|
||
The NRA's Double Standard for Obama and McCain
I'm an endowment member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) -- that's one step above the venerated "life member" status. Most of the time I agree with NRA's stand supporting the rights of gun owners over the regulatory authority of the government. Mistakes can be made either way, but when in doubt, I prefer erring on the side of the citizen over the police power of the state.
This past June the US Supreme Court, in the landmark case, DC v. Heller, ruled that the government may not ban commonly owned guns for self protection. It was a very tempered decision, but a humongous victory for American gun owners. Gun owners across the country should be rejoicing after this victory. We achieved one of our most important goals.
Yet, watching the NRA's current ad wars against Sen. Obama you'd never know there was a Supreme Court case. As I pointed out in my book, Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist, the NRA leadership would rather fight than win. Fighting is good for membership recruitment; it's good for direct mail fundraising and it's good for lots of press coverage, but is it really good for American gun owners?
NRA's exorbitantly paid senior staff and consultant corps need to have a dragon to slay in order to feed their incessant money machine. Obama is their latest dragon. But, it's without merit. Obama supports the Second Amendment and he's unabashed about saying so.
If Obama wins the Presidency NRA leaders will have a new enemy to fight (even if he doesn't want to be our enemy). If McCain wins, their lobbyist buddies and former senior staffers will have access and high-level appointments in a McCain administration. So, NRA executives win either way. There is, however, a double standard at play. Let me provide one example: If Barack Obama announced he was bringing Andrew Cuomo, the former Secretary of HUD who fancied himself the point-man of Bill Clinton's "anti-gun crusade" into his administration, the NRA's leadership would come unglued. Yet, when John McCain suggested he'd appoint that same Andrew Cuomo to a senior position in his administration, not a peep!
Why aren't the leaders of the "gun rights" movement in America pleased with the fact that the Democratic nominee for President has reached out to gun owners in re-assuring them that he supports gun ownership? True, his past votes from ten years ago were not encouraging, but he's made great strides. I was very impressed by the Obama campaign's TV ad featuring an NRA life member. Also, not too many years ago, in July of 2001, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Chief Executive, was allowing the NRA's magazine, America's First Freedom (no link), to state that John McCain was "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment." But, now McCain is their guy. It seems to me that NRA leaders are more concerned about what's good for NRA leaders than they are about what's good for American gun owners.
This is an exciting moment politically. Both candidates are vying for the votes of almost one hundred million gun owners. This should be a great victory for the gun issue and the NRA. But, they're ignoring this development just like they're ignoring the Supreme Court decision.
As a gun owner, I want both parties' nominees to support my rights. As a gun owner it's in my interests that the gun issue has been largely resolved by the Heller case. I can cast my ballet on the basis of other more contentious and significant issues that need to be decided.
As a gun owner I care about the environment. I want pristine places to shoot, hunt and hike. As a gun owner and taxpayer I care about and am deeply concerned about our failing economy - no jobs and no money means no new guns! As an American, I am mortified about our unraveling financial crises - this is as scary as I've experienced in my lifetime. As an American I care that we're caught in a terrible situation in Iraq with no easy way out and a more compelling need to fight in Afghanistan and our President says we don't have enough troops. As an American I'm disturbed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares that the "American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road." I want America to lead the world again - morally, economically, politically and not be challenged militarily! As an American I want America to be that "shining city on the hill" that Reagan spoke so eloquently about. In short, I want the country I love so much, the country I grew up with back, NOW!
As a voter, I haven't made up my mind who I'm supporting on November. But, in my view, Obama has neutralized gun as an issue. It sure would be helpful if NRA leaders looked ahead to the problems facing Americans who own guns and not just backwards to the good old days of " liberal gun grabber" bashing. It's worn pretty thin and really has gotten kind of old. Frankly, guys, our side won - move on already!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
" Gun owners across the country should be rejoicing after this victory. We achieved one of our most important goals."
