Democrat vs. Democrat- the NRA's worst nightmare has come true.

[graham4anything]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SYFROYH (a host of the General Discussion forum).

"They can't just They can't just vote the NRA's way and assume they won't hear about it."

from Taegan Goddard's Political wire
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/12/02/bloomberg_alters_gun_politics.html
The Sacramento Bee looks at how Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA), a pro-gun lawmaker, was ousted after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent $3.3 million on television and mail attacks against him -- three times the sum Baca and challenger Negrete McLeod (D) raised between them.

"By homing in on a loyal National Rifle Association politician, Bloomberg altered a long-standing element of American politics. Time was, a politician like Baca could cast pro-gun votes, receive NRA support and not worry about an attack from any moneyed interest that promoted gun control. No such group existed, at least not on the order of the NRA."

Said Bloomberg aide Howard Wolfson: "It sends a message: you can lose your seat by voting against prudent gun legislation. Hopefully, members will think twice before taking these votes. They can't just vote the NRA's way and assume they won't hear about it."


Dan Morain: Billionaire Bloomberg knocks out Joe Baca, adds dynamic to gun politics

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/02/5022439/dan-morain-billionaire-bloomberg.html#storylink=cpy

[graham4anything]

1. As it involves political races, esp. for 2014, I posted this in general discussion

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Fail

in terms of getting ignoring thr SOP

[graham4anything]

2. The NRA spent more than $17 million on this year's campaigns.

The NRA spent more than $17 million on this year's campaigns. It failed in its top priority, unseating President Barack Obama, a $12 million effort, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The NRA didn't fare well in U.S. Senate races, either, spending six-figure sums in Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Maine, Missouri and Arizona, winning only in Arizona.
It skipped Baca's race, a telling omission. If any candidate warranted NRA support, Baca was that man. In his 20 years in Sacramento and in Washington, Baca rarely if ever wavered from National Rifle Association orthodoxy. There were times when he was the only Democrat who sided with the NRA.
"Joe was a very good friend of the NRA's," recalled Steve Helsley, the NRA's California lobbyist when Baca was in the Legislature.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/02/5022439/dan-morain-billionaire-bloomberg.html#storylink=cpy

[bhikkhu]

3. I think the NRA's worst nightmare is irrelevance - there is no real new gun legislation coming

Its gun legislation that keeps the mantra of "they're coming for your guns!" going, and that keeps the money pouring into NRA coffers.

Seriously, the Supreme Court settled the last two in favor of the NRA, and short of a constitutional amendment nothing is going to change the current application of the second amendment. Nobody's coming for your guns, if you want guns you can go out and buy all you want, and the NRA could safely declare victory and go home. Of course, that would mean a whole lot of nuts and grifters would have to get real jobs...

[graham4anything]

4. The court's rightwing swing is shortly to end. Obama44, Hillary45 and soon a 8 to 1 left court

it will take keeping all guns in one's home, to ban all guns in the streets

legal guns now are what stop civilized man from banning illegal guns

We can make America safe, and make malls/restaurants/bars/schools/movie theatres/stadiums safe, by making them all gun free.

Only thing stopping it at this moment is, those legal guns

Let the gun fanciers collect them, let them house their guns at shootiing galleries so they can still use them for sport (like bowlers house their bowling balls in a locker in a bowling alley)
and hunters can use bow and arrow

With NO guns in the street, it is really quite simple to get rid of any illegal one

all it takes is new laws

only thing that stops it is the single #1 biggest lobby group in the world, the NRA
and they are 'sweating bullets" about this.

Finally, there is a great Equalizer.

[dionysus]

5. lol. ok. good luck confiscating them all.

[graham4anything]

10. Who wants to confiscate them? Keep them legally as allowed, in your home

or keep them at the shooting range

nobody will stop you

It is when they are in the street that is the problem.

