NRA gambles and loses

The National Rifle Association weighs in on all kinds of legislation and rates lawmakers on their votes. But they have never made an issue of a Supreme Court nominee–until now.

The National Rifle Association’s threat to punish senators who vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been met with a shrug by Democrats from conservative-leaning states and some Republicans who are breaking with their party to support her.

The gun-rights group is used to getting its way by spooking lawmakers about the political consequences of defying its wishes. But it never before has weighed in on a Supreme Court confirmation battle. It was cautious about breaking that pattern, and it looks like a losing fight to defeat President Barack Obama’s first pick for the court.

Does this mean that lawmakers have decided not to be bullied by gun lobbyists? Or maybe they finally realize only a very small number of their constituents really give a damn what the NRA says.

,

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on August 3, 2009 - 6:18 pm

    The NRA’s gig is up. They wasted tons of money trying to defeat Obama and just look like losers these days. It’s just another group who’s political ties to the Republican party have been over-hyped to explain stolen elections; just like “Soccer moms”, Nascar fans, “security moms”, ranchers, Christians…

    You name it!

    Can I prove it. Heck no!

  2. #2 by mikeb302000 on August 4, 2009 - 3:02 am

    I sure hope you’re right about that, Becky. And you very well could be. I often suspect the comments on my blog are a microcosm of sorts representing the entire gun movement. The tendency to spin and distort, to selectively quote statistics, to continually fall back on the 2nd Amendment, and the best one of all, to Biblically justify their position, all leads me to think they’re very insecure and must resort to all these tricks in order to compensate for that.

    Further evidence that something’s not exactly right is the common tendency of resorting to name calling and personal attacks. People who are in the right don’t have to do that.

    On the other hand, I’ve had the pleasure to know some true gentlemen, guys who sincerely believe what their doing and don’t resort to these behaviors. But, unfortunately these are the exception.

    What my commenters do in our little microcosm is a reflection of what the NRA and the Gun Lobby do on the national level. Hopefully, as you say, this bluffing and bullying will not continue to work for them much longer.

    • #3 by Bob S. on August 4, 2009 - 8:00 am

      MikeB,

      You are a coward! I ask for comments on my blog about these subjects and you don’t comment there because you can’t moderate the comments. You might have to defend your position or hear people say mean things about the inanity of your statements so you don’t address the issues.

      You stated that I was “pathetic” for using the bible to defend my position on self defense…when I only responded to a direct question by another of your commenters.

      When I addressed the biblical basis of my beliefs, you ducked the issue. Am I not allowed to have a scriptural basis for my beliefs?

      The tendency to spin and distort, to selectively quote statistics, to continually fall back on the 2nd Amendment,

      Wow, what ignorance displayed in one statement!!
      Spin and distort? We provide the citation and source for our statistics. Show that they are spun or distorted!! You can’t.

      To selectively quote statistics? You’ve got to be kidding me. Look that the work Linoge did in his graphic. That isn’t selectively quoting anything. It is providing the evidence to refute statements you’ve made!! You said More Guns = more deaths. Heck, it’s been said here by others also. Show how that is selectively quoting statistics Sparky!!

      We provide statistics and facts…you make up things out of thin air then act all hurt when we ask for evidence. Grow up!

      to continually fall back on the 2nd Amendment

      Just like you continually fall back on your 1st amendment rights to say absolutely asinine statements?? We have that right, we are done compromising, we are done meeting in the middle.

      Further evidence that something’s not exactly right is the common tendency of resorting to name calling and personal attacks. People who are in the right don’t have to do that.

      You don’t like the fact that we call you on your lies and call you a liar when you make absolutely untrue statements. That is the personal attacks you don’t like! That and making a valid analogy about your responsibility for child porn. When are you going to address that responsibility, eh Sparky?

      Hopefully, as you say, this bluffing and bullying will not continue to work for them much longer.

      Zogby/O’Leary asked voters:

      “Would you support or oppose a U.S. Senator who voted to confirm a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense?”

      Fifty-two percent of American voters would oppose the re-election of any Senator who votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Only 26 percent of voters would support such a Senator

      Yep, our “bluffing’ and ‘bullying’ won’t work much longer.

