General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe NRA is a Republican ancillary organization.
NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre is a right wing extremist Republican.
http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Blog/entry/the-nra-big-badass-and-flush-with-cash.html
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington in February, LaPierre promised that his organization will help make Barack Obama a one-term president.
As the NRA is a Republican Party ancillary organization, it should be no surprise that a Republican state rep, Dennis Baxley, who is a lifetime member of the organization sponsored the stand-and-shoot bill seven years ago in Florida.
lastlib
(23,224 posts)catering to/manipulating the rank-n-file so it can keep the gun money flowing in to the businesses that sell/promote the products.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)And the infantilized NRA-loving doofuses that have a cowboys-n-indians mentality and dream of being gun heroes, spend their lives itching to shoot somebody somewhere.
The NRA is a psycho's dream come true.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)(National Shooting Sports Foundation) - nssf.org
The US gun industry is rather small- $6b per year (http://www.hoovers.com/industry/gun-ammunition-manufacturing/1200-1.html)- Chewing gum is a $19b per year industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gum_industry)
eta: Actually, $6b for guns and ammo, including gov't sales.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)The report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from corporate partners come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.
Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition, NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm
Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)
Post removed
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)its major lobbyist in Florida is a fucking gun nut (AND REPUBLICAN), Repukes are the ones out there promoting gun nutjob activities, and further enriching the gun industry.
But carry on trying to make it seem a benevolent organization with fine goals. Perhaps you'll succeed. In your mind.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)It happens to be an issue that I support. Also, I don't see enriching the gun industry as a problem any more than enriching the car industry is a problem. Obviously, you see boogeymen everywhere.
By the way , what is a "gun nutjob activity" ? I suppose for you, only gun nutjobs own or shoot guns, therefore any activity involving a gun is only fitting for a nutjob.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Here is the creme-de-la-nutjob himself, none other than the Head Nutjob in Charge of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, exposing the vast left wing conspiracy for all to see...
http://wonkette.com/453659/nra-chief-obama-trying-to-steal-your-guns-by-not-stealing-your-guns
So do please tell us again how the NRA is a friend to Democrats. That was a knee slapper. The entertainment value alone demands an encore.
Cheers!
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)* Saying Democrats are going to grab your guns.
* Stockpiling an ungodly amount of ammo because Democrats are going to grab your guns.
* Going to a right-wing rally, brandishing a gun.
* Going to a right-wing rally, not brandishing a gun, but holding a sign saying, "We Come Unarmed... This Time"
* Attacking people just for saying they don't have a gun, even if they're pro-RKBA.
I'm sure others can remember more. I'm kinda lazy today.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)So wouldn't showing "support for gun ownership" be kinda like, oh, showing "support for abortion"? Or support for eating pizza, or support for wearing pink socks ...
Be careful what you suppose. You know how supposing makes you look like a support hoser.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)rule.
There are indeed SOME Democrats that might be gun-nuts, and defend the NRA. Who knows, there might even be SOME Democrats that are in favor of males deciding what women may or may not do with their bodies. There might be SOME Democrats that might even camp outside of prisons to cheer when a capital punishment sentence is carried out. There are always exceptions in every sphere and every arena of life.
However, exceptions is now what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the majority. And the NRA is a right wing organization, gun-obsession is a right wing activity, and everything that cascades from that adoration of gun and gun lobbying is right wing.
crowhill1974
(1 post)What is a "gun-obsession"?
What is "adoration of gun"?
I would really like to hear the definition of these terms. If you could please explain i would greatly appreciate it. thank you!
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)The US arms the world. It doesn't sell rides to the world or rather, it lags behind China and the EU in production.
The gun lobby is protecting its bottom line, not our rights which they don't give a sh!t about.
safeinOhio
(32,675 posts)Here is the NRA list of speakers for the nutty NRA meeting next month in St Louis.....
Ted Nugent
Rick Perry
John Bolton
Roy Blunt
Oliver North
Romney, Newt and Santorum
Eric Cantor
Scott Walker
Bobby Jindal
and the token black guy - Ken Blackwell, right wing nut and current Vice Chairman of the RNC!
All FR favorites
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)There is no cause, under protecting the Right to Bear Arms under the Second, to go after him to get him out of office.
So they may really be onto something I doubt most people ever thought about. I don't know why I never connected this.
Was Charlton Heston active in the GOP as well as the NRA, I wonder?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)that they would go after our president.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)were two sides of the same coin.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Because he has not done one single thing to infringe on gun ownership despite all the conspiracy hysteria that was put out when Obama was elected. There was a rash of gun sales as the rightwing media claimed he was for confiscation. It has not happened and he's never pushed it.
Whereas if the Koch brothers pushed for SYG and the liberalization of gun laws to the extreme that they now have been, they are up to no good.
Greenpeace protests at Koch brothers' rally
...The talks began at 1pm with sessions that focused on how to fight the Obama administration, which the Kochs see as a threat to the free market and unfettered wealth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/30/greenpeace-protests-koch-brothers-rally
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Guns are just the method this particular groups uses. Other groups use religion. Yet others use xenophobia.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The NRA is a sham organization that doesn't really care about it. The fact that they are part of the gun manufacturers group makes them a trade organization, not a civil rights group. I think more than a few people have been snookered.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In the 1950s and 1960s the U.S. gave to South Korea about one million M-1 rifles. SK no longer needs them and wants to return them to the U.S. to be sold to civilians. Those rifles were made in America by Americans. New ones are still being made and sold to civilians, completely legally. But Obama won't let those rifles back in.
As a senator he voted against the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and voted for the Kennedy Amendment to that same act. Kennedy said, in his speech that the bill would outlaw "cop-killer" cartridges such as the .30-30. That cartridge was designed in 1893 and is the most common deer cartridge in America. Banning it would have banned almost all huntin ammo.
Obama still supports reinstating and making permanent the Assault Weapons Ban.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2012, 02:12 AM - Edit history (1)
Obama is not taking anyone's guns away. We still make guns and they can be manufactured. Why would we want a lot of old guns from abroad?
That sounds like the complaint of a firm importing to make a quick buck. No danger to gun owners right to bear arms in any of that.
And the police are opposed to assault rifles being freely available, especially after they were outgunned in that CA bank robbery years ago and with other massacres have happened.
None of those are adequate reasons for Democrats or progressives to campaign against Obama or vote GOP.
The guys in charge of the NRA have been known to be bombastic fear mongers in the past and now that we catch one actively working against Obama, the NRA is on my list for a bad organization. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with Republicans.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It is semi-auto only.
It does NOT have a detachable magazine. Internal magazine is limited to eight rounds.
It does not have a pistol grip.
It does not have a flash suppressor.
It does not have a collapseable stock.
It does not have a grenade launcher.
It does have a bayonet lug.
And if you screw up loading it, it will mash and bruise your thumb. Many GIs and Marines learned the hard way by getting an M1 thumb.
The M1s are to be sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (A Federal program), NOT by some firm looking for a quick buck.
Here is a picture of the rifle that was designed in the late 1930s:
Although I am not a single-issue voter, I am very displeased by Obama's stance on guns.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)GOPers, and that's pure bs.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Straw Man
(6,624 posts)GOPers, and that's pure bs.
I guess that makes Howard Dean a GOPer, right?
Endorsed by NRA eight times as VT governor
John Kerry criticized Dean's 1992 statement to the National Rifle Association that he opposed any restriction on private ownership of assault weapons. "Howard Dean's opposition to sensible gun safety measures is indefensible," Kerry said. "It explains why he has been endorsed by the NRA eight times. I believe we must put the safety of our children and families ahead of special interests like the NRA."
Dean responded, "I come from a rural state with a very low homicide rate. We had five homicides one year. It's a state where hunting is a part of our life. I understand that's not the traditional Democratic position." Dean said "when you're running for governor, they ask you what you would do in your state." Dean aides said the opposition to restrictions on assault weapons that Dean expressed on the signed 1992 NRA questionnaire applied only to a state ban, defined broadly enough to also apply to shotguns commonly used by hunters in Vermont.
Source: Associated Press in Minneapolis Star-Tribune Oct 31, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)what you are referring to?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)The OP wasn't by me. Just thought those who are finding the growing presence of gun militancy in General Discussion perturbing (since there are no longer moderators to flush the Guns forum denizens back to their gungeon) might want to see/add to that thread, for instance.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Rush Limbaugh would frequent.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if they support the RBKA.
Upton
(9,709 posts)seems rather simple to me..support the RKBA, get treated favorably by the NRA..
