NRA Endorses McCain/Palin

Still think they're "non-partisan"? Still throwing away money on membership dues to these hypocrites?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/world-class-hypocrites-nra-endorses/story.aspx?guid=%7B4E3317C3-6ED2-4DF2-A69D-D42991A2E31F%7D&dist=hppr

:sarcasm:

bullet laced bears DON'T shit in the woods

They support the party that's using the military against its own citizens. What champions of small government they are.

:eyes:

Please?????

...considering McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform...but look at who opposed that measure to the USSC...and they're (the NRA) using Senator Clinton's words against Senator Obama...strange world indeed. But what surprised me even more was that there are "gun" threads here, and that some people here actually support the 2nd. Pick me up off the floor. Am I allowed to celebrate my "otherness"?

Ah, I know. It's coming from the usual gang of mega-posters here in the Gungeon. Those same folk who excoriated and crucified me with such gusto when I dared to speak ill of the NRA back in May. Hey, Guys and Gals - It's OK to change your mind! As Randy Newman says, "Pluto's not a planet anymore, either".

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/10/07/tomo/

but banning the most popular rifles in U.S. homes is just considered Too Damn Important by a few key DLC'ers. The gun issue was successfully taken off the table in 2006, but the DLC thinks 1994, 2000, and 2004 are better templates, and has managed to wrestle things back toward the 1994 strategy.

I haven't posted all that much here on guns in the past few weeks. Too much deja vu from when I was debating the DLC'ers on the issue in 2004, on the John Kerry forum, when they INSISTED that promising to fight for new gun bans would be a political benefit rather than a liability, and that there was no WAY that promising to outlaw popular rifles would hurt Kerry/Edwards among gun owners. Sure turned out that way, didn't it?

:sarcasm:

I am just hoping that the party leadership wises up soon, before we end up with another 1994 in 2010.

And FWIW, it's not the 4 million NRA members you need to worry about, or even the 13 to 15 million hunters. It's the 16-30 million "assault weapon" owners and the 40+ million handgun owners that are the real issue. It's not about hunting, and it's not about the NRA (as much as the NRA and the repubs at the Brady Campaign would like to make it so).

Not enough responses within an hour and you start prodding for more. :shrug:


Obama losing the endorsement is a sad thing for me when he could have gotten it had he gotten correct on the gun rights.

I was just pleasantly surprised at the positive comments I'd been receiving. And now, thanks to you, pipoboy et al my "faith" has been restored. We're back up to the noise level I've come to expect from the Usual Gang of Gungeon Posters....

I dropped my membership years ago.

but why would the NRA not endorse McCain given the 2 choices based on their gun rights positions and voting history Which is the ONLY criteria they consider?

how, in your mind, they should justify endorsing Obama over McCain based on their stated objective. Then explain how their endorsement is hypocritical.It may be a lot of things, but hypocritical?

It comes from the title of the article on marketwatch.com - "World Class Hypocrites: NRA Endorses 'Enemy of the 2nd Amendment' McCain"

Coincidentally, that happens to be the article I provided a link to in my OP. Hey! Here's a wild idea - Why don't you read the article (which, after all, was the point of my post to begin with). Then, if you still have questions......

that the 2 questions in the OP are, in fact, asked by fingrpik? I read the following and that told me all I needed to know:

The following is a statement by Ray Schoenke, President, American Hunters and Shooters:

AHSA is a thinly veiled arm of Brady. For them to label NRA hypocrites is laughable.

"AHSA is a thinly veiled arm of Brady. For them to label NRA hypocrites is laughable."

Refute the facts they cite, and I'll listen.


"Facts have a liberal bias"

Stephen Colbert

...comparison to Obama.

Sure John McCain is not loved by gun rights advocates, but currently he is anti-AWB and Obama is for it.

Did you not know this? Are you new to these issues?

The National Rifle Association is endorsing Republican presidential nominee John McCain despite differences with the Arizona senator on gun-show rules and campaign finance restrictions.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=11660

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and the chairman of the NRA's political action committee planned stops Thursday in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada to talk about the move.

LaPierre said the two agree on many issues important to the group.

"He's cast more than 60 votes in the Senate in support of the Second Amendment,"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/nra-endorses-mccain/

Perhaps they should have endorsed Bob Barr...

