VPC Kristin Rand, "NRA Has Convinced State Legislators That It Has Power To Deny Seats To Anti-Gun..

[GreenStormCloud]

Candidates.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/gun_laws_are_getting_looser_ac.html

"The NRA has a stranglehold on a lot of state legislatures," said Kristin Rand, legislative director the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington. "They basically have convinced lawmakers they can cost them their seats, even though there's no real evidence to back that up."

Many politicians consider a slew of defeated colleges as sufficient evidence.

One of them would be Ann Richards, who lost her governorship to George W. Bush over her veto of shall-issue concealed carry.

[Kaleva]

1. Getting an endorsement from the NRA is pretty important where I live.

[spin]

16. Where I live Democratic candidates brag that they have an NRA endorsement ...

But let me assure you that if a Democrat ran for state office in my district and was anti-gun with an F rating from the NRA, he would have absolutely no chance of ever getting elected.

edited for fat fingers

[DonP]

21. Our new Dem Representative did too

Debbie Halvorson (D-11th Illinois) promoted her "A" rating by the NRA in all of her campaign material.

She was running in a formerly Red district and had a track re cord for pro gun rights voting in the Illinois House.

The NRA and the State Rifle Assn. recommended her over the GOP candidate with no voting record. She had a track record, he didn't, she got the endorsement. UNless she changes her positions in a major way, like Gillebrand did in NY she'll get it again.

But then again maybe she's not, as we have frequently been lectured, a "Real" Democrat.

[sharesunited]

2. The power to conveniently kill is regarded as sacrosanct.

If you don't support it, you're a heathen.

[eqfan592]

4. But it's not nearly as important....

...as the power to conveniently make shit up on an internet forum, something you seem to know a fair amount about. ;)

[sharesunited]

5. Torn from the headlines. Not making it up.

And message board posts threaten your life and limb HOW exactly?

[eqfan592]

6. lol, sure your not, shares.

The headlines totally support your position! There are NEVER stories that go counter to it! And besides, we all know just how perfect our main stream media is, and they would NEVER let their bias show in their reporting!

Seriously though, you might want to get a more reliable source for your position than the "headlines."

As for your question, I never said your posts DO threaten my life and limb. I could say that your position is one that would threaten my ability to defend my and my families life and limb, but I don't really think you're convincing to follow your way of thinking on this issue.

[sharesunited]

7. Your accusation of anti-gun bias on the part of the media fascinates me.

Is it frustration with some perceived lack of stories about guns saving the day?

I see quite a few of those stories posted here. But most of them reveal access to guns and ammo to be the initiating source of the trouble.

Additional frustration for someone who wants guns to look respectable, I suppose.

[SteveM]

9. Actually, I'm not as worried about the anti-gun bias of MSM...

As has been stated here time and again (with more than ample proof), MSM has been the strongest arm in the gun-control movement, one the Bradys, VPC and others have relied upon constantly.

Funny thing happened on the way to the editing room: The internet.

It should come as no surprise that MSM has been sinking fast, and along with it the clout they once had in slanting coverage of guns.
It should come as no surprise to you that the most significant phenomenon (even just before the Internet really took off) was how the "local" has become the "national;" that is, in the interest of entertainment, gossip, if-it-bleeds-it-leads mentality, any local dust-up, scandal or shooting is likely to make national news.

Now, with the Internet, folks can find all the examples of shootings, funky sex and naked bongo playing they want and judge MSM's coverage accordingly. Some of MSM realizes that, and (wonder of wonders) has begun to provide a semblance of fair coverage, or at least enough to where they can blow off the dust of some balanced gun story and say: See? We provided coverage to both sides.

[rd_kent]

12. Ignorant of the facts, you ARE making it up.

[Euromutt]

20. Headlines are hardly a representative sample

Let's get one thing clear about the news media in general: they are commercial enterprises, which means they need you to keep watching/listening/reading. The most effective way to get us to do that is to appeal to our sense of self-preservation: we're hard-wired to want to gather as much information as possible about anything that may be a direct threat to ourselves and our loved ones, so whenever possible, the news media will present a story in a manner that is likely to make us think we are at risk of whatever it is they're reporting on. Thus, rather than say

After the break, slightly elevated levels of arsenic in a reservoir several states away.

they'll say

Coming up next: a potentially lethal hazard in our nation's water supply. Could you be at risk? We'll be back after the break.

Thus, practically by definition, news headlines will be sensationalistic and designed to draw your attention. As the cliche goes, "if it bleeds, it leads," which means that an incident in which a gun-wielding citizen managed to scare off an assailant without any shots being fired, much less anyone being injured, is not very likely to be found in the headlines; in the absence of anything that scares the punters into continuing to read, titillation will have to do, like whomever else Tiger Woods turns out to also have had sex with.

The bottom line is that "the news" consists of unusual occurrences; "dog bites man" is not news, "man bites dog" is. Thus, to treat events reported in the headlines as if they were representative of the everyday state of affairs is idiocy.

[rd_kent]

11. The power to conveniently post anonymous bullshit on the internet is regarded as sacrosanct.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. The power to defend ones self is sacrosanct.

[spin]

17. In many instances, killing with a firearm is not illegal ...

for example:

1) Legitimate self defense. (The object is NOT to kill, but to stop an attack which might result in severe injury or death.)

2) The use of firearms in warfare. (Subject to rules of engagement.)

3) The use of firearms by police to stop criminal activity in progress. (Subject to review.)

4) Hunting.



As for our comment If you don't support it, you're a heathen.

First let's look at the definition of heathen.

hea⋅then
–noun
1. an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan.
2. an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heathen

Most modern religions believe in self defense. Most civilized countries also allow self defense. For example Great Britain:

Homeowners and 'have-a-go-heroes' finally get right to defend themselves

Homeowners and 'have-a go-heroes' will be handed more legal protection to defend themselves against burglars and muggers without the fear of prosecution, the Government claimed last night.

Under new laws that came into effect yesterday, police and prosecutors must give greater weight to whether people were acting 'in the heat of the moment' to defend themselves or their property.

Minsiters said new guidelines by Jack Straw would give the public more confidence they would not end up in court if they hurt an offender while using 'reasonable' force to protect themselves.

But the Justice Secretary's announcement was immediately condemned as a 'hollow gesture' that effectively restated existing laws - word-for-word.

Opposition leaders said it offered nothing new and was merely the Government's latest attempt to woo core Tory voters in Middle England.

They pointed out that even the right, in certain circumstances, to shoot dead a burglar already exists in current law.
Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, said: 'This is a typical Labour con – it will give no greater protection to householders confronted by burglars because it’s nothing more than a re-statement of the existing case law.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035536/Homeowners-heroes-finally-right-defend-themselves.html#ixzz0cBr5QXWI

[GreenStormCloud]

19. The right to self-defense is sacrosanct.

Guns are simply the best tool for that job.

[sandnsea]

3. Rove's lesbian rumors had nothing to do with it

It was all about guns. Right. :crazy:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green/3

[SteveM]

8. No one needs the NRA to convince them of this power...

Even Bill Clinton acknowledged that Al Gore lost the presidency largely because of his positions favoring gun control. And both were warned by Jack Brooks (D-TX), one of the most progressive members of congress (with an NRA "A" rating) until his own defeat. Brooks' advice? Keep the AWB from escaping committee.

Ann Richards' veto of concealed-carry was a torpedo below the forward stack to her campaign. Not very bright for a person fancied by many as an aloof, home-spun intellectual.

The VPC is like the unconvinced Irishman aboard Noah's Ark: "'Tis only a shower."

[PavePusher]

10. Those silly voters, thinking they have anything to do with it...

It's hard to believe Rand is that dismissive of the power of what she obviously thinks of as the "little people". Elitism in spades.

[Euromutt]

13. Richard Feldman's book "Ricochet" is illuminating in this regard

While Feldman was NRA regional co-ordinator for the north-eastern states in the 1980s, in spite of the fact that area was considered a lost cause zone at NRA HQ, Feldman managed to influence quite a few elections in the NRA's favor. Even in the north-east, NRA could all too readily mean "Never Re-elected Again."

Of course, Rand would like legislators to think the NRA can't cost them re-election, but really, there's only one number required to refute that: "1994."

[benEzra]

14. Yeah, all those letters, phone calls, and emails from constituents

couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with it. If correspondence from constituents runs 10:1 against a new gun ban, it is just an NRA conspiracy to make it look like voters who care about the issue don't want a gun ban, when really they do.

And we all know the VPC and the Brady Campaign get their money primarily from small individual donations from their millions of members... :eyes:

[east texas lib]

18. Ann Richards decided that she could not trust Texans with regard to concealed carry...

So Texans decided they could not trust her. This turn of events gave the Shrub his springboard to the presidency. Funny how these things work out, isn't it?