Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!3 GOP hopefuls to appear at NRA event in St. Louis
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
ST. LOUIS (AP) — Thousands of gun enthusiasts will get a chance to hear from three of the four Republican presidential contenders next week when the National Rifle Association hosts its annual meeting and exhibit in St. Louis.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said Tuesday that more than 60,000 people have registered for the April 13-15 gathering at the America’s Center convention center, and the number is expected to grow with late registrations. St. Louis Convention and Visitors Bureau spokeswoman Donna Andrews said the convention is expected to be the city’s largest in terms of attendance this year.
GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are scheduled to be among the speakers at the NRA Leadership Forum on April 13. Arulanandam said Ron Paul was invited but did not respond.
Arulanandam said the presidential hopefuls will speak separately and will not be on the stage at the same time.
“The attendees at this forum will have a chance to listen to these candidates firsthand, hear what they have to say about the Second Amendment, gun rights and other issues important to our members,” Arulanandam said.
The Leadership Forum will also include speeches from several other Republican politicians, including three governors — Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin; two senators — Roy Blunt of Missouri and Chuck Grassley of Iowa; and two congressmen, Darrell Issa of California and Eric Cantor of Virginia. Oliver North and former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton will also speak.
Politics will be a key component of the annual members meeting on Saturday, when Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Executive Director Chris Cox will discuss the upcoming election season.
Arulanandam said the NRA will not issue an endorsement for the Republican presidential nomination, but, “Our primary focus is going to be to defeat President Obama.”
A massive trade show will also be part of the convention, as will performances by comedian Larry the Cable Guy and country singer Trace Adkins, and a speech by talk show host Glenn Beck.
The convention returns to St. Louis for the second time in five years. It was originally scheduled to be in Columbus, Ohio, in 2007, but was moved to St. Louis after Columbus approved a ban on assault weapons.
Marry Me
Comments
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Why is the NRA so worked up about Obama? He's has EXPANDED gun rights since he's become president.
allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Gun_Rights_Expand_under_Obama_100227
I just don't understand the conservative movement's narrative about Obama. In their view, he's an incompetent Marxist who wants to raise your taxes and take your guns.
In reality, he's firmly in the center-right. Obama has CUT taxes, proposed conservative health care reform, and expanded gun rights.
I really don't get it. Can someone cite a FACT to support the movement conservative narrative (rather than a gut feeling)? Just one fact.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago
It's not that complicated. You are providing facts that contradict what Limbaugh, Schlafly, Beck, Coulter, and Ingraham told them, so your words can't be interpreted into conservative jargon.
Why do conservatives fear and hate an Obama presidency? It's a loyalty thing. He's not one of them. He looks like he might even have worn a hoodie and purchased some Skittles at one time.
Liberte 1 year, 1 month ago
He's a thug, he just threatens people at a higher pay grid....like the Supreme Court. BTW is anyone else interested in which judge 'leaked' the info that his ACA program was going badly?
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago
A thug? There's that suspicioon that he might have worn a hoodie at some time.
Leaked? Like a conspiracy? As in someone disclosing a secret? That information is being provided by the press types, the people who observed the Supreme Court testimony and noticed the tone of the questions. It's no secret that the GOP court would like to hand Obama a defeat. They just have to figure out how to keep it from being too obvious.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
I do kinda agree that Obama probably got a leak that ACA or some part of it is going to be struck down. The Court votes early, I think, then they make their clerks do all the research and writing.
I don't think Obama is trying to bully the Supreme Court. I think he probably knows that their decision is already been made, and he's campaigning against them. His comments aren't aimed at the SC. They're aimed at voters.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago
Supreme Court Justices have lifetime appointments. It's hard to threaten someone in that kind of position when you're a president with a four year term. Several of the justices have conflicts of interest on issues that come before the court, and they don't often feel obligated to recuse themselves.
Have any of the self-styled geniuses on the far right realized that a Supreme Court decision against the health care reform act would gut the GOP platform?
