the 111th Congress than we did before.  Let’s look at some of our yes votes that were unexpected:

  • Bayh (D-IN) – Not always friendly to guns, but voted with us.
  • Bennet (D-CO) – We knew nothing about Bennet’s position on guns before this.
  • Byrd (D-WV) – Byrd can be tricky on guns sometimes.  He was with us on this.
  • Conrad (D-ND) – Not expected.  Good news.
  • Dorgan (D-ND) – Also not expected.
  • Feingold (D-WI)- Expected, but also can be tricky on guns.
  • Gregg (R-NH) – He stuck with his fellow Republicans.  We applaud him.
  • Hagan (D-NC) – F rated, so this is a real surprise.
  • Landrieu (D-LA) – Very good for this C rated Senator.
  • Lincoln (D-AR) – Excellent.
  • McCaskill (D-MO) – Pleasant surprise.  F rated and AHSA endorsed.
  • Pryor (D-AR) – Surprise
  • Reid (D-NV) – Expected, but worthwhile to point out Reid is mostly pro-gun.
  • Udall (D-CO) – Pleasant surprise
  • Udall (D-NM) – Pleasant surprise
  • Snowe (R-ME) – Held with party.  Unexpected.
  • Specter (R-PA) – Expected, but likes to split with Rs often.
  • Collins (R-ME) – Held with party. Unexpected.

Notables in the no column were Dick Lugar, the only Republican to vote against this, and Kirsten Gillibrand, who has now clearly calculated to retreat on gun rights a bit.  This is not to say the vote will be identical if an semi-auto ban comes up.  We’ll lose some of these yes votes, who represent politicians trying to split the middle on guns on an issue important to NRA, but not likely to be noted too heavily by the folks back home.  But we got the Senate on record, and soon the House.  That is tremendously valuable to us heading into the 2010 midterms.  We have to pick up pro-gun seats in 2010.  Don’t for a minute believe politicians like Obama, Pelosi, and their ilk won’t kneecap us at the earliest opportunity. The votes aren’t there right now, and we have to keep things that way.

For now, things are looking better than I thought. Congress didn’t just run from Holder’s remarks, they got in the car and peeled out in the opposite direction, choking him on burnt rubber.  This is not behavior politicians exhibit toward an ineffectual organization, especially after such a stunning blow in 2008.  But you know what?  I don’t credit NRA for this. They were just willing to exploit it on The Hill.  The credit goes to the millions of people getting active, buying guns, buying ammo, renewing their NRA memberships, getting concealed carry licenses, and generally engaging in activities that make politicians take notice.  NRA is nothing without engaged members, and at the end of the day, that’s what the politicians are really afraid of.  Let’s keep it that way.

21 Responses to “Those Ineffective NRA Weenies”

  1. Tom says:

    This is tacked onto the unconstitutional representative for DC crap, right?

    So when that goes to the courts, what then? Assuming the sham of courts remain to lull the sheep back to sleep.

    Look, if DC folks are that ticked off about taxation without representation, let the lightbringer fund relocation for those who DO care, and use the city as one big ex-con settlement. They’ll fit right in with the rest of the damn criminals there.

  2. Sebastian says:

    When it goes to court, it will be the section that deals with giving DC representation that will be at issue. The gun rights language is severable from that, so it will stand.

  3. FatWhiteMan says:

    “NRA is nothing without engaged members, and at the end of the day, that’s what the politicians are really afraid of. Let’s keep it that way.”

    We need every member to just recruit two more. Imagine how scary 12 million would be to the libtards.

    If Paul Helmke’s group all recruited two more, they would have like maybe 118 tops.

  4. HA! “choking him on burnt rubber.” That’s a geat line. Just one more reason I enjoy reading this blog.

  5. Scott in Phx Az says:

    It is sad that there are a lot of vocal gun-owners who won’t be a member of the NRA because the NRA doesn’t do exactly or take exactly the position they want them too.

    Foolish people are only hurting their own cause.

    Whether you’re a pragamatist, a fudd, a 3%er, or just gun-nut, if you are not a dues paying member of the NRA you are not doing ALL you can do to help.

