Thank the NRA for the Death of 'Disclose'

American Thinker ^ | October 07, 2010 | Brad O'Leary

[neverdem]

Now that the free speech-killing Disclose Act has yet again failed to go anywhere in the Senate, it's time to set the record straight on whom we have to thank for its rightful death: the National Rifle Association of America. Yes, the same group miscast to so many people by bloggers and drive-by journalists as the villain in this drama.

First, a little history is in order.  ]In 2002, the NRA learned what so many Tea Party activists already know: you can't trust the political establishment. When campaign finance "reform" passed Congress that year, Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Republican Party leaders assured the NRA and other pro-free speech groups that there was no reason to worry, because even if the bill passed, it would surely be vetoed by a Republican president. After the bill passed and the Republican president failed to veto it, the NRA and other groups were again told not to worry, as it would be immediately declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. No such luck.

When the Supreme Court took a step for free speech earlier this year -- affirming the First Amendment rights of corporations and organizations in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- Democrats saw an opportunity to pass another draconian, anti-free speech bill dubbed the "Disclose Act."

The Democrat-led House and Senate put forth similar versions of the Disclose Act which had already been approved by the White House. Democratic leaders in Congress felt they had the votes they needed to avoid a filibuster and fast-track the bill into law.

But a funny thing happened on the way to dictatorship as 36 Democrats, who didn't want to run for reelection with the NRA hammering them for stripping gun owners of their right to free speech, got nervous.

Just as the bill was to be rammed through the House and Senate, these Democratic congressmen revolted and forced their leadership to carve out an exemption for the NRA. This sparked a feud between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party and forced a second compromise bill in the House that gutted the bill even more -- a compromise that included an exemption for large political membership groups from both the left and right, and with members in all fifty states.

The Senate, on the other hand, stuck with its original version of the bill, which the NRA continued to campaign against. The right and left factions within the Democratic Party continued to argue, and no compromise bill could be agreed upon.

So instead of a unified process whereby both houses of Congress would pass the Disclose Act, the NRA's action caused strife, argument, and disarray. What was supposed to be a smooth passage and bill-signing ceremony in May didn't occur. 

The House bill, which included the exemption, didn't pass until June, and it was now very different from the Senate's version of the bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had his work cut out for him. Reid's first attempt at a cloture vote failed in July. And now his second attempt over two months later has fallen dead as well.  Even if it had succeeded, it would have been different from the House bill, and so more debate would have ensued.

Make no mistake: The so-called "NRA exemption" was the bump in the track that stopped the free speech-killing bullet train from speeding through the House and Senate en route to being signed into law by a willing president.

Just don't expect the same people who write about the legislative process for a living (without bothering to understand it) to now be writing mea culpas to the NRA. Though they certainly should.

Brad O'Leary is publisher of The O'Leary Report, a bestselling author, and a former NBC Westwood One talk show host. To see more, go to www.olearyreport.com. To interview Brad, contact Shawna Shriner at (703) 272-1500 or ShawnaS@thepm-group.com.

[NonValueAdded]

Was this by design or fortunate turn of events? I suspect the latter and there is nothing in the article to support the former. Thank the NRA simply because circumstances led to disaster narrowly averted? I don't think so.

I was proud when the good people of Nebraska said no to the Nebraska Compromise, astonishing Nelson that they would choose not to look only to their narrow self interest. I cannot say the same for the NRA in this case. There is a bigger picture and the 2nd Amendment cannot stand alone when the Bill of Rights is under attack.

[OKSooner]

"One would think. But lately it seems like a lot of folks here are ready to toss the NRA off a cliff, on 'principle'. "

Speaking for my own self, I neglected to renew my NRA membership and frankly my reason had little to do with any sanctimonious principle. It was purely pragmatic.

If these geniuses at the NRA (Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox - as a matter of principle I have no problem naming names :) ) have their way we're headed for a congressional majority of Democrats who will most certainly put the next Kagan on the court and who honestly couldn't be counted on to NOT ratify some sort of UN treaty. (See recent State Department embargo on imported M1 rifles.)

I've seen this personally here in Oklahoma, where Tom Coburn, an absolute one hundred percent friend of gun owners, was opposed by the NRA, who endorsed a young Democrat named Brad Carson who was the pick of the Democrat establishment and was rumored to be backed by Soros money.

