Posted on 06/17/2010 11:14:52 AM PDT by Dan Nunn
We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.
We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).
Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.
The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.
We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.
Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.
There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle – unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.
The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.
Yea, you sold out...
There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some "so-called First Amendment principle"
Why do you think the founders added the second Amendment?
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
~ A poem published in a 1955 book by Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free
The scum bags are lying low ONLY due to public overwelming opinion and the result of the last time they BANNED GUNS.
If they thought they could get away with it they would ban guns in a heart beat.
There is NO SUCH THING as a moderate Democrat.
“Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members.”
THEN TAKE A VOTE!
I’ll be voting with my lack of cash.
Unfortunately, the NRA doesn't yet get it: the Second Amendment does not stand alone in a vacuum.
If you do everything right for heart health but destroy the rest of the body, that heart's still going to die.
Just becuase the commies got wise and dropped their DECADES of anti-gun retoric is no excuse to be taken for suckers..
And the last GOP Gov was a flaming RINO as was Dewine and as Is voinobitch.
If the NRA is so confident they represent the membership they should put it to a vote.
Dont give the dems credit for craven fear of the voters.
They are commies..not stupid.
No, they haven’t. Not for 2010. Hell, the primaries aren’t even all over yet.
The NRA is backing the Rat that voted Bela Pelosi in Mississippi 1:
Nunnelee Proud of Pro-Second Amendment Record
Senator Respects NRA’s Expected Endorsement of Childers
TUPELO - Senator Alan Nunnelee said Thursday he’s honored to have received the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) endorsement in previous campaigns for office, but expects the NRA to endorse Congressman Travis Childers for re-election because of their ‘friendly-incumbent rule.’
“The right to keep and bear arms is sacred and enshrined in our Constitution, and I will fight with every bone in my body to defend it from the anti-gun liberals in Washington,” Nunnelee said. “Most importantly, I will vote for a House Speaker who will advance a pro-Second Amendment agenda in Congress. I am a member of the NRA and have deep respect for them. I accept their expected decision to endorse the incumbent, but I remain immensely proud of their previous support due to my diligent advocacy on gun owners’ behalves.”
In a May letter, the NRA thanked Nunnelee for his “leadership on Second Amendment issues during the 2010 session of the Mississippi Legislature” and his “long record of support for NRA-backed initiatives.”
In the recently-concluded Republican primary, Nunnelee was also proud to have received the endorsement of Gun Owners of America.
Damn I hate being called a liar by someone who has google and refuses to use it...
NRA ENDORSES STRICKLAND
http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/article/strickland-picks-up-nra-endorsement/
NRA ENDORSES HARRY REID
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2521902/posts
NRA ENDORSES JERRY BROWN
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/
AND IF YOU NEED A REMINDER:
NRA ENDORSES DEDE SCOZZAFAVA:
http://www.nypolitics.com/2009/10/08/nra-endorses-dede-scozzafava/
Are they STUPID, or have they been infiltrated by scumbags with an agenda not in keeping with most of their members?
Supporting dems, even "moderate" dems, merely gives the far-left loons leading their party more strength, and supporting RINOS ends the same way - with goofballs like Mccain tending to want to "reach across the aisle" to a domestic enemy willing to take advantage of any crisis for an excuse to take way our rights, including our 2nd Amendment rights.
The ONLY candidates they should support are those who support FREEDOM (NOT just gun rights)... PERIOD.
If they go against this principle, and use NRA member dollars for the support career political opportunists, then they are not much better then the left-wing unions.
As for Harry Reid, as much as I despise him. He did shepherd the PLCAA through to passage and many forget just how much that law was needed with the Bloombergs of the nation trying to sue the gun manufacturers out of business.
From my perspective as a concerned conservative voter Harry Reid is scum and must go at all costs. Even if that cost is Chuckie Schumer replacing him as Senate majority leader who you can bet money will try to ram through as many anti-gun laws as possible. But again, from the perspective of the NRA as a single issue RKBA organization Harry Reid has made his bones and earned his A rating.
Once again, some here are making the mistake of confusing gun politics with Republican (or Conservative) politics. They are separate.
WRONG.
As I said in my earlier post, they should support FREEDOM in ALL its iterations... PERIOD.
After all, haven't they tried to say they are the nations oldest/most preeminent "civil rights" organization?
And yet the reality is...the last camoaign he ran...he was endorsed by the Brady Campaign
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/857
So all a commie dem has to do is say the right thing and the suckers fall in line...
No Thanks.
I hope you weren’t counting on a Christmas card from Mr. Nunn.
I'm reading it straight from the horse's mouth, not from CNN. "Endorsement" is a strong word and one I haven't seen them use this year:
http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/Default.aspx:
2010 Candidate Grades and Endorsements
Candidate grades and endorsements will be released later in the year.
For a list of candidate grades and endorsements for your state, please refer to your November NRA magazines, or visit www.NRAPVF.org.
If they endorsed anyone at all, please give me a link from their site.
The NRA is there to fight and use it's money to protect the NRA and it's members, not to fight for any and all other organizations.
That seems pretty simple and straight forward. To get involved in spending millions helping other organizations fight their battles would REALLY bring cries of outrage from the members! And make the gov’t even more determined to ‘get’ the NRA.
They are absolutely right. It's up to the other organizations to fight on their behalf.
You can't have it both ways.
I am grateful they hung tough for us.
We either hang with our freedom loving brethren or we will be eventually hanged alone...
NRA-PVF Endorses Governor Ted Strickland for Re-election in Ohio Gubernatorial Race
(they sure didn't make it obvious from the OH page)
“Once again, some here are making the mistake of confusing gun politics with Republican (or Conservative) politics. They are separate.”
And other people and making the mistake of separating gun politics from freedom politics, they are intertwined.
What the hell do we need a 2nd amendment for if not to support, defend and protect the other freedoms?
That’s the freaking reason it’s in there....
But don’t try explaining that to the NRA...now traitor to the Constitution.
And taking a benefit in exchange for your silence is in fact the textbook definition of a sellout.
The Big Boo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.