So, what you're saying is that they suck, right?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
NRA gags board on Kagan testimony.
- Thread starter theGringo
- Start date
So, what you're saying is that they suck, right?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,549
- Likes
- 33,607
No, I'm saying that there is a consistency to the NRA logic. Reasonable people will differ as to whether or not that meets the diagnostic criteria for suckiness.
I'm just no good at nuance.
Acujeff
NES Member
If you subscribe to the free daily e-mail alerts from NRA-ILA (listed below) you would already know these rumors are false. They have been alerting members of Kagan poor record on RKBA since she has been nominated.
Those who spread false accusations about the NRA are not "critics" or "open debaters" - they are trolls trying to convince gun owners to not support their own rights and best interests. Stay informed, get your info from the NRA alerts and make up your own mind.
NRA-ILA Exec. Dir. Chris Cox Responds to Internet Rumors
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13972
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The NRA has received a number of questions about blog posts that claim I issued a “gag order” to NRA board members on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is absurd and wrong.
This claim shows complete ignorance of how the NRA operates. NRA staff, including everyone (myself included) at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, work for the NRA Executive Vice President, who in turn works for the NRA board, which in turn is elected by NRA’s voting members.
Under the NRA by-laws, NRA-ILA has "sole responsibility to administer the legislative, legal, informational and fund raising activities of the Association relating to the defense or furtherance of the right to keep and bear arms, in accordance with the objectives and policies established by the Board of Directors.” To carry out that mission, NRA-ILA strives to ensure that the NRA’s positions are clear and based on the most accurate information possible.
The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is not to be taken lightly. That’s why, when Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement in April, I sent an e-mail to NRA board members and staff stating that with the critical case of McDonald v. Chicago still pending before the Court, “it is very important that NRA not comment on Justice Stevens nor engage in speculation on potential successors.”
Similarly, when the President nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Court in May, I sent a message to the NRA Board pointing out her lack of a judicial record; noting that NRA-ILA was reviewing all available information; and stating that “it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment.” Again, I referenced the fact that NRA has a case pending before the Court.
When Ms. Kagan was nominated, little information on her record was available. More recently, the William J. Clinton Presidential Library has released an enormous volume of documents from her time in the White House. NRA-ILA staff has reviewed these carefully and they raise serious concerns. As we said last week:
What we've seen to date shows a hostility towards our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, such as her role in developing the Clinton Administration's 1998 ban on importation of many models of semi-automatic rifles; her note mentioning the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan as “bad guy” organizations; and her comment to Justice Marshall that she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban.
Respect for the Senate confirmation process requires that a nominee be given the opportunity to explain his or her position on critical issues affecting gun owners. That’s why the NRA has been working with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure she is thoroughly questioned on these issues. Once the hearings are complete, the NRA will announce its position on her confirmation.
This is exactly the approach the NRA took last year when we opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Early in the process, we expressed our serious concerns about her record. We announced our opposition after her confirmation hearings ended without evidence that she would properly respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and apply it to the states. Her dissenting vote in McDonald v. Chicago confirmed that our position was correct.
Unfortunately, false Internet rumors are far too often repeated as fact. Rest assured, however, that the NRA is fully committed to representing the interests of our members and all gun owners in this process and defending the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as we do in all legislative, legal and political arenas.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "America's First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
Those who spread false accusations about the NRA are not "critics" or "open debaters" - they are trolls trying to convince gun owners to not support their own rights and best interests. Stay informed, get your info from the NRA alerts and make up your own mind.
NRA-ILA Exec. Dir. Chris Cox Responds to Internet Rumors
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13972
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The NRA has received a number of questions about blog posts that claim I issued a “gag order” to NRA board members on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is absurd and wrong.
This claim shows complete ignorance of how the NRA operates. NRA staff, including everyone (myself included) at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, work for the NRA Executive Vice President, who in turn works for the NRA board, which in turn is elected by NRA’s voting members.
Under the NRA by-laws, NRA-ILA has "sole responsibility to administer the legislative, legal, informational and fund raising activities of the Association relating to the defense or furtherance of the right to keep and bear arms, in accordance with the objectives and policies established by the Board of Directors.” To carry out that mission, NRA-ILA strives to ensure that the NRA’s positions are clear and based on the most accurate information possible.
The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is not to be taken lightly. That’s why, when Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement in April, I sent an e-mail to NRA board members and staff stating that with the critical case of McDonald v. Chicago still pending before the Court, “it is very important that NRA not comment on Justice Stevens nor engage in speculation on potential successors.”
Similarly, when the President nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Court in May, I sent a message to the NRA Board pointing out her lack of a judicial record; noting that NRA-ILA was reviewing all available information; and stating that “it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment.” Again, I referenced the fact that NRA has a case pending before the Court.
