Sunday, December 23, 2007

The National Rifle Association and The American Presidential Election in 2008


I asked an American why the National Rifle Association (NRA) is more influential than the former President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush and he said the Second Amendment has made the NRA to be very powerful in America.


The NRA is the most powerful lobbying organization in America.


The NRA has the support of over 80 million gun owners in America and they can make or break the popularity and electability of any of the presidential candidates.


“In each of the last four even-year general elections gun owners have had a massive impact. And the National Rifle Association has proven to everyone that if you want to win the presidency, earning the support of gun owners and Second Amendment defenders might be the deciding factor. The NRA is in a stronger position than ever to influence the 2008 elections.”


~ Kenneth Blackwell of the New York Sun.


Many of the American presidential candidates have been courting the NRA for the endorsement of their candidacy, but Chris Cox, the Executive Director, NRA-ILA, has said that they will evaluate the past records of the presidential candidates and their likely future positions on the Second Amendment before making any endorsement decision. The NRA hosted a political forum to know the political positions of the various presidential candidates on the constitutional rights to bear and own firearms.


“I do not believe the Second Amendment has any geographical boundaries.”— Mike Huckabee


“The Parker decision should be upheld … to underscore the Castle Doctrine.”— Rudy Giuliani


“I’ll honor the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms…”— Mitt Romney


“My friends, gun owners are not extremists. You’re the core of modern America.”— John McCain


Which of the presidential candidates will the NRA endorse?


Will the NRA endorse Senator Hillary Rodman Clinton for the Democratic Party and Senator John McCain for the Republican Party?


I want the NRA to endorse Senator Hillary Clinton for President.


Joseph C. Wilson's article on Hillary Clinton, is worth reading. You should also read "Clinton Insiders Fear Secret Service Records Could Damage Campaign" on the Huffington Post.


The future of America is at stake in the presidential election, therefore unrealistic views and idealistic sentiments should not blur the vision of Americans in their election of the best candidate to become the next President of the United States of America.


The Republicans have been given enough time to rule America and they have disappointed the majority of bona fide citizens of America. Therefore, it would only be rational to elect a Democratic presidential candidate who has the great ambition for the restoration of the American Dream and the global vision for the global mission of America in the leadership of the world in the 21st Century.


The NRA should know that America is facing the great challenges of the resurgence of the Cold War Super Power Russia, the emergence of China as a new Super Power and Iran as the Islamic Super Power. Therefore, the new President of America must have the competence and experience for the defense of the global leadership of America in the world.


May I advise the NRA to check all the qualities, pro et contra, of all the frontrunners in the presidential campaign before the endorsement of anyone of them, because it would be tragic for the NRA to be as ignorant and gullible as the motley legion of Americans who have made erroneous and ambiguous endorsements based on their sentimental views of the presidential candidates and are misleading millions of American voters to underestimate the gravity of the election of a new President of the United States of America.

2 comments:

Mike said...

You wisely warn that the USA faces a growing threat wiht China. That, sir, is all the more reason why the second amendment's constitutional guarantee of the private citizen's right to keep and bear arms must be upheld. These rights are not "options" to be discarded because some politician wants more power, or because some citizen gets scared. Without the right to keep and bear arms, citizens are at the mercy of the merciless. That statement has been proven in Africa over and over. So, gun owners will not give up their freedom merely because China grows stronger.

ZoneIII said...

I find it amazing to the point of being almost unbelievable that you would even suggest that the NRA support Hillary Clinton when her entire record shows unequivocally that she has fought against the 2nd Amendment and that she is a gun-ban politician to the core. Why in the world would you think for one moment that the NRA would endorse a candidate who is in exact opposition to their goals? Barack Obama, if anything, is even worse. For example, he was a director of the Joyce foundation whose job it was to disperse funds to anti-2nd Amendment organizations. He also supported a total ban on all handguns in the U.S. and a ban on nearly all long guns. In addition, as a state senator, he voted against a law that would wave prosecution of someone who used a firearm in their own home to save their lives or the lives of their family members if the town or city they live in had a handgun ban. Chicago and four suburban Illinois suburbs have such a ban. In other words, Barack Obama feels that someone should not be able to defend their life with a firearm even if a criminal with a firearm breaks into their home and threatens to kill them! Ironically, Obama is surrounded by armed bodyguards himself.

Hillary Clinton has supported virtually every gun control/gun ban that ever came before her. She also supports the plan by some in the United Nations that calls for a total ban on the private ownership of firearms and the virtual revocation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If she had her way, Americans would have to answer to the U.N.! The supporters of that plan claim that nobody in the world has a right to self-defense. They deny that basic human right! Hillary supports that idea. So does Obama.

As for Obama, in case you haven't noticed, before the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment, he said that D.C.s law was not only constitutional but that it was a common sense law. When the decision was handed down, he then had the unmitigated gall to actually say that the decision proved that he was right all along!

You mention large numbers of Americans who are so ignorant that they vote for candidates based only on their emotions. That's odd coming from someone who is so clueless about the subject of gun control and the 2nd Amendment that he would actually suggest that the NRA support a candidate that is the absolute antithesis of everything they stand for. Your remark is mind-boggling.

Tom Johnston