NRA tactics: Take no prisoners (yippee)

[Jumping Frog]

The Washington Post weighed in with NRA tactics: Take no prisoners

As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association with an “A+” rating for her voting record in the Tennessee House of Representatives, Debra Maggart never imagined that her political career would end this way.

Maggart, who chaired the Republican caucus, killed an NRA-backed bill that would have permitted Tennesseans to keep firearms in their parked vehicles wherever they went — work, school or the neighborhood bar.

Months later, Maggart was stunned to see NRA-sponsored ads on billboards in her district. Her face was next to a picture of President Obama. The ads proclaimed: “Sure, Rep. Debra Maggart Says She Supports Your Gun Rights. Of Course, He Says the Same Thing.”

The NRA threw its support behind a newcomer in the Republican primary. By summer’s end, the woman who had been one of Tennessee’s most powerful Republicans ....

Maggart estimated that the NRA and other gun groups spent $155,000 on the race. She said all she could do was watch her polling numbers fall. She ended up losing the Republican primary by 16 percentage points to a candidate handpicked by the NRA, Courtney Rogers, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who had no political experience.

Great outcome. Let's hope some politicians in our state keep in mind it is better to be a friend than and enemy.

[lfinsr]

This is exactly what should be happening. While it likely won't work on the East Coast and maybe some Upper Midwest states, I believe it's a sound strategy and will root out a good bit of the problem, at least I hope so.

Larry

[RX8er]

Should one PAC have that much power to swing the vote? I don't know if this was the only reason for such a large swing but probably had much to do with it. What happens when, not if, the Anti groups have a PAC as strong as the NRA-ILA and can do the same thing against us? This is why our politicians do what the money wants and not what is best for the group that elected them to office.

[Jumping Frog]

Should one PAC have that much power to swing the vote? I don't know if this was the only reason for such a large swing but probably had much to do with it. What happens when, not if, the Anti groups have a PAC as strong as the NRA-ILA and can do the same thing against us? This is why our politicians do what the money wants and not what is best for the group that elected them to office.

With the NRA, the article made quite clear it wasn't about the money, it is about organizing millions of voters.

Well-organized NRA members and affiliated groups of gun owners hold rallies and pour resources into political campaigns. They flood local and national legislative offices with e-mails and phone calls. They make unannounced visits to the offices of lawmakers. The NRA’s lobbying arm posts myriad “Alerts,” calling on millions of members across the country to rise up at a moment’s notice. . . . That was before Begich was overwhelmed by phone calls and e-mails from NRA members and other gun rights activists. They warned him against voting for expanded background checks, to stop violating “our gun rights,” and to break with the Democratic Party or face the consequences in the next election.

We are talking about 1 billionaire (MAIG) versus 5 million NRA members.

If the conversation was 1 billionaire (MAIG) versus FIFTY million NRA members, we wouldn't even see gun rights being challenged.

The only true means of preserving, safeguarding, and defending the 2nd Amendment is to ensure we maintain a firm majority of the electorate on our side. If we do not maintain a firm electoral majority, then we are vulnerable to shenanigans. The Senators didn't back off because they were scared of the NRA. They backed off because they knew the NRA represented the opinion of a majority of voters (and had demonstrated the ability to mobilize those voters).

With that in mind, I encourage all of us to remember that that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture as we encounter fellow voters in our daily lives.

In a different thread, JALLEN posted:

When the voters of California approved . . .

There is an example state where we have not been able to maintain a firm majority of the electorate, and look at the results.

[baldeagle]

Should one PAC have that much power to swing the vote? I don't know if this was the only reason for such a large swing but probably had much to do with it. What happens when, not if, the Anti groups have a PAC as strong as the NRA-ILA and can do the same thing against us? This is why our politicians do what the money wants and not what is best for the group that elected them to office.

Good grief! Where have you been? The left has almost complete control of the major media. They have the support of billionaires like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and George Soros creating groups like Alliance for Justice, In Defense of Freedom and New Israel Fund that use conservative sounding names to promote communist ideals. They have groups like the ACLU and Media Matters that supposedly support the Constitution while they work to undermine it every day. These groups have been and continue to be swinging the vote in their direction for a long, long time. Now that the NRA stands up to them you're concerned about influence????? Really?????

It seems to be a common complaint that lobbyists have too much influence in our system, but who are lobbyists? They are people paid by groups that are formed by like-minded people to increase their influence with politicians. People like you and me. The Nurses Association. Patriot groups. The Milk Industry. Tea Party groups. The difference for the left is that they have managed to take advantage of loopholes to get government funding. So your tax dollars pay for lobbyists who don't represent you at all, and you have no say in what they advocate for. The NRA-ILA is entirely funded by private and corporate donations. It's the most effective voice that gun owners have in Washington and each state. I joined AMAC, the Association for Mature American Citizens, a conservative group for older Americans. You're darn right I want them to influence elections. That's why I give them money. And that's why I am a Life Member of the NRA. I want them to influence elections and politicians, because they represent my views. When they stop doing that, I will stop giving them money.

[baldeagle]

This would be comical if it weren't so sad.

Debra Maggart has been around firearms all her life. Her family owned Carter Hardware in Nashville, which sold rifles, shotguns and handguns. She got her hunter’s license, joined a local gun club and went to the Tennessee House in 2004 as a pro-gun lawmaker.

“You can’t get more pro-Second Amendment than me,” she said.

But

Last year, Maggart said, the NRA drafted a bill to permit concealed weapons to be kept in locked vehicles no matter where they were parked. She said business and property owners objected, arguing that they could be liable for gunfire on their properties. Maggart tabled the bill in April 2012.

You can get a LOT more 2nd Amendment than that, Ms. Maggart.

So she blames the NRA and claims they lied about her.

“They will lie about you. They will use intimidation tactics. They will use bullying tactics, and because of that, people are afraid,” Maggart said.

“Why wouldn’t you be afraid?’”

But they didn't lie. She DID kill a bill that was pro-2nd Amendment. And the "bullying tactics" and "intimidation"? They supported someone else for her office and campaigned against her. That's bullying? That's intimidation?

In a healthy Republic, politicians MUST be held accountable for how they vote. Doing so it not only the essence of our Republic, it's the ONLY way we can retain our freedoms short of armed conflict.

[RX8er]

I feel it, I feel it!!!!

I guess I am just looking at this the wrong way. I have NO ISSUES with the way this one turned out. My problem is in a general sense that one group can have enough money to change an election based on one single issue.

Would we all be happy and celebrating the political system with the Action Against Arms was able to raise the support (let's face it, through money) and was able to unseat all 2A candidates and put in anti?
How about all the Atheist billboards that go up supporting a certain politician?

Get rid of all PACs, even if they are ones that I have donated to and support. I support the ILA because they are there to offset the PACs that I do not agree with.

[sjfcontrol]

It's always seemed to me that there is an intrinsic advantage to the pro-gun groups over the antis. I am a gun owner. As such, I support the NRA to protect my right to own guns. It is in my self interest to do so. And therefore I'm motivated to support them.

On the other hand, presumably, the anti groups are supporting their rights to -- what, NOT own guns? They will be able to not own guns no matter what the NRA does. Where's their motivation? Some theoretical ability to maybe not get shot? Surely most realize that THAT is not likely to happen in any case.

So we have the gun owners supporting something they actually do, v.s. the antis supporting something theoretical. Who do you think will be the first to blink?

[Charles L. Cotton]

What happens when, not if, the Anti groups have a PAC as strong as the NRA-ILA and can do the same thing against us?

It will never happen. It isn't the NRA's PAC that did her in; it was the NRA Members. No PAC alone is big enough to defeat the number of people the NRA can put in the voting booths. That's why she lost.

Chas.