No one is stopping you from protecting your home. Long as they are kept IN YOUR HOME

that is the great thing

all sides can be safe and happy

And anyone going to the market or movie will be safe knowing no guns are in the perimeter

One needs to Lincoln like, reframe the issue

because one can't get rid of the safety problem and illegal guns, til all guns are in the home and out of the street

then anyone with a gun in the street can be dealt with

with equiptment that is already there

and those thousands of yearly shootings would automatically stop after a year or two

[dionysus]

11. i have no problem with keeping guns at home, but how do you enforce it?

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. How am I expected to get a gun to my home from the Point of Sale?

[graham4anything]

14. Fed ex. can deliver it after the waiting period is over Neat complete and tidy

like all internet sales, it comes in the mail

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. And if I don't buy it on the internet?

And what do you think... FedEx doesn't take the streets to my house? How would having FedEx deliver it keep guns "off of the streets"?

What will you do, have every FedEx Driver go through a background check before they can work for the company? How do you know some FedEx Driver somewhere isn't an ex-con who's being given a second chance by some empathetic HR Manager and looking for packages carrying guns to pass on to his friends?

[bhikkhu]

15. The Supreme Court has already ruled, and any new laws would have to comply

...its not like any new guy on the supreme court gets to calls a "do-over"; what we have is called "settled law", and it would take a constitutional amendment to change the existing interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Not going to happen.

I don't have much of an issue with gun rights, and I don't have much of an issue with the desire to regulate ownership, but you can't just get all crazy-eyed and make up stuff either way. That's basically what the NRA has been doing the last couple of years, and what their donors have gotten into the habit of as well.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. According to Gallup, 47% of American Adults own guns. According to the NRA, LESS than 1.4% are

members of their organization.

Also according to Gallup, less than 25% of the American public support any kind of ban on handguns.

Given the combined number of gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment, and the ABSOLUTE LACK of same who care to become members of the NRA, I'd say you're full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.

I own numerous handguns and long guns. On the other hand, I wouldn't walk across the street to join the NRA if it were free. I don't visit their website, I don't buy their literature, and I have no friends who are open about their memberships if there are any members at all in my social circle. I bet 99% of people like me would say the same.

I sincerely hope that one day you get over your irrational fear of the NRA. You'll be a much happier person for it I'm sure.

[graham4anything]

9. No one is talking about banning guns. That is the deliciousness of this BOFFO idea

Of course the million dollar suits don't want you to know that

My meek mayor mike is making the mighty nra sweat

step by step, one by one, they all fall down like dominoes

[Schema Thing]

17. "irrational" fear? Have you not seen their outsized influence on politics in these last 20 years?

Nothing "irrational" about it.

[patrice]

8. The ends do not justify the means & the means do not justify the ends. Any form of absolutism, in

and of itself, IS oppressive, so gun-rights activists, who pretend that their guns protect freedom, are either severely dishonest or ignorant. Their ends, supposedly freedom, does not justify the social and economic oppression caused by their violent means and its most immediate consequent, ignorance. Additionally, their means, guns, do not justify WHATEVER ends, anything and everything, that those guns produce, e.g. ends that can be seen in the violation of private property rights by means of a state mandated right to concealed carry, or violation of personal rights to safety, an end brought about by means of SYG ideologues.

So, if neither NRA means (guns) nor their putative ends ("freedom&quot are justifying in and of themselves, there must be some other means, say, something like fascism perhaps, and some other ends, e.g. power, that is their authentic means : ends that they are either too dishonest or too ignorant to admit and, which authentic means : ends (fascism : power) are no more self-justifying than any other means : ends, but which the NRA seek ever and ever more powerfully to hide because of the negative political/power consequences of this truth about them.

As much as I personally might wish to live peaceably with their gun rights, the extent to which they damage my own rights is the extent to which I MUST fight against them.

[msongs]

12. good riddance to joe baca and the corrupt family system nt

[aikoaiko]

18. Locking.

Given the GD SOP prohibition on gun threads I'm locking this, but it is well suited for the Gun Control and Right to Keep and Bear Arms group.