Why is the National Rifle Association (NRA) being silent on Judge Moore’s strong support of the Second Amendment?

Normally the NRA reports its ratings of candidates before an election, but in the special election on Tuesday, December 12 between Democrat Doug Jones and Republican Roy Moore, the NRA has not released their results.

The reason for their lack of action may have nothing to do with accusations against Moore but may be related to the change of their regular practice of staying out of GOP primaries.

Has NRA internal politics gotten in the way of their stated mission of protecting the Second Amendment?

If there is any doubt, Doug Jones is without a doubt anti-gun.

Breitbart reported:

The NRA has not rated pro-gun Republican Roy Moore vs. pro-gun control Democrat Doug Jones in the race for the Alabama U.S. Senate seat, so Breitbart News is rating the two men for voters who are curious as to where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment.

To begin with, Doug Jones is not only open to more gun control but is actually supportive of more gun control.

On November 21 Breitbart News reported that Jones’ support of gun control might not be readily apparent to potential voters because Jones stayed mum on where he stood. But he uttered enough bits and pieces about his positions that clear pro-gun control positions came into focus. 

For example, he told the Washington Post that expanding background checks to gun shows “would be helpful.”

Jones did not point to even once incident where a mass public attacker acquired his guns at a gun show. Rather, he simply blew the dog whistle for leftists via the Democrats’ age-old war on gun shows.

Jones’ willingness to expand background checks is simply an outgrowth of his overarching belief that the Second Amendment is limited. The Alabama Political Reporter quoted him saying, “We’ve got limitations on all constitutional amendments in one form or another.”

Again, this is same phraseology other leftists use when they seek to justify infringing on those rights of which it is written, “Shall not be infringed.”

Gun control Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), for instance, said similar things when he told told Rachel Maddow, “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.”

Somehow, we don’t need government permission to attend church, nor to read a newspaper, yet, liberals want to place those restrictions on gun owners.

But wait–there is more. Politico recently gave Jones the opportunity to convince voters that he did not want to take their guns and Jones pivoted, focusing instead on another part of the question.

The bottom line is that Jones is another pro-gun control Democrat who varnishes over his liberal positions by assuring everyone he is pro-hunting, although the Second Amendment is not about hunting. Rather, it is about defending our lives and liberty from a tyranny within or without our borders.

In summary, Doug Jones’s position on guns is about the same as California Senator Dianne Feinstein.

And this is where Roy Moore comes in. On September 12 he told Breitbart News that national reciprocity for concealed carry should be passed immediately and on September 25 he told an audience, “We’ve got to uphold the Second Amendment.”

He added, “You know, they say that guns are bad; that they kill people. Well I know a lot about guns–I’m the one that used guns in combat. I know what guns do…[But] guns don’t kill, people kill. [You could say] cars kill, are we going to get rid of our cars? Are we going to get rid of our knives?”

Moore lifted a concealed carry revolver in the air in two separate campaign events to show that he and his wife do more than just talk about carrying guns, they actually carry them.

And the differences between Moore and Jones are even clearer when one considers that Moore opposes the very gun controls Jones supports. For example, on September 20 Breitbart News reported that “Moore opposes an expansion of background checks for gun purchases.

He views an expansion of background checks as a ruse by which the left can secure government-mandated firearm registration.”

It is clear that Moore understands the insidious nature of expanding background checks, be that expansion at gun shows or to all private sales. He sees that the end of such an expansion is gun registration.

Moreover, Moore opposes an ‘assault weapons’ ban and a ‘high capacity’ magazine ban, two bans that are being feverishly pushed by the Democrat Party to which Doug Jones belongs.

So rating these two candidates is not so hard.

Moore is absolutely pro-Second Amendment, which includes being for concealed carry and self-defense while opposing the various infringements on liberty being pushed by the Democrat Party.

On the other hand, Jones is absolutely pro-gun control, which includes supporting an expansion of background checks and viewing the Second Amendment as limited, therefore open to government regulation.

A victory for Moore means Republicans gain a strong pro-Second Amendment vote in the Senate.

A victory for Jones means Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) get another pro-gun control vote, which bolsters their push to restrict to the Second Amendment.

So why is the NRA not backing Judge Moore?  The answer may be they are more loyal to McConnell than to principles they are supposed to support.

Business Insider reported:

“Why the National Rifle Association broke so prominently with its practice of not meddling in Republican primaries is the $1,112,316 (give or take) question following Luther Strange’s thumping in the Alabama runoff on Tuesday.

By joining the GOP establishment in trying to squash the campaign of the very proudly pro-gun Roy Moore, the NRA opened itself up to accusations of betraying its dues-paying gun-rights advocates: Wouldn’t the money, asked one Alabamian in a sneering letter to a local paper, “have been better spent against an anti-gun liberal or legislation?”

Remember, in the Republican run-off both candidates were solidly pro-gun, yet the NRA spent 1.1 million trying to get their candidate elected.

But the reason why is also the reason why many people want the swamp of Washington D.C. to be drained.

But as Robert Spitzer, a gun-politics guru at the State University of New York/Cortland, told my colleague Mike Spies, the NRA has its own dues to pay in Washington.

They take the form of fealty to its powerful friends — especially Mitch McConnell, who feared (accurately) that a Strange loss could embolden the Steve Bannon wing of the party and spur institutionalists to retire rather than confront primary challenges from the right flank. The Washington Post yesterday published a smart breakdown of those falling dominoes.

To get its legislative agenda through the Senate, the NRA will need the full commitment of McConnell, who is juggling a distinctly full plate. Simple as that.

In short, in order to get a watered-down agenda through the Senate, the NRA is willing to throw a pro-gun candidate under the bus.

But this is the same NRA that continues to stoke populist rage through its apocalyptic messaging. While it works to foment anti-establishment ire, it finds itself unable to stop the insurgent candidates who feed on that anger.

It’s a safe bet that any Republican who eventually succeeds McConnell as head of the GOP caucus will be equally, if not more, gung-ho about gun rights.

Unfortunately, it looks as though the NRA is more concerned about being friends with McConnell than they are with protecting the rights of their members.