as Janet Reno.

Did the NRA roll over on her confirmation?

as Janet Reno.

Did the NRA roll over on her confirmation?

I thought the whole point of the organization was to stand up for the 2nd Amendment, when it looks like AG nominee Holder will be enforcing/creating more rules and regs abridging that amendment.

To paraphrase a line from “The American President”: You don’t always fight the fights you can win; you have to fight the fights that are worth fighting for.” Seems to apply here. (I think Martin Sheen says it to Michael Douglas when they are playing pool/billiards).

I understand the logic of Mr. Geraghty’s argument, but I disagree with it. You don’t have to die on this hill, but you can certainly put up more of a spirited opposition than what they are planning.

You add this plus Holder’s other items, and you might be able to defeat him, or at least wound him, like in Ashcroft’s case.

I urge you to do what the NRA won’t and apply some pressure:
http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home

I just sent him this:
Senator,

I ask that you please vote in opposition to the
confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General.

Even if the NRA won’t strongly oppose him I do.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/01/12/breaking-national-rifle-association-wusses-out-on-holder/

We do not need a team leader from the group that
brought you the Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, ID
disasters as well as the gun ban of 1994 as AG.

His anti-2nd Amendment stance is well known.

He signed a brief in opposition to the position the
Supreme Court held in the landmark right to keep and
bear arms case US v. Heller.

That sort of thinking represents a step backward in
the area of civil liberties.

The NRA isn’t the only generally conservative group adjusting their tactics to the new circumstances in Washington and treading with extreme caution not to overreach early on.

Not sure what their strategy is here with this move, but given the circumstances they may believe this is a hill they could get seriously wounded on and easily shut out of the fight given the current makeup of the gov’t.

The NRA especially being a favorite target of left-wing media/pundits stereotyped as a hate group on par with the KKK while they’re still gushing over their epitome of perfection candidate who has nuanced the race card enough to play it without political worry… the low profile could be out of necessity, or perhaps they’re just being overly cautious.

It seems highly unlikely, however, that they’ve become some traitor to the cause nor would it be wise, as many comments in the other post indicated, to abandon one of the most effective lobbying groups on issues important to them over what may be a matter of political pragmatism (something the NRA is notorious at to get the job done, to the joy of those it benefits and the ire of those who demand an all or nothing right now approach).

It certainly doesn’t seem prudent at this time, as many of those same comments suggested, to have some mass abandonment of the NRA for far less successful groups to cause a split in the movement that would be divided and easily conquered.

My own feelings on the GOA aside (no compromise, no results: no problem – ie the ron paul of gun rights groups), their recent history shows they are more interested in helping libertarian candidates, attacking republican ones, and generally ignoring democrats in their all or nothing pursuits. This was exemplified by their website during the campaign… pro-Paul, anti-McCain, and Obama with a rare mention… all the way to election day, long after Paul was out of the campaign in all but his or his supporters minds.

If your goals are to have results in blocking intrusions into our rights during this ordeal, such a move seems unwise.

If your goal is to see the GOP back in power, aiding groups that happily advocate its destruction so it can be rebuilt in Ron Paul’s image (ie make the GOP as effective as the LP), also seems to be a bad idea.

Neither post has advocated this, but the vilification certainly seemed to encourage it, even if unintentionally. I can’t say with any certainty if their strategy behind this move is the best approach or if they’re being overly cautious, so the complaints and pressure are certainly not out of line by any means. I worry when the tone and accusations go so far as to potentially fracture the movement, though.

- NRA Life Member who clings to his guns because Chicago Democrats are always trying to take them

political litmus test, I am as rabid as anyone on this issue. However, the Second Amendment and gun regulations and the interaction of the DOJ are about 1000 times more complex than say the abortion issue.

It is in the crappy, boring, non-publicized regulatory hearings where the NRA has to fight its battles week in and week out. The NRA has to maintain the credibility of rational thought to be effective at the regulatory level. The GOA long since abandoned that concept to score poltical points with its dues payers.

While killing the King is often a very good idea, you had better make sure you kill him. A wounded AG will have a 1000 little opportunities, unencumbered by political considerations, to even a score.

As such, in this case, prudence is the better part of valor.

With Specter obviously against the guy, it was a rare chance for moderate and conservative Republicans to work hand in hand.

If the NRA isn’t willing to fight over Holder one wonder’s which nominee they are willing to fight. From a 2d Amendment perspective, there really isn’t a more important post in the Executive.

The arguments about counting the vote is a classic non sequitur. Will Sunstein or Duncan be making policy on 2d Amendment issues? I think not, but if they are then votes for them should be counted also.

The fact is that not only did Holder file an amicus brief in Heller he has criticized the Court’s decision in adamant, though remarkably stupid, terms.

It seems as though the NRA is not only rushing to curry favor with the new regime, it is trampling anyone in its way.