The President said in the October 16, debate at
that he supported the 2nd Amendment but wants to get the assault weapons ban reintroduced. Mitt Romney stated flatly that he opposes any new gun legislation. So gun control advocates were at least encouraged by the President’s approach, knowing full well we could not expect anything from Romney. But the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) took note releasing the following ad with the same old crap: Hofstra University
"Freedom. These guys fought for it," begins the ad, which shows a soldier returning home to his family as gentle music plays. Then, the music turns frantic and the scenes go from color to black and white. "Now, imagine our country without it. Obama put two justices on the Supreme Court who threaten our right to self-defense. Defend Freedom. Defeat Obama."
As Joe Biden would say, “Malarkey.”
It ran in the states of
Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, Iowa and , according to Jennifer Bendery in the Huff Post. All 7 states are considered toss-ups by Electoral College site Real Clear Politics. What is interesting is that the NRA is not targeting Nevada ’s 20 electoral votes after Obama’s famous comment about these people clinging to their guns or religion. A protocol mistake maybe but he is right here and in many other states. Pennsylvania
I did a post on July 26, of this year, “It’s all fiction: NRA has no effectual control over elections, Part 1 and Part 2. ThinkProgress did a very comprehensive study on the effects of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) on political elections in relation to money contributed to candidates and the organization’s influence on the outcome of the elections. Paul Waldman of The American Prospect, and author of the study said: “The NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections.”
|How the NRA would have it|
As an example, “In the last four elections, the NRA spent over $100,000 on an IE (independent expenditure) in 22 separate Senate races. The group’s favored candidate won 10 times, and lost 12 times.” In all but a tiny number of races, the NRA endorsement is essentially meaningless and here’s why:
In 2004, all of the 4 NRA-endorsed challengers lost to their Democratic opponents, as did all 4 NRA-endorsed challengers in 2006. In 2008, 11 out of the 12 NRA-endorsed challengers lost. In 2010, only 18 of 36 challengers won. in the last four federal elections, in which the NRA made a total of 1038 endorsements in House races, the group could claim credit for a grand total of 4 wins.”
|Wacky Wayne LaPierre on the loose|
On another side of the issue, according to a poll commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, gun owners, including a majority of National Rifle Association members, are in favor of some forms of tighter gun laws. The poll found that:
71% of NRA members support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns (76% of all gun owners support the same), while 65% of NRA members back a law that would require gun owners to report a missing or stolen gun to police.