Bob serves the people of Georgia's Seventh District in the United States House of Representatives. He was elected in November 1994 and re-elected in 1996. Bob served previously with the CIA and as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. Bob was a member of the historic class of 73 freshman Republicans elected in 1994, and was chosen by Speaker Gingrich to Chair the Firearms Legislation Task Force. Bob was the sponsor of the bill to repeal the Clinton gun ban which passed the House in 1996. Bob has been named the American Shooting Sports Council's "1997 Congressional Leader of the Year" and "1997 Gun Rights Legislator of the Year" by the Citizens Committee For the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. Bob continues to fight for individual rights against encroachment by the Federal government, and there is no stronger defender of the Second Amendment in Congress.

Rep. Barr was re-elected to the NRA Board of Directors in 2001 for a 3 year term.

Bob Barr has NO chance of being elected President and most people don't even realize he is running.

I would have much more respect for the NRA had they endorsed Barr not McCain. Of course, they could have chosen not to endorse anyone as they have done in the past.

The NRA doesn't always endorse presidential candidates. It has backed President Bush but declined to endorse Bob Dole in the 1996 race or President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/nra-endorses-mccain/

I hate to say it but it looks like they sold out on this endorsement. McCain is no friend of gun owners and will flush them down the drain in a heartbeat. Calling them World Class Hypocrites is indeed accurate.

"Bob Barr has NO chance of being elected President and most people don't even realize he is running. I would have much more respect for the NRA had they endorsed Barr not McCain. Of course, they could have chosen not to endorse anyone as they have done in the past."

The NRA's interests lie in protecting the 2A rights of Americans. I'm sure that the NRA is extremely pleased with Barr and hold him high as a model pro-gun representative. However, the NRA isn't dumb enough to endorse Barr and not McCain. Barr CANNOT win this election. Therefore, from a gun-rights perspective, a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. The NRA would probably endorse Satan or the Antichrist over Obama/Biden if they promised to protect all 2A rights.

...their own property rights over the rights of others to live aren't really all that progressive. Indeed, they're downright reactionary:



I stand opposed to Dick Cheney and the NRA and all the bloody carnage they support, for you see, unlike some, I'M A LIBERAL!!!

Well, then.....Welcome!!

:toast: :pals: :yourock: :applause:

"Still think they're "non-partisan"? Still throwing away money on membership dues to these hypocrites?"

So they endorse McCain/Palin and now all of of sudden their claim to bipartisanship is hypocrisy? Be fair here. The NRA is a large special interest group... actually one of the largest. Of course they will have a statement of endorsement for the 2008 Presidential Election to issue to their constituents and members. Based on that premise look at the candidates, their records, and their platform. Obama/Biden are, unfortunately, very anti-gun. The NRA does have a small handful of endorsed democrats and independents. However, just because a traditional democratic platform leans slightly toward anti-gun... that does not consequently make a pro gun organization partisan. I guarantee if repubs all started voting anti-gun and proposing bans that the NRA endorsement would shift dramatically... as expected. It has nothing to do with "bipartisanship".

Personally, I'm not a fan of the NRA. They stand up for sportsmen and hunters and often (in the past) leave the recreational shooters (read: people who like 'evil' guns) out in the cold. They don't support NFA firearm or assault weapon enthusiasts nearly as much as they should.

In case you missed the link (It was sorta hidden there, highlighted in the CENTER of the OP), here it is again:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/world-class-hypocrites-nra-endorses/story.aspx?guid=%7B4E3317C3-6ED2-4DF2-A69D-D42991A2E31F%7D&dist=hppr

Hopefully, after you read it, the logic will cease to escape you....

Gun control extremists masquerading as "sportsmen".

Instead of stooping to name-calling, how about attempting to refute what they say?

One political entity with an agenda deriding another political entity for having an agenda. Only the pot is also claiming to be the real kettle, when it is in fact a pot.

What's there to refute? They're both dishonest. They both suck.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The simple truth is that Obama's current stance on guns is worse for gun owners (IMO all Americans) than McCain's. Obama could have gotten correct on this issue and had the Heller decision to use as cover.

The opinion piece you reference is no better than an NRA piece in terms of accuracy. It's clearly hiding the truth, but thats how it goes today when dishonest people use gun issues for political purposes.

Its true that the NRA is dominated by republicans and conservatives now, but being better on gun issues still earns the coveted endorsement.

The NRA was opposed to the Heller suit, too. They're nothing but a fund raising body for the GOP that pays lip service to 2nd Amendment rights. If the 2nd Amendment gets incorporated in manner that other Constitutional Rights are, they'll be back to hosting matches and teaching hunter safety. They do not want to shut off that fountain of cash.

Talk to some of their field representatives some time. I met one once and we struck up a friendly conversation. We were in 100% agreement on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. My views were, if anything, more pro-freedom than his on many points. Once I mentioned that I was a Democrat activist you would have thought I tossed a skunk in the room. The poor guy just couldn't see past the party identity that is drilled into their heads.

