If Not for the NRA Hillary Clinton would be President

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- Let’s face the facts. Without the NRA Hillary would be President and Schumer would be the leading the Senate. The Supreme Court would be backed with young gun grabbing justices. The record number of judges DJ Trump has had appointed would be all to the left center. Imagine the 9th Circuit Court being the norm for the country as a whole.

For the 40 million gun owners who identify as NRA members and all you who gave and supported the NRA. THANK YOU!

Without you (the extended family of gun owners and NRA supporters) Hillary would be in the Whitehouse today.

For the 40 million gun owners who identify as NRA members and all you who gave and supported the NRA. THANK YOU!
For the 40 million gun owners who identify as NRA members and all you who gave and supported the NRA. THANK YOU!

Let that sink in for a few seconds…All you who ranted and raved that the NRA is the devil, that any compromise equates to surrender need to stop drinking the kool-aid. No one else has the political sway to do what the NRA can do. No one.


Do not make an enemy of the good because it lacks perfection.


So let me try to explain something to you. Remember the Assault Weapon Ban? Sure you do. If not for the NRA negotiating a sunset clause this bill would still be law today.

The same thing for insta-check, an NRA compromise that prevented a national 15-day waiting period.

It is easy to yell and scream, but Bill and Hillary Clinton had the votes to push through and pass these bills without any compromise to the NRA. These gun bans were Hillary’s baby, and she was willing to do anything to get them passed. Trade anything, swap anything, twist any arms. You have the sunsetting of the Assault Gun Ban, and no waiting periods thanks to the NRA. Some would have had us fall on our sword. No compromise every. That path leads to the death of our rights. The NRA plays the long game.

So what did the NRA do to help President Trump? Well here is an ad the NRA ran. Click on it and see. There is a reason white women voted in a majority for Trump.

Different gun rights groups do different things better. The GOA is excellent at law suits but poor at most everything else. The NRA, great at mass campaigns and talking to America’s 120+ million gun owners. At the end of the day support the NRA or lose your right to own a gun. Everyone helps but only one group has the gravitas to change a national election. Oh, and yes, I read all your comments, which is why I am responding. Don’t bash other gun groups. We need EVERY resource we can get to win this fight. The anti-gun left is not going away, and a house divided cannot stand.

We need to educate the next generation and recruit outside our comfort base. If not we’ll be defending our rights forever. Join me, support the FNRA, teach freedom and fight the left. Thank you for reading.


About Don McDougall:Don McDougall

Don McDougall is an NRA instructor and member of the Los Padres “Friends of the NRA”committee. If he’s not at the range you will find him setting the record straight with on gun issues and gun safety on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

  • 70 thoughts on “If Not for the NRA Hillary Clinton would be President

    1. Don, take a chill pill. Most of us aren’t saying the NRA has never done anything good; we’re just saying that some things could be significantly better. And by playing perennial “NRA apologist,” you are actually undermining your own credibility. FYI, I am not so sure about the NRA’s responsibility for lots of Senate wins; most of the wins you list were incumbents. (BTW, where is Ted Cruz in that list? If they didn’t spend big on that one, they should have.) Having myself, as director of a gun rights organization, been on the receiving end of NRA malfeasance many times, I can assure you and others that such circumstances exist.

      F. Paul Valone
      President, Grass Roots North Carolina

      1. Uhhhhh….. No. Insanity is not the reason Hillary lost either. Quite frankly, between the NRA and Alex Jones’ youtube channel, the NRA has a bigger audience that from an outside perspective is not looney toons. If you want to listen to infowars, by all means go ahead. Just be aware however they are neither viewed as an accurate resource, or even overt in how far they will push a conspiracy theories.

    2. After reading every comment logged above, I would like to say that I have great faith in Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre.
      I had some of the same feelings that are expressed above during our eight (8) nightmare years under our Kenyan
      president. However, unless you have walked the halls of Congress, you cannot fathom the multiple personalities
      and mind-sets they must deal with in every session. Unless we have an overwhelming majority, they must tread
      lightly and work both ends from the middle and wait for your day to come. I don’t know if the house legislation on
      concealed carry will ever get thru the Senate and signed by Trump, but if it does. the left will go hysterical. Think
      about all the laws on the books in these left-wing states that would be superseded and rendered useless by
      the simple right to carry across state lines ! Always remember that everything the slime-o-crats do (gun control,
      immigration, etc,) is aimed at abrogating your rights under the constitution.

      1. i won’t believe a thing the nra does till they fix california ,and until they do that this control crap will never go away fix cali win the world

        1. The NRA can NOT fix the California problem. Only the voters there can do that. Until they vote out the problems on their state level and federal congressional level can the NRA even begin to work on that problem. The people of California put those people in office and only the voters can begin to fix it.

      2. @Ron Watson

        Allow me if I may, to illustrate.

