Likely NRA Chief Aims To Boost Image (Cincy/NKY Enquirer/AZ Republic)

[skippythwndrdog]

I used the headline from the Cincinnati/NKY paper, but the link from the Arizona paper, as the AZ version has not been condensed. Meet the new five foot tall lady who will head the NRA.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0102nraprez02.html

[Wickerman]

1. Well, the Sportsmen for Bush people are tickled to death

She's from Berkeley," said Norton, co-chairman of Sportsmen for Bush in Arizona. "She's not the person that the anti-gun people can easily pigeonhole. She's extremely articulate and intelligent."

But some gun control groups said Froman must change the executive staff at the NRA before she can change the organization's image.

"The real power at the NRA rests with its salaried CEO, Wayne LaPierre," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Sandy Froman, as far as we can tell, is the sort of drink-the-Kool-Aid true believer.

[skippythwndrdog]

2. I'm not surprised.

We'll see how she does. If I were the NRA brass, I'd have her on TV all the time. A tiny lady like her would definitely improve their image. Wayne Lapierre is kinda scary.

[Wickerman]

3. Yep

She sounds like a good spokesperson - from the rough sketch given here. Wayne needs to go, and the Brady campaign needs to tone down their rhetoric.

Sometimes it seems both sides are all light and no heat, that they love to fight and keep the bases excited, without ever seeking true progress. :think:

[skippythwndrdog]

6. As far as the NRA goes...

They are right about concealed carry and the assault weapons ban. They are phenomenal when it comes to training in safety and marksmanship. Their Eddie Eagle program is a good one. Overall the NRA is a great organization. Too bad that they are thought of as being so partisan. I'm not sure, yet, if they are truly partisan.

[Wickerman]

9. I think they have earned their partisan image

The NRA is no friend to the Democratic party.

http://www.great-lakes.org/Wkly_news/11-08-04.html
In closely contested Ohio, early indications are that the sportsman's vote helped tip the balance in Bush's favor, securing the president that state's coveted 20 electoral votes. One news report said 60 percent of hunters and shooters voted for Bush over Kerry in Ohio, thus validating the Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Fund's Vote Your Sport campaign and the grassroots efforts of the NRA and other groups in that state and nationwide. "

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/10/13_kelleherb_nraendorses/
The National Rifle Association today endorsed Republican President George Bush for re-election, and plans to target Democrat John Kerry in a multi-million dollar campaign. The NRA made its announcement in Duluth.
Duluth, Minn. — It's no surprise the NRA considers George Bush a friend of gun owners. What's may be surprising is the level of vehemence the NRA holds for Democrat John Kerry.
The announcement in Duluth again underscores Minnesota's prominent role in the Presidential election. LaPierre says the announcement was made here for good reason.
snip---
"You have close to 600-thousand licensed hunters," he says. "And those hunters and gun owners in Minnesota could very well be the deciding votes that determine which way this state goes in the Presidential election - in fact which was the Presidential election goes."

http://www.mlive.com/fljournal/elections/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1097787149174470.xml
MUNDY TWP. - In the home county of liberal, anti-gun filmmaker Michael Moore, the National Rifle Association endorsed President Bush for re-election, promising him millions of dollars in ads, phone banks and other efforts.

[skippythwndrdog]

15. Perhaps they have. I haven't fully made up my mind.

However, can we expect a single-issue pro-gun organization to endorse one who has the anti-gun record of Senator Kerry? There just isn't any way that could happen. If we were to field a candidate comparable on the gun issue to the republican candidate, then we would have a true test. Bush was no daisy for gun owners, but he was better than Senator Kerry. Kerry's support of bills that would ban semi-auto shotguns, extend the AWB, ban most centerfire ammunition, and others pretty much ensured that it was impossible for the NRA to support him. Did Kerry's positions on guns hurt? Sure did. As a party, we need to get away from the issue, especially on the Federal level. What's good for New York City is not the same for Louisville, Covington, Lexington, or Frankfort. All the time, I have my gun owning friends ask me how I could have supported a Democrat, especially John Kerry for President. I have to answer that the gun issue was overridded by others for me, and that I thought that the pro-gun members of the House and Senate would never go along with any anti-gun measure that he might introduce. I also said that I thought that he probably wouldn't push any gun control from the whitehouse, as he wouldn't want what happened during the Clinton mid-terms to happen again. Kerrry is an astute man. I wish he was our President.