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)hmm.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)hey, but if you want to vote for a Republican, i challenge you to be forthright about it.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Unless rkba means being able to buy/sell them out of vending machines in bars and colleges, which half the gungeon wants.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the NRA is a single issue organization - they support Democrats who support RBKA.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)it's a right wing meme, which you're participating in, to say that any gun control is tantamount to being against the RKBA.
hack89
(39,171 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)the Democrats are smart enough to avoid the issue so it is not going to be an issue in the election.
I have never voted for a Republican - I have been very fortunate to live in blue states.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)less of a Republican organization right? That's what your post says. So let's get more Dems to see reason on gun rights and the NRA becomes less influential in politics.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and that exceptions are the trend. An exception is an exception. That's why the word exception exists, because exceptions are exceptions.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and take the issue off the table. That is the best way to neuter the NRA.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)if they are not willing to embrace the 2A then they should simply stop talking about gun control.
Judging from the reaction to the death of Trayvon Martin that's what Democratic leaders are doing. Notice Obama never mentioned stricter gun laws in his comments?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)What's your political affiliation?
Whom did you vote for in the past 4 presidential elections?
What liberal causes do you support?
As is clear, I'm having serious doubts about which side of the fence you're on, so pony up.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I don't have any conflicts. And even if he spoke out in favor of gun control I would still vote for him - there are more important issue like jobs and civil rights (abortion and marriage equality top two).
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)But by now we're used to being tarred with that brush.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Grew up in rural Virginia, fourth generation UMWA miner. My great-grandfather was a union organizer at Maetwan and War Eagle, a justice of the peace then deputy sheriff for forty years in Buchanan County, and was a crack shot. Both he and my great grandmother kept a handgun on their nightstands. 38 special for him, 32 for her.
This is me as a kid with him-
My grandfather spent twenty-five years in the mines, my father 15 before having a rock fall on his back, putting him out of work for five years. He still has a cough that makes people cringe when they hear it.
I walked the picket line in 1989 at the Pittston strike, I went door-to-door for Jackie Stump, handing out write-in sample ballots. We faced security guards armed with automatic weapons, and were routinely harassed by Virginia State Troopers. We were beaten, kicked, shoved, arrested, had our cars vandalized, our utilities were cut (in the dead of winter in the appalachian mountains), and were ran off the road by coal trucks.
I worked three years above ground and one below before getting out.
And as for my bona fides- as I said recently to Paladin, who never misses an opportunity to declare us gungeon regulars 'right wing'--
[div class='excerpt']I daresay I've done more, in more campaigns, in more states to support our party than you have. I was in a union picket line before I could stand. I handed out buttons and fliers when I was ten. I've worked on four different campaigns for representatives in Virginia (3 delegates, one senate). I was the co-chair of the Young Democrats at the Clinch Valley College of the University of Virginia for three years. I registered at least a hundred dem college students to vote during that time.
In Tennessee, I was assistant to the secretary of the democratic party of knox county for a year. Between 1993 and 1996, I can't count the hours I spent canvassing for candidates, ferrying people to polls, helping register poor and minority voters, and lobbying for democratic measures in the city council- whether it was additional funding for city facilities, decrying racist policies of the KPD, or helping raise support for a new bond initiative to support the emporium (performing arts center).
In 2008, I put 650 miles on my wife's car ferrying mostly elderly and poor voters to the polls- from the time early voting started all the way through the day of the election. I phone banked and stuffed envelopes for Bill White in 2010, as well as putting another 400 miles on our vehicles. I *still* hear from a few of those elderly voters when they need help (the most recent was a korean war vet who needed a ride to the VA center in Arlington.)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)What's the purpose for having guns now?
I can understand someone admiring their ancestors. My grandma is from another country. As a young woman, she did the wash by hand, scrubbing it against rocks in a nearby stream, then hanging it to dry. I admire the woman. She was a remarkable woman! But should I continue the washing of clothes against a rock by a stream because I so admire my grandma? Or should I get with the times and move on, and use a washer and dryer?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. to thwart violent attack.
The same reason I have a first aid kit and fire extinguisher in my vehicle. Because the consequences of needing it and not having it are more serious than having it and not needing it.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I used to service network equipment in COs (central offices) for a telecom company all over Texas, Louisiana, and sometimes Oklahoma. I went into every kind of neighborhood, town, and city, and stretches of deserted scrub in between.
After having my truck broken into twice, and being mugged at gun point then getting my head almost cracked by the junkie's buddy, I decided to carry a pistol.
