Conservatives inept; NRA saved by liberal Democrat!

[VAXDGUY]

Democrat foils Republican plot to ban handguns!!!

NRA Sounds Alarm of Not-So-Imminent Threat
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; A15

In lobbying, a threat is good for business, whether it's genuine or not.

This might help to explain the dire warnings being issued by the National Rifle Association as the Democrats prepare to take control of Congress this week.

"The new leadership could be one of the most unfriendly to the National Rifle Association," declared Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the NRA. "If there's an effort to pursue gun control, we will mount an active defense."

The famously combative lobby, with 4 million members, is displeased with the voting histories of Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other top Democrats in the House and is putting them on notice that it won't tolerate passage of anti-gun measures.

The only problem: No one expects gun legislation this year.

True, a few Democrats would love to take a potshot at the NRA. But its $20 million in political firepower has long discouraged any such effort. It helped to snuff out the presidential hopes of Democrat Al Gore in 2000 and to elect dozens, mostly Republicans, to Congress.

Besides, one of the NRA's biggest backers is a Democrat, Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), who was instrumental in blocking the last major attempt at gun control in 1999 and will reclaim the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week.

No matter. The NRA is on high alert, and its latest weapon is a pamphlet designed to send its members into fits of paranoid rage and to inspire them to open their wallets.

A draft of the 27-page document, which was provided to The Washington Post by a source outside the NRA, lashes out at such icons of the left as investor George Soros, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Pelosi. They are depicted as part of "a marching axis of adversaries far darker and more dangerous than gun owners have ever known."

Few places are less likely to be burgled than the Fairfax County headquarters of the NRA. But Arulanandam alleged that someone recently stole a "working draft" of the pamphlet, called "Freedom in Peril."

The document is filled with sinister-looking caricatures of supposed anti-gun figures such as filmmaker Michael Moore, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) and CBS News anchor Katie Couric. One chapter attacks Democratic lawmakers such as Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and derides them as a "Gang of Opportunists." Other NRA enemies are "One-World Extremists," "Animal Rights Terrorists" (such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and "Illegal Alien Gangs."

"America, by its free and independent nature, is a breeding ground and safe haven for violent, illegal criminal gangs," the "Gang" chapter states. "And as always, it is the lawful who will take the fall."

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president in 2008, and Soros, a major backer of Democratic-leaning political organizations, are singled out for extra opprobrium. "Clinton views America as the great experiment, not for freedom, but for her own political ambitions," the pamphlet states.

Soros is described as "the Hungarian-born billionaire bankroller of a globalist jihad against firearm freedom" who has been "trying to revoke the Bill of Rights through his checkbook."

Veteran NRA-watchers have seen such rhetoric before. "This is vintage NRA fear tactics from an organization that knows how to use them to energize a base of supporters who have an unhealthy terror that the forces of government will take their guns away," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It's both ugly and untrue."

Hamm also said he does not believe Congress will take up and pass major gun legislation anytime in the near future. Still, the pamphlet asserts that "towering waves of this coming storm are already crashing on our doorsteps."

The opening essay, titled "The Coming Confrontation," is signed by (and is situated next to gallant drawings of) two of the NRA's staffers, Wayne LaPierre and Chris W. Cox.

"It's inevitable that terrorists will infest America for generations to come. It's also inevitable that an anti-gun president will occupy the White House, and anti-gun forces will control the U.S. House and Senate," they write. "Unless we are well-financed to face that moment, the final disarmament of law-abiding Americans will occur beneath the shroud of anti-terrorism legislation."

So beware -- and make your checks payable to the NRA!

[Frenchy]

Link...?

[Miguel]

Yeah, how can we join w/out a link!

[Krackels]

I didn't find anything with google.

[Frenchy]

You will find some interesting commentary and replies to Birnbaum's article here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122100717.html

[Frenchy]

Interest Group Politics: How the NRA Does It

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/2/2137/58664

Over the course of the 2006 midterm campaigns, one of the most oft-heard and spot on complaints made about some of the leading progressive interest groups like NARAL Pro-Choice and Sierra Club was that they were willing to back Republican candidates, like Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, who had shown support for their causes, despite the fact that continued Republican control over either chamber of Congress would have set back their movements for at least another two years. On the other side of the aisle, however, groups traditionally allied with the Republican Party have shown no such propensity to oppose the GOP, at least on the federal level. To get a good gauge of the difference between these two approaches take a gander at an article Jeffrey Birnbaum pens for The Washington Post tomorrow on the NRA.

In lobbying, a threat is good for business, whether it's genuine or not.

This might help to explain the dire warnings being issued by the National Rifle Association as the Democrats prepare to take control of Congress this week.

"The new leadership could be one of the most unfriendly to the National Rifle Association," declared Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the NRA. "If there's an effort to pursue gun control, we will mount an active defense."

The famously combative lobby, with 4 million members, is displeased with the voting histories of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other top Democrats in the House and is putting them on notice that it won't tolerate passage of anti-gun measures.

The only problem: No one expects gun legislation this year.

True, a few Democrats would love to take a potshot at the NRA. But its $20 million in political firepower has long discouraged any such effort. It helped to snuff out the presidential hopes of Democrat Al Gore in 2000 and to elect dozens, mostly Republicans, to Congress.

Besides, one of the NRA's biggest backers is a Democrat, Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), who was instrumental in blocking the last major attempt at gun control in 1999 and will reclaim the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week.

No matter. The NRA is on high alert, and its latest weapon is a pamphlet designed to send its members into fits of paranoid rage and to inspire them to open their wallets.

While it disappoints me to read about the scope of the NRA's power in Washington, there is room to learn from its actions. The fact that the gun lobby is going out of its way to oppose the incoming Democratic Congress even as some leading Democrats support their positions and gun control legislation isn't likely to make it to the floor any time soon is not unintentional. Instead, the leadership of the movement -- and the NRA in particular -- has hitched itself to the GOP and knows that it can be more successful by closely aligning with one party than by shifting its allegiances every cycle. Although conventional wisdom might dictate that such a stance would hurt those opposed to gun regulations in the long-term, the fact that the Democrats are not planning to go up against the lobby indicates that this line of thinking is incorrect.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by VAXDGUY

Democrat foils Republican plot to ban handguns!!!

NRA Sounds Alarm of Not-So-Imminent Threat
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; A15

In lobbying, a threat is good for business, whether it's genuine or not.

This might help to explain the dire warnings being issued by the National Rifle Association as the Democrats prepare to take control of Congress this week.

"The new leadership could be one of the most unfriendly to the National Rifle Association," declared Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the NRA. "If there's an effort to pursue gun control, we will mount an active defense."

The famously combative lobby, with 4 million members, is displeased with the voting histories of Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other top Democrats in the House and is putting them on notice that it won't tolerate passage of anti-gun measures.

The only problem: No one expects gun legislation this year.

True, a few Democrats would love to take a potshot at the NRA. But its $20 million in political firepower has long discouraged any such effort. It helped to snuff out the presidential hopes of Democrat Al Gore in 2000 and to elect dozens, mostly Republicans, to Congress.

Besides, one of the NRA's biggest backers is a Democrat, Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), who was instrumental in blocking the last major attempt at gun control in 1999 and will reclaim the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week.

No matter. The NRA is on high alert, and its latest weapon is a pamphlet designed to send its members into fits of paranoid rage and to inspire them to open their wallets.

A draft of the 27-page document, which was provided to The Washington Post by a source outside the NRA, lashes out at such icons of the left as investor George Soros, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Pelosi. They are depicted as part of "a marching axis of adversaries far darker and more dangerous than gun owners have ever known."

Few places are less likely to be burgled than the Fairfax County headquarters of the NRA. But Arulanandam alleged that someone recently stole a "working draft" of the pamphlet, called "Freedom in Peril."

The document is filled with sinister-looking caricatures of supposed anti-gun figures such as filmmaker Michael Moore, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) and CBS News anchor Katie Couric. One chapter attacks Democratic lawmakers such as Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and derides them as a "Gang of Opportunists." Other NRA enemies are "One-World Extremists," "Animal Rights Terrorists" (such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and "Illegal Alien Gangs."

"America, by its free and independent nature, is a breeding ground and safe haven for violent, illegal criminal gangs," the "Gang" chapter states. "And as always, it is the lawful who will take the fall."

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president in 2008, and Soros, a major backer of Democratic-leaning political organizations, are singled out for extra opprobrium. "Clinton views America as the great experiment, not for freedom, but for her own political ambitions," the pamphlet states.

Soros is described as "the Hungarian-born billionaire bankroller of a globalist jihad against firearm freedom" who has been "trying to revoke the Bill of Rights through his checkbook."

Veteran NRA-watchers have seen such rhetoric before. "This is vintage NRA fear tactics from an organization that knows how to use them to energize a base of supporters who have an unhealthy terror that the forces of government will take their guns away," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It's both ugly and untrue."

Hamm also said he does not believe Congress will take up and pass major gun legislation anytime in the near future. Still, the pamphlet asserts that "towering waves of this coming storm are already crashing on our doorsteps."

The opening essay, titled "The Coming Confrontation," is signed by (and is situated next to gallant drawings of) two of the NRA's staffers, Wayne LaPierre and Chris W. Cox.

"It's inevitable that terrorists will infest America for generations to come. It's also inevitable that an anti-gun president will occupy the White House, and anti-gun forces will control the U.S. House and Senate," they write. "Unless we are well-financed to face that moment, the final disarmament of law-abiding Americans will occur beneath the shroud of anti-terrorism legislation."

So beware -- and make your checks payable to the NRA!

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anywhere in this article anything about a Republican plot to ban handguns. I see a part where a democrat helped to defeat some anti-gun legislation. But it doesn't say who authored/sponsored that legislation.

The entire article is warning about how the LEFT is going to be coming after our guns (with ONE democrat exception) and the headline says "republican plot to ban handguns" Did YOU write the headline for that article??

Most of the article talks about how supposedly the liberals are scemeing to curb 2A rights.

Oh yeah, and as others have mentioned--no link

Frank

[VAXDGUY]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anywhere in this article anything about a Republican plot to ban handguns. I see a part where a democrat helped to defeat some anti-gun legislation. But it doesn't say who authored/sponsored that legislation.

The entire article is warning about how the LEFT is going to be coming after our guns (with ONE democrat exception) and the headline says "republican plot to ban handguns" Did YOU write the headline for that article??

Most of the article talks about how supposedly the liberals are scemeing to curb 2A rights.

satire |?sa?t?r| noun; the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. See note at wit . • a play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire : a stinging satire on American politics. • a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire. • (in Latin literature) a literary miscellany, esp. a poem ridiculing prevalent vices or follies. DERIVATIVES satirist |?sat?rist| noun ORIGIN early 16th cent.: from French, or from Latin satira, later form of satura ‘poetic medley.’

In other words, I "pulled a Tom" to see who'd bite. It's interesting to see the double-standard at work here. Not unexpected, but interesting nonetheless.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Here is a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010100682.html

The actual headline/title was:

NRA Sounds Alarm of Not-So-Imminent Threat

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by VAXDGUY

In other words, I "pulled a Tom" to see who'd bite. It's interesting to see the double-standard at work here. Not unexpected, but interesting nonetheless.

Where is the double-standard?

Frank