    That doesn’t mean some (or even many) non-members are not doing a lot to help our common cause. I applaud them.

    So, be a 3per, or a fudd, or a “nut”, but join the NRA. Join GOA too and JFPO too if you want more voices in the fight. Great. If we had 10 million DUES paying members of any of the gun-rights organizations the fight would much easier. But too many gun-owners would rather come up with an excuse to save $35 a year.

    In truth it is probably the cheapest, quickest way, to have a real impact in the fight.

  6. Sebastian says:

    I agree completely Scott.

  7. Homer says:

    I’m throw down a challenge. Here are two commetns from above:

    “We need every member to just recruit two more. Imagine how scary 12 million would be to the libtards ” FatWhiteMan

    “But too many gun-owners would rather come up with an excuse to save $35 a year”. Scott in Phx

    My pledge:
    I will find, within the next month, one gun owner who is not an NRA member and offer to pay his or her annual dues for one year if they will commit to paying them for the second year.

    If they prefer to not join the NRA, but will join Gun Owners of America or the Second Amendment Foundation I’ll pay those dues instead.

    Yes, money is tight. So is our freedom.

    Who’s with me?

  8. Jonathan says:

    Homer,

    I’ll take that challenge. I’m an NRA member, but many of my gun owning friends aren’t. Time to do some convincing.

  9. Nick says:

    So can residents of DC now purchase title II weapons, assuming that theres a class 3 dealer in there (which there probably isn’t.)? I mean has DC really just become the lowest ranked area on the Brady’s list, is it really a 0% now?

  10. Sebastian says:

    NFA items are still illegal in DC.

  11. Milquetoast says:

    I’d prefer people not vote for something that seems to be blatantly unconstitutional law just because it might be tacked onto a good law and the bad part will probably be struck down. I thought McCain-Feingold would be ruled unconstitutional. I think it can be a dangerous game.

    Hopefully, Lugar and Gillibrand acted out of a principle against bad laws (especially since ceding DC’s residential areas to MD & VA seems like such an obvious solution – sorry, MD & VA) and not an aversion to fixing DC.

    (btw my Plan B is to convince Congress to recognize my house as the District of Milquetoast and then get my own Representative and (unlike DC) a pair of Senators.)

  12. Homer says:

    Had to chime in again. I suffer from the rare condition known as “Native Washingtonian.” Born in D.C., grew up there, graduated from college there, worked there for decades, parents are buried there. Now live elsewhere.

    Everytime the issue of voting representation for D.C. comes up I am reminded that there is not a single person being held at gunpoint and forced to live in D.C., save those suffering incarceration. The District of Columbia was created, as required by the constitution (Article 1, Section 8) from land previously controlled by Maryland and Virginia (mostly Maryland), to serve as the seat of the United States government, and as such, is under the purview of the U.S. Congress. Both Maryland and Virginia, historically and currently, exist as independent states, and are geograhically continguous to the District of Columbia. There is no point in the District of Columbia farther than 7.2 miles from the border of either Maryland or Virginia.

    Both Maryland and Virginia have multiple neighborhoods of varying economic and social strata, ranging from exlusive enclaves to impoverished ghettos, statewide and within 5 miles of the District of Columbia. Within these neighborhoods are residential structures of various designs, from apartments to single family homes; in some neighborhoods local, state and federal government agencies provide taxpayer-funded assistance to meet the financial obligations of rent and/or mortgage. At present, all of these neighborhoods are served by varying forms of public transportation, and all are accessible by private vehicle, all of which allow transport to and from the geographic are defined by the border of the District of Columbia. Additionally, all have, in varying degrees of convenience, multiple forms of electronic communication and all are served by the United States Postal Service.

    Both Maryland and Virginia have two U.S. Senators each who maintain offices in, and adjacent to, the U.S. Capitol as well as in various locations within Maryland and Virginia. Those offices have regular deliveries of mail from the United States Post Office, are equipped with telephones and, now, internet connenctions, and may be visited in person, utilizing the transportation system(s) mentioned above.