How can you rejoice when what was just accomplished (and more) can be overturned with a stroke of President Obama's pen and the democratic supermajority in congress?
Heller was a hollow victory at best. All it did was attempt to bring DC up to the standards of the rest of country (Chicago and a few other municipalities excluded). DC is still doing it's best to stand in the way of the rights of it's people. How is that a victory? Heller won't stop the anti-gunners from trying to ban as many guns as they can from as many places as possible, even when they can't produce a valid reason for doing so.
We know from Bill Clinton that words can be deceptive ("It depends on what the meaning of `is' is.") Everything that Obama said was vague enough to allow for quite a bit of damage. So he's not going to "take" our guns? What about forbidding us to acquire additional ones? What about registering and taxing them? What about forbidding us from keeping them at hand for when we need them as we go about our business? What about the 1,000% tax on ammunition that others have sometimes been bandied about?
No one can think of everything, so there has to be some level of trust and understanding. If Obama truly meant to reach out to gun owners, why didn't he reach out to the NRA? He completely ignored them! I suspect he merely wants to split the gun owners in a divide-and-conquer strategy.
"True, his past votes from ten years ago were not encouraging, but he's made great strides."
What "great strides" are you reffering too? If you are going to claim Obama has made "great strides", you should have no problem point them out, but yet I don't see any "great strides" listed.
"I was very impressed by the Obama campaign's TV ad featuring an NRA life member."
What's so impressive about it? The person in the ad doesn't point to anything specific in Obama's record that indicates support for gun rights. He just says things like "Barack Obama supports gun rights" without pointing to any evidence to back up that claim.
"Yet, watching the NRA's current ad wars against Sen. Obama you'd never know there was a Supreme Court case."
The NRA is not ignoring the Heller case, they are just correctly regarding it as one victory. It doesn't signify the end of the fight to defend gun rights, just a new begining.
"Why aren't the leaders of the "gun rights" movement in America pleased with the fact that the Democratic nominee for President has reached out to gun owners in re-assuring them that he supports gun ownership?"
Because Obama's voting record clearly shows he is anti-gun, and that his statements about "support" for gun rights are clearly empty rhetoric intended to cover up that record to win votes.
"As a gun owner it's in my interests that the gun issue has been largely resolved by the Heller case."
The Heller case resolved nothing. The gun grabbers will still try to ban guns and the NRA will still need to defeat their attempts. This has been proven by events that have taken place since the verdict.
"Frankly, guys, our side won - move on already!"
This is not the time to declare "mission accomplished". It is the time to use the Heller Verdict as a means to advance the fight for gun rights.
To Richard Feldman. I'm only a lowly Life Nra member dating back to 1994, but speaking as a unfortunate constituent of Obama while he was in Illinois state senate as well as his representation on a federal level. You are sorrily misled if you believe Obama is respectful of any firearms owner.
You bring up the Heller vs Dc Scotus event in your article, You conveniently skip the matter of recalling that Obama failed to support Heller with the amicus. That in fact: 55 senators have signed this and 250 House members favoring Hellers right. Oddly John McCain even signed it.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/congressmen_amicus_brief_0208.html
I find it ironic that someone who taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago (Obama) didn't have the fortitude to sign his name supporting Heller , as I'll remind you Heller won his case. I did mail Obama in February of 08 asking him (as a constituent ) if there was a accidental omission of his name and it only took Obama 5 months to reply that he "respects hunters". Merely a month after Scotus decided the case. Thank you... but I'm not drinking Obama's Koolaide.
And as another NRA life memberI find it even more troubling that a former lecturer on Con Law (Obama) continues to support the gun bans in DC and CHicago post Heller. In terms of the NRA endorsing McCain--the next president will be either the Dem or the Republican--and a C+ candidate is far more acceptable to me than an F--- candidate.
