A double agent exposed.....

[virginia mountainman]

How do I know? Think about it: Why else would Congressman Rush have introduced HR45, aka the Blair Holt Act, except to generate a bonanza of contributions to the NRA, not to mention a flood of outraged e-mails warning that the Second Amendment is in clear and present danger?


Folks who might not ordinarily genuflect before the gun-rights lobby can recognize when the reasonable regulation of firearms becomes sheer harassment of gun owners. As this clever bill of Rush's bill does - flagrantly.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090427/COLUMNISTS0204/904270312/1057/COLUMNISTS

[Dollface]

1. I'll have to up my contribution to the ACLU

[jody]

4. OK if you would prohibit a civil right as does ACLU, the right to keep & bear arms for self-defense.

[Dollface]

6. You lost me there. The NRA is a Republican fund-raising group. I won't donate to them.

[jody]

8. ACLU opposes the civil right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. n/t

[Dollface]

9. My understanding is that their position was based on the historical interpretation of the second

amendment as a collective right and that, given the Supreme Court's reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms in D.C. v. Heller, there are many new questions.

"...the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."

I've heard that the Nevada ACLU is already moving toward the new interpretation (I haven't looked into it personally.)

I don't always agree with the ACLU but they do ask the hard questions and force the courts to consider the Constitution. It will interesting to watch how this develops.

[DonP]

10. Same logic as Dredd Scott

Relying on the historic interpretation of the law.

It's coming on to a year since Heller and only one or two state ACLU operations have changed their POV.

The conclusion I, and a lot of other former supporters, have come to is that the ACLU at the national level has chosen a personal ideology over the actual constitutional point of law and its interpretation.

When people like Tribe and Dershowitz agree that it's an individual right and all 9 justices agree on that fact (both dissents acknowledged the individual interpretation), I have a hard time believing that the ACLU at the national level is being studious and careful with their POV. Stubborn seems to be a more accurate description.

I know there are a lot of ignorant and simplistic people that scream "Aaaagh, NRA, a Right Wing Nut Group", but ... With 4+million members, (and a good portion of them Democrats), the NRA wields a lot of influence and writing them off as a Right Wing Republican fund raiser is way too shortsighted. Anyway the vast majority of the critics have no real idea what they support and why they take the stands they do and don't bother to look up the facts. Instead they go by a smart ass bumper sticker or stupid post here or elsewhere online and don't bother to find out for themselves.

If you're going to judge them, then at least get the real facts firsthand for yourself. They don't support machine guns for everyone, they don't want children or the mentally unstable to have guns or any of the other ignorant crap idiots keep posting.

Can you think of any other organizations that has a national scope and over 4 million voting members, not even counting their families and the other 80 million gun owners they can influence?

In the last election they supported a record number of second amendment supporting Democrats, including my Representative, Debbie Halvorsen of Illinois, over her Republican counterpart.

[Dollface]

12. I must confess that I have some bias but not in the usual way. My dad's gun club had a falling out

with the NRA because of their insistence that they contribute (in addition to their dues) to a PAC. I will however check out the NRA web site and familiarize myself with their current positions. I will also remain a card-carrying member of the ACLU because their work is much more than this one issue. I also might need them when the government comes to seize the gun collection.

[DonP]

13. Thanks for the open mind

What you describe sounds more like an issue with the local gun club than the NRA per se.

FWIW - there are two related but legally separate organizations, the NRA and the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm). There are no local chapters or state branches of the NRA. However most states have a state rifle or shooting association. The NRA-ILA can request contributions, and they certainly do, but they can't demand NRA members contribute.

The NRA tends to be "color blind" and very single minded as far as political stripe goes. The only thing that matters to them is a candidates stance on the 2nd amendment based either on their actual voting record, or if a new politico their response to questions and their policy papers. They have traditionally contributed more to the GOP in the last 15 to 20 years, mainly because for a long time our party clung to a meme that "All guns and gun owners are bad" and that gun control is somehow a long held Democrat tenet. It's actually a fairly recent idea and it's been driving many of our candidates into the ground at the local and national level for no useful purpose. The CDC produced a report for Bill Clinton that summarized that there was no evidence of any gun control laws having an impact of crime. .

There's a reason that Obama is leaving the issue of gun control off the table for the forseeable future. He's smart.

Every time his administration has sent up an AWB or other gun related test balloon, Holder, Hillary, Rendell, et. al. he has gotten serious political push back from his own party. He has a lot of things moving in the right direction and the last thing he needs is a congressional defeat to lose the momentum and rally the opposition.

As for help if they come for the gun collection ... when they started confiscating legal firearms post Katrina, the ACLU was nowhere to be seen. Only the NRA filed suit for redress and to get the citizens their guns back.

The ACLU is a fine group for some things, but on this issue IMNSHO they are dead wrong.

[X_Digger]

14. ACLU TX and ACLU NM are behind the 2nd! n/t

[Dollface]

15. Thanks. I come from a long line of left-wing, environmentalist hunters so we'll be talking.

We just don't talk politics at the shoots.

[jody]

11. I agree with DonP in #10. n/t

[DonP]

2. Now that's funny.

Bobby Rush as a leading fund raiser for the NRA.

They should feature anti gun congress critters in each issue of American Rifleman and thank them for their efforts to inform the public of pending legislation ... and sharply raise membership and contributions.

I've often wondered, If the Brady Bunch didn't exist, would the NRA have to invent them?

[virginia mountainman]

3. You do know the Brady Bunch, is led, by Republicans?? LOL!!

They are one of the most effective "shadow groups" out their, just look at all the good Democrats, who follow them to their political deaths...

Did you see this snippet?

But so far Bobby Rush's proposal hasn't attracted a single co-sponsor. Which figures. It sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt, a bill only the most virulent anti-gun nut could support.

But, boy, if this bill did pass, can you imagine the nationwide reaction? One result, among others, might be the biggest rightward swing in next year's congressional elections since the Republican landslide of 1994. Which is another reason to suspect that Congressman Rush is just a plant for the gun-rights lobby. Even now it's a good bet the NRA is ginning up a fundraising campaign that uses HR45 as Exhibit No. 1 to show that the right to bear arms is about to be swept away, so send your contribution in NOW!

[tularetom]

5. Cong. Rush is a nut job but the fact that he is a BLACK nut job

brings all the racist nut jobs out of the woodwork to donate to the nut job NRA.

Funny as hell IMO.

[X_Digger]

7. Too funny! n/t