As I said to someone else a couple of years ago..
[div class='excerpt']Last year in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, I was in Galveston trying to get phone service back up for residents. As I was ferrying ~$10k worth of network testing gear from my rig to the switch around dusk, I was approached by a 20-25 year old guy asking for money.
I offered him a bottle of water and an energy bar (I keep those in my truck too, am I afraid of dying of thirst/hunger?). He became agitated and again demanded money. He got close enough that I could see that he had a mouth full of mostly black stumps instead of teeth, and continued to follow me as I went around my truck to the open driver's door.
As I reached into the center console of my truck for a bottle of water, he pulled a knife from his overcoat (an overcoat in September in Texas- yah, nothing at all odd about that) and took a step toward me. By that time I'd unholstered my pistol, put the open truck door between us, and told him to piss off. He took another step toward me, I raised my pistol and pointed it at his chest. He looked down, then turned and ran. I got on the company radio, and an hour later, a DPS officer came by to check on me. He took my statement and left.
You know what really pissed me off at the time? That I'd offered the guy a bottle of water and something to eat. I've been approached many times by some rather stinky characters (Texas heat and homelessness / vagrancy tends to mix into a rather odoriferous combination.) Most were just panhandlers- the kind that you see with cardboard signs (my favorite was one that read 'why lie? want beer') or a bouquet of flowers weaving in and out of traffic at stop lights. I usually have a dollar for them if they make it to my truck before the light changes. So yeah, I was pissed that I offered to help this guy and he turns around and pulls a knife on me.
Shit, if he'd asked nicely, I would have gotten on the radio and asked for a pick-up from the Texas City FD / Galveston PD / TX natl guard who had a crisis response center about ten minutes away.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)dealing with all kinds of people, going into people's homes, etc. Like a cop.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I'd call the police on him.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I mostly serviced those little brick buildings without any windows you see scattered all over the country and wonder, WTF is that?!? Most of the time, my biggest worry was whether or not possums, rats, or rattlesnakes had gotten into our stuff and gummed up the works. (Rattlesnakes especially- warm, dark spot in the middle of scrub plains on a chilly fall morning.)
I was mugged in a small 'burb just north of Houston, in a middle-class neighborhood- mostly homes from the 80's and 90's.
I was no more a cop than the UPS delivery guy is, or the guy who comes to read your meter.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)But I had no special authority, was in no special danger. No more so than anyone who works outside their home.
hack89
(39,171 posts)we are not all urban liberals - many of grew up and live in places where guns are a normal part of life. I got my first 22 rifle when I was 10. We don't see guns as evil incarnate.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I'm sure they exist, but they're the exception.
Upton
(9,709 posts)we exist alright...and in much larger numbers than you and the rest of the antis can imagine.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)That's why this is such a violent nation.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)And the converse... why is being anti-gun assumed to ban an inherently liberal position?
In "Don't Think of an Elephant" George Lakeoff explained it as the difference between the "strict father" mentality and the "nurturing parent" mentality, which I can understand in terms of other things but not in terms of being for or against citizen ownership of guns.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Not Democrats.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Not which party is supporting it.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)1) Gun-love goes right along with the love of authority, violence, punitive ideology, force, violence, aggression, a feeling of one-upsmanship, power, control, shifts power to the person with the gun, makes powerless men feel powerful, and it allows people to imitate Hollywood movies, TV programs, and books in which there's usually a man shooting 'bad guys.'
2) Republicanism, right wingerism, fascism, and all the right wing, conservative ideologies are based upon fear, a need to be constantly protecting oneself, a feeling that there's always someone, somewhere waiting to hurt one, a need to have a 'bad guy' to fight against at all times, a desire to feel an "us versus them' 'good versus bad' feeling, to view the world as a tremendously dangerous place, a view of life as either you win or you lose, a desire for someone to be punished at all times for being 'bad,' a very positive view of violence and punishment, and a Hollywood fight movie view of masculinity as creatures with guns at the end of their hands.
Gun love and rightwingerism work in lockstep with one another.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...by disarming the population, they will reduce all these things?
Reduce authoritarianism, aggression, etc?
Or is it a symptom of undesirable mental attitude?
I ask because I don't think I have too many of these characteristics you list.
So are liberals against guns simply because the hated conservatives are for them? Are there no liberal reasons to own guns?