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
"It's hard to threaten someone in that kind of position when you're a president with a four year term." --
Not really, he just did and caught the ear of a federal judge now ordering the AG to acknowledge the judicial branch. Yes, Kagan should recuse herself. Right minded people on the right realize the court decision has nothing to do with politics, just the laws constitutionality. Even Obama should know this, he's a former Harvard constitutional scholar. Your platform theory will be tested in due time. Massachusetts filling the Kennedy dynasty with a republican, and Ike Skelton losing his seat doesn't fare well for your theory. The mood is the same as Nov. 2010, and every time the president opens his mouth it gets a little worse.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
People's view of the lawfulness of a Supreme Court decision is usually based on their ideological prediliction.
For example, when state legislatures pass bans on gay marriage and courts strike them down as violating the Equal Protection clause, conservatives cried "judicial activism." (Judicial activism being the idea that the judge is using a constitutional argument to strike down a law simply because he doesn't like the law). The Warren court's Fourth Amendment decisions (instituting the Miranda warning, etc) were decried as judicial activism. When the Supreme Court struck down state bans on abortion or sodomy, conservatives cried about "judicial activism."
Now, if the Court strikes down the ACA, it will be liberals' turn to cry about judicial activism.
Whether or not you see judicial activism in a particular case seems to me like it depends on whether you support the law in question.
Same here. I doubt very many people in this debate really understand the Commerce Clause. Your opinion probably depends on whether you like the law, or you like Obama, or not.
But dude, seriously... if you really think "the Court has nothing to do with politics," I would suggest you know very little about the Court or politics.
And if you think the constitutionality of the ACA is a cut-and-dried, balls-and-strikes type of judicial decision, you're wrong.
Cut-and-dried, balls-and-strikes cases don't go to the Supreme Court. When it gets to that stage, the decision rests much more on philosophy and politics than the law.
Easy cases don't go to the Supreme Court. Only hard cases do.
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
"When it gets to that stage, the decision rests much more on philosophy and politics than the law." --
Wrong. It rests on the constitution. The idea that supreme court justices are not elected and have life terms ensures that their decisions can be clear of political influence and backlash. The supreme court knows this, Mr. Obama doesn't.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
OK, well, just remember that the next time a decision doesn't go the way you want it. I don't want to hear you ever whine about judicial activism!
Personally, I don't think the Constitution is always very clear. And it shouldn't be. The Founders didn't want to tell us how to do everything. They gave us the broad principles, and it is up to us to figure out how the broad, ambiguous constitution applies to our day and time.
The idea that you can just look at the Constitutiona and it tells you the answer easy as pie is just not true.
And I'm glad you support appointment of judges to avoid politics. A nefarious movement rears its head now and then to abandon the judicial appointment system in Missouri (which has worked so well that it has become a national model) and replace it with elected judges.
Getting elected judges is a favorite tactic of big business, because they have the money to buy elections (the John Grisham novel "The Appeal" is all about this... my literary snob friends don't like JG, but I think he's pretty good). ANYWAY, I'm glad to hear you support appointed judges.
Missouri's system works pretty good. But you must admit that a judge's politics have a lot to do with their appointment to the Supreme Court, no? Obama never would have nominated Scalia, right?
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Scalia's "originalism" is just one way to read the constitution. It's a neat theory, but it's not the only way. I don't really think that the Founders intended us to read it in the way they read it. They wanted us to be a free people. The Founders didn't want to rule Americans from the grave. They wanted us to rule ourselves. It IS hard to be free. It isn't easy and clear. Life never is. A fundamentalist will always insist that life is simple, black and white. Life ALWAYS proves the fundamentalist wrong.
And, as I've pointed out to you many times, there was never any consensus among the founders as to the "original intent" of the constitution.
Americans have always argued about what the Constitution means. It is pretty clear we always will.
We should always look to history and tradition to guide us. But, at the same time, we are free to chart our own course as life changes. That's the beauty of the Constitution. It is not dead. It lives as we live.
My way isn't perfect either, but it puts the responsibility for self government where it belongs.. upon us.