        What is the difference right now between the NRA, and the Clinton Foundation? Honestly…. Both have supporters who will excuse and dismiss any wrong doing or corruption “Because they do good work”, both mismanage the money they do legitimately take in, both have dealings with individuals who at best can be called shady or dangerous and at worst downright evil, and both neglect their stated mission through their actions (CF does not help the poor in other countries, and NRA does not intervene when Individual rights are violated). This is a serious conversation that we have got to be able to have, yet mouthpieces who are only concerned with keeping the membership calm and sedated as they rake in the dues and pay themselves exorbitant amounts.

        I would now like to present you with another option.

        What if every firearm owner in America backed each other up, only unlike McDougall wants through the NRA, but through each other instead. How about this little scenario.

        Progressives pass Gun control bill.
        Them : We now have a law that will make you safer, Turn in your firearms.

        Us: Uh, no. We are not going to do that.

        Them : But you don’t understand… We passed a law. You have too!

        Us : No, we don’t. We have a higher Authority to answer to.

        Them : Oh yeah? Who!?

        Us : The Constitution. Your law violates it, so we don’t have to follow it.

        Them : Well, We’ll make you!

        Us : Are you ready to try and murder 120 million of us? We make up the largest standing army in the world.

        Them : uhhh……

        Imagine, millions walking into Washington DC peacefully, but refusing to be arrested. Millions outside the capital building Armed but peaceful. Imagine, petitioning our government for a redress of the crimes being committed on us and our constitution without firing a shot but exercising our rights. Imagine being able to remove them from office by taking them down to the supreme court and holding court on the front steps, peacefully. If fired upon, we could defend ourselves, but above all, do not fire the first shot.

        You see, that is what our founding fathers would have done. You chose a good A word, abrogating. Please allow me to give you another. Abdicating. Why are the men, if we can call them that even, of today abdicating their constitution and duty for an organization that charges us money and tells us how thankful we should be that they are only allowing us to be bent over and raped for twenty minutes as opposed to a full forty minutes?

        You see, the Constitution is the answer, not the NRA. All the laws being violated in California and New Hampshire? Enforce the Constitution. Crooked politicians taking and paying bribes to sedate people as they rob us blind? Enforce the Constitution. Full out illegal abuse through abrogating the Constitution? Take it back as our founders intended. We don’t need the NRA to survive if we are good men, but the NRA sure needs us. That’s what the shill mouthpiece who wrote these two articles this week doesn’t want you to think about. You want to talk about rendering left wing loony laws useless with a right to carry across state lines? That right already exists. It is called the second amendment. We don’t need the NRA to help pass another law. We need to enforce the constitution, but the NRA Leadership doesn’t get paid doing it that way.

        Now, your post is different from Repo’s on the other article, and different from McDougall’s article above. You are talking about your own personal beliefs without denigrating anyone else’s right to question. I hope that means you are someone I could trust to have a reasonable logical discussion with who would make a case not by self absorbed opinion, but evidence and facts.

        So let me ask you, will you have a reasonable open minded conversation with me? Even if we both still disagree in the end, I’m fine with that. So what do you say Ron? We’re never going to get that from McDougall, so I would welcome the chance from you.

          1. Yes, you are a #1 problem in the NRA. Your goals are idiotic and you and some of the others on this board are complete ah,s.

            1. @Lewis Tripp
              Ok, Really… Then which goals exactly would you be referring to as idiotic?

              Is it the goal of Individual Liberty?

              Is it the goal of Individual Responsibility?

              Is it the goal of Individual Principle?

              Is it the goal of Truth and Integrity?

              Well, if myself and others here are in error for believing in those things, perhaps you would like to point out which ones and provide some empirical evidence to support your statements.

        1. Revelator- Since I am a devout constitutionalist, I do not disagree with your above comments.I have
          read the Constitution many times and am irked by the Supreme Court decisions that ignore the plain
          written language of this document, and especially the Bill of Rights. Of course, the ludicrous
          decisions are the ones written by the left-wing squirrels appointed by the slime-o-crats. Ginsburg
          admitted many times that she had an outright disdain for the Constitution itself. Sotomeyer and
          Kegan are no more qualified for their position than I am to be an astronaut, that’s why our Muslim
          president put them there.As for taking to the streets to demand our rights, I think this situation was
          a lot closer than you think during Obama’s reign. The preponderance of Hussein’s E/O’s were aimed
          at usurping our Bill of Rights (1st, 2nd, 4th 14th,etc). The foolish college kids evidently don’t under-
          stand that this is the only such document in the world that protects citizens from their government.
          The point I was trying to emphasize is that Cox and LaPierre must coexist in an environment that
          is toxic with career politicians that are pressured by their liberal, anti-American base and are scurrilous and incorrigible in their actions. Succinctly: I am with you when the time comes !

