Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Apparently the National Rifle Association decided that they want to become the National Conservative Association?

Via CNN:

An NRA lobbyist, Tara Mica, helped shepherd a model bill that requires voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Many conservatives have pushed voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Many liberals say these laws inhibit voting by minorities.

Mica also helped preside over ALEC's passage of the model bill that became the basis of Arizona's immigration law. That's the law that requires police to arrest anyone who cannot prove when asked that they entered the United States legally.

The NRA and Mica wouldn't talk with CNN, so it's not known whether Mica consulted with other NRA officials about the bills on voter ID and immigration.

For the full story read the link. It looks like it isn't really clear exactly how much of its money and/or influence the NRA is using to champion conservative bills, but the NRA doesn't want to talk about it.

Now I know that the common picture of the gun-owner in the USA is often that he/she is a conservative anyway. But what about us gun owning, 2nd Amendment defending liberals and moderates? The 2nd Amendment has ZERO to do with immigration, voter ID, and any other conservative cause. If the NRA wants to use its influence to broaden its mission and become just another Conservative think tank and voting block, then I will seriously have to drop my membership.

Does the NRA's constitution allow it to campaign for political and social action outside the area of firearms issues?

Every penny spent on lobbying for immigration control is a penny taken away from marksmanship and training.

I think that is a good point. The NRA should have only two functions.

1) keep government from messing with our right to bear arms.
2) train peoole to use that right safely and responsibly

Anything other than that is just a waste and abandoning their mission, IMO.

Exactly, it's obvious that the Association's money can't be spent on just anything the committee like.

There must be a constitution or articles of association.

I looked on the NRA website but I couldn't find anything.

Disappointing, but hardly surprising. I'm a strong Second Amendment supporter, but I don't agree with a lot of the conservative platform. The NRA won't miss my money if I decide to withdraw; their base is overwhelmingly conservative, and I doubt much of their membership will have a problem with this.

Maybe it just makes me sad because it is a reminder that moderate/independent political thought is considered too abstract.

Why is it that with the two party system, the political field acts like you are either a gun-loving/gay-hating/anti-immigration/pro-war conservative, or a gun-hating/gay-loving/pro-immigration/anti-war liberal?

Just seems like there is just no middle ground, and watching single-platform organizations turn into extensions of the platform of a political party just makes me a sad panda.

There's plenty of middle ground but it does not suit shouty activists to admit it.

Looks like what we all knew to be true is just out in the open, as opposed to it being a new shift.

Gun registration = bad, voter registration = good

I SEE THE LIGHT NOW, I SEE IT SO HARD!

I honestly don't get the arguments against voter registration laws.

It shouldn't take me less identification to vote than it does to buy a cellphone.

Can anyone tell me how requiring photo ID at a polling station hurts minorities?

I tend to air on the slightly left side of the political spectrum, but having to show that you are who you say you are kind of makes sense when you're going to vote.
That bill in Arizona is a terrible idea though, sounds like it leaves so much room for abuse.

On the other part of the issue, I have to agree with other members of this thread, why the hell is a group like the NRA wanting to get involved in politics?

This realy says something about those who join the NRA ehh?
I want to make some stereotypical liberal remark but im to tired to for a coherant one.

I used to be a member of the NRA but gave it up because of the rest of their politics. I gave up my membership in the Sierra Club for the same reasons.

Seaward wrote:I honestly don't get the arguments against voter registration laws.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_cost_of_voter_id_laws_what_the_courts_say/

some guy in another thread wrote:You can be a functioning member of society without needing a photo ID. Many Libertarians classically are champions of this concept. The idea of a country where you need to carry ID papers to prove your citizenship to engage in normal everyday activities is classically a hallmark of fascist countries. In old movies as soon as you heard a guy say "Papers, please" in a foreign accent you knew the action was happening behind the iron curtain.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/436548.page#4043993

Manchu wrote:Just to reiterate, the law looks really bad. It doesn't seem to address a problem that actually exists. And if that problem actually does exist, these laws don't even hypothetically address it. Voter ID Laws do seem to disproportionately affect poor people and, for that reason, black people.

Racist intent on the part of legislators is not required for a law to have racist implications. It's not even required for those implications to be utterly obvious.

The reason that I avoided saying that the lawmakers in these cases are racists is because I don't want to say that. I don't think that's the point. I don't think the point is that the laws' supporters are racists either and so I also didn't say that.

The point, to me, is that these laws are embarrassing. They undermine American credibility abroad and, apparently, also at home. I am embarrassed by them. I did say that. And I will also say that it embarrasses me that other Americans support them.

That is not the same thing as calling anyone a racist. If you fear that you might be called a racist for supporting this law, I think you should consider why that may be. Because that is very relevant to my point: if this is the sort of thing that looks bad then we really need to weigh it against what it actually does that is good.

that first guy, again wrote:In many (most?) states getting photo ID does actually cost money and take time. Poor people (and black people are disproportionately poor), college students, and the elderly are the folks most likely to lack the ID required by these laws. These laws make it harder for those people to vote, and impact them disproportionately.