When Ms. Kagan was nominated, little information on her record was available. More recently, the William J. Clinton Presidential Library has released an enormous volume of documents from her time in the White House. NRA-ILA staff has reviewed these carefully and they raise serious concerns. As we said last week:
What we've seen to date shows a hostility towards our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, such as her role in developing the Clinton Administration's 1998 ban on importation of many models of semi-automatic rifles; her note mentioning the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan as “bad guy” organizations; and her comment to Justice Marshall that she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban.
Respect for the Senate confirmation process requires that a nominee be given the opportunity to explain his or her position on critical issues affecting gun owners. That’s why the NRA has been working with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure she is thoroughly questioned on these issues. Once the hearings are complete, the NRA will announce its position on her confirmation.
This is exactly the approach the NRA took last year when we opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Early in the process, we expressed our serious concerns about her record. We announced our opposition after her confirmation hearings ended without evidence that she would properly respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and apply it to the states. Her dissenting vote in McDonald v. Chicago confirmed that our position was correct.
Unfortunately, false Internet rumors are far too often repeated as fact. Rest assured, however, that the NRA is fully committed to representing the interests of our members and all gun owners in this process and defending the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as we do in all legislative, legal and political arenas.
__________________
Get and stay informed with "America's First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
So NRA is presenting testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee? Oh, no, they're not. What drivel.
Why bother spreading false rumors? Donating to the NRA is supporting an organization that helped to pass the Gung Control Act of 1968. That's not supporting our rights in the slightest.
OK so i am politically slow but what good is "Once the hearings are complete, the NRA will announce its position on her confirmation." that going to do after the fact?
Bill Nance
Banned
After the hearings are over, the committee deliberates and votes. If they approve, the thing goes to the full Senate for a vote.
It's nearly unheard of for a candidate to make it through the committee and then fail to be confirmed by the whole body. It happens, but we're talking a handful of cases in our history. Generally, presidents are allowed wide latitude in their appointments absent clearly being unqualified (Harriet Meiers) or too extreme on some issue or another (Lonnie Guinier) or having some scandal attached to them. Even in those cases the nomination is generally withdrawn rather than go down in flames.
The whole practice of the showboating of nominees is pretty recent. Historically they've gone through without any real trouble absent the two issues I mentioned. Started in the 50s with McCarthy et al. and it's never stopped since with both parties blaming each other for being worse than the other.
Except for the fact that once you sell out your principles you are just what one of the previous respondents said: A political whore.
I'm starting to regret sending in my money to become a Life Member.
My mistake, I was thinking the NRA was waiting till the whole process was done and she was confirmed. Thanks for the info Bill
They might as well be doing just that.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Agreed. They are waiting to make a political statement, not to try and change the outcome. Basically there appears to be a deal right now in washington that each party gets 3-4 safe SCOTUS seats. That means only 1 or 3 seats is ever really up for grabs. It appears that IF obama gets another pick, there will be massive battles on who gets the seat but that they are not looking to stop replacements for the safe seats.
That's my 2 cents.
EC1
NES Member
I don't understand why so many members here are ready to condemn the NRA without looking any further than an internet blog. If you disagree with the NRA there is a way to change it; join, become a voting member and vote. It's like the people here who are negative about GOAL and don't join. There are a couple of hundred thousand LTC holders in MA --how many are GOAL members? Not enough. The same is true for the NRA, not enough gun owners are members (4-5 million out of over 80 million estimated gun owners) simply not enough. Imagine what 80 million voters are like, enough to win any election. Strength in numbers.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,549
- Likes
- 33,607
If we can't get together enough votes to elect Jim Wallace to the board, we're certainly not going to be able to influence the org by voting. If Jim wins, he'll tow the party line and work slowly and carefully within the system or he will appear on the subsequent ballot without the nominating committee endorsement and be virtually assured of not being re-elected.
I'm reminded of this:
America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. - Claire Wolfe
Acujeff
NES Member
Below is a copy of a letter sent by the NRA to U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy and Ranking member Senator Jeff Sessions explaining their position on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States. Posted on Glock Talk:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15566759#post15566759
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
11250 WAPLES MILL ROAD
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
July 1, 2010
The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Chairman Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions:
We are writing to announce the National Rifle Association's position on the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee - if confirmed - would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
During confirmation hearings, judicial nominees make carefully crafted statements regarding issues with which they do not personally agree. They often speak in terms of "settled law" or "I understand the right". When those statements are contradicted by an entire body of work over a nominee's career, however, it would be foolhardy to simply take them at face value. In Ms. Kagan's own words, "you can look to my whole life as to what kind of justice I would be." We agree.
As she has no judicial record on which we can rely, we have only her political record to review. And throughout her political career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Ms. Kagan said she was "not sympathetic" to a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns and draconian registration requirements. As domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as "immersed" in President Clinton's gun control policy efforts. For example, she was involved in an effort to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms - an effort that was described as: "taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns." And as U.S. Solicitor General, she chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the States was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government. These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment.
During her confirmation hearings last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly stated that the Supreme Court's historic Heller decision was "settled law". Even further, in response to a question from Chairman Leahy, she said "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller'." Yet last Monday in McDonald, she joined a dissenting opinion which stated: "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes".
We would also note that both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. The fact that four justices would effectively write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution is completely unacceptable. Ms. Kagan has repeatedly declined to say whether she agrees with the dissenting views of justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, which leaves unanswered the very serious questions of whether she would vote to overturn Heller and McDonald or narrow their holdings to a practical nullity.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans.
Any individual who does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less receive a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Justice Sotomayor's blatant reversal on this critical issue requires that we look beyond statements made during confirmation hearings and examine a nominee's entire body of work. Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan's record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the Court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.
For these reasons, the National Rifle Association has no choice but to oppose the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the importance of this issue, this vote will be considered in NRA's future candidate evaluations.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss further, please do not hesitate to call on us personally.
Sincerely,
Wayne LaPierre Chris Cox
Executive Vice President Executive Director
NRA NRA-ILA
cc: Majority Leader Harry Reid; Republican Leader Mitch McConnell; Members of the
United States Senate
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Get and stay informed with "America's First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15566759#post15566759
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
11250 WAPLES MILL ROAD
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
July 1, 2010
The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Chairman Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions:
We are writing to announce the National Rifle Association's position on the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee - if confirmed - would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
During confirmation hearings, judicial nominees make carefully crafted statements regarding issues with which they do not personally agree. They often speak in terms of "settled law" or "I understand the right". When those statements are contradicted by an entire body of work over a nominee's career, however, it would be foolhardy to simply take them at face value. In Ms. Kagan's own words, "you can look to my whole life as to what kind of justice I would be." We agree.
As she has no judicial record on which we can rely, we have only her political record to review. And throughout her political career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Ms. Kagan said she was "not sympathetic" to a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns and draconian registration requirements. As domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as "immersed" in President Clinton's gun control policy efforts. For example, she was involved in an effort to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms - an effort that was described as: "taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns." And as U.S. Solicitor General, she chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the States was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government. These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment.
During her confirmation hearings last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly stated that the Supreme Court's historic Heller decision was "settled law". Even further, in response to a question from Chairman Leahy, she said "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller'." Yet last Monday in McDonald, she joined a dissenting opinion which stated: "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes".
We would also note that both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. The fact that four justices would effectively write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution is completely unacceptable. Ms. Kagan has repeatedly declined to say whether she agrees with the dissenting views of justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, which leaves unanswered the very serious questions of whether she would vote to overturn Heller and McDonald or narrow their holdings to a practical nullity.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans.
Any individual who does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less receive a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Justice Sotomayor's blatant reversal on this critical issue requires that we look beyond statements made during confirmation hearings and examine a nominee's entire body of work. Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan's record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the Court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.
For these reasons, the National Rifle Association has no choice but to oppose the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the importance of this issue, this vote will be considered in NRA's future candidate evaluations.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss further, please do not hesitate to call on us personally.
Sincerely,
Wayne LaPierre Chris Cox
Executive Vice President Executive Director
NRA NRA-ILA
cc: Majority Leader Harry Reid; Republican Leader Mitch McConnell; Members of the
United States Senate
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Get and stay informed with "America's First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine (the most consistent in-depth reporting on gun issues, laws and politics).
Get NRA-ILA legislative and political RKBA e-mail alerts. Subscribe at http://www.nraila.org/
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,549
- Likes
- 33,607
The NRA response by Chris Cox did not address the central question - were, or were not, NRA board members told they were not to testify against the Kagan confirmation, and were they or were they not told they were not to make any public statements regarding the confirmation? The answer provided by Chris Cox is consistent with any combination of yes and no answers to these two questions.
This part of the statement provides the answer to your question, I think.
At least, that's how I took it.
The NRA rakes in millions every year and the most they can do for a supreme court nomination they oppose is a letter from the vp and director saying they oppose? How much did that cost to do? The going price of two stamps?
That's the official line, Bill, but everyone knows it's crap. The NRA tried to sabotage Heller vs. DC because they were afraid of the potential ramifications on the off chance that the court would issue a broad ruling and effectively put them out of business. Gura's case was air-tight, taking everything into consideration.
Further, let's say it had failed- what would have been different from the status quo at the time? Nothing. Do you really think the NRA was eventually going to do something after completely ignoring the issue for the better part of a century? Please.
-Mike
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,549
- Likes
- 33,607
Did you take NRA's striving to ensure the NRA's positions are clear and based on the most accurate infomation as a prohibition on directors speaking out?
Nothing in the Chris Cox letter is inconsistent with the reports that directors have been ordered not to speak out on this matter.
They have been infiltrated long ago gentlemen. They are just becoming bold in their shenanigans. They have been helping to pass anti 2nd amendment laws for decades by giving their "stamp of approval" (cover for politicians) while telling their members that they "softened the blow." The problem is that the blow is still a blatant violation of the 2nd amendment that they helped pass in many cases.
pdm
NES Member
This.
I still am a member b/c they do some good, but they are making very good livings playing the game... they have zero inspiration to actually win the game. GOA and JPFO gets my memberships, support, and donations. They want to *END* the game.
I took it as a non-answer. It was an obvious point, one that didn't need to be made, which was intended, in my view, to evade the question and obfuscate the issue
Precisely. We agree completely. I might not have made myself clear on that ...
The NRA is too big and has too many people working for it in full time employment positions. It's there means of making a living. If they were to work hard and actually get the job done wrt the 2ND A they would be putting themselves in the unemployment line - Or at least taking a big pay cut. Do you really think they want to do that?
They may have started out with the desire to change things at the beginning but it has morphed into a desire to change just enough to keep the people paying into the system and for themselves to make a living. I don't doubt they believe in what they are doing and do what things changed, but they want to keep making a living more.
I would rather have a team of volunteers dedicated to the job because they believe in it and who aren't doing it as their livelihood. Problem is there are not enough people that dedicated. Dedicated enough to put in the time required after working their normal jobs. These volunteers also would not necessarily have the skills needed unless they do the same thing in their real jobs. Lastly it would make for a smaller organization and therefore less likely to have the power needed to change things.
These reasons are why i belong to both the NRA and GOAL. I do not like what the NRA is/has become but they have the size and power. I love GOAL but they need more members and more power. Right now we need both for different reasons.
my .02
They may have started out with the desire to change things at the beginning but it has morphed into a desire to change just enough to keep the people paying into the system and for themselves to make a living. I don't doubt they believe in what they are doing and do what things changed, but they want to keep making a living more.
I would rather have a team of volunteers dedicated to the job because they believe in it and who aren't doing it as their livelihood. Problem is there are not enough people that dedicated. Dedicated enough to put in the time required after working their normal jobs. These volunteers also would not necessarily have the skills needed unless they do the same thing in their real jobs. Lastly it would make for a smaller organization and therefore less likely to have the power needed to change things.
These reasons are why i belong to both the NRA and GOAL. I do not like what the NRA is/has become but they have the size and power. I love GOAL but they need more members and more power. Right now we need both for different reasons.
my .02
Bill Nance
Banned
End the game? We haven't "ended the game" on the first amendment, which pretty much no one takes issue with. Why on earth do you think that we're going to do better with the second? Governments, ALL governments, all parties, will inevitably try to push back on any rights they find inconvenient. There is no "end" to that, and hence no "end" to fights over our rights. JFPO and GOA are are good to have, but they are constantly pointing out to anyone who will listen that they are "conservative" organizations. I don't want any civil rights group to make fundamental rights into what amounts to a partisan political position. Their front page looks like a laundry list of GOP talking points.
That's fine, but it's preaching to the choir while alienating large numbers of people who might otherwise support us.
Gun rights are a civil rights issue. That's all they are and to make the entire issue appear as though it's only a GOP talking point to rally the base is the last thing on earth we need. The Dems have been pissing off their own people for years on this issue and lots of lifelong Democrats have begun voting Republican based on that one issue. The fact that we haven't had an0other AWB is a good measure of how deep the support for the 2A is among Democrats, not just Republicans. Most blue states are not Mass or NJ or Calif.
I think we're in for a lot of victories in the coming years, over the screaming fits of the antis. But it's not going to happen if you eliminate vast numbers of otherwise sympathetic people from the coalition for gun rights. It's bad strategy. We need to fight this battle in such a way that 2A rights will become untouchable politically in blue states, not just red ones.
I don't see how the NRA opposing her before the hearings even started serves any purpose other than to rally people already of that opinion. And any organization like that doesn't want individuals running their mouths for the media in a way that undercuts the NRA's chosen course of action on a nominee. That's hardly unique to the NRA.