      “Currently, 39 states have laws that allow residents to carry firearms to protect themselves, only if they pass a background check and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Most of those states also require applicants to have firearms safety training. Do you support or oppose this law?”

      An overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) support concealed-carry laws, while only 11 percent oppose them. A majority of Independent voters (86 percent), Democrats (80 percent), young voters age 18-29 (83 percent), Hispanic voters (80 percent), and those who voted for President Obama (80 percent) support the right to carry a firearm.

  3. #4 by mike w. on August 4, 2009 - 5:49 am

    They look like losers these days?

    Tell me, what major gun control laws have the Brady Campaign been successful in pushing?

    We have an anti-gun president and anti-gun Dem leadership in Congress and we’ve managed some major victories even with the odds stacked against us.

    BTW, the NRA actually has money and grassroots support. That’s more than I can say for the gun control crowd.

  4. #5 by Cliff Lyon on August 4, 2009 - 6:44 am

    btw: The Brady Campaign has over TEN letters in it! That more than I can say for the NRA. It only has three.

  5. #6 by mike w. on August 4, 2009 - 7:32 am

    Sarcasm instead of a substantive response. Nice.

    The fact remains that the anti-gunners have a fraction of the grassroots support (and subsequent revenue) that the NRA and other pro-gun groups do.

  6. #7 by Bob S. on August 4, 2009 - 8:01 am

    Becky,

    What happened to the promise you made to highlight positive uses of firearms on this site?

  7. #8 by jdberger on August 4, 2009 - 9:30 am

    California’s Assault Weapons law has been mooted.

    DC’s handgun ban has been overturned.

    39 States provided for CCW.

    CCW in National Parks passed.

    58 Senators voted for Nat’l CCW reciprocity.

    Utah allows CCW on college campuses.

    HR 45 and 1022 are dead.

    Guns and ammo are flying off store shelves.

    Prop H was overturned in San Francisco.

    Morton Grove repealed their handgun ban.

    Heller.

    Nordyke.

    Sorry, Becky. What where you saying about the NRA?

  8. #9 by Becky Stauffer on August 4, 2009 - 10:23 am

    JD,

    I’m saying the NRA was not successful in intimidating lawmakers in the vote for Sotomayor. Did you not read my post?

  9. #10 by jdberger on August 4, 2009 - 10:58 am

    Sorry, Becky. I did read your post but I must have combined it with Crazy Larry’s.

    1) The Sotomayor vote will be “scored” by the NRA.

    2) The vote hasn’t happened yet.

    So, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “not intimidated”. You don’t even know what the results are.

    Also, even though the NRA is scoring this vote, blocking her confirmation isn’t a huge priority. There are quite a few NRA members who think that she should be confirmed (I’m one).

    It’s in the interest of media to magnify the NRA’s opposition to her confirmation. That way they can breathlessly report the “death of the NRA” after the results of the vote.

  10. #11 by Becky Stauffer on August 4, 2009 - 12:44 pm

    jd,

    I’m sure any predictions of the death of the NRA are premature. There will be a vote, and Sotomayor will easily be approved, even by some Republicans and Democrats from Red states. The NRA has not successfully scared them by the threats of ‘scoring’. And we all know the purpose of scoring, don’t we?

    Of course, now that it’s all over but the shouting, it’s easy to say this wasn’t a huge priority for them. I’m sure that’s how they’ll spin it.

  11. #12 by Larry Bergan on August 4, 2009 - 3:19 pm

    mike w. says:

    We have an anti-gun president and anti-gun Dem leadership in Congress and we’ve managed some major victories even with the odds stacked against us.

    Has Obama even fought the NRA or has this obsession with democrats wanting to take your guns away been a paranoid fantasy all this time?

    Too bad all that member money got wasted on the election for nothing.

  12. #13 by Linoge on August 4, 2009 - 3:33 pm

    A “very small number of their constituents”, Becky? Are you sure you want to stand by that assertion?

    Let me give you a little hint – you might want to check some recent numbers:

    Fifty-two percent of American voters would oppose the re-election of any Senator who votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Only 26 percent of voters would support such a Senator.

    That is strange… 52% seems like something commonly referred to as a “majority”, Becky. Typically, a “majority” is not referred to as “a very small number”.