I saw that play being run live and in person at the (liberal, Democrat) lawyer's office just around the corner from my own home - prominently displaying the NRA magazine he'd subscribed to, doing his part to hold up the facade while he himself was hosting parties for Brad Carson, and six years later, Whatsisname Rice who was the next ***coughcoughlightinhisloaferscoughcough*** fake in a black leather jacket they tried to run against Coburn.

And unfortunately we have no monopoloy on this experience here in Oklahoma, either.

This ain't some sort of pretentious matter involving my sense of righteousness, or loyalty to some organization that's on the verge of outliving itself. My position is about my right to choose what firearms I wish to possess, and that's where my loyalty is as well.

It's self-evident and intuitively obvious to even myself that the Democrat party of Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, (author of the Klinton assault weapon ban), Hillary Clinton, (Head of the State Department that is even now imposing an embargo on M1 rifles), Eric (we need to ban guns here in the US so Mexicans will stop shooting each other) Holder, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Nancy Pelosi is my enemy.

Or do you guys see it differently? Harry Reid pork-barrels a nice blingy shooting range back home in Nevada so Wayne and the boys can come hob-nob with the Weatherby trap gun crowd, and how did he vote on Kagan? How did he vote on Sotomayor? And what are those two **coughcoughwomenscoughcough** stated positions on gun ownership, notwithstanding their Senate testimony?

The straightest answer I've ever gotten to that question is "Well, you need to just trust the NRA lobbyists, they know what they're doing and they're going to wheel and deal get 'em drunk and rent 'em hookers and stuff... it'll all be okay."

Can you help me out here?

[SC_Pete]

All four DemonRat Supreme Court Justices voted against the Second Amendment. Endorsing ANY RAT is tantamount to giving away our gun rights.

DemonRats want to interpret the Constitution anyway they damn well want to. If the language gets in the way, stand it on its head. They are a threat to all of our rights. For RATS, the ends justify the means.

[Joe Brower]

Boy, you just make it up as you go.

Talk about hyperbole. You need to look in the mirror, chum.

And you see a liberal anywhere you kick his ass.

Have a nice day.

[Joe Brower]

"Can you help me out here?"

No. It's quite apparent you have it all figured out.

I have acknowledged often the mistakes and missteps the NRA has made, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Maybe all you NRA-bashers will get your wish and the NRA will disappear.

It will be fun to see what happens then.

[Michael Barnes]

Not in the mood right now to thank the NRA for anything. They have been supporting dem candidates (over 50 at last count I think) and doing our country a disservice. They have their own agenda which does not coincide with the conservative agenda. I have let my membership lapse and will never rejoin.

I have been tempted to post in the NRA threads pertaining to them supporting Democrats (I like your post better BTW; my recent experience)

I had a long(er) than usual conversation with the NRA when they called me asking about my membership. I told them I am no longer a member either as the NRA has been supporting Dem's. The young lady was tying herself into knots trying to convince me they are "single issue" and align with other individuals who share their values. All I could tell her was the NRA was supporting my political enemy and very soon, my real enemy at the rate we are going. Told her I did not wish to align myself with an organization or individual that gets in bed with a political party that wants to disarm me.

[panaxanax]

From here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html

“When the NRA announced in August that it would not endorse Reid, the group noted that it had “strongly opposed” the nominations of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Reid backed both nominees.”

“But the group did not endorse Angle either, and the NRA has said it fears the possibility that if Reid loses, he could be replaced as majority leader by a more liberal lawmaker: Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) or Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).”

Sounds to me like the NRA has taken a political opinion outside their self-described “one issue” policy.

As others have said, supporting a candidate that will side with ‘super anti-gun’ Pelosi is, in fact, a vote for her agenda.

“....beyond the comprehension of a lot of folks here.”

Joe, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The NRA is the friend of my enemy. We’re not stupid and for you to imply such is way out of character for you, my FRiend.

[OKSooner]

" Maybe all you NRA-bashers will get your wish and the NRA will disappear. "

Says who?

In the second place I don't wish the NRA would disappear. I wish it would become like it once was, an effective defender of our Second Amendment rights, uncorrupted by Washington politics.

In the first place though, I don't accept the premise of your statement. I define "bashing" as unwarranted criticism intended to harm. My criticism of the NRA is fair and apparently effective as neither you, nor any of the other NRA sycophants (you can take what you dish out, can't you?) have been able to refute it.

[Hugin]

But a funny thing happened on the way to dictatorship as 36 Democrats, who didn't want to run for reelection with the NRA hammering them for stripping gun owners of their right to free speech, got nervous.

They weren't nervous about the GOA? I wonder why?

Good article, but it won't stop the knee jerk anti-NRA crowd from posting "from now on the NRA will never get another dime from me" for the 500th time.

[This Just In]

“Make up as you go along”?

What part of your words are made up? You said:

“One would think. But lately it seems like a lot of folks here are ready to toss the NRA off a cliff, on ‘principle’.”

“Of course, that doesn’t keep them from screaming “Off with their heads!” at every opportunity.”

Are you saying that you don’t even know what you’re talking about?

You also said:

“...but I don’t see those ‘principles’ doing a whole lot of good when we’re all sitting in the gulag.”

“And you see a liberal anywhere you kick his ass.”

And this, among your other statements, are not hyperbole? If you can’t defend your position intellectually, but resort to ad hominem attacks against those whom disagree with you, than your view isn’t worth further attention.

[budwiesest]

They have their own agenda which does not coincide with the conservative agenda.

This best describes what's going on. Thanks. No democrat can be trusted with the constitution or bill of rights- they despise it. The "fundamental change" that America is expereincing is coming to us in waves:

First- trash capitalism, install or replace it with fascism/totalitarianism.

Second- disarm the populace to make the transformation 'comfy'. The real hit on gun owners will come when the installation of tyranny is more complete. That's when it hits the fan. What we're seeing are lead-ins to what's coming.

And every Democrat supports it. Period. Like they supported ObamaCare- they'll line-up to take guns away faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall piles of media Bullsh*t, faster than a locomotive.

[budwiesest]

‘speeding locomotive’, dummy.

[This Just In]

Erik Latranyi said:

“The NRA (and some of us) realize that politics is a dirty, messy, sausage-making business.

It is not for the pure....never was....never will be.”

I find it telling that all of the NRA sycophants express liberal talking-points; accusing Freepers with opposing views as ignorant.

So, it doesn’t surprise me to hear you defending an organization which now endorses Democrat candidates.

[budwiesest]

Iron my cape, knave.

[This Just In]

panaxanax,

“We’re not stupid and for you to imply such is way out of character for you, my FRiend.”

Is it out of character? Reread Joe Brower’s comments. His posts consist of ad hominem attacks. His first comment on post #3 indicates that he had previously talked to neverdem about this thread, and that he was expecting differing views.

His second comment, post #11, consists of personal attacks against those who disagree with his position. Joe followed that up with yet another ad hominem and sarcastic post. Note how he never addressed the issue intellectually (see post #25 as well).

Perhaps Joe is revealing his true character, or lack there of.

[HP8753]

The NRA is a one issue outfit, What they don't seem to understand is that an attack on any part of the Bill of Rights or Constitution IS AN ATTACK on the 2nd Amendment.

What they need to say in these circumstances to all politicians and politician wannabes is that any support for XXX Bill warrants an immediate F rating no matter what your previous support was.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yea, like the NRA planned it that way-give me a break!

[fortheDeclaration]

Sounds like selling out to me.

Conservatives believe in principle.

[fortheDeclaration]

Gee, the NRA is spitting in the face of conservatives but may disappear if we go away-how interesting!

If the NRA is compromising with Democrats it needs to go away and be replaced with a principled organization.

[B4Ranch]

>>In 2002, the NRA learned what so many Tea Party activists already know: you can’t trust the political establishment. When campaign finance “reform” passed Congress that year, Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House.<<

Why is it nobody is putting the blame where it belongs? You all are bitching that the NRA is supporting Dims but there’s not a word being said about the Republicans NOT supporting us!

panaxanax, you said, “The NRA is the friend of my enemy.” I think that you guys are forgetting the Republicans don’t appear to be very damn grateful that we are responsible for their trip to DC this term.

What’s the big deal about Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and White House if they aren’t going to do a damn thing with it? We shouldn’t have to be buying permits to carry concealed. There’s nothing in the 2nd about permits!

A fish rots from the head down. The NRA isn’t at the top of the Constitution, we are. Those rights are ours, not the communists!