NRA Gathering Ammo Against Obama

Politico:

The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year's presidential campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights upheld last week by the Supreme Court.

"Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future," Chris Cox, head of the NRA's political arm, told Politico.

The politically powerful gun rights group will split its message efforts between communicating with its 4 million members and the tens of millions more firearms owners across the country.

This fall, NRA members will get automated phone calls, mail pieces and pre-election editions of the group's three magazines making the case against Obama. More broadly, the group will use an independent expenditure effort to hammer the Democratic nominee via TV, radio and newspaper ads in some of about 15 battleground states in the Midwest and Mountain West.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[SeanOcali]

Obama publicly approved the supreme court decision the other day which eliminated DC's ban on handguns. And what thanks does he get in return??? What bunch of a-holes these NRA pricks are! "Gee Mr. O, thanks for sticking with our issue - now in return we're going to spend as much money as a small nation's GDP in order to defeat you this November!"

[Ged2012]

What's so great about guns, anyway?
They are primarily meant to kill people.

It must be due to a passionate desire to make a gun collection, as there are stamp collectors, or Transformers toys collectors, and so on; the only difference is that for guns, most of them are in their 40s and up.

The thing is, what would you do with all the guns you got if they are nothing more than collectors' items? Use them for hunting? Use them in a gun range to satisfy one's desire to pull a trigger? Protect one's home and family?

I'm not saying that the use of guns are evil, but it is best that law enforcers and soldiers should have them, and not ordinary citizens who may not even be that vigilant in keeping their weapons out of sight from the kids.

[CCW4ME2]

So I guess if you hear someone breaking into your house at 3:00 A.M. you'll, 1. Call "911" and ask them to send a man with a gun. 2. Pray that he gets there in time. Remember, when help is needed in seconds the police are only minutes away.

[rlkinny]

So, I guess that must mean you sleep with a loaded gun next to your bed? Most of us have telephones next to our beds.

[Candyx]

a bunch old hacks that have nothing to do but spend money! Hey NRA no one is going to take your guns away. It has never happened and never will! Go spend your money on feeding the homeless or doing something more positive in the world.

[MHR55]

How true! Why not do something positive with your money like using it to help fight crime in the inner cities where shooting deaths run rampant.

Memo to all gun owners: NO ONE, not a democrat or Republican is ever going to stop you from buying guns or take away the ones you have. Trying to stop wackos and criminals from easily obtaining guns does not start this country on the "slippery slope" to overturning the 2nd Amendment.

[SharonWantsToTalk]

I tell everyone who ever brings this argument up "the Dems will never take your guns away". They don't want to. They recognize gun ownership is as American as apple pie. Its the NRA and its lobby that perpetuates this argument because it makes them tons of money . The Republicans LOVE to use it because it is a great wedge issue.

[1will]

Well actually the gov. has taken guns away. The Heller Lawsuit was about DC taking guns away. Their ban lasted over 30 years. Chicago has banned handguns. San Francisco has banned handguns (overturned) and currently bans guns in their housing projects.
To say that it's never happened is inaccurate.

[SilviaMaria]

Good thing he opted out of the so public funding.

NRA has 40 million to spend. I wonder who gives them the money. One wonders...­.

[Superbus]

There are a large number of democrats, liberal democrats too, who are NRA members. They won't have to dig too deep to discover how much Obama does not support gun ownership.

[Zhonni]

Obama has always supported gun right and even thought the second ammendment in his constitutional class as an individual right. He has said this since way back when.

People can't find anything on him but for something they thought he signed about gun ban or something.

[olivia]

Really? Tell us what you know.

[presto]

What exactly are you wondering? They get the money from gun-owners, gun-lover, Republicans, Libertarians, gun-makers, bullet-makers, organized crime and anyone else who wants to give it to them.

[NABNYC]

Tacky headline.

[Countdown09]

Very tacky indeed.

[djelimon]

Actually, for a Dem, he's not that anti-gun.

On another note, how come the NRA isn't that active in the inner city?

[presto]

He has been very anti-gun in the past. He's with the girl he loves and he loves the girl he's with. Playing to the audience is the name of the game.

[mediamarv]

Too scared. They only do well with white folks, who they can readily scare.
DeLa Pierre wouldn't last 20 seconds in East LA.

[indypete]

They're scared to go to the inner city... too many people with guns there.

[1will]

Describe 'Active.'
The NRA is not a charity or midnight basketball program.
What are they supposed to do to be 'Active' in the inner city?

[LeftHandedBrain]

I would think that "active" here as it would be elsewhere for the nra. Signing up members, holding gun safety classes. Collecting money for nra causes.

Why do you stereotype inner city activities as charity? Got a hang up?

[LeftHandedBrain]

How are they active elsewhere? Gun safety classes. Getting more memberships. Collecting money for their cause. Why would it be different there?

Why do you write "charity or midnight basketball program" when the nra doesn't do that elsewhere? Stereotyping are we?