Most everyone is aware of the effort by Senate Republicans in Colorado to repeal Colorado’s post-Sandy Hook gun control laws. That effort runs into issues in the Democratically controlled house, and then finally with Governor Hickenlooper. So you’d think of the Democrats conceded that maybe they went too far, and they’d be willing to consider a bill that would ease the magazine ban to 30 rounds, you’d jump at that right?
“It is unforgivable that it is RMGO and not Michael Bloomberg keeping me from buying a 30-round magazine,” Caldara said Friday. “Just as every gun owner needs to know who was behind the terrible gun laws in 2013 — Bloomberg and Gov. John Hickenlooper — every gun owner needs to know that Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is stopping a huge step toward fixing it.”
Dudley is holding out for full repeal, suggesting the Dems need to repeal the law or “face the election consequences in 2016.”
First, I’d never be that confident that the 2016 elections are going to go our way. If the GOP fails to take back the Colorado House, you’re probably stuck with the 15 round limit, unless the courts come through, which I also would not count on. If Colorado stays in Democratic hands through the 2020 census, there’s a very good chance there is no saving the state at all, and it’ll continue to get worse.
On the other hand, 30 rounds is on the table now, which would mean the vast majority of magazines people tend to own in Colorado would be legal. It would render the magazine law essentially meaningless, which would mean getting the other half of the pie later would be an easier sell. If the GOP does prevail in 2016, well, then you’re one step closer to full repeal already. I just don’t see any downside to taking the House Dems up on their offer.
Rep. Jon Keyser (never returned the NRA questionnaire
OK, I’d give Dudley challenging Keyser, and maybe Willett depending on whether or not that district can support a better candidate, or whether replacing him with a stronger gun rights candidate would throw the race to an anti-gun Democrat. I don’t know the district. But the first three are solid people on the issue, who perhaps voted against the maneuver because once you unleash a weapon like that, you invite your opposition to use it on you. There is a reason deliberative bodies have procedures.
We all want the magazine ban completely gone. But we can get 95% of the way there now, or hold off and rely on vague hopes that things will go as well or better for the GOP as they did in 2014. I’m for taking what we can get now. This no compromise stuff just doesn’t work in the real world. If Dudley were really the powerhouse he claims to be, and if he were truly a strategic genius, Colorado would never be in this mess in the first place.
It’s really not often you’ll find me agreeing with the Internet trolls at Media Matters, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Media Matters linked to a portion of Wayne’s Speech at the NRA Annual Meeting, which I must have missed when we skipped out to cover the MDA protest. Here’s video for the context:
Wayne was quoted saying, “eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough,” in the context of Hillary Clinton following Barack Obama into the presidency. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Why bother with the dog whistle? Just come out and say “We don’t need another affirmative action token President,” and be done with it, because isn’t that what was really said?
What speechwriter of Waynes’s thought it was a good idea to put that jab in there? How did Wayne, who presumably might have practiced the delivery once or twice, not realize how this is going to sound to blacks, hispanics, and women? Are Ben Carson or Bobby Jundal “demographically symbolic?” Or what about Marco Rubio, Suzana Martinez, or Carly Fiorina, all of whom might throw their hat into the ring themselves, or be a sensible veep picks. It’s not just Republicans either. What about Democratic Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clark? At what point does one become merely “demographically symbolic?” I don’t understand the rules for this.
I am not coming at this from the same angle as Media Matters, because I don’t want to give NRA or Wayne a black eye; I want them to be more effective. I don’t believe this error is going to take down the NRA, and I don’t believe Wayne is a racist or sexist. His very capable executive assistant, who essentially runs his office, is a female minority. Whoever wrote or reviewed that speech made a very serious lapse in judgement. Before folks comment that I’m just tooling for the politically correct junta, and that there isn’t anything wrong with saying things that imply White Male Conservatives need to be in charge, there’s a bit of reality you need to understand.
One is that the issue has made tremedous progress among women. Each year there are more women and families on the NRA Annual Meeting show floor than the previous year. Bitter even brought out her brother’s whole family this year, since they live in the Nashville area. Where women go, families follow. It is very important to appeal to women, and dog whistling to white males is not how accomplish that.