As Manchu said (and as I said back on page 1) these laws are dumb. They don't actually give real protection against voter fraud, and voter fraud has not been shown to be a real issue or happening in any significant numbers.

So these are ineffective laws, addressing a virtually nonexistant problem, which have the effects of hurting the poor, black, elderly and college students, and make us look like jackasses in front of other countries, to whom we should serve as a model of how to do things right.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Maybe it just makes me sad because it is a reminder that moderate/independent political thought is considered too abstract.

Why is it that with the two party system, the political field acts like you are either a gun-loving/gay-hating/anti-immigration/pro-war conservative, or a gun-hating/gay-loving/pro-immigration/anti-war liberal?

Just seems like there is just no middle ground, and watching single-platform organizations turn into extensions of the platform of a political party just makes me a sad panda.

100% agreed. My sister's an advocate for gun ownership and I'm generally supportive of it; I'd like it if I could rely on the NRA to be nonpartisan on other issues, and focus on the Second Amendment.

As would I. I genearlly support gun ownership laws but I the NRA's other advocacies are nonsense.

I can't remember where or when but LaPierre said that the NRAs goal isn't to win the Second Amendment debate; otherwise they'd be out of a job. They exist to PERPETUATE that debate. Some other advocacy groups and shrewd lawyers have actually tried to win the 2A fight; see DC vs Heller. The NRA must see the writing on the wall, they are no longer relevant or really even useful to the pro-gun community, who have largely recognized that the NRA often works counter to their wants and needs. To now see them pander to the extreme right only confirms what I think of that organization: a big steaming pile of gak.

Maybe you should set up a politically non-aligned, pro-gun, rival association.

And then there was of course there was the 1st ammendment limiting bill that the NRA said go ahead on immediately after they were granted an exception. They was not a very conservative party move, just a protective self interest kind of move, which lost them a lot of membership.

So since they gave the green light for a major liberal bill as well, maybe they are "right" leaning, but mainly out for themselves as are most lobby groups.

I could call it something like the National Shoorting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America, or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. All of which I am already a member of, and contribute to. I also used to contribute to the NRA-ILA but no longer.

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe you should set up a politically non-aligned, pro-gun, rival association.

Someone would shoot it up probably. Radical groups arguing over the same turf... WIth guns...

But really I am not surprised. A soap box stance for a soap box organization

Johnny-Crass wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe you should set up a politically non-aligned, pro-gun, rival association.

Someone would shoot it up probably. Radical groups arguing over the same turf... WIth guns...

But really I am not surprised. A soap box stance for a soap box organization

Your avatar better be careful wearing that hoodie in a thread with so many gun lovers...

d-usa wrote:I think that is a good point. The NRA should have only two functions.

1) keep government from messing with our right to bear arms.
2) train peoole to use that right safely and responsibly

Anything other than that is just a waste and abandoning their mission, IMO.

Just out of curiosity, are you a member? If so, how did you vote in the board elections?

If you're not a member, why the heck should you get to dictate what the NRA functions are or even care what they are?

Any organization is going to do what its members want. In the case of the NRA, I assume most members identify themselves with the conservative side of the political spectrum in the US, and as such the organization may well best serve its members by advocating for 'conservative' issues.

Is there a reason why so many people are against showing ID for voting, other then the race card? Basically, I hear the race card brought up on everything, and once I hear it, I got deaf and start drooling on myself. Other then pretending X organization is racist and evil, I dont honestly see a reason why showing proof you are who you are, is a bad thing.

CptJake wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think that is a good point. The NRA should have only two functions.

1) keep government from messing with our right to bear arms.
2) train peoole to use that right safely and responsibly

Anything other than that is just a waste and abandoning their mission, IMO.

Just out of curiosity, are you a member? If so, how did you vote in the board elections?

If you're not a member, why the heck should you get to dictate what the NRA functions are or even care what they are?

Any organization is going to do what its members want. In the case of the NRA, I assume most members identify themselves with the conservative side of the political spectrum in the US, and as such the organization may well best serve its members by advocating for 'conservative' issues.

I am a member, but will not renew this year.

If I want a conservative organization that cares about the 2nd, and all other 'conservative' issues I would join the GOP.

I joined an organization that cares about the 2nd, responsible gun ownership, and marksmanship training. That is the stated purpose of the NRA.

To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms

If I want my money to go towards requiring voter registration, then I would give my money and support to an organization focused towards that. The NRA is loosing it's focus. I realize that I am probably in the minority as far as members are concerned, but if they are willing to alienate liberal and moderate gun-owners by sponsoring legislation that is beyond their mission then it is time to say goodbye and to start looking at other organizations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Is there a reason why so many people are against showing ID for voting, other then the race card? Basically, I hear the race card brought up on everything, and once I hear it, I got deaf and start drooling on myself. Other then pretending X organization is racist and evil, I dont honestly see a reason why showing proof you are who you are, is a bad thing.

For me there are the following reasons in Oklahoma (and I will try to keep it short to prevent the thread from going OT), can't talk about other states.