          1. @ Ron Watson

            Now that was a good reply!! (The ” No takers” comment was directed at others, not yourself)

            While we still disagree, we do have common ground that we can talk about. That has been the point I have been trying to get across to people, albeit through forced absurdity showcasing the stupidity of the points made by the twin articles of Don McDougall, namely~

            1. “If you don’t support the NRA, you’re an apathetic tool of the Anti-gunners and will be blamed if anything goes wrong”

            2. “At the end of the day support the NRA or lose your right to own a gun.” (Direct quotation)

            Regardless of Cox and Lapierre’s goals or intentions, I do not feel that just because the cess pit is part of the town that you should go swimming in it. Anytime an organization says we owe them our allegiance but, “Pay no attention to what is going on behind that giant curtain there.” I would say we need to institute self governance(I think maybe 2% of the people here will understand what I mean by that)

            Don McDougall’s articles were in effect aimed at one thing, silencing dissent. What he was telling people, and he can deny it if he wants but it wont change the fact that that is what his articles were trying to do, is that “if you have a problem or concern with how the NRA operates then you need to sit down and shut up.” To accomplish this he used the method of inducing fear and compliance through the two points I highlighted above, first through attaching a label to any questioning his views, and then through threat by triggering an emotional fear response by stating “Do what the NRA says or you will lose your right to own a gun.” That is the exact same tactic the Left and DNC use.

            Personally, I love that you brought up BHO’s executive orders since that highlights my points on the constitution and what defines a right so perfectly. The executive orders passed by BHO were not constitutional, as anyone who has read the constitution with slightly more than a passing glance could tell you. The President does not have unilateral authority to change or write law with executive orders any more than the Supreme court has a power to write law from the bench. It does not exist within the Constitution. By the same token, our rights exist independently of and before the Constitution. Since they are vested in the laws of Nature, or Nature’s Creator, it is impossible for us to “Lose a right” as Don McDougall asserts. A right may be suppressed for a time through tyranny, but that does not eliminate or change what the right is.

            Now, I am part of what you would consider Millennials, being in my very early 30’s. I’ve understood the Constitution since my very early teens. I understand that many my age do not, but also that is because how they were(Or were not) taught. That includes people like the author of these articles in regards to teaching the process of stifling honest debate and the free exchange of ideas.

            So here is an idea. I’m coming from a point of “Fix the NRA if they want my allegiance” while you are coming from a point of “Trust the NRA to stick up for me.” I would like to hear some ideas that you have in regards to figuring out a solution so that people like myself who abstain for reasons of conscience can meet people like yourself in the middle.

            What do you say?

            1. I am surprised at your age ! Because the Dems have instituted Adolph Hitler’s youth orientation programs into our schools and removed the actual history of the U,S, I presumed you were older. As for me being somewhat in the middle, my friends would laugh at that statement. I am as ultra right-wing as they come.I am 71 years old and worked as a staff officer for a fortune 500company for 46 years.This is why I understand TRUMP better than most. The way he operates goes on everyday in big business.I guess this is why I understand what Cox and LaPierre are dealing with each session. Unfortunately, Husein gave us eight years of pure anti-american toxic waste oozing from the Oval office.His sorcery has petrified the minds of our youth to the point that they cannot think for themselves. You must give the NRA credit
              for getting out the vote.Always remember that you are dealing with the government and they want to control us like King George III and that the
              Constitution is the only thing standing in their way. The shooting yesterday
              by the 19year old Latino in Florida does not help CCW in Congress.

            2. @ Ron Watson

              Yes, I understand and get that a lot. I actually got to spend some time when I was young due to my father being stationed in a more socialist country, and visiting back here for family in the US. I got to see firsthand just how special we have it here in the US in regards to Liberty and individual freedoms. My father served as a Marine, and his father fought in Korea in the Army. I suppose you could say I was raised “Old Corps” as far as my views and thought processes were shaped. I should also like to point out that I was not saying you were in “The Middle”, but was referring to the mid point of our discussion or opposing viewpoints on the NRA.

              I never was one to bow down to wrongful authority, so I do agree with your assessment of the evil that has been done in schools over the last three to four decades. That is also why I must say what I am about to in response to what happened in the news over this past week.

              I give the NRA credit where credit is due. They do get out the vote, and the current attack on them by the press and the ignorant children they are manipulating after the Murderous shooting in florida last week is completely vile and wrong. Much of this however goes back to what my message has been from the start, that being consistency and constitutionality.

              Because numerous concessions were made in regard to certain political candidates’ characters in order to elect them for the sole purpose of backing the NRA, with the advent of the Florida Parkland shooting, we have very few dedicated and integrity based individuals in Washington to weather the storm we are facing. As they would say in the Marine Corps, we are currently on High Alert. Donald Trump just showed himself on Television stating that he would violate the constitution and move as President, through the Justice Department, to ban firearms accessories that according to law and definition are legal and not constituted as fully automatic devices. Last time I checked we were the ones telling Obama the office of the President does not have Unilateral authority to change or create law on its own. Don McDougall Published in his article even under the title itself, that the NRA is responsible for Donald Trump’s victory.