It is possible to own guns and like guns for left-wing reasons?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)all those Democrats that live in the South and West - guns are part of their culture.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I know plenty of Dems. Of those, only ONE is a gun-lover, and he is a former Repug.
hack89
(39,171 posts)loosened their guns laws? There is only one state in the entire country that does not permit concealed carry. Congress refused to reinstate the AWB. The President is silent on gun control. How is that possible if all Democrats hate guns like you do?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)greasing the pockets of every Repuke around to pass pro-gun-lover laws.
hack89
(39,171 posts)since according to you they don't support gun then the NRA should have no influence over them.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Is that your question? Or are you trying to make it appear as if the history of the NRA has consisted in lobbying Dems? (Which it has not, since the NRA is a right wing organization, which has spent its history lobbying Repukes).
hack89
(39,171 posts)why would they be doing that unless many Democrats support gun rights?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)And this is new to you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)why would they if their constituents don't support gun rights?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)in which the NRA is explained as a right wing organization whose history consists of lobbying Repukes, and only recently have they tried to lobby Democrats, NOT VERY SUCCESSFULLY because Democrats, by and large, are NOT gun-lovers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)when Blue states have been passing CCW laws? That's a lot of Democrats passing pro-gun legislation. NRA had nothing to do with that because they were doing what the voters wanted?
There is only one state that bans CCW - how is that possible if Democratic voters do not support pro-gun laws?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)You'll never stop till I say that flooding this country with guns, was a WONDERFUL idea, and that we should continue on until no one can step outside of their home without getting their ass shot off.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and it is still declining.
Can you show that more guns has caused a problem? Do you disagree with the FBI crime stats?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)That's all it is.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and I take offense at that.
You support an a la carte Constitution - got it.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)II and III amendments to achieve your goal.
hack89
(39,171 posts)my opinion is the least of your problems.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)And DUH.
What did you expect from a right wing Supreme Court? Caution about the continued influx of deadly weapons into this already-violent, high-gun-crime nation? Hell no.
hack89
(39,171 posts)even the Heller dissent recognized an individual right to own guns.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)is not only damaging this country, but it's an evil act.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it was not intended as a limit on government powers? You need to study the history of the Constitution and learn what the intent of the 2A really was.
The BOR delineates your civil liberties - the right to own and bear arms is one of them.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Let me repeat that. These amendments were ratified in 1791, when there was NO MILITARY. People merely grabbed a gun and shot because there was NO MILITARY.
Let me repeat it. NO MILITARY.
This is 2012. We now HAVE a military.
You know these things. However, gun-lovers mis-employed and used these ancient, useless laws as a justification to arm this country to the gills, and turn it into the violent, crime-ridden gun nation it is.
hack89
(39,171 posts)your grasp of US history is appalling. The reason the BOR was added to the Constitution was to ensure that individual rights were recognized and protected. EVERY right delineated in the BOR is an individual right.
Do do realize, don't you, that the unorganized militia is still in Federal law?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Both amendments were put there because the U.S. had NO MILITARY.
Now please go tell someone who is unaware as to why they were ratified. Maybe they will agree with you out of their ignorance.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)II and III Amendments were ratified in 1791, not 1971, not 2012. We now have a military. We did not have a military in 1791, which is the ONLY REASONS FOR AMENDMENTS II AND III.
Now please stop it.
I feel like you're trying to sell me the idea that there really, really is a Santa Claus, and I don't enjoy bs.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)And it's become quite fashionable to say, hasn't it?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I just recognize it when I see it.. although I can't remember seeing it here in quite a while.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
hack89
(39,171 posts)considering even the dissent in Heller says it is an individual right, don't expect things to change in your lifetime.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Amendments and pretend it was designed so that you can own guns and play cowboys-n-indians, and big man around town.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I support the President.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I've already said that I'm for gun control regardless of who's for gun control, and who's against it.
I HATE living in a country with a tremendously high rate of gun crime. I blame gun lovers for this country having a high rate of gun crime. I blame gun lovers for my not being able to cohabit in a low crime country. I blame gun lovers for the bs that pouring more country into a high gun crime country is the solution. That's like F saying that a cancer patient will be cured by having the cancer spread.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because you are on the losing side of history.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)hopefully you will educate yourself and realize that you are not really in that much danger.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)stevekatz
(152 posts)The United States did have a military in 1791,
It was fighting Indians in the northwest territories (Ohio) from 17851795.
As someone else stated, your knowledge of history is poor.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Try and do that now. Disband the professional military, and have ordinary citizens just grab a gun and go fight whenever there's a need and see what happens. Then sit back and enjoy.
stevekatz
(152 posts)The Northwest Indian War was fought by a mix of militia and federal soldiers commanded by professional officers.
You have no idea what your talking about.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)that little militia is the reason for the II and III. In order to have gun ownership for ordinary citizens, the II was ratified. And because there was no serious military, ordinary citizens were asked to keep citizens in their homes, since there was no adequate military in the U.S. in 1791.
stevekatz
(152 posts)I just showed how little understanding of history you have,
You started out saying the US had "NO MILITARY" in 1791, which is completely false.
Your wrong about that, and your wrong about the 2nd and 3rd amendment.
Logical
(22,457 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)then they would be less partisan.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Kinda like that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)so no - it is not like letting men control women's bodies.
Letting the government severely restrict a civil liberty is like letting men control women's bodies.
certainot
(9,090 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Upton
(9,709 posts)The NRA does endorse some Democrats....64 of them in the last election cycle..
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/nra-endorses-candidates-on-both-sides-frustrating-gop/
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Let me just say, this time:
(a) there are "Democrats" who are indistinguishable from Republicans; if the legislative agenda they support is identical to a Republican agenda, why would the NRA miss the chance to make it possible to say they support Democrats? Ever noticed how the Democrats they support are also overwhelmingly, oh, anti-choice, for instance?
(b) the NRA knows which side of its bread is buttered, and will obviously back the likely winner, all other things being equal (as they sometimes are); too obviously it is to the NRA's advantage to give money to candidates on both sides of legislatures, to have the best chance of its legislative agenda getting enacted
(c) the NRA has not backed a Democratic presidential candidate in my memory, and I would guess that if it ever did, it was before about 1968 when the modern "gun rights" movement was born out of the racist right-wing anti-desegregation movement
(d) the NRA actively campaigns against, spreads misinformation about and spends millions and millions of dollars to defeat Democratic presidential candidates and large numbers of Democratic candidates for other office, and its national campaigns operate to the detriment of Democratic candidates in general, notwithstanding local (and essentially passive) support for individual candidates; Bill Clinton didn't attribute the 1994 results to the NRA for nothing (not to "gun control", as he is constantly misquoted in the Guns forum and elsewhere as having done):
I won't presume to disagree with Bill, myself.
(For a now-extinct discussion on this subject in the Guns forum a few months ago, see here.)
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Can you name a few and give us some examples of what they've done in that regard. I'm drawing a blank.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)running on any kind of a platform that I would call remotely progressive, myself. Oh, okay, there's that odd southwestern governor guy, Bill Richardson, that's it, and of course every rule has its exception. I'll go with candidates backed by the NRA being right-wing scum in ovehwhelming numbers.
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Gun_Control.htm
Uh oh ... gun shows ... did the NRA hear that? And maybe he just isn't aware that being "mentally ill" doesn't show up on NICS checks, I dunno. And of course we'd really have to ask the people living in those "ghettos" how they feel about the fact that they're still waiting for that socioeconomic utopia to arrive while their communities and kids keep being victims of the gun violence that those kids with guns commit ...
There's just this odd confluence I find virtually every time I look up one of those "pro-RKBA" politician folks. (By the way, do Democratic candidates ordinarily run on "anti-RKBA" platforms??)
They're right-wing in pretty much every other important way, too.
Now, conversely, do you recall what the presidential candidates the NRA has backed have actually done for that "RKBA" cause?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/050400-01.htm
... At the same time, the NRA is becoming more openly aligned with the GOP this election season than ever before. In 1999 and 2000, the NRA has given the Republican Party $537,500 in "soft money" donations, which can be given to political parties in unlimited amounts. In the 1996 cycle, the NRA gave $87,725 in soft money to the GOP, and in 1997-98 it gave the Republicans $350,000. It donated no soft money to the Democrats in all those years.
NRA officials say they will spend more this election season than ever before--$12 million to $15 million, and possibly more, on ads, political donations, direct mail and phone banks. The investment is leading to rapid growth in NRA membership, they said--up 1 million, to 3.5 million.
Wonder what they got for all that cash.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Have there been any or not?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I'll leave you to look it up.
Of course, maybe you're using your own private definition of "pro-RKBA".
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Not the majority. In other words, it's an exception.
Which is why the NRA's leaders are all Repukes, and the financial and verbal supporters of the NRA are Repukes, and the ones speaking out against gun control are Repukes, and I can go on ad infinitum.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Pro-gun Democrats win endorsements from NRA
By Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 7, 2010
N
ot a lot of things have gone the Democrats' way this year, but dozens of their House candidates are getting a late boost from an unusual source: the National Rifle Association.
So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority.
The endorsements aren't the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.
The policy has been in place for some time, and the NRA has always backed a number of Democrats, but the group's choices have become especially contentious this year because control of Congress is at stake and because so many gun-supporting Democrats were elected over the past four years.
more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)they have given money to a few Democrats, which is not their modus operandi.
The reason this is news, is because the NRA is a Republican organization, that backs fundamentally Republican candidates, and the fact that they would back any Democrat, makes news because it is not the NRA usually does its 'business.'
I suppose the best other example of this oddity, is when Repukes backed Ralph Nader, and he accepted their funding.
Here you go:
Historically, the NRA has overwhelmingly supported Republicans. But Democrats began backing many pro-gun House candidates in 2006, and now the NRA is coming to their defense.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/House/2010/1008/Why-the-NRA-is-rallying-behind-endangered-Democrats
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do you know what DINO means Freddie? Why are you backing the NRA over real Democrats? Dont bother answering, the question is rhetorical.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Recently, I've been saying that the gun folks on DU are the only people who can get by with openly worshiping a Republican organization. I'm very happy to see that you've said this much more concisely than I've been able to. I'm going to keep beating that drum too. If guns are your thing, great. If the NRA is your thing, then we're going to have a problem, because I don't like Republicans.
Anyway, thank you for the thread.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The OP is claiming, with some justification, that the NRA is a Republican ancillary organization. To the extent that the claim is correct, that makes Moore a life member of a Republican ancillary organization. (Of course, he probably joined before it became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Repukes, Inc.)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore
Here's what some NRA supporter says of Moore's "Lifetime Membership" in the NRA now:
http://bowlingfortruth.com/moore-nra/
In Bowling, Michael Moore brags that he is a lifetime member of the NRA. So it might be expected that Moore would inform viewers about the NRAs noble anti-slavery history, but not quite. In his brief history of America cartoon he attempts the opposite and does an admirable job of welding racism to the NRA wherever possible as detailed in other places of this site. The main issue here is Moores phony respect for the organization. Instead of coming out against it and opposing what he feels are dangerous and detrimental actions, he feigns neutrality in Bowling For Columbine when it is clear he despises the organization.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Charlton Heston. I would not actually consider him a member.
He wanted to take it back to being a gun-safety organization and the defacto Republican Arm that it had become.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Now I get it. He should consider running again.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)So many of their members have been brainwashed by the BS of the NRA leaders for years, that they have lost their ability to think and reason, and as such would never vote for Moore.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)He did fail, which is unusual. He generally succeeds at what he attempts. The man is good at what he does.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)It's chock-full of the same kind of right wing, assholish "pro-gun" filth that the NRA distributes on a daily basis.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)I mean, sure, the majority of Democrats posting in gun thread in GD are expressing their deep hatred for guns and gun-owners, and support laws to outlaw concealed-carry, open-carry, stand-your-ground, castle-doctrine, or just all guns. And the DNC platform contains support for another assault-weapons ban.
But past that, I just don't see why...
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)FiercelyIndependant
(19 posts)Media Matters
UAW
AFL/CIO
Stop pretending to be indignant...it is disingenuous.
As someone who is firmly planted in the middle of the American political spectrum, I find this sort of nonsense distasteful in the extreme.
Intellectual honesty is what is needed, not political hackery.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)FiercelyIndependant
(19 posts)And my point remains the same.....
You (and the article) seem to be making some point about the NRA acting as a component organization of the GOP. Which if it were a unique case, would be notable. Given how intimately entertwined the DNC and the UAW are, how deeply connected the NEA and the DNC are...it doesn't seem nearly so nefarious or notable...it just seems like the same thing on the other side of the fence.
There is nothing the vast middle of American politics hates more and sees through faster than when either the GOP or the DNC begins excoriating the other for the very thing they do themselves.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)The NRA and the GOP have been in wedded bliss since the NRA's inception.