1) In Oklahoma there has not been a single case of in-person voter fraud. So if you are preventing one person from voting by changing the rules to address a non-existing problem then you damaged the concept of free and equal elections.

2) It is well documented that the people least likely to have a valid picture ID are elderly, poor, and minorities. So if anybody is going to get hurt, it is the "democrat leaning" voter block. Makes me wonder why it is usually conservative legislators pushing these bills.

3) Our voting locations are staffed by volunteers that basically consist of little-old-ladies(tm). They are supposed to be able to verify that you have a valid ID and let you vote. Our "experts" at the NSA in the airports can't even figure out what valid IDs are and are well known to reject valid government issued ID's. If our "professionals" cannot figure out what IDs are valid, little old ladies don't have a chance.

4) When the bill was passed (was put up for a vote to the people in 2010) they included a provision that you can use your voter registration card even though it is not a picture ID. The argument was "that way nobody gets to not-vote because even if they have no picture ID, they can use the voter registration card everybody has". Of course after it passed, the legislator now has a bill that says "they are not picture IDs, they should not be able to get used".

5) I am against any incarnation of "papers please". Voting is fundamental, and any attempt at making it harder needs to show that there is a clear and existing problem that needs to be fixed."

Just my $0.02. This could easily go OT, so if we want to keep on talking about it we probably need a new topic.

CT GAMER wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe you should set up a politically non-aligned, pro-gun, rival association.

Someone would shoot it up probably. Radical groups arguing over the same turf... WIth guns...

But really I am not surprised. A soap box stance for a soap box organization

Your avatar better be careful wearing that hoodie in a thread with so many gun lovers...

That was so fantastic

CptJake wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think that is a good point. The NRA should have only two functions.

1) keep government from messing with our right to bear arms.
2) train peoole to use that right safely and responsibly

Anything other than that is just a waste and abandoning their mission, IMO.

Just out of curiosity, are you a member? If so, how did you vote in the board elections?

If you're not a member, why the heck should you get to dictate what the NRA functions are or even care what they are?

Any organization is going to do what its members want. In the case of the NRA, I assume most members identify themselves with the conservative side of the political spectrum in the US, and as such the organization may well best serve its members by advocating for 'conservative' issues.

The point is that organisations can't just do what their members want. They have to do what they are legally constituted to do. You wouldn't like it if 10 million Italians joined the NRA and made it spend its budget on the Venice Lagoon Preservation fund.

Kilkrazy wrote:Does the NRA's constitution allow it to campaign for political and social action outside the area of firearms issues?

Every penny spent on lobbying for immigration control is a penny taken away from marksmanship and training.

Separate budgets. The calls they send to me aren't for marksmanship, its to protect the 2nd Amendment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:I think that is a good point. The NRA should have only two functions.

1) keep government from messing with our right to bear arms.
2) train peoole to use that right safely and responsibly

Anything other than that is just a waste and abandoning their mission, IMO.

Agreed actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's plenty of middle ground but it does not suit shouty activists to admit it.

As much middle ground as there is with the First Amendment.

d-usa wrote:
If I want a conservative organization that cares about the 2nd, and all other 'conservative' issues I would join the GOP.

I'm actually quite surprised that more people don't call them the National Republican Association.

d-usa wrote:
3) Our voting locations are staffed by volunteers that basically consist of little-old-ladies(tm). They are supposed to be able to verify that you have a valid ID and let you vote. Our "experts" at the NSA in the airports can't even figure out what valid IDs are and are well known to reject valid government issued ID's. If our "professionals" cannot figure out what IDs are valid, little old ladies don't have a chance.

Yep. When I was 17 my ID, well one of them, proudly proclaimed that I was 22, and that my name was Paul Kozlowski. Never got turned away once. I also had one that said I was Rusty Shackleford that I used to troll bouncers.

Now obviously bars are a bit different seeing as they really just want your money, but the principle remains the same. If a 17 year old kid can get a fake that will stand up to reasonable levels of scrutiny, anyone seriously attempting voter fraud can do the same.

d-usa wrote:
5) I am against any incarnation of "papers please". Voting is fundamental, and any attempt at making it harder needs to show that there is a clear and existing problem that needs to be fixed."

Were voter fraud rampant, I would have no problem with requiring "papers" to vote. Hell, I'm nominally a proponent of national ID, or at least standardized state IDs, as they both eliminate a lot of inconveniences without really causing any harm.

But, without voter fraud being an issue, this type of proposal is basically just a combination of political strategy, and appealing to people that think illegal immigrants to der jerbs.

Kilkrazy wrote: You wouldn't like it if 10 million Italians joined the NRA and made it spend its budget on the Venice Lagoon Preservation fund.

When those lagoons are gone and you have no clams, I bet you're gonna wish this had happened.

d-usa wrote:I think that is a good point. The NRA should have only two functions.

1) keep government from messing with our right to bear arms.
2) train peoole to use that right safely and responsibly

Anything other than that is just a waste and abandoning their mission, IMO.

Sounds like the NRA is getting ahead of themselves. I agree with you here, they need to stick to their roots.