    So… What was that about people “spinning” the situation to fit their own personal agendas?

    All around the country, rights-abridging laws are being challenged. All around the country, more and more people are exercising their naturally-granted, Constitutionally-protected right to protect themselves and their families. All around the country, people are standing up for what they believe in.

    But there is no real point in explaining that to you, given that you believe a majority is a “small number”.

    In reality, Sotomayor is small potatoes – she is a small-time judge with a history of her own rulings being overturned by the Supreme Court, and one who is blatantly racist, sexist, and discriminatory. I will be very amused to see how her fellow Supreme Court Justices handle her once she gets the nomination… And, I fully agree that she will… but it does not matter. She is an probably-impotent leftist judge replacing a slightly-less-impotent leftist judge. Considering the alternatives, we could do significantly worse.

  13. #14 by mike w. on August 4, 2009 - 3:46 pm

    Exactly Linoge. If we learned anything about Sotomayor during confirmation hearings it’s that she’ll never be an intellectual heavyweight on the court. She’s replacing an anti-gun Justice, so it’s really not much of a gamble for the NRA to oppose her and lose.

    I expect the NRA to take that gamble. That’s what I and millions of other Americans pay them to do, to defend our liberties.

    It’s funny to hear Becky and others act like the NRA doesn’t represent most Americans. They have membership FAR greater than any anti-gun group.

    Hell, I’ll bet the SAF or JPFO have more members than the Brady Campaign does. Anti-gunners are mostly astroturf. There’s very little community level grassroots support for more gun control except for in a few small pockets of the country.

  14. #15 by Becky Stauffer on August 4, 2009 - 4:55 pm

    Who said anything about being opposed to the right to keep and bear arms? You guys have been spouting that gun-grabber crab so long, you’ve actually convinced yourselves it’s true. That’s a perfect example of a poll that means nothing. It’s like saying, “Would you favor a Supreme Court justice who is against the Constitution.” It still doesn’t say those same people support the NRA and its bullying tactics with our elected officials.

    • #16 by Linoge on August 4, 2009 - 5:04 pm

      Remind me again, Becky – how is it “bullying” when constituents let their representatives know how they feel about their job performance? How is it “bullying” when an organization embarks on an attempt to inform its members as to the voting habits of those representatives? How is it “bullying” to hold people responsible for their actions? How is it “bullying”?

      Mind the spinning plank in your own eye before you start concerning yourself over the speck in others’.

      No, the poll certainly was not about the NRA doing its job, but it does illustrate one thing – you are bloody well fooling yourself if you think the people opposing Sotomayor are a “small number of constituents”.

  15. #17 by Becky Stauffer on August 4, 2009 - 5:09 pm

    Once again, Linoge, you use that little tactic so popular with NRA folk, take something someone says, and pretend that it means something else. Here is what I actually said:

    Or maybe they finally realize only a very small number of their constituents really give a damn what the NRA says.

  16. #18 by Robspierre!! on August 4, 2009 - 5:13 pm

    Linoge; The prospect for progressives is unraveling, and they are beginning to display the cracks with regard to the reality that they really do not understand what the bulk of the American people are really thinking.

    A form of cognitive consonance. When the rug is pulled out from under them, they will be so high on the confidence that they know what we all want, it is going to take a few moments for them to hit the floor.

    We already see Obama dissing the progressive left, it is right in their face, but since they have nowhere, and no one else to turn to, they simply keep playing it out.

    I know I would too if I was true believer as so many of them are.

  17. #19 by Cliff Lyon on August 4, 2009 - 5:20 pm

    Linoge (Glenn),

    That’s a nice statistic you can up with in #13.

    I wonder what the results would be if you asked a different question like;

    “Would you vote for a Senator who supports intelligent hand gun policy.”

    I think you would also find a majority in the affirmative.

    • #20 by Linoge on August 4, 2009 - 6:23 pm

      Who is Glenn?

      Also, I did not come up with the statistic – if you have problems with the way the polling was conducted, I would suggest that you take it up with Zogby, rather than whinge about it here.