SARAH PALIN GOING DOWN:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/alaskan-independence-part_b_133261.html
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Posted October 9, 2008
Alaskan Independence Party: The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
Palin's husband Todd remained an AIP party member from 1995 to 2002. Sarah can be described in McCarthy-era palaver as a "fellow traveler." While retaining her Republican registration, she attended the AIP's 1994 convention where the party called for a draft constitution to secede from the United States and create an independent nation of Alaska. The McCain Campaign has reluctantly acknowledged that she also attended AIP's 2000 Convention.
She apparently found the experience so inspiring that she agreed to give a keynote address at the AIP's 2006 convention and she recorded a video greeting for this year's 2008 convention.
In other words, this is NOT something that happened when she was eight!
OBAMA-BIDEN 2008 -2012
Wow. Thank goodness you posted this. I didn't know how off-topic we were!
You forget that 1994 is when the "assault weapon" ban passed and Clinton said he'd like to ban handguns "when the country is ready for it." Secession would have been justified and necessary had the country continued in that direction. I don't _want_ leaders who would be willing to tolerate gun bans.
Double standard?
Supporting the Second Amendment as written versus pretending to support it only after the Supreme Court said it means what it says? This is a SINGLE STANDARD.
If that was what Feldman was arguing, your observation might have some merit. Some things have to be read, not scanned.
Feldman gave a specific example of the double standard about which he comments, in observing how an essentially identical decision (the merit of an Andrew Cuomo appointment) would be met in a polar opposite manner depending on whether in an Obama vs. a McCain administration.
So it goes with partisan political zealots. If you're not willing to admit drinking the Kool-Aid publicly, at least admit it to yourself. It's the first step in recovery.
Huh. Factual argument. I can dig that. At least your point is legitimate, and not railing against silly grammatical details.
But there is a difference between a NRA C+ candidate (McCain) suggesting Mario Cuomo as opposed to a man who supported an AWB that would ban single shot and double barrelled shotguns (Obama).
True, his past votes from ten years ago were not encouraging, but he's made great strides.
Obama is in favor of gun control and a thorough look at his record on the subject proves it. I'm not an NRA member, and never will be, so I could care less whom the NRA endorses. But every gun owning American that is worried about their 2nd Amendment rights should atleast know what they are getting. You can guarantee a revisit of the Assault Weapons Ban with an Obama presidency. It is in the DNC's agenda on their website if you don't believe me. While many here may think that this is a legitimate issue, I can assure you the majority of gun owners do not. Obama saying that he is not in favor of banning guns is questionable at best. It kinda suprises me that his pandering to the gun owners doesn't ruffle a few more feathers on the left.
What good are the guns if you can't afford the bullets? Can you say priorities?
Obama can help me afford bullets!? That's fantastic! Why didn't you say so earlier?
My bullets help me protect my family. I live in a state that's seen more than it's share of natural disasters, and the ensuing chaos that follows. I'd say gdog's priorities look quite fine.
What good are bullets if you can't buy a gun? I'd say the priorities are right.
Economic problems are temporary. Wars are temporary. However, a repeal of rights is permanent.
When I lose my job I'll have to sell my guns to pay the bills anyway.
Majorkong-you have used that meme several times before--please come up with something new.
The N.R.A. has been weak on Protecting, Preserving, Defending, and Enforcing our 2nd Amendment Rights according to the way our Forefathers meant it, and wrote it.* The 2nd Amendment and Guns only have two (2*) Enemy's, Rust and Politicians whether it be Federal, State, County, or Local Governments.* My question to the N.R.A. is " Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How are you going to restore this Right?* What are you waiting For?* Then and only then will they get my support, because they sure have not lived up to their Beliefs, Promises, and Goals regarding the 2nd Amendment.* Could it just be all about keeping the flow of $$$ coming in to them?* The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be defined by Anyone, Anywhere, at Anytime , especially by the Supreme Court, or the N. R. A.*.. The 2nd Amendment is self-evident. and needs no interpretation, or Anyone to attempt to interpret it.* It is self-explanatory as it stands on its own.* Yet we still have the Federal, State, County, and Local Governments violating, subverting, compomising, denying, and ignoring it.* It truly needs to be Protected, Honored, Respected, and Restored to the People of the U.S. *... In the final analysis the only people needed to defend our 2nd Amendment Rights are the Gun Owners and Users in order to restore, safeguard, preserve, and protect ourselves from all enemy's whether they be Foreign or Domestic here in America.*
This was a good article. However, there are single voter gunmen who cling to their guns like a security blanket who this article will never appease. I have to wonder about the intentions of those single voters and why it means so much to them. I'm a gun owner and happy about the second amendment being upheld. Here in CA we have already seen it's impact during two home invasion robberies where the perps were killed and the homeowner's were not arrested. As for the assault weapons ban that sneaky stated above, sorry but I have to agree. What the he ll reason do you need an assault weapon for? Perhaps the assault weapon ban needs to be revised and not removed and sneaky you are being over hysterical because no matter what you are reading on Obama's website does not mean that it can't be revised. Given the current state of the U.S. right now we need a leader who is pragmatic and thoughtful. Don't forget that Obama is also the kind of person who will work with republicans to make sure that these ideas he has are mutually beneficial to everybody and not just the few. Maybe you are the few, who knows?
I love how people that think single issue voting on guns is questionable if not idiotic, but they don't mind single issue voters at all when it comes to abortion and a woman's right to choose. I guess it really comes down to how you personally feel about the issue. The Assault Weapons Ban was a colossal failure, any argument to the contrary is misinformed.
I rather like that you bring up the very ban your state of residence employs as being a good thing. Were you present in Cali during the riots almost two decades ago? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the very firearms that protected countless homes and businesses are exactly the ones banned? Would you be willing to go to those families and say, "Look, I'm sorry but I don't like your guns. I don't care that they protected your livelihood, turn 'em in."
Ah, and it should be noted that the newest proposed "ban" HAS been revised. Last years was so overbearing that it turned many former SUPPORTERS of the '94 law into opponents. Now it's a lot like the '94 law, with a couple stealthy add-ons. Still no dice.
That you tell me an assault weapons ban can be beneficial tells me you have zero (0) knowledge of the previous '94 law. It had no effect on crime. None. It banned the presence of certain cosmetic appearances, NOT the rifles that bore them. It banned manufacture of NEW weapons with two or more of those cosmetic features, not prohibited ownership in general. Moderate gun owners were fooled once, and have made it pretty clear (even on this site) that they won’t be fooled twice.
I was--and I remember the residents on the roofs of Koreatown with ARs, AKs and SKSs to protect their homes and businesses from fire and looters.
As a European, the concept of gun ownership is pretty alien to me, but I understand and appreciate the cultural difference between the US and most European countries in that regard. My question to gun owners: what are reasonable regulations with regards to gun ownership and when would you consider regulations undermining your 2nd amendment right?
Well, nothing that undermines the 2nd Amendment is acceptable. Rights aren't rights if we start accepting compromises. However, regulations that are actual regulations and not used as de facto prohibitions or restrictions, those are something else entirely.
Quite frankly, it depends primarily on the level of government we're talking. The federal government has a LOT less power to legislate gun laws than most people realize (in fact, most federal gun control laws are by the letter of the law unconstitutional, but that's another matter); militia, yes, but guns, no. Most of that power is at the state level. I'll list some examples of what would arguably be acceptable, using an (f) to denote federal legislation and (s) to denote state-level legislation.
Require gun shops to offer training when a gun owner purchases a weapon (s).
Require states to accept licenses of other states; exactly as we do driver's licenses and other state-issued licenses (f).
Laws prohibiting a mode, but not all modes, of carrying firearms (solely meaning concealed or open carry) (s), or laws permitting both modes of carry (s).
Age limits on carrying firearms (as we most often see with concealed carrying) (s).
These are strictly examples and conversation starters. Hope this helps.
Niels--my idea of reasonable--laws that are effective at reducing crime (if not effective--the law goes away), the laws are narrowly written to either disarm felons/people who are seriously mentally ill--or to keep the criminals in prison until they are no longer a threat (the common law concept that felons are civilly dead (meaning because they broke the law, they lose their rights and most of the protections of the law beyond barely adequate food, shelter and clothing in prison--if they want more than that--it has to be earned)) and any laws on the books must harm the law abiding citizens as littlle as possible--finacially or in any other way.
The code words used by the Nobama campaign are that they will not 'take away your guns'. Of course not. They can't do that - Americans would not stand for that. However...
They will enact another gun ban and magazine capacity ban. The Democrat party has already proposed reinstalling the terrible Clinton Gun Ban plus add millions of more guns to ban. http://www.morebans.org/democrats.html, http://gunbanobama.com
Gun bans do not and have never reduced crime. Washington DC is the poster child of the gun ban Democrats. After the far left leaders of that city banned all usable guns for law-abiding citizens the murder rate skyrocketed. DC became the 'murder capital' of the country.
A vote for Nobama is a vote to ban guns from law-abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, do not obey gun laws.
BTW, the gun that Sarah Palin uses to hunt moose is far more powerful that the AR-15's that were banned by Clinton in the 1990's.
And yet nuclear bombs have killed fewer people than car accidents, but why won't the NRA stand up for my right to own a nuclear bomb?
Because one has no right to infringe upon the rights of others (not to be confused with the right of self-defense/self-preservation), and a nuclear device has no self-defense value.
Because the only people who are arguing for the right to own WMDs are people that support draconian gun laws.
EXCELLENT article! I'm a hunter and gun owner and a FORMER NRA member (quit in 1981). The NRA constantly lies to its oh-so gullible membership in order to get them "jacked up" to contribute to the NRA's Institute Legislative Action (ILA) so that it can pay people to go around and make up "straw dog" issues that will get its oh-so gullible membership to donate even more $$ to its ILA so that........etc., etc., etc.
I think the NRA should change its name to "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" !
Wilbur
This is a terrible article and illustrates peoples ignorance of Obama's record on the issues. Yeah Obama supports the 2nd amendment so much he refused to sign the amicus brief submitted by Congressmen supporting repeal of the ban. The author "forgot" to mention that. Obama supports the 2nd amendment so much that he is on record as being against concealed carry, semi auto firearms and standard capacity magazines. He supports "reasonable regulations" on a constitutional right. Unfortunately for America, he sees every regulation as reasonable. He has voted one time (2006) in his short political career to support gun owners, that was to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during a disaster. Voicing support of a constitutional right while voting 99.9% of the time to restrict that right tells me something about his sincerity. He should know better being a "professor of constitutional law". If a politician claims to support freedom of speech but votes in favor of censorship at every opportunity, would you call him a first amendment supporter? Lets see if the Huffington post supports free speech by not editing this post. Obama is going to lose the election because people are not as stupid as he thinks they are. The Democrats care more about style over substance. You should have nominated Bill Richardson for President.
Listen LP...we at the Huffington Post welcome your comments - unlike the conservative blog site...and from the substance of your response it shows that you do have half of a brain (so why you would vote for Mcain beats me). But if you really want to take a look at records and call people hypocrits you are barking up the wrong tree...issue after issue McCain has failed to act on the behalf of the American People. So sure Obama as well as many other democrats and some republicans want to put some regulations on what you are allowed to do while owning your fire arm to prevent unnessary death and harm on others - they are not asking you to give up your right to own a firearm. In addition, how have your pockets been doing lately? That's what happens when Republican push for deregulation for the last 14 years 12 of which they controlled Congress - But the democrats wrecked the economy in the last 2 years right? You Repubs are such Mavericks -
I was hoisting a few this evening with a bunch of alpha male and female New York City fireman at my local tavern. During the primaries every one of them was a McCain supporter. Not anymore. They're all voting for 0bama.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