    Both Maryland and Virginia also have Congressional Representatives who maintain offices in, and adjacent to, the U.S. Capitol as well as in various locations within Maryland and Virginia to serve their constituents who reside in the geographic areas known as “Congressional Districts” within Maryland and Virginia.

    Additionally, there are 48 other dtates, all of which have two Senators and a certain number of Congressional Representives. While these 48 states are not contiguous to the District of Columbia, all are equipped with, in varying degrees of convenience, telephones, the internet, telegraph, roads, trains and airports. All, in varying degrees of convenience, allow for communication and transport across these media and thoroughfares. It is my understanding that the thoroughfares of 49 states connect, in varying degrees of convenience, with thoroughfares in the District of Columbia, allowing for personal travel to any point within the borders of the District of Columbia from any point within the 50 states. One state – Hawaii – may be physically reached only by air or sea navigation, and surface travel from one other – Alaska – involves international travel through Canada.

    I am not aware of any of the 50 states which disallow, by statute or practice, establishment of residences within their borders by people who previously resided within the District of Columbia.

    I am also not aware of any of the 50 states which disallow voting for Congressional Representatives or U.S. Senators by residents of that particular state who retain sufficient civil rights to allow participation in the voting process and subsequent selection of Congressional Representaives and U.S.Senators (before you challenge this, understand that states run the election process for all state and federal offices, not the federal government).

    So, if one desires representation in Congress, I suggest that is best achieved by establishing residence in one of the 50 states which has already established the rpesence of Congressional Representatives and Senators within the District of Columbia.

  13. JD says:

    Homer said:
    “Who’s with me?”

    I was with you before you posted this Homer. I “encouraged” most of my gun owning friends to join NRA with in the last year. By my last count I got 12 to volunteer and bought my Boss a year membership.
    I can’t get everyone I know to sign up but I’m not giving up on them either. NRA membership is swelling and I love it.

  14. Harold Pierson says:

    if this is ineffective then we need to magnify the NRA’s ineffectiveness about 100 percent.
    I wonder if anyone has done an economic analysis, what SPECIFIC industries or manufacturers are actually growing? My bet is on the entire firearms industry.

  15. Xrlq says:

    Hagan (D-NC) – F rated, so this is a real surprise.

    Huh? Her campaign site claimed a B rating.

  16. Xrlq says:

    So can residents of DC now purchase title II weapons, assuming that theres a class 3 dealer in there (which there probably isn’t.)?

    Dunno, but this bill would allow DC residents to buy guns in Virginia. I’m pretty sure there are Class 3 dealers there.

  17. Bitter says:

    Her campaign site claimed a B rating.

    It says she at earned it at one time. My guess would be that she had a B at one point, but cast bad votes or made bad pledges. Her rating during the US Senate campaign was F according to the NRA PVF website.

  18. Xrlq says:

    Got a link for that? The most recent I can find is 2006.

  19. Xrlq says:

    Never mind, I found it. Still a bit hazy as to what she (or any NC legislator) could have done between 2006 and 2008 to merit such a radical change. I’m not aware of any major gun laws that were seriously considered during that period (though in fairness, I was only here for the second half of that period).

  20. Turner says:

    I am a bit confused over this blind support for the NRA. Did the NRA not help get Holder confirmed by promising not to change the rating of politicians who voted for him?

    The answer to the question is yes. The NRA let it be known that it would not hold it against politicians who voted to confirm Holder. Now that just doesn’t seem like an organization that claims to support gunowners.

  21. Sebastian says:

    Turner, I have laid out in great detail previously as to why NRA did not count the Holder nomination as a “key” vote. It is not blind support of NRA. I support what works, and most of the time NRA gets the job done.

    There wasn’t going to be any defeating Holder. Look at the margin he was approved by. Only a few people voted no. NRA wasn’t going to be able to change that number in any great detail, and even if they could, there was another asshole lined up right behind Holder that Obama would have nominated.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Effectiveness - [...] Geez, getting bills signed into law through the legislative process. Stupid pragmatists. [...]
top