  18. #21 by Becky Stauffer on August 4, 2009 - 5:27 pm

    By the way, the NRA says it has 4.3 members. That’s about 1 percent of the total U.S. population. Not exactly a majority. Even the Mormon church has millions more members in the U.S. than the NRA has. Mike, would you say the Mormon church “represents most Americans”?

    • #22 by mike w. on August 4, 2009 - 8:08 pm

      And how many members does the Brady Campaign have Becky? Or the VPC? or the Million Mom March?

  19. #23 by glenn on August 4, 2009 - 5:46 pm

    Cliff, it is glenn here, Linoge isn’t me. It’s funny, you cannot anymore get this part of the reality right either.

    The fracas is just beginning on all fronts. Thermidore is here now. It sweeps in a way that is unstoppable, Obama has pressed the boundary of what people can take. The pressing back is just beginning.

  20. #24 by Linoge on August 4, 2009 - 6:30 pm

    Once again, Becky, we see you use that little tactic so popular with the leftist folk, avoid a simple, direct question, no matter the cost.

    So how about you answer that simple, direct question: how does the NRA grading politicians based off their votes (something it does quite frequently) constitute “bullying”. Explain it to us. Support your opinion. Answer the question.

    And then try and understand that this is not all about the NRA… then, maybe, you will begin to understand what I was trying to tell you earlier.

  21. #25 by Cliff Lyon on August 4, 2009 - 6:43 pm

    OK! OK! Linoge is not Glenn. I wasn’t very thorough in my review.

    Linoge is was more redneck than you Glenn.

  22. #26 by glenn on August 4, 2009 - 6:48 pm

    Nice to see you admit your Jackass status. Apt being the Democrat Donkey you aspire to.

  23. #27 by glenn on August 4, 2009 - 7:50 pm

    The mistake you have made today, is hardly the first time either.

    • #28 by Larry Bergan on August 4, 2009 - 10:18 pm

      glenn:

      You were misidentified a couple of times because you use dozens of names. Gee, I wonder how that problem could be solved. That’s a hard one!

      • #29 by glenn on August 4, 2009 - 11:33 pm

        Look Larry, I have reasons for remaining anonymous, and what is being said is more important than who is saying it. Except to you. Really none of your business. Though it is a commonality of the Statist mind by my observation.

        I am never going to use my own name for most purposes. Don’t do it anywhere, as that is for idiots, this being the web and all.

  24. #30 by Becky Stauffer on August 4, 2009 - 9:28 pm

    Mike, once again, you try to change the meaning of my words. I am merely saying that the NRA doesn’t represent the majority of Americans. I am not saying that any other group does either.

    For both you and Limoge, when a group that represents about 1 percent of the population has so many of our lawmakers cowed and fearful of getting bad marks, that’s bullying. The NRA is plenty noisy and they throw their weight around, and crybaby lawmakers just cave in to the pressure. Doesn’t it remind you of the playground at school?

    But in the case of the Sotomayor, the NRA did not achieve its usual success.

    And you may like to say it’s a minor issue to them, but on their home page, it’s the number two issue right after right-to-carry reciprocity.

    • #31 by Linoge on August 5, 2009 - 3:39 am

      So once again, and just for clarification, you consider holding people accountable and responsible for their actions to be “bullying”? You consider an organization attempting to inform its members as to the actions of politicians to be “bullying”?

      By that logic, I would suppose that the Brady Campaign is also guilty of “bullying”, as is effectively every single other lobbying campaign… as is every single constituent who dares to write his or her representative in order to express their disagreement with that representative?

      Or is your misuse of a word only applicable to organizations with whom you personally disagree?

      Oh, and Becky, if you paid the slightest bit of attention to the world around you, you would know that the NRA-ILA’s webpage is arranged chronologically – the right-to-carry article is from 22JUL, Sotomayor’s article is from 16JUL, and the Second Amendment incorporation article is from 07JUL. But, hey, you just go on making things up…

      Also, as a random aside, “representation” does not necessarily equate to “membership”, but you are having a hard enough time with certain definitions as it is… you might not want to stress yourself out about that one.

  25. #32 by glenn on August 4, 2009 - 11:35 pm

    Becky Sotomayor is a legal lightweight that has had her decisions overturned due to her being often wrong. Given the pres and congress we are glad to have her as once she arrives on the court, she is the mental midget.