That's conservative.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Business has money. That's a fact. That's not my bias.
Are you honestly suggesting that business doesn't try to influence the judicial process? Well, the Supreme Court disagrees.
Seriously, remember the Massey Coal case in West Virginia?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co
The idea that 1) business has money and 2) they will spend that money to protect their interests is not "liberal." That's real life.
Now, there are liberal ways and conservative ways to deal with the power of money. But the idea that money has power is not liberal or conservative. Please.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Yeah, but there's nothing in the Equal Protection clause about race, is there? Why can't you just read the words on the page? Why do you have to try to add to what is there? Why do you have to try to expand on what is there? What are you, a liberal?
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
REP. SCOTT GARRETT (R., N.J.): So, if I’m part of a family that does not buy health insurance in violation of the president’s health care program and I have to pay [a fine] because of that, that is not a tax—that is not a tax on me?
ZIENTS: The Affordable Care Act saves money…
GARRETT: I understand that, but is that a tax on me, then, if I do not pay [for health insurance], or is that not a tax?
ZIENTS: I’m not sure I’m following the question.
GARRETT: You said there’s no tax increases on people making under $250,000. If I make under $250,000, and I do not buy health insurance as I’m required to under the Affordable Care Act, is that a tax on me or is that not a tax on me?
ZIENTS: Well, uh… this is, uh…
GARRETT: A moment ago you said there’s no tax increases.
ZIENTS: There aren’t. There would be…
GARRETT: But that’s not a tax?
ZIENTS: No.
GARRETT: That’s not a tax. Okay, I just want to be clear on that because that’s not the argument that the administration is making before the Supreme Court.
Liberte 1 year, 1 month ago
Tonto speak with straight tongue :-)
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
The only gun rights expansion under this administration that I'm aware of is the expansion to the Mexican gangs via ATF which were then used against federal agents.
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
"He's has EXPANDED gun rights since he's become president." -- This is a lie. The link you posted says so. He has signed zero laws expanding gun rights. The article says he signed a "plan" to let firearms into national parks. --"In addition to President Barack Obama approving a federal plan to allow guns in national parks..."
The article goes on to say he's doing something by not doing something with assault weapon laws. Lastly, it spells out what states are working on in relation to gun laws. You must think we're dumb enough to believe a community organizer from the corrupt Chicago machine (with some of the strictest gun laws in this country) is friendly to the gun lobby. Nice try.
asb 1 year, 1 month ago
Obamacare is universal in socialist, facist and theocratic countries around the world, The stimulus is an ancient and unversal means to provide economic energy during times of major downturn, by Left, Right and Religious governments, and is taught by every economic theory. These are both universal, non-political processes enacted throughout history by every type of government. Sadly the modern US has refused to establish universal health care, due almost entirely to greed and our propensity to give greed maximum leverage. Obama's political origins may have leftist leanings, as do most community activists,, but his presidency is almost comperable to Reagan in political posture, if not philosophy. His actions have been determined so much by circumstance that he hasn't really had a signature event.
Liberte 1 year, 1 month ago
So that's why his minions are fighting the "Stand Your Ground" laws? Because he 'loves' guns?
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
I asked for facts, Liberte. You're just reinforcing my point.
Who are his "minions," anyway? That's what I'm talking about. Unspecific connections based on gut feelings. Facts, man. Where are they?
Anyway, opposition to "Stand Your Ground" isn't about restricting gun rights. It's about the contours of self-defense law. Nobody is saying you can't own a gun and use it to protect yourself. The problem with Stand Your Ground is that it can prevent prosecution of someone who WASN'T defending themselves.
Do some research. SYG is a defense lawyer's dream. Here's how it is most commonly used: One drug dealer shoots another. He claims SYG and goes right back on the street.
And words like "thug." What exactly do you mean? You don't even know. You heard it on a talk show.
Thanks for your help, Liberte, in illustrating the intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative movement. Your post is a classic example of the point I've been making all along.
Still waiting for just ONE fact.
Liberte 1 year, 1 month ago
And you, just illustrated MY point, which is that liberals feel superior! You want to take my money and 'handle' it for me because I'm just too 'stupid' to do it myself.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Where did I say that? I never said anything about money or stupidity. Again, you "feel" that's true.
I'm no liberal, but I am starting to feel a little superior...
Point taken, spel, but my point is that I don't understand why the NRA is hostile to him. There are no facts. There are just the feelings comprising your last paragraph.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
No, YOU are. And your mother dresses you funny. So there.
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
"Ted Kennedy has killed more people than my gun..."
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Here's Andrew Sullivan (like me, a fellow conservative who has become disillusioned with American movement conservatism) taking on the issue, and some response from his readers:
andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/04/the-rights-obama-ctd-1
Andrew Sullivan is a national treasure (even though he's a Limey). Conservatism is lost in the wilderness right now, but the fact that Romney is still winning suggests that most conservatives aren't as far right as the loudest noisemakers would suggest. Sullivan gets a little over-emotional for me sometimes, but generally he's on the right track, and his blog is well worth reading for anyone of any ideological stripe.
Don't despair, true conservatives. You're not alone.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Sullivan's and my view of what conservatism is goes back centuries. Your view of conservatism goes back a decade or two. That's why we don't see eye to eye on what a conservative is.
But, as a conservative, I prefer the long view. I'll trust history. Stick with your "movement." In the long view of history, it's a fad. My view is based on principles that have stood the test of time. What's more conservative than that?
It's true Sullivan and I both see a lot of traditional (as opposed to movement) conservative qualities in Obama. We've both been branded as heretics by the movement (him on a much larger scale than me, but still...). Of course, you can tell a movement is rotted out when it spends more time expelling heretics than trying to win new converts.
Keep kicking people out of your party, and it will get lonely. And uncool.
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Wait, isn't attacking the Supreme Court a conservative passtime? Activist judges and whatnot? Anyway, still just waiting for a single fact, like I asked for at the beginning of all this. You've had so many chances, Grace. I guess, in your own way, you've answered my question.
wow 1 year, 1 month ago
Perhaps if Judges and the legal System was fronted out on their obvious bias which influenced their bad, very bad decisions...perhaps we would not have had things like.......years of Slavery, Black Codes, Segregation, Unprosecuted Lynching's or Klan Memeber's elected to Government Office, Emmitt Till's death, or a still missing Lloyd Gaines or men able to get Viagra free on the insurance and women not able to get birth controll pills or Women making less money than men or state laws subverting federal laws. Perhaps if Judges and the legal system were held accountable perhaps murderer's would not be walking free while pot smoker's are given harsh sentences or Coke Dealers getting less time than a Crack Dealer. Somebody has to tell the Justices when they are overstepping their bounds. And why is their position of employment a life time appointment...why can't they be fired for doing a bad job? Yeah sombody needs to bust em out.....especially when the Judge is dumb enough or so bold as to tilt his/her hand to show who they have shown publically who has bought and paid for their particular verdict. Yeah somebody needds to check em. This President did a good thing in my book. Bully....no he is not that at all, but he is THMFNWIC, and I like that.
John 1 year, 1 month ago
You're blaming all of this on the National Rifle Association? If not, then why is it even here?
asb 1 year, 1 month ago
Judges can be impeached, but otherwise you're, as usual, on the mark.
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
"Somebody has to tell the Justices when they are overstepping their bounds." --
Who? People like you with a chip on their shoulder? Someone constantly beating the race baiting drum? The last time I checked the race wars are over. You are juxtaposing a Supreme Courts decision on the constitutionality of a law with a municipal courts sentencing of a drug dealer. You would fire a judge based on emotion rather than law and constitutional precedent. Why do you constantly bring up slavery? It makes you look foolish and out of touch with present reality. Your reference to the Mr. Obama as THMFNWIC of the executive branch shows YOU are biased and prejudiced. I could school you on why we have three branches of government but I would probably bore you because it doesn't involve slavery. Quit kicking and screaming as you're dragged into the 21st century.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID