NRA Discourages Board Members From Testifying Against Kagan

[mrjarrell]

BTW, please tell me how much money it takes to make a statement encouraging people to fight against Kagan instead of letting her slide? Especially when the media hangs on your every word.

It would cost the NRA not one single penny if they allowed the board members to speak out against her nomination. If they had to fly it it would be on their own dime. They just don't want to rock the political boat and stand in opposition. Their cowardice is showing. Again.

 

[henktermaat]

I don't hate the NRA, actually I really want to like them... but why have a special interest group if it isn't 100%?

I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger on my NRA membership, so to speak.

 

[SavageEagle]

It would cost the NRA not one single penny if they allowed the board members to speak out against her nomination. If they had to fly it it would be on their own dime. They just don't want to rock the political boat and stand in opposition. Their cowardice is showing. Again.

Exactly. Rhetorical question Farrelly, Set of ten!

I don't hate the NRA, actually I really want to like them... but why have a special interest group if it isn't 100%?

I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger on my NRA membership, so to speak.

I let mine run out. Seriously, I got an NRA zippo and a shirt for sell if anyone wants it.

I just miss the American Rifleman Magazine. That's the only thing good that came out of my membership.

 

[kingnereli]

Wait for it....



BOOM! There it is! So, the NRA endorses (pretty much) Kagan and discourage fighting against her and you're ok with that? Man, I gotta question what side you're on. You're whole post doesn't make sense to me at all. You're supposedly pro-2A, but you have no problem with the NRA encouraging letting Kagan slide? Wow.

BTW, please tell me how much money it takes to make a statement encouraging people to fight against Kagan instead of letting her slide? Especially when the media hangs on your every word.



EXACTLY. The NRA has gone off the deep end. They've lost what little balls they had left.

How did you jump to the conclusion that the NRA endorses Kagan? It's simply a matter of choosing battles that will have a chance of measurable success. Nothing the NRA can say or do will stop Kagan's confirmation. Kagan's confirmation will not change the makeup of the supreme court. It's not worth fighting and, yes,
I'm okay with that.

What else confused you about my post. It's simple. The NRA is the only pro- 2A organization that has enough clout to help our cause. Hoping their membership shrinks will hurt our cause. If you disagree with some of their decisions then keep your membership current and voice your complaints. If you don't have a current membership then you have no right to complain. Simple.

Post Script: A person can disagree with you and still be pro 2A.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is hating the NRA the new hotness? All the cool kids are doing it or something like that?

The Gag Order Rumor is Unequivocally False | Snowflakes in Hell

 

[kingnereli]

Is hating the NRA the new hotness? All the cool kids are doing it or something like that?

The Gag Order Rumor is Unequivocally False | Snowflakes in Hell

It is looking that way. I'm surprised at all the anti-NRA threads and comments popping up lately. It is a further shame that so many people are formulating their opinions based on pure falsehood.

 

[Bigum1969]

Seriously, all the NRA haters here are starting to look like fools for jumping on unsubstantiated information.

Yes. We know you hate the NRA. You obviously are well versed in dealing with the complexities of politics... geeez.

Why not just start a "I hate the NRA" thread that can become a sticky where you can vent when you feel up to it. It sure beats passing on information that is a load of .

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I understand that people can disagree with an organization, but I don't like the NRA's propensity to jump in and claim credit for things they did not do. E.g. a certain INGO's member's efforts in obtaining the Texas-Indiana carry agreement, but then that INGO member is an NRA member so maybe the NRA was instrumental in it.

I just cannot fathom why rumors become truth become attacks on the NRA. Did L. Neil Smith mention something about hating on the NRA is his blog or something?

 

[SavageEagle]

How did you jump to the conclusion that the NRA endorses Kagan? It's simply a matter of choosing battles that will have a chance of measurable success. Nothing the NRA can say or do will stop Kagan's confirmation. Kagan's confirmation will not change the makeup of the supreme court. It's not worth fighting and, yes,
I'm okay with that.

What else confused you about my post. It's simple. The NRA is the only pro- 2A organization that has enough clout to help our cause. Hoping their membership shrinks will hurt our cause. If you disagree with some of their decisions then keep your membership current and voice your complaints. If you don't have a current membership then you have no right to complain. Simple.

Post Script: A person can disagree with you and still be pro 2A.

Now you're being arrogant. That's not nice.

I didn't say the NRA DID endorse Kagan. I said they pretty much did. They're encouraging people to be ok with her. Why? Because there's no chance of finding someone better? Is that like encouraging people to be OK with the Disclosure Act because the NRA is exempt?

If you don't fight the battles, you don't know if they were worth fighting. Not all battles are full on, full frontal assaults. However, the NRA doesn't even have the balls to stand against one person. That's sad. They are cowards. They are cowards because they couldn't even say "We're against this person becoming a judge for LIFE." Instead they say, "Aww, it's ok. We don't mind."

The NRA are sell outs to the highest bidder. Money is all they care about. It's all they ever cared about since I've known about them.

As far as the NRA shrinking and being the ONLY SAVIORS of our 2A rights, how about you tell that to the Second Amendment Patriots that gave you the Lifetime LTCH. How about you tell that to the JPFO. Tell that to Skip Coryell. That highlighted statement is the one sentence that shows your arrogance. I think you might want to rethink the whole paragraph.

Now, is there anything about my posts that YOU are confused about, or misread?

 

[Prometheus]

I understand that people can disagree with an organization, but I don't like the NRA's propensity to jump in and claim credit for things they did not do. E.g. a certain INGO's member's efforts in obtaining the Texas-Indiana carry agreement, but then that INGO member is an NRA member so maybe the NRA was instrumental in it.

Thats pretty much all the NRA ever does, claim victories over things they had nothing to do with or were months late getting on board with.

Heck, the NRA took 3 weeks to do ANYTHING about the Katrina confiscations. GOA and JPFO filed injunctions in less than a week... which the NRA joined onto and after wards they spend millions on a video and claim full credit.

The reason why the nra bashing is increasing is easy.... the nra keeps screwing gun owners over and more and more members are seeing the damage the nra causes. Hence, those who were once supporters are now vocal opponents.

I think Savage Eagle is the best example, look at his postings from when he first joined and look at them from the past month on the nra. 180 degrees basically and he's not the only one.

I'd say look at my postings from 10 years ago, but ingo wasn't around then. I was once a brainwashed die hard nra koolaid drinker like you, constantly giving passes to the nra.

Easy fix. Look at everything the do with the same scrutiny you'd give to a democrat or liberal.

 

[kingnereli]

Now you're being arrogant. That's not nice.

I didn't say the NRA DID endorse Kagan. I said they pretty much did. They're encouraging people to be ok with her. Why? Because there's no chance of finding someone better? Is that like encouraging people to be OK with the Disclosure Act because the NRA is exempt?

If you don't fight the battles, you don't know if they were worth fighting. Not all battles are full on, full frontal assaults. However, the NRA doesn't even have the balls to stand against one person. That's sad. They are cowards. They are cowards because they couldn't even say "We're against this person becoming a judge for LIFE." Instead they say, "Aww, it's ok. We don't mind."

The NRA are sell outs to the highest bidder. Money is all they care about. It's all they ever cared about since I've known about them.

As far as the NRA shrinking and being the ONLY SAVIORS of our 2A rights, how about you tell that to the Second Amendment Patriots that gave you the Lifetime LTCH. How about you tell that to the JPFO. Tell that to Skip Coryell. That highlighted statement is the one sentence that shows your arrogance. I think you might want to rethink the whole paragraph.

Now, is there anything about my posts that YOU are confused about, or misread?

No, it's quite clear. You conveniently skipped Kirk's post showing the allegations are completely false so you could continue the silly talking points. The NRA is not okay with Kagan and they aren't okay with the Disclosure act. They are, however, taking a different coarse of action then you would. That's what is fine by me. So, the first half of your post is irrelevant because it is arguing a point that does not exist. Now for the rest...

Yes, they certainly care about money. They need it, and a lot of it. They can't protect our rights without it. Thank you for highlighting another reason it is so important for anyone who is pro-2A to exchange their money for an NRA membership.

Ah, the Second Amendment Patriots gave us the lifetime LTCH. I don't understand why you aren't furious. They threw the constitution under the bus of compromise in order to promote a government permission slip to exercise our rights. They should be ashamed. (Do you see how easy it is to twist things if you aren't dedicated to the truth.) The point is that what you confuse for arrogance is simply truth. There are many fine 2A organizations working for the same cause. However, all but the NRA are too small to do much good on a national level.

The NRA is in D.C. arguing cases and influencing policy. Do you think any politician, when thinking up anti-gun legislation, pauses for moment to think "I wonder what the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms is going to think about this." No, the NRA is the elephant in the room. No politician gives two shakes what these small organizations think or want. They don't have the clout. They may be great organizations, but simply won't be able to help much for the foreseeable future. Remember, there's nothing wrong with joining the NRA and any number of these smaller groups.

Lastly, you would think people, such as yourself, that are so against the NRA would put the time and energy into finding something actually worth complaining about. INGO has been rife lately with anti-NRA threads and they continue to be based on false allegations. The Kagan and Disclosure ACt are just the latest in the line of contrivances leveled against the NRA. I've seen a total of two complaints here that actually have their bases in fact. That is, the NRA claiming responsibility that they had little to do with and the amount of junk mail they send out. Wow, my head is spinning for the audacity. Surely you can do better then this.

 

[Prometheus]

The NRA is in D.C. arguing cases and influencing policy. Do you think any politician, when thinking up anti-gun legislation, pauses for moment to think "I wonder what the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms is going to think about this." No, the NRA is the elephant in the room. No politician gives two shakes what these small organizations think or want. They don't have the clout. They may be great organizations, but simply won't be able to help much for the foreseeable future. Remember, there's nothing wrong with joining the NRA and any number of these smaller groups.

There in lies the problem. If the nra did "good" or "nothing", I'd be right there with you, however they continuously (and for nearly 80 years) support draconian gun measures at virtually every turn.

What you posted above is WHY every nra member should ditch the nra ASAP. If they are truly the only ones the politicians care about when it comes to gun Rights, we are in serious trouble, because the nra doesn't give two-craps about them.

They have the clout and have used it, time and again, to get us into more anti Second Amendment laws.

I've fully pointed them out in the other thread in direct response to your misinformation and ignorance.

 

[SavageEagle]

No, it's quite clear. You conveniently skipped Kirk's post showing the allegations are completely false so you could continue the silly talking points. The NRA is not okay with Kagan and they aren't okay with the Disclosure act. They are, however, taking a different coarse of action then you would. That's what is fine by me. So, the first half of your post is irrelevant because it is arguing a point that does not exist. Now for the rest...

Yes, they certainly care about money. They need it, and a lot of it. They can't protect our rights without it. Thank you for highlighting another reason it is so important for anyone who is pro-2A to exchange their money for an NRA membership.

Ah, the Second Amendment Patriots gave us the lifetime LTCH. I don't understand why you aren't furious. They threw the constitution under the bus of compromise in order to promote a government permission slip to exercise our rights. They should be ashamed. (Do you see how easy it is to twist things if you aren't dedicated to the truth.) The point is that what you confuse for arrogance is simply truth. There are many fine 2A organizations working for the same cause. However, all but the NRA are too small to do much good on a national level.

The NRA is in D.C. arguing cases and influencing policy. Do you think any politician, when thinking up anti-gun legislation, pauses for moment to think "I wonder what the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms is going to think about this." No, the NRA is the elephant in the room. No politician gives two shakes what these small organizations think or want. They don't have the clout. They may be great organizations, but simply won't be able to help much for the foreseeable future. Remember, there's nothing wrong with joining the NRA and any number of these smaller groups.

Lastly, you would think people, such as yourself, that are so against the NRA would put the time and energy into finding something actually worth complaining about. INGO has been rife lately with anti-NRA threads and they continue to be based on false allegations. The Kagan and Disclosure ACt are just the latest in the line of contrivances leveled against the NRA. I've seen a total of two complaints here that actually have their bases in fact. That is, the NRA claiming responsibility that they had little to do with and the amount of junk mail they send out. Wow, my head is spinning for the audacity. Surely you can do better then this.

You expect me to believe a website called "Snowflakes In Hell" over the very words coming from the NRA? You truly ARE delusional.

The NRA said themselves, CHRIS COX said himself, they do not oppose the confirmation of Kagan. This is not Anti-NRA speak. This is the NRA being Anti-Freedom. The Confirmation of Kagan is just another nail in the coffin.

If people actually stood up and fought for Congress to do the right thing, people like Kagan wouldn't become judges. She's effectively dodging just about every question they throw at her and she's getting away with it because people like the NRA, Fox News, the ACLU, MSNBC, The People Of The United States of America aren't standing up and saying "HEY! WTF?!?!"

And here you are supporting that. Don't say you're not because you are. You're sitting here defending the NRA who is saying, "Oh, it's ok. Let her slide."

That's disgraceful. It's disgraceful on the NRA's part AND your part.

And people wonder why the government is so screwed up and out of control.

Believe what you want to believe. That's your choice as a free man. But you're not going to be free much longer holding the values you're showing here. I have lived a free man, and I will DIE a free man because I'm willing to fight to the death for what's right. My kids will live knowing that no matter what, their father didn't back down from what was right. Many member's kids here on this website will not be able to say the same thing.

That's just sad and hypocritical.

 

[SavageEagle]

Oh. I forgot to address the part about the Second Amendment Patriots and the Lifetime LTCH. I never said I was in favor of the fact that they fought for a lifetime permit instead of no permit at all. However, my point in pointing them out was to show you that other groups other than the NRA ARE, i repeat ARE effective, unlike what you claimed.

We can play this all day and night if you want.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Heck, the NRA took 3 weeks to do ANYTHING about the Katrina confiscations. GOA and JPFO filed injunctions in less than a week... which the NRA joined onto and after wards they spend millions on a video and claim full credit.

You're angry at the NRA because they allegedly joined a pending injunction 2 weeks after it was filed?

I simply do not understand this. Daddy didn't fix the car fast enough so I'll kick the seat?

How is the NRA "screwing" gun owners?

The Kagan nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. Fiction that many here are repeating as fact and get caught up in some self-reinforcing delusional anger.

I post the clip showing the NRA stating that this is nonsense and the "NRA" cannot hold the Board of Directors hostage and tell them what to say and yet INGO does not respond and only grows more angry. I do not understand.

They have the clout and have used it, time and again, to get us into more anti Second Amendment laws.

O.K., Prom, give us your bill of particulars. What and when?

Is it some website that is driving this? Unrealistic expectations, thinking the NRA has a magic wand but won't use it? What's the beef, chief?

 

[Bigum1969]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So much for Internet rumor nonsense:


Gun rights concerns mean Kagan's nomination may be scored as a 'key vote' - TheHill.com

Gun rights concerns mean Kagan's nomination may be scored as a 'key vote'


By Susan Crabtree - 06/30/10 05:51 PM ET

Republicans gun rights supporters repeatedly pressed Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on whether she believes the Second Amendment is a fundamental right.


The National Rifle Association scored the Senate's confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a "key vote" after her hearings last summer, and people are anticipating whether the group will do it again with Kagan.

Kagan’s description of Second Amendment cases, including Monday’s high court ruling limiting the right of state and local governments to regulate gun ownership, as “settled law” has done nothing to allay the gun rights group’s worries about her, according to an NRA official.

“What we have heard so far causes us very grave concern,” the official said.

The NRA released a statement Monday arguing that Kagan has shown a “hostility” towards the right to bear arms. The release cites her role in developing the Clinton administration's 1998 ban on importation of certain models of semi-automatic rifles; notes during her time at the Clinton White House mentioning the NRA and Ku Klux Klan as “bad-guy” organizations; and her comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall that she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to the District of Columbia’s handgun ban.

Senators from key states where gun rights are valued often tout their 100 percent NRA rating and may not want to risk that on a vote to support Kagan, though the decision to key-vote Sotomayor’s confirmation appeared to have little impact on a dozen Republicans and Democrats who previously had high NRA ratings.

Nine Republicans voted for Sotomayor, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kit Bond (Mo.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Mel Martinez (Fla.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (Ohio).

Just seven voted for Kagan last year when she was nominated for solicitor general, including Collins, Snowe, Gregg, as well as Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).

If the NRA key votes Kagan, Hatch said it would definitely cost her GOP votes, although Hatch said it would not influence him. Hatch, who usually votes for Democratic Supreme Court nominees, but is facing a potentially tough primary challenge by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in 2012, said he has yet to decide how he will vote on Kagan.

“I’m still listening,” Hatch said.

Kagan is highly intelligent and will no doubt be confirmed by the full Senate, Hatch said, but he still had some concerns – mainly related to her decision to limit military recruiters access to Harvard law school students during her time as dean.

Coburn, Cornyn and others have repeatedly asked Kagan about whether she believes that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

Kagan referred to the 2008 landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use in federal “enclaves,” such as D.C. and military bases.

“I think that Heller is settled law and Heller has decided that the Second Amendment confers such an individual right to keep and bears arms,” she said.

Kagan’s stated support to abide by Heller is doing little to tamp down GOP concerns.

Graham said he has no doubt that Kagan is going to side with “liberal side of the court” on most issues – including guns.

“I wouldn’t expect President Obama to nominate someone who would be good on gun rights issues,” Graham remarked.

Graham wouldn’t say whether he would vote for Kagan’s confirmation, although he repeated his stated belief that “elections matter,” a reference for his tendency to respect an elected President’s choices on nominations. When Kagan was up for solicitor general, Graham didn’t vote because he was in South Carolina for a meeting.

During the Kagan hearing, several Republican senators expressed frustration over Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation testimony on guns and her record thus far on the bench.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has called Sotomayor’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last summer a “confirmation conversion.”

Cornyn on Tuesday referred to Sotomayor’s recent dissent to Monday’s Supreme Court decision on guns in which she wrote that the “framers did not write the 2nd Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”

“Now it is disconcerting to say the least,” Cornyn said. “It appears to be a direct contradiction to what Sotomayor said in her hearings.”

Kagan explained during Tuesday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that her notes lumping the NRA and KKK together and calling them “bad-guy” organizations were from a phone conversation in which she was taking notes on another’s comments.

“I was quoting somebody else,” she said. “The way I write telephone notes is to write down what others’ are saying.”

When Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) asked whether she would compare the NRA to the KKK, Kagan said she would not.

“It would be a ludicrous comparison,” she said.

The NRA’s key vote on Sotomayor appeared to have little effect. Among the yes votes for her confirmation from either NRA-endorsed candidates or “A”-rated senators: Democrats Mark Begich (Alaska), Max Baucus (Mont.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.), as well as Republicans Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kit Bond (Mo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Mel Martinez (Fla.).

Appearing Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the third day, Republicans again hit Kagan on her record on military recruiting as dean of Harvard law school and whether she supports the Second Amendment. In a rare moment of drama, Kagan was forced to defend her revision of an obstetrician group’s policy statement on partial-birth abortion while she was adviser in the Clinton White House.

Kagan continued to play it cautiously and refuse to take open positions on various controversial issue, including gay marriage, saying only that she would divorce her politics from her deliberations on cases and respect precedent.

Her confirmation is on track, and seems all but assured.

 

[kingnereli]

You expect me to believe a website called "Snowflakes In Hell" over the very words coming from the NRA? You truly ARE delusional.

The NRA said themselves, CHRIS COX said himself, they do not oppose the confirmation of Kagan. This is not Anti-NRA speak. This is the NRA being Anti-Freedom. The Confirmation of Kagan is just another nail in the coffin.

If people actually stood up and fought for Congress to do the right thing, people like Kagan wouldn't become judges. She's effectively dodging just about every question they throw at her and she's getting away with it because people like the NRA, Fox News, the ACLU, MSNBC, The People Of The United States of America aren't standing up and saying "HEY! WTF?!?!"

And here you are supporting that. Don't say you're not because you are. You're sitting here defending the NRA who is saying, "Oh, it's ok. Let her slide."

That's disgraceful. It's disgraceful on the NRA's part AND your part.

And people wonder why the government is so screwed up and out of control.

Believe what you want to believe. That's your choice as a free man. But you're not going to be free much longer holding the values you're showing here. I have lived a free man, and I will DIE a free man because I'm willing to fight to the death for what's right. My kids will live knowing that no matter what, their father didn't back down from what was right. Many member's kids here on this website will not be able to say the same thing.

That's just sad and hypocritical.

Did you actually click the link? It's an interview with Chris Cox explaining the NRA's position in his own words. It's hard to respond to you when what you keep drumming on about has been proved absolutely false. If you want to disagree with something watch the video and explain whatever errors you see the there. You need to understand you are ranting about an issue that doesn't exist. At least my kids will live to know that I did enough research to actually foster an informed opinion rather then raising hellfire on the internet over rumors long proved false.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Savage, so, what statements on the video of Mr. Cox do you disagree with?

Why does she get a free pass from the NRA when she is clearly an anti?

Who said that NRA is giving the Kagan vote a pass?

I just posted an article from The Hill stating the inverse. Where is this meme coming from?

 

[SavageEagle]

Kirk, you and King's articles both came out after the Board Member spoke out. It's called damage control. What these guys said in private emails wasn't to be made public, but it was. It's just like any other political body that gets exposed to their true side.

You guys can defend the NRA all you want. Katrina was the knife to the heart in my eyes and the recent events were just the final nail in the coffin for me.

We're all just going to have to agree to disagree here. It's just that simple.

I've talked with a couple former NRA Board members and they will tell you that the NRA is ball-less. When the NRA gets another set and actually does what they say they'll do, I'll give them another look.

CONVINCE me the NRA is willing to do WHATEVER IT TAKES and I will coming running back. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen until they get a change in the upper echelon.