  26. #33 by Cliff Lyon on August 5, 2009 - 6:56 am

    Glenn, to use a SCOTUS reversal of an appellate court as evidence of one’s legal skills demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the court system.

    If she is a mental midget, than the rest of us are dumber than ants.

  27. #34 by glenn on August 5, 2009 - 7:33 am

    Wrong, if your rulings are overturned, it speaks to your incompetence. She is going to be the dummy on the court.

  28. #35 by Becky Stauffer on August 5, 2009 - 7:36 am

    Well, Limoge, you’re down to spinning and insulting, just like the good NRA member you are.

    • #36 by Linoge on August 5, 2009 - 1:04 pm

      Well, Becky, you are down to projection and distraction, just like the good liberal you are. (Also, I am curious – what proof do you have of my NRA membership? Any? Or are you just continuing to make things up?)

      How about answering the questions I have asked you so many times now? Do you consider holding people accountable and responsible for their actions to be “bullying”? Do you consider constituents contacting their representatives to voice their disagreement to be “bullying”? Do you consider an organization keeping track of representatives’ votes to be “bullying”? Do you consider an organization informing its members of those representatives’ votes to be “bullying”? And, finally, are those definitions of “bullying” applicable in all situations, and to all organizations/people?

      Really now… these are five yes/no questions – how hard is it to give a straight answer on them?

  29. #37 by glenn on August 5, 2009 - 7:38 am

    Linoge, the progressives are desperate, they could not have imagined a worse case scenario for what they imagined was a lock on the country. The grasping you see is the lot of them having no more assets to move forward. They are out of gas. The attack on your observations and those asking questions they cannot answer has brought on the ad hominem. Consider it a compliment.

  30. #38 by mike w. on August 5, 2009 - 8:19 am

    You’ve got to love these fools. Linoge brings a well-reasoned, logical, point by point beatdown of Becky’s claim and the best response she can manage is

    Well, Limoge, you’re down to spinning and insulting, just like the good NRA member you are.

    Wow! Speaking of intellectual lightweights….

    If what the NRA does is “bullying” then I guess the ACLU, labor unions, SEIU, Brady Campaign, AARP, NAACP, MoveOn and pretty much every other special interest in America engages in nothing more than “bullying” as well.

  31. #39 by mike w. on August 5, 2009 - 8:23 am

    BTW, if I write a letter to one of my elected officials that contains sharp, poignant criticizm of his positions and I tell him he’s lost my vote if he supports bill X, is that also “bullying?”

    I think you label it bullying only when people engage in the political process to push for things you don’t like. When it’s something you support it’s not “bullying” but political activism.

    Nice double standard you’ve got going.

  32. #40 by glenn on August 5, 2009 - 8:41 am

    It is desperation is all. They now wish to negate the very system that brought Obama to power. He advises that people “get in the face’ of his detractors, bring the fight to them, talk to your friends of all political backgrounds. It is all good as long it isn’t your Ox being gored.

    People are just following the recommendation.

    The rabble rousers that operated in New England in the time of our Revolution were excoriated in exactly the same way by loyalists. Until of course they had their houses burned down or were tarred and feathered. It is great to see the dynamic is full operation again. Land owners and moneyed interests helped drive that too, along with grassroots people. Thing about that movement was astroturf had not yet been invented.

  33. #41 by jdberger on August 5, 2009 - 11:15 am

    For both you and Limoge, when a group that represents about 1 percent of the population has so many of our lawmakers cowed and fearful of getting bad marks, that’s bullying. The NRA is plenty noisy and they throw their weight around, and crybaby lawmakers just cave in to the pressure. Doesn’t it remind you of the playground at school?

    If you break it down, the NRA has about 100,000 voters in every Congressional district. 100,000 folks who show up and vote. That’s pretty impressive.

    Reminding a Congressman of that fact isn’t bullying. It’s representative democracy.

  34. #42 by mike w. on August 5, 2009 - 12:16 pm

    “Reminding a Congressman of that fact isn’t bullying. It’s representative democracy.”

    Furthermore it could certainly be argued that reminding him of his oath of office is a civic duty.