              Now, if Donald Trump takes the same position Obama took in his 2012 debate with Romney saying “I believe in the second amendment, but too many tragedies have happened….” will the NRA step forward, or will Don McDougall step forward and take responsibility for the violations and infringements that will be done to our rights because they didn’t have the balls or backbones to stand on principle, or will they tell us we must make concessions to preserve a few parts of our liberty and constitution as they have in the past? I don’t think they have the integrity to do so to be honest, though that is only my opinion. Perhaps Wayne LaPierre, Cox, or McDougall will surprise me and prove my opinion wrong, but I doubt it.

              In the end Ron, I know history and I can see the writing on the wall. Most days I feel like Noah, telling my neighbors a flood is on the horizon and getting the reply “Don’t be Ridiculous… It wont rain enough to wet the grass.” We are inching closer and closer to a civil war in this country due to the corruption of our media and even some of the groups that we agree with like the NRA which is not doing the job it should. We are balancing on a tightwire and the only question is which way the breeze that topples us is going to come from.

              Stay Vigilant, and God Bless.

    3. @ Don McDougal

      BREAKING NEWSFLASH, Don McDougal finds proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his head, which has been missing since last Tuesday, was found embedded deep within his Colon Late Wednesday morning. Doctors attempted immediate but unsuccessful surgery to remove the trapped skull, but it refused to budge. News at 11:00….

      Now that we have that out of the way, Don McDougal has gotten it wrong yet again. Hillary Clinton is the reason Hillary Clinton is not president, not the NRA. For Don to Claim the NRA was solely responsible for her own failure is like Don claiming “Though the bumble bee buzzed at the outside of my closed window for over two hours, it was only by my sheer strength and determination that it was prevented from entering my house!”

      Don, Grow a freaking set! For a guy who didn’t have the balls to respond to the comments and legitimate grievances aired in the commentary section of your last article, to run like a coward and write another article attempting to dismiss everyone as simply “Complaining and thinking the NRA is akin to satan.”?? Seriously?? Oh that’s great journalism, if you are CNN or MSNBC.

        1. @DBM

          Ok, Then please cite your work to show how it proves you right. Please, I would like to see outside sources instead of the CNN method of Journalism “Just trust us, we are CNN”

          Seriously, you have a board of Directors member in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, You treat board elections like you are the DNC, On cases of Judicial abuse during self defense trials you remain silent, use membership dues to line your own pockets, and You trade away protections under the second amendment and then try to tell your members it’s a positive because it could have been much worse. That is Common Core/Obama math, “See, we kept 30%”, ignoring that fact that you traded away the remainder leaving us with a 40% deficit!! And that is just the short list of problems we have with you.

          So the only thing proven thus far is my breaking newsflash comment. Get your head out of your sphincter and own up to it, or come clean on the grievances we have against the NRA.

            1. @DBM

              No Citation… Avoiding the questions…. Following the Three D’s of the Democrat party perfectly.

              You do realize that doing that does not elevate your position, but points out the weakness behind your argument right?

        2. @DBM

          You know, for a guy asking “Drink your Kool-Aid?”, it might look a little hypocritical to be writing about “Here, drink this… Love the NRA…. YEsssss LoooOVe the NRA…. My Precious!!!”

          Just saying… Also, care to explain why you have not addressed any of the issues raised to you so far, why you are purposely avoiding doing so?

    4. The NRA has signed off on every major piece of anti-gun legislation since 1934. That’s undeniable. And their idea of “compromise” today is to ask the ATF to legislate. Tell me again how the series of compromises that the NRA has allowed done anything to win the war? Your defeatist attitude seems to be “the loss of our rights is inevitable, so let’s compromise and slow the progress”.

        1. Gun Control acts of 1934, and 38. Care to elaborate on them, and why the NRA is not leading the charge to defend the second amendment? Want to talk about bump stock legislation going on today?

          Please, not being facetious here, this is a discussion we need to have. If you believe so strongly that Jim Burgess is wrong in what he says, how about you cite some outside sources(Meaning no puff pieces like McDougal imitating Hillary Clinton on her foundation). Why don’t you prove him wrong if you can???

        2. Here you go Trippy: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968

          By William Vizzard

          For three decades, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) has formed the legal core of national gun policy in the United States. The congressional deliberations leading to the passage of the GCA and companion legislation extended over five years and involved the Departments of Justice and Treasury, the White House, firearms interest groups, and both houses of Congress. At no time before or since has Congress addressed gun control policy with as much breadth or depth.[1] Although the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 imposed strict federal regulation on machine guns and other “gangster” firearms [2] using taxation legislation, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act (FFA) had proven ineffectual in asserting even minimal federal controls over interstate commerce in ordinary handguns, shotguns and rifles.[3] The structure of the GCA emerged largely from observed weaknesses in the existing FFA.[4]

