- ‹ previous
- 2250 of 8816
- next ›
The Long Saga of John McCain and the NRA
Opinions change in Washington. Before the National Rifle Association loved John McCain — it favored McCain with its endorsement Thursday — it had some very sharp disagreements with the Arizona Senator. In 2000, McCain said of the gun lobby, "I don't think they help the Republican Party at all." A year later, the NRA shot back by calling McCain "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment."
There were two reason for the NRA's hostility toward McCain: campaign finance and a bill McCain co-sponsored with Joe Lieberman to close the so-called "gun show loophole." The NRA put McCain on the cover of its newsletter, called "America's 1st Freedom," in July 2001. Next to him were the words, "John McCain, What Are You Thinking?" An article inside explains that earlier that year McCain and Lieberman had teamed up to champion legislation to eliminate the loophole, which the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence explains this way:
Under federal law, anyone who wants to engage in the business of selling firearms must obtain a federal firearms license. The Brady Law requires that when a federal firearms licensee (FFL) wants to sell a firearm, they must contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that the purchaser is not prohibited from possessing firearms. FFLs must comply with these laws whether they are selling firearms from a gun store or at a gun show.
The Brady Law, however, does not apply to the sale of firearms by non-licensees. Every year, there are thousands of gun sales without background checks by vendors claiming not to need a federal license because they are merely selling from their "personal collection" of guns. Many of these sales take place at gun shows and the problem has become known as the "gun show loophole."
The NRA's Political Victory Fund rated the McCain-Lieberman bill an "F." The proposed law, said the NRA's article, was "jeopardizing the freedom of law-abiding gun owners." It argues that McCain's motives in joining with Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and other gun control groups were phony. "John McCain has recently become a prominent Washington champion of more federal gun legislation in large part because AGS has heavily publicized McCain," wrote the NRA. "AGS is doing everything it can to keep McCain in the news."
The same article slammed McCain for advocating campaign finance laws that would limit the influence and money of powerful independent groups like the NRA. "Future battles fighting government gun grabs will become far more difficult if McCain's campaign finance reform bill becomes law," the NRA wrote. The reason was limitations the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold, placed on something called "electioneering communication." McCain-Feingold defines that as:
Any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which--
(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate or Federal office;
(II) is made within--
(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or
(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and
(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
These limitations, the NRA wrote, "could effectively prohibit the NRA from even mentioning in a public mailing which candidate it supports or opposes." (Ironically, the Supreme Court has since weakened this key element of McCain-Feingold and the NRA has used the opportunity to launch discredited attacks against McCain's opponent, Barack Obama.) The NRA also accused McCain of hypocrisy, saying that financed his campaign to cleanse Washington of soft money by using plenty of his own.
The NRA contentious relationship existed before and after this one newsletter. In 2000, McCain told CNN, "The NRA is entitled to their advocacy. I don't think they help the Republican Party at all. But I don't they should in any way play a major role in the Republican Party's policymaking." In February 2002, "America's 1st Freedom" took after McCain again, titling another article on the gun show loophole, "What Doesn't John McCain Want You to Know?" In it, the NRA accused McCain and AGS of using "deceit" to "restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens." The executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action called McCain's bill a "cynical attack on our rights." Similar attacks were launched in an article in the September 2002 issue of the NRA newsletter. That issue morphed McCain and Lieberman together and called them "two-faced."
Today, McCain and the NRA have made nice. In 2007, McCain said, "I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved which means no gun control." He addressed the NRA's annual convention earlier this year and said:
"For more than two decades, I've opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in modern America. The Second Amendment isn't some archaic custom that matters only to rural Americans, who find solace in firearms out of frustration with their economic circumstances. The Second Amendment is unique in the world. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers."
The relationship between McCain and the NRA has become so cozy that one registered NRA lobbyist, Wayne Berman, serves as a co-chair of McCain's national finance committee and another, James Jay Baker, heads the National Steering Committee of Sportsmen for McCain. (The dual roles appear to be in violation of the internal McCain campaign ethics policy, a fact which has gone unaddressed. Additionally, Baker controlled the NRA's political arm when Mary Lou Sapone was infiltrating gun control groups on its behalf.)
McCain's willingness to genuflect at the NRA's altar clearly worked. Thursday, the NRA endorsed McCain and promised an advertising campaign on his behalf worth "eight figures." If McCain is elected president with the NRA's help, we'll see if the gun group plays "a major role in the Republican Party's policymaking."





























When the alternative is Barack 'The One' Obama, McCain was all they had. What else would you have expected? Better someone who does not lie about his position on the 2nd Amendment than someone who says one thing to one group of people and something else to another group. Besides, Rights do NOT change based upon where you live. Rights are Rights, all over the U.S. and they should be treated the same way. McCain at least knows THAT simple reasoning.
