[HTML1]

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) positions itself to the right of Genghis Khan. I mean, the National Rifle Association (NRA). Which is not as bad as it sounds (if, indeed, it sounds bad). In Adam Winkler’s Gun Fight, for example, the NRA stands accused of placing political expediency and (perhaps) fund-raising ahead of principle. In semi-stark contrast, NAGR is the “no surrender” gun rights group. NAGR’s “take no prisoners” jefe Dudley Brown seems to have his knickers in a twist about the fact that Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and New Gingrinch have shunned his org’s Gun Rights Candidates Survey. Sour grapes? Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman answered, 100% correctly, apparently. Huzzah! Now what?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

27 COMMENTS

  3. “the NRA stands accused of placing political expediency and (perhaps) fund-raising ahead of principle.”

    From where I sit, they are guilty on both counts. How else can the observable facts be explained? What would you suggest I attribute the actions of the ILA and their representative John Hohenwarter (northeast region) to if not political expediency and fundraising?

    Without even having to dig, there is what Hohenwarter did in NH early this year to positively thwart the political process and torpedo a very pro-gun piece of legislation, and what he did here in PA during the legislative session ending last year to torpedo HB 40 (our stand your ground bill)*, and what the NRA has done for Mark Fiorino (a big fat bupkis) all while using his case as a tool to extract donations.

    The NRA is over-large, corrupt, and has a major conflict of interest in the area of firearms law — they are at their core an organization based on/around training; thus they have a significant commercial interest in statutorily mandated firearm training that they provide.

    I’m all for the NRA to continue existing as a training organization, but their continued activity in the realm of firearm law is as much a conflict of interest as the AARP’s support of Obabacare.

    *admittedly, even though it passed there was almost no way it was going to be signed by then-governor Rendell. Regardless, Hohenwarter’s actions resulted in significant delay in the passage of the bill, which meant that we lost the chance to have a veto override vote. The legislation ultimately DID pass this session, was signed June 28th, and is now law; this, I might add, due to the NRA keeping it’s over-large nose away.

  4. Ron Paul is the most pro-gun candidate…

    taken from – http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gun-Control.php

    “In 2007, Paul introduced the H.R. 1096: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007 in Congress.His intent behind the bill was explained in an earlier address to the House.

    “Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America.

    My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime.Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.” January 9, 2003, US House of Representatives … ”

    Newty is no good… he even recently stated that he wanted to thumbprint all gun purchasers. WTF?

  5. NAGR — that’s a new name to me and I don’t know anything about them. I do know the GOA Gun Owners of America which is to the right of the NRA. The GOA also supports Ron Paul.

  6. While Michelle Bachmann may not be your cup of tea as a presidential candidate, she has been an unblinking champion of gun rights through her career as a Minnesota state senator and her two terms in Congress.

  7. I’m not surprised. Ron Paul is one Constitution loving fellow. I’m not a member of the NRA but I am involved with the GOA and Ron Paul is their man.

    I really don’t care for Bauchmann though, she’s supported legislation that wasn’t constitution friendly in the past. I love the 2nd Amendment, but I still love the rest of our Constitution just as much and I want a president who will protect.

      • It is funny, but you’re laughing at the rare politician that tells the truth, at least as he sees it. Politicians never get in trouble for parroting the party line, they get in trouble for telling the truth.

  10. Who’da thought the most Constitutional guy running would also be the most pro-gun?

    New MSNBC/Marist poll shows Ron Paul has the best chance of beating Obama. He also has a couple new ads out. One slams Newt on flip-flopping. Here’s a different one slamming big government. Love it!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

  11. It’s unfortunate – Dr. Paul probably has the best chance of beating Obama, but the least chance of winning the primary. He really has the ability to appeal to moderates, independents, and liberals who still remember the Bush years and the patriot acts.

    Heck, he describes gun rights as liberal.

    • It’s a shame, I know. Too many corrupt Republicans stand to lose money if Ron Paul is elected, so they’ll do everything they can do keep the majority of the public from knowing he’s running / what his views are.

  12. it seems that by the right objecting to obama on his mere existence, traditionally right wing values are of relatively little consequence in the face of a candidate merely not being obama.

    and clearly this guy is just trying to be the grover norquist of guns.

  13. This bit illustrates my point that if you think the Republican Party, overall, gives a damn about your gun rights, you’re sadly mistaken. They give lip service to get your votes, as they do with gays, abortion, whatever. Really, Republicans are about corporate dominance. By the same token, the Democrats, on the national level, haven’t been doing a Hell of a lot to grab your guns. No renewal of the stupid AWB, etc. That’s because the Democrats are also (mostly) about corporate dominance. None of these elite A$%@&le’s want you rabble to have a gun. The NRA is mostly focused on it’s own existence, and lobbying for the gun industry, who’s interests are not always those of gun owners (922R, anyone?).

    Ron Paul, to his credit, says what he means and means what he says. I agree with him 100% on foreign policy. He is an anti-militarist, anti-imperialist to the core. As much as some of his Libertarian domestic ideas scare me, I would consider voting for the guy, not that he’ll ever get nominated.

    • All 100% true. I’ve voted for Paul in the past and will again, but some of his “libertarian domestic ideas scare me”, too. I’m pretty confident, though, that if elected he wouldn’t just shut down 9/10ths of the government overnight, dumping however many million more people on an already over-saturated job market. He talks about doing things gradually– considering Washington’s record, that means a real snail’s pace. … which is good, because big gov’t is like heroin. It may kill you, but you can’t just quit all at once.

      • Also, he’d have to deal with that whole pesky establishment that’s making sure he could never possibly get elected in the first place.

    • Ron Paul, to his credit, says what he means and means what he says.

      I like Ron Paul and I’d vote for Ron Paul, but unless you can read minds, you don’t know what he really believes. He’s a politician, too, and they mostly all suck.

      The last “real” man in Washington was Barry Goldwater, and he’s long gone. Read “Conscience of a Conservative.” You will appreciate it.

      • Fair point, I guess I should say that Ron Paul says stuff that pisses off most of the Republican establishment, so I think he means it, since I’m not seeing a huge upside for him, unless it’s just an ego thing. And just ’cause you’ve got a big head, doesn’t mean you’re wrong. In the age where being a sociopathic liar is the main prerequisite for success in politics and business (well, maybe it’s always been that way), it’s tough to tell. If I could somehow combine the DNA of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I’d have my ideal politician.

        I’ve been meaning to read “Conscience of a Conservative” for years. Maybe we can make a deal whereby you read a left wing book. I’d have to think a bit about which one.

Comments are closed.