  35. #43 by Becky Stauffer on August 5, 2009 - 3:53 pm

    Mikey, Linoge, and jd,

    The NRA’s power and influence is far out of proportion to the number of people they actually represent. Could it be considered bullying if a lobbyist implies that a congressman’s vote somehow violates his oath of office–even if it doesn’t? That won’t play well back home, will it? We have so many examples just this week of the mass hysteria that can be stirred up among mindless wingnuts.

    It’s great for the voters to speak their minds, jd, it’s just when lobbyists gain more power than voters that it becomes a problem.

    And Linoge, yep I made up the part about you being a member of the NRA.

    • #44 by Linoge on August 5, 2009 - 4:45 pm

      So you admit to being physically or mentally incapable of answering five simple yes-or-no questions. Interesting. Furthermore, you admit to fabricating talking points out of whole cloth in order to better stereotype certain people, and discriminate against them based of that stereotype. Very interesting. And how is it, exactly, that you want anyone to continue to treat you as “credible”?

      Furthermore, you might want to refresh yourself on a Senator’s or Representative’s oath of office. I would point out that voting for an individual who has shown a remarkable disdain for the United States Constitution would be a direct violation of the Congressional Oath of Office. But, then again, you and facts have never been exactly on speaking terms, now, have you?

  36. #45 by Becky Stauffer on August 5, 2009 - 5:07 pm

    The trouble is, Linoge, that sometimes a vote can be characterized as something it is not. Gun righters will say that ANY law seeking to control guns is anti-constitutional. And this is used to intimidate lawmakers.

    My last comment answered all of your questions, which were, in fact, all the same question phrased in different words. I can only assume it is your own deficient brain that makes it impossible for you to understand my answer.

    Your escalating insults are duly noted, Limoge. Another sign of a bully. Should I be worried?

    P.S. It’s interesting to me you are offended at being assumed to be an NRA member after your strong defense of same. So are you or are you not?

    • #46 by Linoge on August 5, 2009 - 6:38 pm

      In point of fact, Becky, you did not answer any my questions, except with another question, which most people understand as not an answer at all. Furthermore, if you did, and your audience does not understand those answers, then fault relies on you, given that you were incapable of adequately expressing yourself such that your readers would be able to comprehend. That said, and having read through your post multiple times now, I can find no vestige of anything even approximating an answer to my inquiries – I wonder why that is.

      Likewise, I note that you are increasing the frequency and vociferousness of those of us who are daring to disagree with you – should I take that as an admission that you are a hypocrite, a “bully” (whatever that word means to you), or both?

      Finally, any law that seeks gun control is unconstitutional – after all, “shall not be infringed” is a relatively clear and straightforward phrase. That said, legislation honestly attempting to keep firearms out of criminals’ hands is not unconstitutional (and has never been fought by the NRA, that I am aware of); however, legislation that operates under the guise of “disarming criminals” or “for the children” or some other such pet cause, while, in reality, only attempting to strip the rights from law-abiding citizens… that, my dear Becky, is quite unconstitution, and an obvious violation of Representatives’ and Senators’ oaths of office.

      Oh, and by the way, holding people responsible for their actions is not, in any way, shape, or form, “intimidation”. Your specious arguments would be greatly assisted by using a dictionary from time to time.

      P.S. I was not offended at your assumption, nor is my membership, or lack thereof, relevant to the discussion. I was merely wonderingif you had any basis for your assumption. You admitted no such basis, and, as such, anything you have said, or will say in the future, will immediately and obviously be cast in a similar light. Baseless assumptions have no place in any conversation, and yet you seem full of them. Interesting.

  37. #47 by Becky Stauffer on August 5, 2009 - 6:50 pm

    I’m increasing your vociferousness? I’m afraid I’m physically and mentally incapable of doing such a thing.

    And I’m weary of trying to have a discussion with someone who insists on twisting my words. I hope I’m not also responsible for your ridiculousness.

    • #48 by Linoge on August 5, 2009 - 6:53 pm

      My apologies, Becky. That sentence was supposed to read:

      Likewise, I note that you are increasing the frequency and vociferousness of your insults against those of us who are daring to disagree with you…

      But, leave it to someone like you to blow a simple typo (which that comment seems full of, now that I look back at it… urg) out of proportion, and completely ignore the rest of the comment…

  38. #49 by HappyHeathen on August 6, 2009 - 1:11 am

    Utah like a whole different world. Here in Washington State we have so few Republicans the NRA is hardly an issue. Heck, I don’t think I’ve even got a mailer or anything from them.

