The NRA's "Circus of Fear" Heads to Chicago

[ellisonz]

Posted: 06/06/2012 12:52 pm
By Josh Horwitz
Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

On Friday, the American Conservative Union (ACU) will host its second-ever Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) regional event in Chicago to "take the fight for the future of America directly to President Barack Obama's backyard." Where CPAC is, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is never far behind. The NRA is not only a sponsor of the conference, but also hosting a panel entitled, "Defending Self-Defense: The Liberal's Shadow War on Second Amendment."

It must be a shadow war. Because even though Democrats control the White House and U.S. Senate (and the House as recently as 2010), the pro-gun crowd has done pretty well the past four years. In 2009, President Obama signed a provision into law that allows the carrying of firearms in National Parks. The five Justices on the Supreme Court's Conservative wing struck down handgun bans in D.C. and Chicago as unconstitutional and found -- for the first time in history -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. After the shooting of U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a homicidal maniac who legally purchased the high-capacity handgun used in the shooting, the NRA successfully blocked any and all attempts to prevent the next Jared Loughner from arming up.

Setbacks for pro-gunners? They've been few and far between. The Obama administration issued a new regulation in 2011 requiring gun dealers in four Southwest border states to report (not stop, mind you, just report to ATF) multiple sales of high-caliber long guns. The requirement already existed for handgun sales. And an NRA bill that would force states to recognize other states' concealed handgun permits has stalled in the Senate.

Overall, you'd think that the gun lobby would be pretty happy with this record. And, in truth, they're probably ecstatic. But public displays of gratitude and balanced policy assessments? Well, those don't sit well with the millionaires calling the shots at the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. Because there's always another buck to be made -- and if there's one thing the NRA trafficks in even more than guns, it's fear. As former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman famously put it, "They [aren't] interested in actually solving problems, only in fueling perpetual crisis and controversy. That [is] how they [make] their money."

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-nras-circus-of-fear-h_b_1574458.html

Is supporting the NRA an acceptable Democratic position when the NRA opposes President Obama on no reasonable basis?

[Scootaloo]

1. The NRA provides no material benefit to anyone

Except perhaps to the arms manufacturers they sell advertising space to, I guess.

[petronius]

2. And the extensive training, safety, and education programs, of course

I think that would qualify as a "material benefit"...

[Scootaloo]

4. Perhaps if these were services that are difficult to find elsewhere...

They're not exactly the gun version of Planned Parenthood, after all.

But alright. They do that much.

[gejohnston]

5. who do you suggest?

actually, they kind of are to some degree.

[Scootaloo]

6. Got mine from the police department of Cordova, Alaska, actually

Haven't checked around, to tell you the honest truth.

[gejohnston]

10. mine was from parents and older siblings

the Army and Air Force helped too.

[Scootaloo]

11. My dad taught me to use a bow

Much more appealing than any gun. But hey, when you're living off subsistence, bullets have a definite appeal over arrows. One bullet will kill a moose, and I was never insane enough to find out how many arrows it would take; I know it takes three Buicks, though.

[gejohnston]

12. My daughter likes the bow much more too.

She does not even like crossbows. I still find the lever action more appealing than a semi auto. I find the old school M1 carbine more appealing than an AR. I'm still learning the bow.

[gejohnston]

3. who cares what Josh Horwitz thinks

for the first time in history -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Might be true of the USSC, but not first time in history. Either way, it never has been ruled as a collective right.

Is supporting the NRA an acceptable Democratic position when the NRA opposes President Obama on no reasonable basis?

Who is supporting the NRA ILA around here?

[ellisonz]

7. There are several posters who support the NRA in this group.

For example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=38957

[gejohnston]

8. the NRA and the

political arm are different. Why should such accusations based on the rants of a propagandist in Huff Po?

[ellisonz]

9. One hand washes the other. n/t

[Hoyt]

13. Like they aren't coordinated by the same right wing yahoos.

[Clames]

14. The CSGV?

Nope, no bias and spinning of half-truths there

[DonP]

15. Wonder how many dues paying members they have?

Or is this another one that paid a student artist for a logo design, filed paperwork through legal zoom.com and has a fax machine in Mom's Basement?

[Clames]

16. They have one....

The Joyce Foundation. With their money and a good, fear-based wad of anti-gun rhetoric they don't need much else.

[ellisonz]

17. *le sigh*

n 1974, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society formed the National Coalition to Ban Handguns,[1] a group of thirty religious, labor, and nonprofit organizations with the goal of addressing "the high rates of gun-related crime and death in American society" by licensing gun owners, registering firearms, and banning private ownership of handguns with "reasonable limited exceptions" for “police, military, licensed security guards, antique dealers who have guns in unfireable condition, and licensed pistol clubs where firearms are kept on the premises.”[2][3] In the 1980s and 1990s, the coalition grew to 44 member groups.[4] In 1989, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in part because the group felt that "assault rifles" as well as handguns, should be outlawed.[5] Today, the coalition comprises 48 member organizations.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence

[gejohnston]

18. no one said Joyce created it

they provide most of the funding. That said, the general council, not everyone in the Methodist church.

[Clames]

19. I'm sure you thought you had a point here.

So what was it? Prove that you can use Wikipedia? Prove that you can't read the posts you are replying to? Prove that you think anyone here gives a crap about CSGV's history? Going to have to narrow it down because I only have one cookie left in the tin right now and I'm baking banana bread tomorrow.

[SGMRTDARMY]

20. I don't understand why he's still here

in Meta he does nothing but bash the guns forum and calls for its elimination and yet he still comes here and posts mostly nonsense. If he dislikes this group so much, why is he here?

Something to ponder on.........not.

[Clames]

21. Some people have issues.

Maybe he has problem with wanting to control others...

[SGMRTDARMY]

22. Don't get me wrong

I don't want to run him off like he wants to run us out of DU, I just don't get why he comes into the gungeon.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. Maybe he is just a control freak

[Clames]

24. Simplest answer is usually correct. n/t