ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

NRA Scoring Gun Votes

Updated on April 12, 2013

NRA Scores Senators' Gun Votes

The National Rifle Association (NRA) needs to build and maintain support for the right to bear arms and its latest attempt: score the votes of senators on a bill proposed by Republican senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The senators introduced their idea for background checks at gun shows and for Internet purchases and other senators voted on the bill. Their bill will also require gun sellers to keep records of the background check for law enforcement.

I believe that the NRA is trying to intimidate sneators and make it easier for opponents of gun legislation to know which candidates to vote for. The NRA believes that the second amendment right to bear arms is at risk and wants to ensure that this right never goes away, but it will not.

Although most of the senators have good ratings with the NRA, they feel there is a need for stricter gun legislation to prevent shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary and the Colorado movie theater.

Is it wrong for senators to want safety in America?

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      I rest my case.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Yes, because we all know that Feinstein is such an unbiased voice crying in the wilderness.

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      Jack rest assured that as I stated previously the dear readers and many others agree that the NRA is using intimidation. Senators such as Dianne Feinstein have stated this:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/dianne-fe...

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      I am quite familiar with Prop 8 and California.

      And I don't really care what you believe. I just want the Dear Readers to know where you are wrong. What ~you~ choose to do with that info is totally up to you.

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      My assertion was clear when I wrote my Hub. You obviously want me to agree to everything that you say. Money has been used to sway policies for years. Prop 8 in California is a prime example. I bet you probabyl didn't even know that the Mormon Church created organizations to push their agenda to ban same-sex marriage. That's because they did not want people to know that the church was involved at all. If you think that people, not just the NRA spend money to push their agendas forward, you are naive.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      :-)

      I don't think that pj article says quite what you think it says.

      And as noted, you really can't back up your assertions that I am naively thinking that the NRA doesn't spends money.

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      Jack: This is my last comment. You were naive because once again, I said that the scoring was done to intimidate the senators and the NRA is using their scoring to spend money to keep those senators who support their goals in office. Bloomberg and the NRA are doing the same thing because they are both scoring government officials. Yes, Bloomberg is obviously an individual, but as we both pointed out, he also has an organization.

      Lastly, there are many people who agree with me that the NRA is intimidating people. An article was written days after I wrote this Hub:

      http://pjmedia.com/blog/sen-feinstein-nra-money-st...

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Sandra sez: you were naive to think that people like the NRA were not spending money to financially back senators.

      Jack replies: How fascinating. Please point out, in detail and with specifics, just where I posted, hinted, implied or stated that the NRA didn't "spend money to financially back senators."

      That might be a little difficult because I never did. Which leaves me wondering why you pulled it out of thin air.

      And no, Bloomberg and the NRA are NOT doing the "same thing." Bloomberg represents ONE person who is choosing to use his personal tens of millions of dollars to influence elections... the NRA has over 4,000,000 members that it is representing and who want their voice heard.

      One person spending $30,000,000 = Four million people banding together spending about $5.00 EACH. Do you ~really~ believe that is the "same thing"?

      And the NRA just tells the politicians and those who hear their message what their members "think" the same exact way the bumper sticker does. Same message... just a different medium.

      And how many people do you know that want gun violence (whatever that is supposed to be) to be "maximized"?

      Just for the record, I have never known a "violent gun." Never seen one sent to time out, never seen one charged with a crime, never see one put on trial, and certain never seen one sitting in jail, doing its time.

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      First, your comment just proved that you were naive to think that people like the NRA were not spending money to financially back senators. The NRA and Bloomberg are doing the smae thing: using their money to put the people that they want in office. I mentioned that in my previous comments and Bloomberg's nonprofit group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is also scoring lawmakers just like the NRA.

      The bumper sticker on your car is not intimidating. You probably got the bumper sticker for free in the mail or at a campaign rally. It does not intimidate. It just tells people what the person driving in front of them thinks.

      For the record, if you want to arguing, I am not pro-NRA. I think that gun violence needs to be minimized.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Forbes currently lists New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as the 13th richest billionaire in the world, with a net worth of $27B.

      Bloomberg, co-chair of pro-gun control organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, spent $13.7M during the 2012 election cycle, including the entire $10M collected by the Independence USA PAC, which Open Secrets calls “liberal.”

      Bloomberg, via Independence USA, spent $2.3M trying to replace NRA “A”-graded Daniel Webster (FL-10) with an “F”-graded challenger, and spent $3.3M trying to replace Joe Baca (CA-35, NRA grade “B+”) with an NRA “D”-graded challenger.

      Another half-million went to replacing “A”-graded Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-24) with “F”-graded Dan Maffei.

      Bloomberg recently spent another $12M on a multi-state advertising campaign, attempting to influence representatives to vote for pending federal gun-control legislation. But while promoting greater restrictions for the average American, Bloomberg’s police guards received “special permission” to carry guns while in relatively gun-free Bermuda:

      Sandra hasn’t expressed concern over Bloomberg using his wealth to influence local elections or federal legislation and to use her words, "intimindate" elected officials. Bloomberg is just ~one~ person, while the NRA represents millions of people. Who is ~distorting~ the idea of representational government the most?

      And Sandra has still not answered my question about having a bumper sticker on the care promising not to vote for a politician.

      And no, in your own example YOU noted the "people in Georgia were pro-gun" so if I, as their senator, did not represent their desires why do I believe (or you believe) that I should be reelected? It would not be a case of me not being "pro-NRA" as you so naively state. It would be me not being "pro-what-the-people-want."

      The NRA is merely sharing that data with the people. If the NRA is wrong, I can explain and they are the ones who lose credibility.

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      Because you need an answer: The focus of this hub was the National Rifle Association's scoring of votes on gun bills. Once again, the NRA has a lot of money to back the candidates that it chooses. For example, Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that requires its citizens to own a gun. If Jack Burton was a senator in Georgia and the NRA gave him an F score because people were pro-guns in Georgia and Jack Burton was not, then logically Jack Burton would lose office. The scoring would intimidate Jack Burton because he knew he would lose his office for not being pro-NRA. Clearly, some senators like Jack Burton would try to appease their voters by trying to find a middle ground or changing their position if possible.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      I wasn't aware that keeping one's elected office was a "right" that couldn't be taken away by the electorate. I believe it was Jefferson who said something along the lines that it was far better to have a government who feared the people than a people who feared the government.

      BTW... can I put a bumper sticker on my car for the other guy without being an "intimadator"?

      And thank you for pointing out that keeping track of those who are supposed to be our civil servants is an important task of the electorate. Most people call it being a concerned citizen, not being an intimidating citizen.

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      You should know that you answered your own question. Fear of losing office is exactly why there is so much pressure on these senators. Members of the NRA who do not want tighter gun laws will not vote for senators who want tougher gun laws. This is the purpose of the scoring. Scoring is common by many people. Schools get more mone if they have higher scores: a versus F. Parents can also use the scores to decide which school to enroll their students in.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Fear" Of what, losing his office he was elected to by being voted out?

      Based on you idea of intimidation it would be intimidating for me to put a bumper sticker on my car saying "vote for the other guy."

      Again, you have no concept of the way the founding fathers set up our country and the freedom to petition the government.

      It is my right to decide which politician to support for whatever reason I choose. If 10 other people have the same reason that I do that is immaterial to the right established by the Constitution. If a million other people have that same reason that is also protected by the Constitution.

      If I choose to let the politician know that I will/will not vote for him based upon the stances he takes while in office that is my RIGHT to do so. YOU have the perfect right to tell him the opposite if you choose to do so.

    • Sandra Remilien profile image
      Author

      Sandra Remilien 4 years ago

      Sandra replies: I think you need to read the dictionary. Intimidation is defined as "to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear." Jack the NRA and other organizations fund the campaigns of most senators. FYI: It costs a lot of money to run a political campaign. The NRA is scoring their votes with the intent of only financially supporting those candidates that help their organization. This is intimidation.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Sandra sez: I believe that the NRA is trying to intimidate sneators and make it easier for opponents of gun legislation to know which candidates to vote for.

      Jack replies; I think you need to go back and study the Constitution, especially the part where it says the people have the right to petition the government -- which means to make our requests and desires known to them. You confuse a Constitutional right with "intimidation."

      Sandra sez: Is it wrong for senators to want safety in America?

      Jack replies: Is it wrong for the people to want their senator to know that the bills before them are the exact wrong way to bring "safety in America"?