    But I agree with Becky. I think their bark is bigger than their bite.

    • #50 by Larry Bergan on August 6, 2009 - 2:59 am

      They don’t even show up to the dogfight, but they delegate well.

      They, that is.

  39. #51 by Larry Bergan on August 6, 2009 - 3:04 am

    By “they”, I mean Ronald Reagan, of course.

  40. #52 by jdberger on August 6, 2009 - 10:33 am

    Utah like a whole different world. Here in Washington State we have so few Republicans the NRA is hardly an issue. Heck, I don’t think I’ve even got a mailer or anything from them.

    1) The NRA isn’t a Republican organization (hint – Harry Ried is a member).

    2) Washington State might lean “D” due to the large urban coastal areas, but the state is pretty evenly split by party in the State House and Senate. Your Governor “won” the election by 129 votes.

    3) The NRA is plenty active in WA State.

    • #53 by HappyHeathen on August 6, 2009 - 11:57 am

      I suppose if you count 36 R’s and 62 D’s in the House and 18R’s and 31 D’s in he Senate pretty evenly divided.

      Eat your heart out progressives in Utah.

      • #54 by Jack Young on August 6, 2009 - 4:24 pm

        Doesn’t matter what the divvy is when it comes to constitutionally protected inalienable rights HH!! C’mon out to the Wild West End, where the 2nd is 1st.

        Keep in mind that as the State goes broke as a joke, the division will rectify to some degree. No matter affiliation the majority is getting tired of spending cash we don’t have. Expect change.

    • #55 by Jack Young on August 6, 2009 - 4:09 pm

      Oh yeah, just come on out to the West End!

  41. #56 by jdberger on August 6, 2009 - 2:01 pm

    I suppose if you count 36 R’s and 62 D’s in the House and 18R’s and 31 D’s in he Senate pretty evenly divided.

    My fault. I was using 2006 numbers.

    Nonetheless, Washington is one of the original “shall issue” states regarding CCW. They allow “open carry”. Washington state has a Right to Keep and Bear Arms provision in it’s Constitution. Washington is a “stand your ground” state, in which there isn’t a “duty to retreat”.

    The NRA doesn’t need a huge presence in WA.

  42. #57 by James Farmer on August 6, 2009 - 4:08 pm

    More evidence of the declining relevance of the NRA, just like the GOP!

  43. #58 by mike w. on August 6, 2009 - 6:17 pm

    If the NRA doesn’t need a huge presence in a state because by and large, the gun laws in said state are very good and the state is extremely pro-gun I’d say that’s evidence that the NRA is winning.

    The fact that things are so good they don’t have to fight could only be considered “evidence of declining relevance” in your own little twisted alternate reality James Farmer.

  44. #59 by Jack Young on August 6, 2009 - 6:29 pm

    Absolutely Mike W. You can acquire a CWP in WA. by simply going in for prints and a records check, anywhere in the liberal state of WA. Even if you possess an out of state license. It is easier to get a CWP in WA. than their State drivers license. I know this as I have done so. More is required in terms of residency proof to get the DL. In fact, getting a WA. CWP is one of the ways you can get a WA State DL. It is a pre-requisite if you cannot prove your residency via housing records or bank data.

    Given the gangland crap happening in Federal Way, and SEA-TAC metro, the cops are only too happy to know there are legal people to cover the bases they cannot.

    You on the team, as far as they are concerned. Been there and seen it, hand it over, and the whole attitude changes, even in liberal WASHINGTON!!! It is after all named after the man who fought as leader armed to the TEETH!! With FREE FELLOWS ARMED TO THE TEETH!! SWORN TO UPHOLD THE US CONSTITUTION FROM ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC!!

    SHINE ON YOU CRAZY DIAMONDS!!

    Need only produce the proof, passport, CWP, drivers license with no restrictions, or priors, and they have no reason to wonder upon you. EVERYONE that can should pay the money and get one EVERYWHERE!! Sustain the Right, give the law abiding People the MIGHT!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: