Skip to comments.Republicans and the Gun Lobby
Posted on 04/14/2012 6:19:14 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Republican politicians gathering at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis are eagerly pandering to a powerful political lobby that is intent on making the nations gun laws weaker and more riddled with more dangerous loopholes. Rather than tackling public safety risks like the Stand Your Ground law implicated in the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida, Mitt Romney and others offered nothing but exhortations to defend the Second Amendments right to bear arms at all costs.
President Obama has regrettably been avoiding the gun control issue. Still, Mr. Romney attacked him at the convention on Friday, promising to stand with the N.R.A. for the rights of hunters and sportsmen and those seeking to protect their homes and their families. This was a far cry from Mr. Romneys 1994 campaign for the United States Senate when he assured centrist Massachusetts voters: I dont line up with the N.R.A. Yet there he was in St. Louis, lining up. Newt Gingrich, in his over-the-top manner, urged a United Nations campaign to proclaim the Second Amendment a human right for every person on the planet.
The convention, in its celebration of American values, has drawn tens of thousands of members to see genuflecting Republicans and to browse a seven-acre commercial mart of guns and shooting paraphernalia, much of it designed for the battlefields of war, not the home front.
Notably absent are top Democratic politicians, who seem to have concluded that, despite thousands of constituents shot or killed each year, it is best to go silent about gun control.....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
National Rifle Association Meeting - Part 1 Newt Gingrich Speech at 1:00:18 (follows Mitt Romney Rick Santorum follows Newt)
National Rifle Association Meeting - Part 2 at 3:09:30 Rick Perrys Speech
BARF ALERT. Fun exercise: only read the first sentence of each paragraph and see if you still have food in your stomach. I don’t.
They have been waiting for a case like this for years. Expect an gun grab by the end of they year.
The Times paints this issue in terms of "Republican" support for the NRA and gun ownership, but this is actually a fairly recent phenomenon in national politics that has developed over the last 15-20 years. It's really more of an "urban vs. rural" issue, which is why Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie who represented (or currently represent, in Christie's case) mostly urban constituencies ended up on the same side as the New York Times on this issue.
Historically, some of the strongest advocates of gun ownership were conservative Democrats from rural states. What has changed in the last two decades is that those Democrats have largely disappeared from the national scene, and the Democrat/Republican divide is now much more closely aligned with the urban/rural characteristics of different regions of the country. Starting in the early 1990s, many of those Democrats from "red" states who advocated strongly on behalf of organizations like the NRA over the years lost their seats in Congress because the national Democratic mindset aligned much more closely with the politics of the urban sh!t-holes that are the last remaining bastions of Democratic strength.
The God and guns crowd vs the Big Government crowd.
And why we need to cling to this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
(Is Biden supposed to be tweeting photos of Camp David?)
When Obama addresses union meetings it is not pandering?
When Biden talks with Jewish groups, it is not pandering?
The NY Times is showing its liberalism -—— again.
Right on, right on, right on!
Post 6 has it correct. Pro-gun Democrats at the national level are scarce. The NRA used to endorse a number of Democrats from the south and west as they had pro-gun voting records. Now the liberal Democrats control the caucus and insist on all voting in a block for liberal and urban issues.
Clintoon’s and Omama’s anti-gun stances pushed the NRA towards endorsing more Republicans than Democrats. The NRA, like most conservatives, sees Obama as so left and so anti-gun that defeating him is its one and only job for 2012. I agree that another Obama term will take more than guns from honest Americans and applaud the NRA’s position.
As for the New York Times saying Gingrich is “over the top” in proclaiming gun ownership to be a fundamental right that should be worldwide — read the Founding Fathers, Mr. Editor. They considered American principles of widespread gun ownership to be a key difference between the peasants of Europe and the free citizens of America. And that wasn't a liberal-conservative issue to the Founders; I don't know of any founder who advocated restrictions on gun ownership for white citizens apart from being convicted of felonious crimes, and nobody today advocates race-based restrictions on gun ownership.
If New York Times liberals want to be on the side of the Jim Crow people who wanted government to say some people shouldn't own guns because they couldn't be trusted, that's fine with me. It just helps prove that elites want to control “lesser people” since the elites think they know better.
If that's true, it's the best thing Mittens has done in his miserable socialist career.
The New York Times (and the whole d*mn city, for all I care) can caterwaul all it wants about the right to keep and BEAR arms. If someone tries to disarm me with force, THEY WILL DIE, Trayvon or no Trayvon.
And the anti-gunners on FR better learn that, too.
The Democrats don’t mind guns as long as they get to determine who the guns are pointed at.
The Stand Your Ground Law ("SYGL") has absolutely nothing ot do with the Zimmreman case. Prior to the enactment of the SYGL, a person had an obligation to retreat if they could safely do so without risk of death or serious bodily injury to themself or another person. For example, if Martin came after Zimmerman swinging a baseball bat, Zimmerman would not be legally justified in opening fire if he could safely backtrack to the safety of his house or truck before Martin bashes him over the head. But that's not what happened here. Instead, Martin knocks Zimmerman to the ground, climbs on top of him, and starts bashing his head into the sidewalk. Zimmerman cannot possibly retreat at this point and therefore, he has the right to use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself. Thus, this case is not about standing your ground; rather, it's about being unable to safely retreat.
Egads! Yet more proof - as if any more were needed - that you really don’t have to be an imbecile to work for the New York Times...but it sure helps!
Someone needs to represent us...
Fast and Furious comes to mind. He might get aasked why former National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly is being blocked from testifying before Issa and Grassley. I always thought Obama's intelligence was overrated, but I never thought he was stupid.
Maybe now after the 2010 elections, but they changed their act on gun control and abortion for the 2006 and 2008 elctions. In the Senate, think of Casey in PA, Webb in VA and Tester in MT. How do you think they took back the Congress in 2006 and expanded their majorities in 2008? Why do you think no serious gun grabbing bills were not passed while they had control of Congress. Holder asked for a renawal of the so called "assault gun" ban in early 2009. We got Fast and Furious instead. Pelosi and Reid basically told Holder to pound sand. IIRC, 64 rats in the House wrote him a letter saying likewise.