Second, this issue has to reach out to blacks and hispanics, and win them over. You’ll hear criticism of NRA for not getting involved in the immigration issue. I agree they should not, because even if you stopped the flow of illegal immigrants completely, hispanics are still going to grow as a share of the voting public for the simple reason that they are having children at a greater rate compared to other demographics. You will not fix this problem with even perfect border control, only delay the inevitable.
NRA has no choice: it must reach out to women, blacks and hispanics if it wishes to secure the long term health of the Second Amendment. Polling among these groups show we have a base of understanding that we can use to get the conversation moving. Statements like Wayne’s not only don’t help us achieve our goals, but serve to reinforce the notion that NRA is an organization for White Male Conservatives. The implication is even stronger when Wayne makes that statement on a stage where the only people visible are other White Male Conservatives. NRA hasn’t had a female President since Sandy Froman left the stage eight years ago. Despite a huge influx of women into the issue, I don’t notice the nominating committe reaching out to try to attract more women on the Board.
If in ten to twenty years NRA is only an organization for White Male Conservatives, the NRA will become an irrelevant organization.
I’m told that Glenn Beck is walking back his NRA comments from last week on his radio show today, which is good. Grover Norquist announced that he welcomes NRA’s investigation. Like I said, I have mixed feelings about DC insiders on the NRA Board, but I do have to admit that David Keene fits that definition, and I thought during the worst of Sandy Hook he was quite an elegant speaker on behalf of the cause. But what bothered me about Beck’s statement was that it showed a lack of understanding about how NRA picks its board, and showed a willingness to hurt the organization over tangential issues. I should note that distinct from arguing NRA is too soft, etc. That’s a separate argument.
At this point, there is no control NRA can exercise over whether Grover Norquist wins or loses. The only control really is through the nominating committee, and that is largely a board entity. That ship sailed in January. Grover’s future on the NRA board is now exclusively in the hands of voting members. Second it’s over an issue that has no relationship whatsoever to NRA’s mission. Even if the accusation is true, I don’t see how one board member out of 76 is going to help accomplish a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the NRA. I agree with the reader who commented that he didn’t see the Muslim Brotherhood end game here.
There are dozens of people who are on the NRA board I wish weren’t, but it’s never been something I’ve thought worth quitting over. I just don’t vote for those people. If all Glenn Beck did was encourage his audience to not vote for Grover, I’d think that a perfectly productive way to deal with the issue. It’s the threat to quit, and by influence having members of his audience follow that I took issue with.
Beck said in a letter on the NRA political action group’s website that NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre is “taking this very seriously” and is beginning an “open and transparent investigation into these alleged ties.”
Beck’s accusation is that Norquist has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which seems rather fantastic to me, even if I’m not Grover’s biggest fan. But one thing I am definitely not a fan of is letting Glenn Beck dictate terms to the NRA. Yes, he has a large audience. I’ve been present at meetings of a local gun rights group where dozens of “Agenda 21″ whack jobs pummeled a local politician with that nonsense when the guy came to discuss gun rights. I do not think Beck is good for the conservative movement, and I believe NRA would be better off without those kinds of followers. I don’t want one man to have the ability to decide who will and won’t be on NRA’s Board.
The correct thing to do here is to tell Beck to get bent and stop hiring him to do NRA activities. If he quits, he quits. If his followers quit, let them quit. I want an NRA composed of people who support gun rights, and support it to the hilt. If you’re going to quit because you think Norquist might be a secret muslim because he married a Palestinian woman, I don’t need your “help.” If hating on muslims, or anyone who has any contact with them, is more important to you than gun rights, you don’t really believe in gun rights. If you don’t want Grover Norquist on the Board of NRA, then don’t vote for him. If other members still manage to push him over the top, and you quit NRA over it, then pardon me if I don’t question your dedication to the Second Amendment.
I don’t ordinarily do anti-endorsements for NRA Board members, but I have been known to make exceptions. This is one of those exceptions: It’s time for Ted Nugent to be off the NRA Board of Directors, now that he’s doubled down on his previous statement of calling President Obama a “subhuman mongrel.” I get that the term “racist” is being thrown around so casually these days for things that aren’t racist, that its meaning has been debased as a word used to describe actual racism. But I believe this is actual racism.