          The Dodd Hearings
          In early 1958, Senator John Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to control the importation of surplus military firearms.[5] Clearly protectionist, the legislation targeted the increase in imported firearms, the great majority of which were military surplus.[6] Congress acted only to ban the importation of previously exported U.S. military firearms.[7] The flood of imports continued, fueled by surplus World War II firearms and inexpensive pistols and revolvers.[8] [Page 80]
          Upon assuming the chairmanship of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1961, Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) directed the staff to conduct a study of mail order sales of firearms.[9] After two years of staff study, Senator Dodd introduced his first gun bill, Senate Bill 1975 and opened hearings to generate public interest in the gun issue.[10] The bill required mail-order purchasers of handguns to provide the seller a notarized affidavit stating they were over eighteen years of age and legally entitled to purchase the firearm and restricted the importation of surplus military firearms.[11] The bill had input from the Treasury Department and received support from both the firearms industry and the NRA.[12]
          After the assassination of President Kennedy with a mail order, surplus military rifle, Senator Dodd amended his bill to include long guns under the mail order restrictions.[13] The bill died in the Senate Commerce Committee in 1964, [14] but Senator Dodd reintroduced the bill as Senate Bill 14 in January of 1965.[15] Two months later, he introduced a more restrictive bill, Senate Bill 1592, at the request of the administration, and the political battle over gun control began.[16] Although various members of Congress introduced a variety of gun bills during the period between 1964 and 1968, the Dodd Bill became a generic description for all pending legislation, particularly among opponents of firearms control legislation. Between 1938 and 1965, Congress had displayed little discernable interest in gun control legislation; however, external events, administration interest, and public opinion altered the policy dynamics within Congress over the next four years and opened the policy window [17] Events during this period also foreshadowed the form and dynamics of the gun issue for years to come.
          The shift, by the leadership of the National Rifle Association (NRA), from cautious support for the original Dodd Bill to modest opposition of Senate Bill 1592 foreshadowed the most significant and lasting change in the dynamics of gun control policy to occur in the twentieth century. The NRA and firearms [Page 81] manufacturers had supported Dodd’s original bill and the subsequent addition of interstate controls on long guns.[18] Although the official organ of the NRA, The American Rifleman, indicated otherwise, the NRA leadership displayed some willingness to compromise with Dodd as late as 1965.[19] Negative response by the membership precipitated a subsequent reversal of direction by the NRA leadership.[20] This uprising by a significant portion of the NRA membership owed much to the development of a specialized gun press that catered to the most avid of gun enthusiasts.[21] The editorial staffs of magazines such as Guns, Guns and Ammo, and Gun Week inalterably opposed gun control in any form and benefited from heightened interest in gun issues.[22] By 1965, the leadership and membership of the NRA divided along a fault line separating those tolerant of moderate increases in gun control from those opposed to any significant change in the law.[23] Although the NRA leadership responded to this internal pressure with increased opposition to new legislation, their policy shift failed to satisfy a powerful segment within the membership. This internal dissatisfaction within the NRA provided the impetus for a 1977 coup by the libertarian faction within the organization and the ouster of the more moderate old guard.[24] Although the relations between Chairman Dodd and the NRA witnesses remained marginally cordial during the 1965 hearings, the atmosphere had begun to chill. Any hope of compromise between advocates of stricter gun control and the NRA ended after 1965.

        3. @Trippy, Here is some proof:
          Gun Control Act of 1968
          Keith Rollins Eakins
          The U.S. Congress enacted the Gun Control Act (P.L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) which President Lyndon B. Johnson signed in 1968. Although the Gun Control Act did not contain the owner licensing and gun registration provisions that President Johnson desired, the act, along with the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act passed by Congress months earlier, contained the most significant restrictions on firearms since Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934.

          THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN THE 1960s
          A highly controversial bill that precipitated emotional debate and ferocious political battles, the Gun Control Act traveled quite a convoluted path prior to its ultimate approval by Congress. It started down its torturous road in 1963 when Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, championed legislation geared specifically at tightening restrictions on the sale of mail-order handguns. After President Kennedy was murdered with a military-style rifle obtained through the mail, Senator Dodd extended the reach of the legislation to include “long guns,” including rifles and shotguns. The legislation met an early demise when it was held up in the Commerce Committee and not allowed out for a vote on the Senate floor. Interestingly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) leaders initially supported the measures and even engaged in drafting Dodd’s bill. Yet the NRA leadership did not wish to alienate its more radical rank and file, so they neglected to divulge this to their members. Instead, in a letter to each of its affiliates, the NRA claimed its executive vice-president testified against the bill and prevented it from being voted out of Committee. The NRA publication The Rifleman criticized the bill as a product of “irrational emotionalism,” and the first four issues of The Rifleman in 1964 dedicated more than thirty columns to firearms legislation, never telling its members of the NRA leadership’s support of the bill. These publications provoked the grass roots members to send off a great number of angry letters opposing the bill to Congress.

          In 1965 President Johnson aggressively endorsed the cause of fighting crime and regulating firearms by spearheading a new, strict gun control measure that Dodd introduced in the Senate. But the Johnson administration’s proposal suffered a string of defeats over the next three years because of heavy pressure from the NRA, key congressional leaders who supported them, the American Legion, and gun importers, manufacturers, and dealers. Adding to the administration’s difficulties was the lack of an organized pro–gun control lobby to check the relentless onslaughts against the legislation by the NRA.
          In 1968 President Johnson and his administration intensified their efforts. Johnson began using the bully pulpit of the presidency to chide Congress publicly to enact his gun control policy. In his 1968 State of the Union address, Johnson exhorted Congress to pass a gun control law that would stop “mail order murder.” And months later, President Johnson conveyed to Congress, in no uncertain terms, his desire for crime legislation that required national registration of every gun in America and licenses for all gun owners. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate responded to the president’s admonishment in short order. Congressional representatives carefully, and often vociferously, argued about the provisions of the president’s crime legislation. The measure, titled the Safe Streets and Crime Control Bill, received stiff resistance from gun control opponents.
          NRA OPPOSITION TO THE ACT
          By 1968 the leadership of the NRA was fully against any and all gun regulations. The group undertook a mass-mailing lobbying effort to undermine the legislation. Their organized lobbying efforts proved successful in wiping out much of the support for gun licensing and registration restrictions. Congress eventually enacted the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, a watered-down version of the Johnson administration’s anticrime and gun control proposal. The act prohibited the interstate shipment of pistols and revolvers to individuals, but it specifically exempted rifles and shotguns from any regulations.
          With the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968, the groundswell of support for tough gun control laws reached unprecedented levels. On June 6, the day after the Kennedy assassination, Johnson signed the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, but lamented the law’s weak provisions. President Johnson, who had proposed gun control measures every year since becoming president, appeared on national television imploring Congress to pass a new and tougher gun control law that banned mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition. Reading a letter he sent to Congress, Johnson pleaded to Congress “in the name of sanity… in the name of safety and in the name of an aroused nation to give America the gun-control law it needs.” On June 24, President Johnson again addressed the country, calling for mandatory national gun registration and licenses for every gun owner. Around this time, polls showed that approximately 80 percent of Americans favored gun registration laws. The public flooded members of Congress with letters demanding greater regulation of guns. Protestors picketed the Washington headquarters of the NRA. Even many members of Congress who had been staunch adversaries of strict firearms regulation crossed over to the other side and rallied in favor of a tough gun control bill.
          ORGANIZED GUN CONTROL EFFORTS
          Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control. The bipartisan organization was headed by Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr., a former astronaut and friend of Senator Robert Kennedy. The Committee, comprising volunteer staffers who had worked for Senator Kennedy before he was assassinated, received extensive support from a variety of organizations such as the American Bankers Association, the AFL-CIO, the Conference of Mayors, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Riding a wave of support, the Committee sought to counteract the highly organized and resource-laden NRA. Their efforts proved somewhat effective, but ultimately fell short of the group’s goal of a comprehensive scheme of gun registration and gun owner licensing.
          Facing this unprecedented, widespread push for gun control, the NRA became highly energized and rallied against the president’s proposed regulations. National Rifle Association executive vice-president Franklin L. Orth argued publicly that no law, existing or proposed, could have prevented the murder of Senator Kennedy. On June 15, 1968, the NRA mailed a letter to its members calling for them to write their members of Congress to oppose any new firearms laws. Using hyperbole and emotionally charged rhetoric, NRA President Harold W. Glassen wrote that the right of sportsmen to obtain, own, and use firearms for legal purposes was in grave jeopardy. Furthermore, Glassen wrote, the clear goal of gun control proponents was complete abolition of civilian ownership of guns. Senator Joseph D. Tydings, Democrat of Maryland, who had introduced the provisions requiring licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, responded to this accusation in a press conference calling the letter “calculated hysteria” and saying no bill would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns. Nevertheless, Glassen’s tactic effectively energized the membership of the NRA, then 900,000 strong, just as the public outcry calling for more firearms regulations was dissipating. Whereas Congress had encountered overwhelming support for more gun control measures in the week after Senator Kennedy’s death, by late June and early July they reported the majority of the letters from constituents indicated opposition to any new gun control provisions.

          The battle over the president’s proposals continued in the halls of Congress in typical fashion, featuring emotionally charged debates and supporters split along specific demographic and ideological lines. In the House, opponents argued against a registration provision claiming it would be costly and ineffective in preventing crime. In the Senate, Dodd attacked the NRA, decrying its tactics of “blackmail, intimidation and unscrupulous propaganda.” The licensing and registration provisions, backed solidly by northern liberals, were easily defeated in both the House of Representatives and Senate by a conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats. However, the provisions banning mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition fared better, passing both the House and Senate. Eastern and Midwestern members of Congress overwhelmingly supported these measures, while those from the South and West were much less supportive. Members of Congress representing urban areas staunchly supported the bill, whereas those from rural sections of the country voted against it in significant numbers.
          PROVISIONS OF THE GUN CONTROL ACT
          On October 22, President Johnson signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968—an instrument which, just months earlier, was considered a lost cause because of staunch opposition. The signing of the legislation represented a significant political win for the president, Senator Dodd, and other gun control advocates who had struggled for years to pass a gun control bill that would effect real change. Enacted pursuant to the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, the legislation had three major features. First, it prohibited interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition. Second, it denied guns to specific classes of individuals such as felons, minors, fugitives, drug addicts, and the mentally ill. Third, it prohibited the importation of surplus military weapons into the United States as well as guns and ammunition not federally certified as sporting weapons or souvenirs.
          As is usually the case in American politics, the statute did not signify a complete victory for either side. Advocates of gun control failed to get provisions requiring owner licensing and firearms registration, yet gun control opponents, typically NRA members, suffered another setback to their goal of removing governmental regulation of firearms. This partial defeat for the NRA served as the group’s wake-up call, energizing and expanding the membership of the NRA who suddenly felt politically vulnerable. Yet unlike the NRA, the pro–gun control advocates were not organized for long-term pressure politics, and their political influence began to wane. Thus in 1986 the NRA successfully weakened the provisions of the 1968 act by spearheading the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