I couldn't agree more. The NRA has a simple goal, to protect the second amendment rights of Americans. McCain is the candidate least likely to do more damage to the right to bear arms than Obama. It's really kinda not much of a story, now if the NRA officially endorsed Obama, THAT would be a story.
Richard and Patrick - did either one of you guys actually read the article?
How about this part, "The Supreme Court has since weakened this key element of McCain-Feingold and the NRA has used the opportunity to launch discredited attacks against McCain's opponent, Barack Obama." The key word is "discredited."
You boys ought to know by now McCain's going to say whatever you want to hear to get your votes. He changes his policies every time he changes his socks.
Gun show sales are a grave concern to the majority of Americans. Something WILL be done about it eventually, regardless of who wins the election.
There has never been a more important time for Americans to go out and buy a gun than right now.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
You boys ought to know by now McCain's going to say whatever you want to hear to get your votes. He changes his policies every time he changes his socks.
And on the other side of that two-headed coin, we have Barack Obama, who, as a candidate for Illinois State Senate in 1996 answered the following question on an "On The Issues" questionaire with a simple 'Yes':
"Would you support a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?"
Says at one campaign stop in Idaho that he supports the 2nd Amendment, and believes it protects an individual's right to keep and bear firearms.
At another campaign stop he's heard to say that rural Americans are bitter people who cling to guns.
As a Hillary Clinton mailing put it:
"Where does Barack Obama really stand on guns?"
"It depends on who Barack Obama is talking to."
Sorry kiddies.
It's third party for this gun owner.
The Comment about people clinging to their guns and religion was very correct. I am sorry some people cant understand it. The reference is if you give the people NOTHING ELSE to vote on BESIDES guns and religion they will vote along that line. Hence the "I am pro-life and I vote" and "I am with the NRA and I vote" bumper stickers. The majority of people who own guns have already had their whisper campaign spun for them. When was the last time you heard a republican will take your guns away????
The right vs the left, you choose what part of the constitution to love/hate and in the process you destroy the most important document designed by man. Bias and ignorance worries me more than than petty bitching.
The gun issue isn't nearly as important since the Supreme Court (finally) ruled on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The infamously ambiguous "well regulated militia" phrase was determined to not qualify an individual's right to keep and bear guns for private protection.
Of course, gun ownership can (and should) still be regulated, but as someone who's voted with the NRA in the past, the gun factor isn't nearly as important this time around.
Christopher Leppla tells us: The reference is if you give the people NOTHING ELSE to vote on BESIDES guns and religion they will vote along that line.
NOT!
Here's the full quote, with his prefacing remarks:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
I'm sorry you didn't understand it.
He's saying that job loss and/or poor local economies, when Big Sugar-Daddy Federal Gov't hasn't stepped in to put a bandaid on, makes small town people bitter clingers.
It's pretty derogatory in tone, any way I can look at it.
Christopher also tells us: The majority of people who own guns have already had their whisper campaign spun for them.
The majority of people who own guns don't belong to the NRA, or any other gun rights advocacy group. Therefore, they don't receive any mailings to "spin" them.
Best estimates range from about 52 million American households having guns, up to about 145 million households.
Any way you slice it, with the largest advocacy group being NRA, who's membership is only about 4 million, there's no way NRA has the kind of clout with gun owners that gun rights opponents like so like to whine and cry cry about. Like being "spun", and told how to vote and such.
Regardless of whether you think rural folks are clinging to guns or not, Obama still is posing, today, worlds away from the position he was taking on the issue in 1996, and that's a fact.
I don't have a problem with people clinging to their Rights. They'd Damn Well BETTER, if they expect to keep them!
He's just as much a position-shifter-for-the-purpose-of-getting-votes as McCain. And that WAS the point.
And that's why I won't vote for either of them.
I am a gun-toting environmentalist feminist greenie from Alaska. (Which many people see as a direct contradiction of terms.) My husband is a life long member of the NRA. I was a member for about a year. I gave them up when they blindly supported Bush just because he said he supported their agenda. I believe in the right for personal protection - indeed it saved my a** more than once, and I never even had to fire my weapon. I believe in the right to obtain my food through hunting - and indeed especially in these hard times, hunting has fed my family and many others. I will not give up my right to keep and bear arms no matter who says so. I'm voting Obama this year and so is my husband.
One of the advantages of living in Arizona is the lack of people-those new shells really can carry! Any X Military that is trained on Arms and sees no problems with over the counter sales with no training has no claim to being Pro-life!