Usually we use the word “mongrel,” to describe a dog which is mixed breed. We currently have a President who is half-white and half-black. So how exactly, Ted Nugent, is calling Obama a “subhuman mongrel,” essentially comparing him to a mixed bred dog, not racist? According to the dictionary, this term has a history enough of racist use to be noted as such. If a Nazi said the same thing about a half-jew, would you give them a pass on the racist thing? I think most of us wouldn’t. There are plenty of ways to insult this president without having to drag his race and ethnicity into it.
What Ted Nugent said here is absolutely racist, and he should have apologized for it rather than doubling down. Get off my side Ted Nugent! The only way this is going to happen is if NRA members stop voting for him.
Years ago, when I had more time and money to spend a lot of time in DC, I was involved in a range day at Quantico Shooting Club for a major “conservative” (i.e. really libertarian) charitable foundation, and all but a few who attended were completely new to firearms. There were a lot of smiling faces by the end of the day. I am convinced of the value of this kind of thing, even when we would ordinarily think we’re preaching to the choir.
But I do have to say, I’m amused that NRA has who appears to be Lars Dalseide of NRA Blog fame wear a suit even on the range.
Come into he 21st century guys! Kakis and a button up or polo has been the business fashion since at least the 90s. Click on the photo to see the rest of the photos.
It looks like the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation has nominated NRA for a Luddite Award? Why? For opposing smart gun technology. I doubt that ITIF really understands the issue very much, or even comprehends the opposition. It just seems backwards to them, probably. Who could stand in the way of such progress?
I had never heard of this outfit until I found this, but I’d encourage folks to go vote for something else, lest our opposition get to make a media story out of it, to help their efforts to shove smart gun technology down everyone’s throats, whether the market wants it or not.
As a technology worker, I’m getting really tired of people in technology opining about things from a position of ignorance. But we’re dealing with a DC based K-street think tank non-profit, and if you look at a few of the backgrounds of the key players, they aren’t real tech people. These are a bunch of DC insider types.
I stopped watching The Daily Show a long time ago, because Stewart is a partisan hack that plays the “I’m just a comedian” card any time someone challenges him on his hackery, or lack of command of the issues. So I wasn’t surprised to see Stewart mocking NRA for opposing the Obama Administration’s ivory ban.
Ivory has been illegal to import since 1990. What the Obama Administration has done is to shift the burden of proof to owner to prove that the ivory in question was imported before 1990. This means if you’re selling an antique or pre-ban guns with ivory, Fish and Wildlife Service can come arrest you and then only later drop charges if you can prove the provenance of the ivory (the ivory, mind you, not necessary the gun it’s on) to the satisfaction of FWS officials.
Did Stuart or his writers ever stop to think that a lot of old and antique guns have ivory grips, or ivory as part of their furniture? Do they realize that old and historic power horns are made of ivory? Sure, there are plenty who have a proven pedigree, but how many people have old family heirlooms that aren’t papered? That’s why NRA, along with a lot of musicians (who supposedly Stewart doesn’t think are crazy) opposes the Administration on this ban. This is not even considering the effects it will have on grandfathered pieces in the hunting community.
Obama’s proposal is radical, and upends the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty, but Stewart is so ignorant, he and his writers don’t even realize what this measure does. NRA is right to oppose it. So are musicians. Guilty until proven innocent is not the American way, and I fully expect NRA to oppose laws which make it easy for gun owners to end up in prison.
This is an unusually good piece with Wayne LaPierre. He often comes across as kind of wooden and teleprompted. But this is pretty good:
And I can’t argue with the message. This election is the first major election where we get to express our disapproval of the politicians who sided with Bloomberg and conspired to punish us for the actions of a madman in Newtown, CT. There’s a good chance we can get both Hickenlooper and Malloy tomorrow, but that isn’t going to happen unless we vote.
Candidate X or candidate Y may not be ideal, but punishment first. We’ll deal with the new boss’s issues in time.