        1. Repeating yourself over and over without citing work only shows you’re an idiot. So far, you’ve done nothing but prove yourself wrong Don.

    5. If not for Donald Trump Hillary Clinton would be President. Donald Trump publically verbalizing his pro-gun views gave the NRA and the American public an outspoken politician they could unite behind!

      1. Not quite Janek.

        See, a lot of Conservatives who happen to still believe in the Constitution and remember a lot of Donald trumps flip flopping throughout the years. The biggest one being he was quite buddy buddy to the Clintons until just prior to switching his party affiliation to be able to run as a Republican in the 2016 Election. Prior to this, he was never a conservative. Two of his own children couldn’t even vote for him in the Primary run off because they did not switch their party affiliation in time

        To this day, I still wonder how great the landslide could have been with a true constitutionally Conservative candidate, possibly rivalling the landslides of the 1980’s. I give credit to Trump for what he has done to appease those who voted for him, but I still have seen enough back tracking on his part to not trust him.

        Unification, no. The win in 2016 was lackluster even though we faced possibly the easiest candidate to beat within the last century Even Jimmy Carter wasn’t as bad as her. Those who understand the Constitution and the electoral College understand the win, but by every other factor this past election was way closer than what it should have been.

    6. I’m a life member of the NRA. When I can afford to, I compete in Civilian Marksmanship Program highpower rifle, and unofficial IPSC and 3-Gun matches. I am a proponent of Constitutional Carry, including Open Carry. I’m not a “fudd” who is okay with “those scary black guns” being banned – I *built* mine from parts.

      That being said, I must ask: Where was the NRA for Brian Aitken? Or Shaneen Allen? Or Meg Fellenbaum? Or Wayne Fincher? Or David Olofson?

      Why, instead, are our membership dues being spent training and “supporting” the enforcers of the very laws NRA claims to oppoose?

      1. @Jeffersonian

        I wish this had been cleared by the time I was on last night. As it is, this is the first I have been able to read it, and you may have just restored a little bit of my faith in the NRA membership, though not the leadership.

        Please keep asking questions, and please don’t forget to add Michael Strickland to your list of names. Keep up the fight.

    7. I read the top 2 sentences and that was enough to see it wasn’t a joke. The NRA is becoming useless and fails to show when actually needed. Truth be told, the NRA is really no more pro gun than Chuck Schumer. This is NOT the NRA of old but more of a false show of support. The NRA has become more of an HOA than an advocate for the 2nd amendment. Let these comments reflect back to them as a caution on their future. To even say they stood openly against the Killery campaign shows they’re more credit than can be given. This claim only stands to hurt the NRA, the audacity to say they prevented Killey from being elected and not the Trump voters is disgusting.

      1. Did you see the other headline today?

        “NRA (Supports) lawsuit challenge against NJ CCW permit system”

        Supports, not leads, not files suit, not finances, not educates, ect…….. Yeah……. “Hey, send us your money so we can sit here in Washington and say we support you.”

    8. Oh yes nra it was all your doing!! Get over yourselves. How about you start doing what you’re actually supposed to be doing and fighting for our 2A rights. The elections were over a year ago and your still trying to take all the credit and pat yourselves on the back. You guys have gone soft and turned yourselves into $ grubbers. Im actually embarrassed of being a lifelong member. My father & grandfather use to tell me the nra had our backs. The nra was fighting the good fight. But that not what im seeing, thats not what im reading & sure not what im hearing from other regretful members. Who have spent their hard earned money on an organization thats no longer has their backs or are putting up a good fight.

    9. @ Lisa where did you come up with this? I have never heard anything like this and I listen to Hannity and Tucker. If this were to ever happen they would have reported it because anything that is news they go after. In addition I keep abreast of other information sources and have never heard of anything so far out in left field. This must have come from Morning Joe, the joke.

    10. I really think you NRA member count is not accurate. As much as I would love to see it and recruit as much as I can, I believe the actual membership number is close to 4 or 5 million.