[Wickerman]

17. The fact that he isn't our President

and that the NRA contributed grassroots support AND 20 million dollars to seek Kerry's defeat is why the NRA is organization non-grata in this Dem's book.

"As a party, we need to get away from the issue, especially on the Federal level."

I disagree. I think we need to have vigorous debate and the Dems, by default, provide that debate. Regrettably, we don't have actual debate on the role of weapons in a peaceful society, we instead have politicization, grand-standing, lies and finger-pointing and manipulated data.

There is a violence problem in the US. Guns are a part of it, one of many symptoms of a larger problem that isn't adequately defined. For the Dems to acquiesce to the NRA and the RW does nothing at getting the problems this country is experiencing and haven't as yet even adequately defined. For all their faults (i.e.; losing the forest for the trees with the ill-advised AWBs, etc.) they at least keep the issue of crime and the rate of gun violence on the table.

It would be nice to see the two sides actually discuss gun crime without either criminalizing all gun owners or painting all gun control advocates as freedom restricting extremists.

I think its the Dem party's obligation to keep the debate alive - but I sure dislike some of the method they use to go about it.

Bush was no Daisy for gun owners... :)



no, he is more of a

[skippythwndrdog]

18. I understand you position on the NRA fully.

I don't blame you for it. However, I cannot blame a single issue organization such as them for what they did. The choice to single issue types was obvious, unfortunately. Rehashing the past will get us nowhere. The NRA is here, it is powerful and we need to keep that in mind.

I disagree with you. We definitely need to get away from the issue. As the party of personal freedom, we need to support the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, there is a violence problem in the US, but guns are not the cause. Luxembourg has a total ban on firearms, but they also have one of the highest murder rates in Europe. Guns are not the cause, nor are they the solution. I don't see the positions of the NRA being right wing. Concealed carry surely isn't, the AWB isn't, education and training surely isn't. What I see is intellectual dishonesty on both sides. We have neocons, who want to regulate morality and get into our bedrooms, among other things, supporting this particular personal freedom. Oddly, we have many liberals, who generally support personal freedom, opposing this particular one. I'm not one to pick and choose freedoms. As a self-described freedom-first liberal, I hold the intellectually honest position of supporting all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. I will always put freedom above all else. The label that some (including me) use on gun control advocates as being against freedom is valid, as far as this particular freedom goes. There is no way around it. I don't think of these people as evil, I just think of them as wrong. Many times we forget that there are both (dare I say it?) authoritarian and libertarian types in both parties. Sometimes individuals are authoritarian on one issue and libertarian on another. Sometimes I think that our two party system is broken. I'd like to see some more valid parties out there.

[Wickerman]

19. I think we are in close agreement

but I guess we disagree that there are valid reasons for wanting to explore gun violence and discuss what, if any, are reasonable restrictions on ownership, on who should own, how laws should be enforced, etc. I cannot accept blanket "freedom" - with all rights come responsibilities and I don't see all gun owners accepting that responsibility - by that definition there then needs to be interference from the state.

Because of the need for that interference, I believe gun owners need to work with the control freaks to lesson gun violence in the US. The extremes on both sides are very unhelpful.


Rehashing the past will get us nowhere. The NRA is here, it is powerful and we need to keep that in mind.

Sorry, I will never forgive the NRA for their support of Bush. Endorsement, from a single issue group is one thing. Demonetization of my candidate and contributing 20 million $ is unacceptable. They are part and parcel of the Rethuglican wing of our govt. The NRA wouldn't be as powerful if so many Dems didn't put guns ahead of all the other freedoms the Right is restricting - if they did, then from what I see elsewhere on this forum we could make a serious dent in their membership should all Dem gun owners walk away from them. I gather its different priorities. One freedom traded for many others.

[skippythwndrdog]

20. I equate the NRA's support for Bush

with a pro-choice group like NARAL's support for Kerry. Of course, the NRA has WAY more money and influence. Why did the NRA spend gobs of money to defeat Kerry? I think the answer is painfully obvious. They didn't so much want Bush to win, as they wanted Kerry to lose. I understand their position, as a single-issue group. I've come under fire for being a pro-Kerry gun-owner, as I discussed above. But then again...maybe I wasn't so much pro-Kerry as I was anti-Bush? I think that may have had something to do with my vote. My dislike for Bush is huge, so I HAD TO support Kerry. I didn't particularly like him, but I didn't really hold any animosity towards him either...he was just the Democratic candidate. He didn't grab me nearly as much as Bush repelled me. Do you get what I mean here? Now, I'm not one to wallow in the misery of another Bush presidency. I have plenty to do to help the cause for next time, I just hope we'll have a candidate who really grabs me, one I can love, somebody like me. Yup, let's get a Kentuckian in the Whitehouse! :evilgrin::smoke::crazy::silly:

[Wickerman]

21. I guess that analogy would be adequate

were we not on DEMOCRATIC Underground. But, since we are I guess its stands to reason that the candidate that NARAL supports is more preferred than the NRA pice of shit.

I with you about a good canidate next time, but you lost me with the Kentucky bit... I spent a year there over 4th of July weekend in 2004. :)

[skippythwndrdog]

23. Our candidate would have teeth...most of them!

[benEzra]

22. I agree with you

but I guess we disagree that there are valid reasons for wanting to explore gun violence and discuss what, if any, are reasonable restrictions on ownership, on who should own, how laws should be enforced, etc. I cannot accept blanket "freedom" - with all rights come responsibilities and I don't see all gun owners accepting that responsibility - by that definition there then needs to be interference from the state.

I agree with you. Actually, I don't know any gun owners that don't agree with that.

Having said that, you appear to underestimate the vast amount of restrictions on gun ownership we already have at the Federal level, not to mention the state level. Restrictions that gun owners are mostly OK with.

What we have a problem with is the fixation with piling additional, pointless restrictions on the law-abiding, when gun violence is the purview of the NON-law-abiding who violate EXISTING law with impunity. Most of the perpetrators of gun violence are people who cannot legally so much as touch a single round of ammunition. Making it a felony for me to own a rifle with the stock shaped a certain way doesn't do anything about the 20-year-old who shoots the convenience-store clerk with a .38 revolver.

The politicians who are so fixated on the contents of our gun safes miss the bigger picture. Why is crime such an attractive "career" choice in the inner cities? Why is the gang social structure attractive to some kids, and what can we do about it? Why does the U.S. does not do as good a job of socializing kids into adult mindsets and responsible thinking as some other countries do? Instead of pondering these issues, the legislators are freaking out because I own a rifle with a plastic handgrip that sticks out.

They are part and parcel of the Rethuglican wing of our govt. The NRA wouldn't be as powerful if so many Dems didn't put guns ahead of all the other freedoms the Right is restricting - if they did, then from what I see elsewhere on this forum we could make a serious dent in their membership should all Dem gun owners walk away from them. I gather its different priorities. One freedom traded for many others.

The NRA endorses lots of Democrats at the state level; had Dean not jumped on the prohibitionist bandwagon, and had he won the nomination, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten the NRA endorsement instead of bush, and had bush lifted a finger to renew the ban on over-10-round guns, he would not have been endorsed.

As far as which freedoms to protect, I don't argue that we should save the second amendment and let the rest die. I'm saying that the Democratic party should uphold ALL of the bill of rights and stop making us choose between the second and the others. Unfortunately, while there are indeed encroachments going on regarding the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, the Second Amendment is currently in the worst danger of all. As I said, we are nowhere near having "subversive" books confiscated at gunpoint, but there are plenty of people arguing for the confiscation of nontraditional-looking guns at gunpoint...

FWIW, here's the list of NRA endorsements for state offices here in NC:

Governor--Mike Easley, Democrat (endorsed over "A" rated Repub)
Lt. Governor--Beverly Perdue, Democrat
Attorney General--Roy Cooper, Democrat (endorsed over a pro-gun repub)

State Senate
District 1--Marc Basnight, Democrat
District 2--Scott Thomas, Democrat(endorsed over "A" rated repub)
District 3--Clark Jenkins, Democrat
District 4--Robert Holloman, Democrat(unopposed)
District 5--no endorsement
District 6--Cecil Hargett, Jr., Democrat(over "A" rated repub)
District 7--no endorsement
District 8--R.C. Soles, Jr., Democrat
etc.

In fact, looking over the first page of the endorsements, it looks like wherever there was an A-rated Democrat, the Democrat was endorsed regardless of her/his opponent's rating. So they appear to be going out of their way to be friendly to Democrats, if the Dem isn't a diehard prohibitionist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. The problem with the NRA is that it is the concealed weapon.

There is a core group of extremists concealed within the facade of a sportsman's organization. Most gun owners, even most NRA members, are reasonable people who would rather keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychotics. If it were to return to being the libertarian organization that it was for many decades after its founding, it wouldn't be a problem. The extremists, however, have infiltrated and subverted it, and given it over to the far right.

The NRA didn't object in the 20s (or was it 30s) when restrictions were placed on automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. The 2nd Amendment was never a serious issue before the 1960s. It was commonly accepted that the mention of a 'well regulated militia' was in the 2nd Amendment for a reason, and that controlling some aspects of gun ownership was a vital part of the government's duties of providing for the general welfare of the public, when that ownership was routinely being abused by criminals.

There are many ties between the far right elements of the NRA and older rightist organizations of the 60s, like the John Birch Society, the KKK, and the Minutemen.

I think all responsible gun owners should avoid the NRA like the plague. As the NRA itself claims, one of the first things Hitler did was to confiscate the citizenry's guns. And who, in the country, has a comprehensive list of millions of gun owners?

Start your own gun club. Abandon the NRA.

[alwynsw]

16. There is a core group of extremists concealed within the facade

We've also seen the same thing happen with other organizations. The MMM hijacking comes to mind. Also Greenpeace, P.E.T.A. and The Sierra Club.

That's the usual rub for good intententioned ideas that need group support. Sooner or later, someone with more time, more money, a bigger mouth, celebrity, or a combination comes along and either hijacks or subverts the original goals of the organization.

My poor memory for names comes through again. I don't recall the name of the co-founders of Greenpeace, but I recently re-read about the split in ideas and ideals within Greenpeace that led to the resignation of one of the co-founders. It seems that the other founder and his minions went too far overboard and drifted away from education and snuggled up to eco-terrorism.

P.E.T.A. began in the U.K. to support animal shelters and to promote responsible care of pets and livestock. We see what that has become.

Sierra Club? Muir has probably spun to dust over their recent shenannigans.

MMM has been done to death here. Therefore, no further comment from me.

[goju]

8. Well said n/t

[Kolesar]

4. The NRA is just a GOP front group

"You can put lipstick on a pig and call her "Monique", but she is still a pig" -Molly Ivins

[skippythwndrdog]

5. I was waiting for somebody to drag this one out.

Happened much earlier than I thought it would.

[benEzra]

10. NRA endorsed lots of Dems this cycle

and most of the NRA-endorsed Democrats won reelection here in NC, including the governor and lt. governor. The NRA is a single-issue organization; if the party ran pro-gun candidates at the national level like we often have at the state level, you'd see endorsements at the national level like you see at the state level.

If I get chance, I'll post the list of NRA endorsements for state office here. IIRC, it was split pretty evenly between dems and repubs here in NC.

[Kolesar]

12. yeah, and the Sierra Club endorses republicans

I read what the NRA stated about Kerry. The NRA is full of shit. They showed up in the town I grew up in to stage one of their pathetic counter rallies to Kerry. I am proud to say that that town and the whole county overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry.

[benEzra]

14. Are you saying...

Are you saying the NRA doesn't endorse lots of Democrats?

The NRA endorsed Democrat Mike Easley over a pro-gun Republican for NC governor (and Easley won). They endorsed the Democrat for Lt. Gov. They endorsed the Democrat for Attorney General, IIRC. They opposed Erskine Bowles for senate, though, due to his strong support of expanded gun prohibition.

Like I said, I have the endorsement list at home, and it's bipartisan.

The only reason the Democratic presidential ticket wasn't endorsed was because the national party leadership (and the candidates) made expanding gun prohibition a centerpiece of the campaign. Bush was/is wishy-washy on gun rights and was very vulnerable to a pro-gun Democratic challenge had there been one. As it was, the NRA waited until the last possible minute (mid Sept., after the ban on over-10-round guns expired) to endorse anyone for president, and had bush lifted a finger to get the over-10-round gun ban reinstated, he wouldn't have been endorsed.

There is a LOT of gun owner dissatisfaction with the repubs due to junk like the Patriot Act and various 1stA/4thA infringments. But the national dems couldn't capitalize on it in 2004 because they had already publicly taken the position that owners of nonhunting-style guns (i.e., 80% of gun owners) were The Enemy. Howard Dean had a LOT of support on the gun boards in the primaries before he jumped on the prohibitionist bandwagon, but had he remained pro-gun and won the primary, he would undoubtedly have received the NRA endorsement.

[zbdent]

7. What? A kinder, gentler bullet to the head? They're gonna kill more

white people? What?

[skippythwndrdog]

13. ???

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are attempting to convey.