The NRA is all about furthering one political party's agenda at the expense of the people who pay their wages. Sound familiar? The GOP has been stringing it's loyal base along for years.

The endorsement is far from enthusiastic, and its tardiness suggests they have basically written this election off.

It's unfortunate that the Democratic Party has chosen to cling to gun control policies ("assault weapons" ban and "closing the gun show loophole") that have served neither our political interests nor public safety in the past. There is no reason to believe those outdated ideas are going to do any better in the future.

This election is going to be close enough to make a lot of us very uncomfortable on Election Day. I believe that if we had dropped the albatross of limitless pursuit of gun control, there would be no question of an Obama/Biden victory.

BTW - I am not surprised at the OP's ignorance on this, but the AHSA is a false-flag operation, a front for the gun control lobby.

Oh, but the NRA isn't a right-wing front for the GOP? Watch who you call ignorant, friend.

Which is an easily verifiable fact. Then we might have something to discuss. Their choice of McCain over Obama is obvious given Obama's past support of draconian gun control, and the Democratic Party's IMO foolish adherence to failed policies like the "assault weapons" ban.

You're trying to pick a fight in a bar where there are no other customers.

A. Who said I support the AWB?

B. If Obama loses, it won't be because of the gun issue.

C. If Obama loses, my new home will be in Costa Rica.

I am opposed to the AWB. It's a stupid policy. Then again, if I'm forced to choose between an administration that endorses endless war, torture, economic chaos, erosion of my civil liberties, an imperial Presidency, a right-wing SCOTUS, domestic eavesdropping, etc. etc., or an administration that might place some limits on my "freedom" to purchase certain models of firearms or limit me to 10 rds. per clip, well, sorry, but unlike some here in the Gungeon I am blessed with an ability to rationally prioritize the critical issues at stake.

And BTW, I own several firearms; I am grateful for the RKBA; and I mailed in my ballot yesterday. I voted, of course, for Obama.

What I am curious about is the reason you seem to take on so many other supporters of both 2A and Obama, wondering about "deafening silence" and holding up the NRA as a point of attack. There are some members of the NRA here, but there are some anti-gun posters who regularly trot out arguments/information provided by the GOP-founded, GOP-run Brady Center.

The NRA isn't the end-all for people in the Guns forum. It's hardly even a beginning.

the GOP-founded, GOP-run Brady Center

That one's got what we used to call the non-political trots back in the day.

Shit, to put it plainly.

Still think they're "non-partisan"? Still throwing away money on membership dues to these hypocrites?

The fact of the matter is Obama, as well as the Democratic Party Platform, is anti-firearm rights. McCain is not. It is not due to partisanism that the NRA endorsed as they did, it is due to the candidates stance on the issue.

I guarantee you - if Obama was pro-second Amendment and McCain was not, the endorsement would have gone the other way.

The NRA has endorsed plenty of pro-gun Democrats over the years I have been a member.

The NRA is true to its cause. Don't be mad at the NRA because Obama's stance on firearms cost him the endorsement.

AHSA - American Hunters and Shooters Association - that explains everything.

American Hunters and Shooters Association is an anti-firearm organization.

Just because it's Friday afternoon, and your felonious farting thread got locked.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ee18c7ad-7124-4a16-9c80-6328adc6ac3d

METRO VANCOUVER - A disgruntled motorist extinguished a lit cigarette in the eye of a bylaw officer issuing him a parking ticket Tuesday afternoon, West Vancouver police say.

Jozef Baksay, a 55-year-old West Vancouver resident, was taken into custody at the scene and charged with assault with a weapon and assault of a peace officer, Cpl. Fred Harding said Wednesday.

Harding said a young bylaw officer had been writing a ticket when a motorist began berating him, then pushed a lit cigarette into the officer's right eye with enough force to extinguish it. He was able to close his eye before the cigarette hit him, avoiding serious injury, Harding said.

"He was clearly upset but he was fine," Harding said. "It looks like there's no long-lasting injuries."

There isn't much more to the article, but the reader comments are entertaining.

"Only in Canada is a cigarette considered a weapon." ... Although I suspect the same might be true in this situation pretty much everywhere. ;)

I'll bet this guy is a law-abidin' citizen who would have qualified for a concealed weapon permit south of the border.

...separate but equal facilities...does Senator Obama smoke?...thought I heard that somewhere...maybe on a death thread...

The AHSA is an ANTI-GUN funded, false front group.


They have even less credibility than the brady bunch or gunguys.