      Count in family of NRA members adn you might get to the 40 million but that would still be difficult.

      Nemo

      1. @ Nemo

        Oh, Ouch. Question almighty DBM and he will correct you before forcing you to drink some of his cool aid. You should be very scared that he replied to you..

        Good catch, and interesting way to get him to own up to some numbers and admit to manufacturing a make believe number. Another case of Hypocrisy, as I always thought the NRA had at one point stood against the manufactured number claim of doctors claiming you were “22 percent more likely to die by gunshot if you keep a gun in the home.” Arbitrary “Identifying” numbers…. Good catch Nemo, good catch.

    11. Yes, it is probable that the NRA had a lot to do with Trump’s election, but give the American conservative population a little credit. Until Trump there was really no good choice, only the “lesser of two evils.” People should have voted in those previous elections, but when there was someone who they could get enthused about they came out in droves. Hopefully they will learn to vote in EVERY election, now that they see what it can do.

      1. @ Jim
        Every gun owner should be an Gun Owners of America member.

        I fixed it for you.

        It’s a better choice to represent the 2 nd. than Negotiating Rights Away since 1934

    12. I’m an NRA member and must own 20 guns, but you cant pretend the NRA doesnt do scare campaigns. Just look at the videos. And the decision to go all in for Trump. In the long run that will backfire.

      1. Joe,
        Hillary HAD to be stopped. She called for a ban on ALL semi-automatic firearms, and a forced buyback of firearms. You forget who and what she offered.

      2. @Joe

        Speaking of Scare Campaigns, “Forced buyback”??

        Does he really believe you are so weak that you would trudge up to the Clintons and say “Sorry Miss Hillary, I should not be allowed to have this.” as you hand over your collection?

        And yes Joe, it already is starting to backfire. Look at Arthur Jones in Illinois. The NRA seriously can’t even run someone on a platform of saying “At least I am not Arthur Jones” to beat him in a primary so he doesn’t win it by default? The groundwork is being laid, and when the pendulum swings back you can rest assured that people like DBM will run away from trumpeting about how this was all their fault… I mean doing! All their doing….

        Stay safe.

      1. If the Granola State is anything like the Peoples Republic of New Jersey it won’t matter the rinos are as bad as the delusionals.

        1. @ Infidel762X51

          Same here in Vermont,we have a RINO governor,fiscally he is conservative everything else not so much.
          Leftism is a mental disorder that spreads like the plague.

      2. @Vilkus, If you get rid of the illegal aliens that are skewing CA. politics and elections, then everything will come around right… in time.

        1. @Wild Bill

          Yep, and now we have a Republican President promising Amnesty, a Republican Senate which is cheering it on, not a single branch is out of Republican control and yet Silencer reform is dead, the NRA is advocating for the ATF to have power to change definitions on firearm function as it sees fit, and Dick Durbin said something that actually made sense (“Spend the money you want for a parade on actually equipping our fighting men if you want to honor them”)

          Have we fallen down a rabbit hole into wonderland or what?

    13. Same with me .. happened yesterday .. Im a boy,my parents agreed.. but her parents are scared of community… I can only see we are getting closer to a breakup in which there is no mistake of boy and girl..Root cause is FEAR in parents for community .. Try to uproot it… and success ll be urs …

    14. If this is True, then what does that say about the 30 -70 million Russia contributed to the NRA for Trump’s campaign. Does this mean we have Russia to thank for Trump’s presidency?

      That is a difficult pill to swallow. But is it fair?

      1. Not sure where you get your facts or if your numbers are even close to being true or accurate. But why not give equal credit to the contributors to the DNC/Clintons. How many BILLIONS were “Donated” to Hitlery’s campaign. SO let’s discuss what is “FAIR”.

      2. @Lisa, 30 million to 70 million? That is a mighty wide estimate. Which Russian made this supposed donation? America has been producing oil at a high rate, keeping the price of oil low, so that Russia doesn’t get revenues sufficient to increase their military, so where did they get the money to waste on the American election? The Russians under communism were notoriously cheap, so a contribution like the one that you suggest seems out of character. Sounds like shoddy guess work designed to create a rumor.

      3. @Lisa, Senior political appointees at Main Justice and the FBI tried to change the outcome of the election and the Trump presidency. Those are facts, but you seize on the propaganda created by those political appointees. Who are you working for Lisa?

    15. Just imagine if the Negotiating Rights Away ,hadn’t capitulated in 1934,1968,1994 and so on just what we would have had.

        1. @ Infidel762X51

          Gun control has historically been used for racist purposes,specifically post civil war as to what we know as gin control.

          The Racist Roots of Gun Control

          Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat “any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.” If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to “shoot to kill.” [1] Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]

          https://firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

          1. There is one thing for sure and all you naysayers need to understand, that the NRA has the money to get thing done (30 million to Trump) and they have and will. To understand the NRA family means more than just the 5-6 million. It means their parents, children brothers, sisters, most all of which listen to their members and vote accordingly.

    Leave a Comment 70 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *