Ammo For Sale

« « Cybernauts ho! | Home | Broken » »

Not paying attention?

At the LA Times:

NRA’s political clout is waning

With 2nd Amendment rights expanded and Democrats reluctant to tackle the issue, gun control isn’t the GOP weapon it used to be. The rifle group, in essence, is a victim of its own success.

Eight years after a national debate over gun control helped keep Democrat Al Gore out of the White House, the National Rifle Assn. and its Republican allies are launching a new campaign to defeat Barack Obama.

But this time, the issue that GOP strategists once relied on to provide crucial votes in close elections has lost much of its political punch.

Hmm. I seem to recall some historically anti-gun candidates sucking up to them recently (9iu11iani). And who is vying for the anti-gun endorsement? No one.

The NRA may have become a victim of its own success.

And they list those successes. Seems their clout is still in tact, if you ask me.

BTW, I find it amusing that the LAT felt it had to spin NRA’s success as a negative.

12 Responses to “Not paying attention?”

  1. _Jon Says:

    But it is a good point – foreboding as it is – that the NRA needs to be aware that it could fall victim to its own success. Ever vigilant, always pushing forward, and all that.

  2. Adam Lawson Says:

    Wow that’s… that’s just special.

    Anyone who thinks gun control is no longer a factor in elections is pants-on-head retarded.

  3. Michael Hawkins Says:

    You fall victim to your own success by turning into a sluggish corporate machine …
    The NRA’s already survived that one, so now it’s just a matter of taking your neighbours to the range.

  4. Robert Says:

    Ho!

  5. Linoge Says:

    Well, someone had to cover for the Brady Bunch headmaster coming forward and basically saying they are completely, utterly, and totally buggered.

    Warm up the spin machine!

  6. HardCorps Says:

    Read what L Niel Smith wrote about the NRA over at JPFO.

  7. JKB Says:

    The NRA is just getting started. Everyone is holding their breath waiting on the Heller decision but once it comes the work begins.

    If an individual right is affirmed, then it is off to get rid of Chicago’s ban and to roll back the de facto bans in NJ and Mass. Not to mention the de facto LA ban on CW.

    The anti-gun crowd will start trying to do what Helmke said, push the AW ban, push for 100% background, push the micro printing, etc.

    And should Heller go against the popular view of the 2nd, then the fight will be on in earnest as the grabbers will move for a ban and confiscation.

  8. Jacob Says:

    The article is crap. The NRA cannot make decent pro-gun candidates materialize out of thin air. There has to be a solid campaign foundation to start with otherwise they could throw all the money they had into a race and it wouldn’t matter one bit. This is why you don’t see them backing the libertoons kook candidates.

    John McCain is at best a mediocre candidate and there’s not a lot they can do about it. Real political clout is attained by knowing where to focus your resources, not wasting them on things beyond your control.

  9. Mark Says:

    I could not vote for anyone that was not FOR gun control. I do not think anyone is for totally outlawing guns. But do you really need more than a couple?

  10. Kurt "45superman" Hofmann Says:

    I could not vote for anyone that was not FOR gun control.

    I’d say you’re in the distinct minority (thankfully) then–the number of voters for whom rights deprivation is an essential requirement seems to be vanishingly small.

    I do not think anyone is for totally outlawing guns.

    Yeah–Senator Feinstein was probably just kidding when she said: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.”

    But do you really need more than a couple?

    So that’s your plan to substantially reduce so-called “gun violence”? Limit us to “a couple,” because we don’t “need” more than that (as if need has anything to do with a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental, absolute, human right of the individual)?

    Are you really a gun rights advocate, just posting comments like that to make the other side look foolish? It’s really not necessary–they’ll do it on their own.

  11. Robert Says:

    You would think that the LA Times would respect and celebrate a citizens grass-roots organization who’s work was the tireless protection of the Bill of Rights.

    But you would be wrong.

  12. retro Says:

    What part of europe are you from Mark? In America it isn’t about what someone else thinks you need, it’s about OUR RIGHTS.