This Is How the NRA Ends A bigger, richer, meaner gun-control movement has arrived

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2010
72,913
64,852
This Is How the NRA Ends

A bigger, richer, meaner gun-control movement has arrived



On April 17, the bill to expand background checks on gun buyers failed in the Senate, and the fatalistic shrugs in Washington were so numerous they were nearly audible. The legislation had been a modest bipartisan compromise, supported by 90 percent of the public and lobbied for hard by the president. A group backed by Michael Bloomberg had spent $12 million on ads pressuring senators to vote “yes.” When the bill fell short—by just five votes—it seemed to confirm a Beltway article of faith: There’s no point messing with the National Rifle Association (NRA). And that, many assumed, was the last we’d be hearing about gun reform.


But then something unexpected happened. Some of the senators who’d voted “no” faced furious voters back home. Even before Erica Lafferty, the daughter of murdered Sandy Hook Elementary principal Dawn Hochsprung, confronted New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte at a particularly tense town hall, Ayotte’s disapproval rating in the state had jumped from 35 to 46 percent—half the respondents said her “no” vote made them less likely to support her.1 In Pennsylvania, which has the second-highest concentration of NRA members in the country, the bill’s Republican co-sponsor, Pat Toomey, saw his approval reach a record high. One of the country’s best-known gun-rights advocates, Robert Levy, said the NRA’s “stonewalling of the background-check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively.”2




*snip*




This is a very good read. Also very well sourced. Recommended.
 
I tend to take any highly partisan news source (such as the Liberal publication 'New Republic', which published this article) with several grains of salt, never mind the proverbial one...

The article was, indeed, worth reading, but its theme - the demise of the NRA - strikes me as pie-in-the-sky and about as comical and maudlin-partisan as one can get...

I saw some decent citations in there for shifting popularity polls for several Senators right after the 'No' vote but nothing indicating the tidal wave that the publishers would like to convince folks is unfolding even now...

As much anecdote and wishful-thinking-disguised-as-logic as actual fact or relevant trending-history...

The thing was well-written and made some good points but it also suffers from some indulgence in over-dramatization and pontificating that betrayed its partisanship very early-on in the narrative...

But, as I said (and as the OP first pointed out)... a good and enjoyable read.
 
Last edited:
Legally owned firearms will never be a problem no matter how strict or lax the laws may be.
It's the illegally owned firearms that are a threat. And there will always be that threat.

You can't legislate responsibility, especially when you can't even enforce existing law.
 
The bill failed in the Senate which has a democrat majority and a quirky leader who once tried to influence the morale of the Troops by telling them the "war is lost". . Why blame the NRA?
 
I could go on...but I digress, Synthaholic swallows all the idiotic BS Obama spews as if it's the gospel.
 
Last edited:
I see the left wing has new masturbatory material..

"The Death of the NRA and total Gun control at last".
 
I tend to take any highly partisan news source (such as the Liberal publication 'New Republic', which published this article) with several grains of salt, never mind the proverbial one...

The article was, indeed, worth reading, but its theme - the demise of the NRA - strikes me as pie-in-the-sky and about as comical and maudlin-partisan as one can get...

I saw some decent citations in there for shifting popularity polls for several Senators right after the 'No' vote but nothing indicating the tidal wave that the publishers would like to convince folks is unfolding even now...

As much anecdote and wishful-thinking-disguised-as-logic as actual fact or relevant trending-history...

The thing was well-written and made some good points but it also suffers from some indulgence in over-dramatization and pontificating that betrayed its partisanship very early-on in the narrative...

But, as I said (and as the OP first pointed out)... a good and enjoyable read.


I think the main points to take from this are:

#1 - the NRA has NEVER had an opponent who could match their spending. Now they have one who could match it 100 times over.

#2 - the ads from Bloomberg's group have only just begun, and already have had affect.

Note that he plans on heavily funding Democrats Landreau and Kagen because they voted for the background checks, and plans on heavily funding the defeat of Democrats Pryor and Begich for opposing it.

So it's a non-partisan, single issue group with unlimited finances.
 
I tend to take any highly partisan news source (such as the Liberal publication 'New Republic', which published this article) with several grains of salt, never mind the proverbial one...

The article was, indeed, worth reading, but its theme - the demise of the NRA - strikes me as pie-in-the-sky and about as comical and maudlin-partisan as one can get...

I saw some decent citations in there for shifting popularity polls for several Senators right after the 'No' vote but nothing indicating the tidal wave that the publishers would like to convince folks is unfolding even now...

As much anecdote and wishful-thinking-disguised-as-logic as actual fact or relevant trending-history...

The thing was well-written and made some good points but it also suffers from some indulgence in over-dramatization and pontificating that betrayed its partisanship very early-on in the narrative...

But, as I said (and as the OP first pointed out)... a good and enjoyable read.


I think the main points to take from this are:

#1 - the NRA has NEVER had an opponent who could match their spending. Now they have one who could match it 100 times over.

#2 - the ads from Bloomberg's group have only just begun, and already have had affect.

Note that he plans on heavily funding Democrats Landreau and Kagen because they voted for the background checks, and plans on heavily funding the defeat of Democrats Pryor and Begich for opposing it.

So it's a non-partisan, single issue group with unlimited finances.

its also a group full of hypocrites, who have either thier own armed security, or have security details provided by the taxpayers. Its full of people who will not have follow the laws they want to impose on the "common folk"
 
Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
 
I tend to take any highly partisan news source (such as the Liberal publication 'New Republic', which published this article) with several grains of salt, never mind the proverbial one...

The article was, indeed, worth reading, but its theme - the demise of the NRA - strikes me as pie-in-the-sky and about as comical and maudlin-partisan as one can get...

I saw some decent citations in there for shifting popularity polls for several Senators right after the 'No' vote but nothing indicating the tidal wave that the publishers would like to convince folks is unfolding even now...

As much anecdote and wishful-thinking-disguised-as-logic as actual fact or relevant trending-history...

The thing was well-written and made some good points but it also suffers from some indulgence in over-dramatization and pontificating that betrayed its partisanship very early-on in the narrative...

But, as I said (and as the OP first pointed out)... a good and enjoyable read.


I think the main points to take from this are:

#1 - the NRA has NEVER had an opponent who could match their spending. Now they have one who could match it 100 times over.

#2 - the ads from Bloomberg's group have only just begun, and already have had affect.

Note that he plans on heavily funding Democrats Landreau and Kagen because they voted for the background checks, and plans on heavily funding the defeat of Democrats Pryor and Begich for opposing it.

So it's a non-partisan, single issue group with unlimited finances.

its also a group full of hypocrites, who have either thier own armed security, or have security details provided by the taxpayers. Its full of people who will not have follow the laws they want to impose on the "common folk"
Another one without a clue, who didn't read the OP. Nice.
 
I think the main points to take from this are:

#1 - the NRA has NEVER had an opponent who could match their spending. Now they have one who could match it 100 times over.

#2 - the ads from Bloomberg's group have only just begun, and already have had affect.

Note that he plans on heavily funding Democrats Landreau and Kagen because they voted for the background checks, and plans on heavily funding the defeat of Democrats Pryor and Begich for opposing it.

So it's a non-partisan, single issue group with unlimited finances.

its also a group full of hypocrites, who have either thier own armed security, or have security details provided by the taxpayers. Its full of people who will not have follow the laws they want to impose on the "common folk"
Another one without a clue, who didn't read the OP. Nice.

its supported by Bloomberg, and a bunch of mayors of big cities with big gun laws that do nothing to prevent crime. Thats all i need to know.
 
its also a group full of hypocrites, who have either thier own armed security, or have security details provided by the taxpayers. Its full of people who will not have follow the laws they want to impose on the "common folk"
Another one without a clue, who didn't read the OP. Nice.

its supported by Bloomberg, and a bunch of mayors of big cities with big gun laws that do nothing to prevent crime. Thats all i need to know.
And, unfortunately, that is all you will ever know.
 
Another one without a clue, who didn't read the OP. Nice.

its supported by Bloomberg, and a bunch of mayors of big cities with big gun laws that do nothing to prevent crime. Thats all i need to know.
And, unfortunately, that is all you will ever know.

Typical smug progressive douchbag response.

And yet my statements are true. All the high level people behind this want guns for me and not for thee. Hypocrites, all of them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top