NRA Working to Elect Pro-Gun Prosecutors and Judges

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/news/2013/02/14/53076/nra-working-to-elect-pro-gun-judges-and-prosecutors/

By pro gun do you mean adhering to, upholding, and following the constitution?

PkrBum wrote:By pro gun do you mean adhering to, upholding, and following the constitution?

Why don't you read the article and then you can ask me again.

So an interest group is doing what an interest group does, trying to elect people into positions which will favor their agendas, and that's what.... good, bad, standard.
Help me out here what are you trying to say

I hope we can get a Pro Gun everything from the POTUS on down.

Ironsights wrote:So an interest group is doing what an interest group does, trying to elect people into positions which will favor their agendas, and that's what.... good, bad, standard.
Help me out here what are you trying to say

Did you read the article? The NRA, which was once an organization that promoted gun safety, has become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. Any common sense measures, like requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases, is opposed, even when it runs contrary to what is recommended by police.

SO WHAT? FT

there are plenty of liberal LOBBYIST working to do a lot of things.

I wonder how much the INSURANCE LOBBY was involved in obamacare? I bet A LOT.

I posted this in "the progressive times" thread weeks ago because I had seen the theme... she's just slow.

Floridatexan wrote:

Ironsights wrote:So an interest group is doing what an interest group does, trying to elect people into positions which will favor their agendas, and that's what.... good, bad, standard.
Help me out here what are you trying to say

Did you read the article? The NRA, which was once an organization that promoted gun safety, has become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. Any common sense measures, like requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases, is opposed, even when it runs contrary to what is recommended by police.

Not true. Yes, the NRA is a much needed lobbying organization for the preservation of the 2nd amendment. However, they are very involved in hunter safety, child safety, shooting competitions, shooting for women and support of law enforcement.

Floridatexan wrote:

Ironsights wrote:So an interest group is doing what an interest group does, trying to elect people into positions which will favor their agendas, and that's what.... good, bad, standard.
Help me out here what are you trying to say

Did you read the article? The NRA, which was once an organization that promoted gun safety, has become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. Any common sense measures, like requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases, is opposed, even when it runs contrary to what is recommended by police.

The NRA has always been a lobbying organization.

I hate to be the one to tell you but what you consider common sense and what IS common sense are two different things.

Just because something is recommended by police certainly does NOT make it the best thing for the citizen. Most police would rather no one in the world have guns except them. We know how well that order and ordinances work in Chicago, 42 murders since the first of the year.

New Orleans the police followed orders from the mayor to go door to door ILLEGALLY CONFISCATING ALL GUNS. New Orleans now has the highest rate in the nation. Worked well there too didn't it?

Instead of taking $1,000 per hour golf instructions, President Barack Hussein Obama should leave the gun issue alone and take economic lessons instead instead of golf lessons. Obviously he is seriously lacking in both areas.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Our police shoot someone every day. That made headlines.

Floridatexan wrote:

Ironsights wrote:So an interest group is doing what an interest group does, trying to elect people into positions which will favor their agendas, and that's what.... good, bad, standard.
Help me out here what are you trying to say

Did you read the article? The NRA, which was once an organization that promoted gun safety, has become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. Any common sense measures, like requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases, is opposed, even when it runs contrary to what is recommended by police.

I did read the article, It mentioned more about the LEAA and their practices then about the NRA. Thought it did put in some input in the NRA. It mentioned that the LEAA was founded by the NRA and that it routinely gives contributions to it.
Also where in there did you see anything about it lobbying for gun manufactures, or it opposing what you consider common sense gun measures. It does mention how the LEAA has far more law enforcement members then International chiefs of police and that the International chiefs of police group does not represent the average law enforcement (which should not come as a surprise since at that level they are more politicians then police). while the LEAA is actual low level police and in fact does not support your recommendations.
That is according to the very article you posted here.

Ironsights wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Ironsights wrote:So an interest group is doing what an interest group does, trying to elect people into positions which will favor their agendas, and that's what.... good, bad, standard.
Help me out here what are you trying to say

Did you read the article? The NRA, which was once an organization that promoted gun safety, has become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. Any common sense measures, like requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases, is opposed, even when it runs contrary to what is recommended by police.

I did read the article, It mentioned more about the LEAA and their practices then about the NRA. Thought it did put in some input in the NRA. It mentioned that the LEAA was founded by the NRA and that it routinely gives contributions to it.
Also where in there did you see anything about it lobbying for gun manufactures, or it opposing what you consider common sense gun measures. It does mention how the LEAA has far more law enforcement members then International chiefs of police and that the International chiefs of police group does not represent the average law enforcement (which should not come as a surprise since at that level they are more politicians then police). while the LEAA is actual low level police and in fact does not support your recommendations.
That is according to the very article you posted here.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-scarborough/2013/01/high-cost-of-the-nras-extremism-154295.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/the-nra-protection-racket.html?_r=0

FOR years, protection rackets dominated dangerous urban neighborhoods. Shop owners and residents lived in relative security only by paying off or paying homage to organized criminals or corrupt cops. Anyone who dared to stand up to these “protectors” would not be around for long.

The Republican Party — once a proud bastion of civic and business leaders who battled Southern racism, Northern corruption and the evils of big government — has for the past several decades been itself the victim of political protection rackets. These rackets are orchestrated by fringe groups with extremist views on social issues, which Republican politicians are forced to support even if they are unpopular with intelligent, economically successful and especially female voters. Their influence was already clear by the time I joined the Bush White House staff in 2005, and it has only increased in the years since.

The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

For decades, Republican politicians have gone along with this racket, some willingly and others because they know that resisting would be pointless. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the N.R.A. spent almost $19 million in the last federal election cycle. This money is not just spent to beat Democrats but also to beat Republicans who don’t toe the line.

But the last election showed the costs to Republicans of succumbing to the N.R.A. and to other groups with extremist views on issues like homosexuality and stem cell research. The fringe groups, drenched with money and the “free speech” that comes with it, have stood firm, and become even more radical, as the population as a whole — including many traditional Republican voters — has moved in the opposite direction.

Gun violence in particular frightens voters in middle- and upper-income suburbs across the country, places like my hometown, Edina, Minn. These areas, once Republican strongholds, still have many voters who are sympathetic to the economic platform of the Republican Party but are increasingly worried about their own safety in a country with millions of unregistered and unregulated guns. Some suburban voters may keep a hunting rifle locked away in a safe place, but few want people bringing semiautomatic weapons into their neighborhoods. They also believe that insane people should not have access to guns.

A few clicks on the N.R.A. Web site lead you to the type of weapons the group wants to protect from regulation. Many are not needed for hunting pheasants or deer. They are used for hunting people. They have firepower unimaginable to the founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment, firepower that could wipe out an entire kindergarten classroom in a few minutes, as we saw so tragically last week.

This is not the vision of sportsmanship that soccer moms and dads want or will vote for, and they will turn against Republicans because of it. Who worries about the inheritance tax when gun violence may kill off one’s heirs in the second grade?

Republican politicians must free themselves from the N.R.A. protection racket and others like it. For starters, the party establishment should refuse to endorse anyone who runs in a primary with N.R.A. money against a sitting Republican. If the establishment refuses to support Republicans using other Republicans for target practice, the N.R.A. will take its shooting game somewhere else.

Reasonable gun control legislation will then be able to pass Congress and the state legislatures. Next, Republicans should embrace legislation like the proposed American Anti-Corruption Act, which would rid both parties of their dependence on big money from groups like the N.R.A. The Republican Party will once again be proud to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And voters will go back to feeling that their children are safe, their democracy works, and they will once again consider voting Republican.

Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.

Given the coverage in the local and national media this would be an interesting topic for a civil debate. I think you might spur more interest if you expressed your own opinions instead of continually using cut and paste to post op-ed pieces from national publications. I look forward to a lively and civil debate.

Polly wants gun control and open borders and socialized mediocre services and a govt solution for every damn issue.

bizguy wrote:Given the coverage in the local and national media this would be an interesting topic for a civil debate. I think you might spur more interest if you expressed your own opinions instead of continually using cut and paste to post op-ed pieces from national publications. I look forward to a lively and civil debate.

"Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007."

We've had plenty of "lively and ok, well...not-so-civil debate..." on this subject...all culminating in the eventual "...when you pry my gun from my cold dead hands..." I AM expressing my own opinions, numbskull.

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:Given the coverage in the local and national media this would be an interesting topic for a civil debate. I think you might spur more interest if you expressed your own opinions instead of continually using cut and paste to post op-ed pieces from national publications. I look forward to a lively and civil debate.

"Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007."

We've had plenty of "lively and ok, well...not-so-civil debate..." on this subject...all culminating in the eventual "...when you pry my gun from my cold dead hands..." I AM expressing my own opinions, numbskull.

Oh well, I tried. Not sure what your purpose was for highlighting the author of the opinion piece unless you were trying to make the point that because he worked for a couple years in a republican administration that he somehow has more credibility. Since you obviously lack the maturity to engage in civil conversation I guess you can just continue to post op-eds on a discussion forum to try and make your point. Enjoy the rest of your day.

bizguy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:Given the coverage in the local and national media this would be an interesting topic for a civil debate. I think you might spur more interest if you expressed your own opinions instead of continually using cut and paste to post op-ed pieces from national publications. I look forward to a lively and civil debate.

"Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007."

We've had plenty of "lively and ok, well...not-so-civil debate..." on this subject...all culminating in the eventual "...when you pry my gun from my cold dead hands..." I AM expressing my own opinions, numbskull.

Oh well, I tried. Not sure what your purpose was for highlighting the author of the opinion piece unless you were trying to make the point that because he worked for a couple years in a republican administration that he somehow has more credibility. Since you obviously lack the maturity to engage in civil conversation I guess you can just continue to post op-eds on a discussion forum to try and make your point. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Feel free to contribute something to the discussion or start your own thread...bug off, jerk, and that applies to your horse as well.

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:Given the coverage in the local and national media this would be an interesting topic for a civil debate. I think you might spur more interest if you expressed your own opinions instead of continually using cut and paste to post op-ed pieces from national publications. I look forward to a lively and civil debate.

"Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007."

We've had plenty of "lively and ok, well...not-so-civil debate..." on this subject...all culminating in the eventual "...when you pry my gun from my cold dead hands..." I AM expressing my own opinions, numbskull.

Oh well, I tried. Not sure what your purpose was for highlighting the author of the opinion piece unless you were trying to make the point that because he worked for a couple years in a republican administration that he somehow has more credibility. Since you obviously lack the maturity to engage in civil conversation I guess you can just continue to post op-eds on a discussion forum to try and make your point. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Feel free to contribute something to the discussion or start your own thread...bug off, jerk, and that applies to your horse as well.

Enjoy your thread.

Floridatexan wrote:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-scarborough/2013/01/high-cost-of-the-nras-extremism-154295.html

again an article which address nothing in the previous posts.

Ironsights wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-scarborough/2013/01/high-cost-of-the-nras-extremism-154295.html

again an article which address nothing in the previous posts.

FT, Sal and Boards, the Red Herring Establishment. Joe Scarborough is one of the biggest idiots around. He is a quitter too. Cost the area millions in a special election because he could not finish his term. We will never know about that intern either I guess.

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/the-nra-protection-racket.html?_r=0

FOR years, protection rackets dominated dangerous urban neighborhoods. Shop owners and residents lived in relative security only by paying off or paying homage to organized criminals or corrupt cops. Anyone who dared to stand up to these “protectors” would not be around for long.

The Republican Party — once a proud bastion of civic and business leaders who battled Southern racism, Northern corruption and the evils of big government — has for the past several decades been itself the victim of political protection rackets. These rackets are orchestrated by fringe groups with extremist views on social issues, which Republican politicians are forced to support even if they are unpopular with intelligent, economically successful and especially female voters. Their influence was already clear by the time I joined the Bush White House staff in 2005, and it has only increased in the years since.

The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

For decades, Republican politicians have gone along with this racket, some willingly and others because they know that resisting would be pointless. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the N.R.A. spent almost $19 million in the last federal election cycle. This money is not just spent to beat Democrats but also to beat Republicans who don’t toe the line.

But the last election showed the costs to Republicans of succumbing to the N.R.A. and to other groups with extremist views on issues like homosexuality and stem cell research. The fringe groups, drenched with money and the “free speech” that comes with it, have stood firm, and become even more radical, as the population as a whole — including many traditional Republican voters — has moved in the opposite direction.

Gun violence in particular frightens voters in middle- and upper-income suburbs across the country, places like my hometown, Edina, Minn. These areas, once Republican strongholds, still have many voters who are sympathetic to the economic platform of the Republican Party but are increasingly worried about their own safety in a country with millions of unregistered and unregulated guns. Some suburban voters may keep a hunting rifle locked away in a safe place, but few want people bringing semiautomatic weapons into their neighborhoods. They also believe that insane people should not have access to guns.

A few clicks on the N.R.A. Web site lead you to the type of weapons the group wants to protect from regulation. Many are not needed for hunting pheasants or deer. They are used for hunting people. They have firepower unimaginable to the founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment, firepower that could wipe out an entire kindergarten classroom in a few minutes, as we saw so tragically last week.

This is not the vision of sportsmanship that soccer moms and dads want or will vote for, and they will turn against Republicans because of it. Who worries about the inheritance tax when gun violence may kill off one’s heirs in the second grade?

Republican politicians must free themselves from the N.R.A. protection racket and others like it. For starters, the party establishment should refuse to endorse anyone who runs in a primary with N.R.A. money against a sitting Republican. If the establishment refuses to support Republicans using other Republicans for target practice, the N.R.A. will take its shooting game somewhere else.

Reasonable gun control legislation will then be able to pass Congress and the state legislatures. Next, Republicans should embrace legislation like the proposed American Anti-Corruption Act, which would rid both parties of their dependence on big money from groups like the N.R.A. The Republican Party will once again be proud to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And voters will go back to feeling that their children are safe, their democracy works, and they will once again consider voting Republican.

Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.

So because a man who is a professor of law at university of Minnesota has such an opinion it must be true?
Bullshit. Furthermore it doesn't change the fact that as mentioned before the NRA is a lobbying group just the the LEAA, the ACLU, the AARP, Unions, Christian groups, and a great many other groups.
What this article says (which is very different from the original post) is that we should try and do away with all those groups being able to lobby. which i see as both a pro and a con but whatever that is another issue entirely.