The NRA Doesn't Deserve Your Support

[tucsonlib]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/dr-king-and-the-guys-with_b_664093.html

Yeah, I know - The article is by some guy associated with the Brady Campaign. But that doesn't change the fact that the NRA will be joining Beck and Palin on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial - Co-hosting a rally on MLK Day, supposedly to honor Lincoln and King, but featuring such fear-mongering and hate-spewing speakers as Ted Nugent. What a bunch of cynical hypocrites....

Personally, I consider my RKBA to be a non-partisan issue. When the NRA portrays gun owners as unanimous supporters of right-wing, teabagging, ultra-conservative, un-American bigots, I find it insulting and disgusting.

Tell me again why any progressive gun owner should support, or become a member of, the NRA.



:spank:

[TxVietVet]

1. Here's an alternative to the Nazi Rifle Ass'n.

http://www.unionsportsmen.org/

I'm a member as are many union hunters and fishermen. Pass the word. Anyone can join.

[X_Digger]

8. Which lawsuits have they joined or filed?

I don't see any amicus briefs for any cases in their press releases.

Also.. not all of us are union- I can't join the CWA, I'm "management"- not really, but I'm classified that way as an IT guy.

[cowman]

29. The Nazi Rifle Assn

How the hell are they Nazi's? Do you even know what the fuck the Nazi's did in WW2? What an asinine post.
BTW, the 2nd Amend isn't about hunting, it's about the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. I'm union, but don't hunt. Most gun owners don't.

And the Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

[benEzra]

59. That appears to be a hunting and fishing organization.

I didn't see anything on their site about RKBA issues, or anything pertaining to the majority of gun owners. Conservation is great, but it doesn't have much to do with gun rights.

[knownothing]

196. Nazi Rifle Association

You do realize that the Nazis valued gun control, right?


--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.

And many parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968 were based off of German gun laws enacted in the 1920s and 30s. http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/firearms_1.html


Stalin, Pol Pot, and other genocidal regimes also love gun control.

In the meantime, have you ever heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising?

[monmouth]

2. I certainly hope the media does not cover this and stays focused

on the REAL memorials for Doctor King... I know, I'm dreaming.

[defendandprotect]

3. GOP/NRA . . . the people who targeted elected Democrats over decades . . .!!

[X_Digger]

9. Like Harry Reid? Oh wait, they'll be endorsing him. *snort*

[cowman]

31. Just maybe if more

Dems supported the 2nd Amend, they wouldn't be targeted for defeat.
You have been pushing that shit of a message, GOP/NRA for a long time, time to stop beating that dead horse and move on.

[defendandprotect]

60. We should be targeting right wing GOP/NRA . . . reversing the process . . .

[SteveM]

138. ...With great help from the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Campaign!!

You knew that, didn't you?

This may help you: try picturing the NRA and the Brady Campaign as a violent co-dependent couple, always fighting, but never getting divorced 'cause they kinda like each other's stink; they're certainly getting something out of it, right?

[MineralMan]

4. Want a list of gun owners in the USA?

The NRA doesn't sell it directly, but their subscriber list is available from third party mailing list companies. I betcha the ATF has the list. What do you think?

Same with all the firearms orgs. They all sell their lists to list brokers. You can even get a list of firearms owners who have donated to conservative causes.

Silly people who join such organizations. If needed, the lists will lead people to your door.

[spin]

44. Hell, I have a concealed weapons permit ...

the government already KNOWS I have firearms.

I'm not afraid of the government and they're not afraid of me.

[PavePusher]

64. Lots of empty desert and neighbors with shovels here in Arizona.... n/t

[pipoman]

71. And if you join AARP, or AA, or AAA, or

subscribe to Better Homes And Gardens, or have any interests what so ever, you are on a list. What is the point of this drivel again?

[backwoodsbob]

162. if needed the list will lead people to my door?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[onehandle]

5. They shouldn't. And when they are praised or supported at DU the thread should be locked.

RKBAers here should shun those far right-wing lobbyists.

[X_Digger]

13. Damn those 'far right-wing lobbyists' for supporting evil people like..

Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Howard Dean!!

eta: Just in case it's not blatantly obvious.. :sarcasm:

[rrneck]

30. I'll bet you were a hall monitor when you were a kid. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Become a moderator and lock 'em yourself.

Until then, you're just another self-appointed zampolit wanting to control the conversation.

Protip: If you want to reduce the influence of the NRA, get the national ACLU to support ALL of the Constitution....

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Who made you the DU Zampolit? N/T

[SteveM]

139. Not very supportive of free speech are you?

How 'bout the Brady Campaign? You like them? You support them?

[oneshooter]

142. Should we also shun those on the far LEFT wing, who call for total bans? n/t

[X_Digger]

6. Because the ACLU (natl org) doesn't stand up for us re the RKBA.

If the ACLU put as much support behind second amendment cases as the NRA does, a large segment of the NRA would disappear.

The NRA supports anyone who protects that single right- conservative, liberal, rethuglican, democrat, progressive, loonytarian, green, blue, pink, or purple.

Conversely, they fight anyone who seeks to deny that right- same list.

[Doctor_J]

11. They also distribute lies and propaganda in great volume

they're the most responsible for the run on guns & ammo due to their lies about the president wanting to take away all guns. They also play on racial fears among their membership.

The ACLU stands up for ALL of the BoR. The NRA, only one.

[X_Digger]

15. You might want to check this statement on the ACLU's blog

I don't know if you just don't know it, or you're being willfully disingenuous when you say, "The ACLU stands up for ALL of the BoR."

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

ie, "Most of this document is about limiting government power against individuals- except for that second one- that one's limiting people, and only applies to 'militias'."

For further clarification, see the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

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

Abuse of whose powers? Restrictive clauses against whom? The government.

[safeinOhio]

19. See the NRA magazine

Oct and Nov issue for 2008. Clearly stated if Obama was elected he'd take away everyones guns. Seems they lie almost as bad as Palin.

[X_Digger]

21. Is this Obama's voice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

Did Obama not campaign on renewing and making permanent the expired AWB? Was that goal not on change.gov and whitehouse.gov until May 2009?

eta: Hell, it's still there on change.gov..

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[tucsonlib]

24. C'mon......

Even if Obama had supported renewing the AWB, that's not quite the same as "taking away everybody's guns". The NRA lied. How else would you explain the insane run on ammo?

[X_Digger]

25. It's still up on change.gov.. no 'even if' about it. (see previous message for eta)

I don't have the issues of the NRA magazine at hand, so I can't address them until I see them (anyone have a link?)

[tucsonlib]

28. Big Whoops

So it's that ol' "Slippery Slope" again, eh? First they'll outlaw folding stocks. Next thing y'know they're a'knockin' on yer front door - confiscating yer .22.

MORE AMMO!!! I NEED MORE AMMO!!! GOTTA STOCK UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!

Insanity




:silly:

[X_Digger]

35. You do know that the run on guns and ammo was about "assault weapons", right?

What were the top-selling rifles in the latter half of 2008 and 2009? AR-15's, semi-auto AK clones, SKSs, and anything with a collapsible stock, bayonet lug, pistol grip, and / or barrel shroud. There were plenty of 'huntin gunz' on the shelves.

What were the top-selling handguns in the same time frame? Semi-autos which are stock with magazines holding 10+ rounds. (Glock, Sig, Wilson, Springfield, Para, Bersa, Beretta). There were plenty of revolvers still on the shelves.

What were the top-selling ammo calibers in the same time frame? .223, .308 (AR-15, AR-10), 7.62mm, 9mm, 45ACP, 40S&W, 380.

There were plenty of 22lr bricks on the shelves here, as well as 243, .30-06, 7mm, .300..

Are you familiar with H.R. 1022? Many expected it to be revived in 2009, and there's no indication that had it passed that the president wouldn't have signed it.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. People were stocking up on the weapons and ammo (and magazines) most likely to be banned.

Clinton pulled it off in the 90's, no reason to think Obama couldn't as well.

[SteveM]

141. "Slippery slope?" Maybe you didn't see the Democratic Party Platform...

wherein a call is made to make the "assault weapons ban" EXPANDED and made PERMANENT.

You should know that banners & prohibitionists, once they think they are on a roll, just can't leave well enough alone. They want more, and more, and more, and more...

You can look up the platform yourself. It's still there.

[safeinOhio]

43. Here are the facts

This is about the "10 point plan" the NRA claimed in those articles I mentioned.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change'


The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."
Regarding a Constitutional right to guns, Obama says:
Obama, "Sportsmen": Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.
What the NRA Claims


Despite what Obama says, the NRA's material claims that he plans to take such extreme measures as to "ban use of firearms for home self defense" and "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Where does the NRA come up with these? We contacted Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs. He declined to speak to us except to say that the claims are based on Obama's voting record and statements he has made in the media. "We're comfortable with what we put on there," Arulanandam said. "We believe our facts."

The NRA's lobbying arm, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, lists several such "facts" about Obama, including the 10 claims listed on the flier. The NRA-ILA brushes aside Obama's stated position. "Don't Believe Obama," it says.



Yes he did campaign on restoring the ASW ban, but never acted on it. But, the rest of the NRA claims are lies. His record, as President, should earn him an A+ rating. All he has done regarding the 2nd is sign into law allowing hand guns in National Parks. Nothing else. When will the NRA retract its' 10 point lies and give him credit for what he has done and give him that A+ rating?

[cowman]

45. You seem to

be disregarding his record as an IL state sen. there wasn't a gun control law he didn't like and I have no doubt that he would carry out his anti gun agenda if he could.

[safeinOhio]

49. and you seem to parrot the

NRA lies as revealed in Factcheck.org.
When he was running for national office he campaigned on protecting the 2nd Amendment and you disregard that. As a state legislator he ran on what those of his state wanted. Just think, someone that represents the wishes of those that elected him. Hard to deal with as an ideologue, isn't it? Too bad the mind readers like you and the NRA have been proven wrong. Come back when you are proven right about his "secret" 10 point plan.

[cowman]

50. I see

so it's ok to disregard sections of the BoR if your constituents want it. Got it.

[cowman]

51. I get it

you think it's ok for him to disregard the 2nd Amend of the BoR because his constituents want it. got it.
BTW, why do you claim to be pro 2nd Amend when just about every post is anti gun?

[safeinOhio]

55. I have never posted any "anti-gun"

post. I have questioned gun ideologues that have fought any reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use. Myself and most gun owners, including most members of the NRA as polls show, are for reasonable laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. I am for the registration of handguns and handguns only. That is acceptable to the 2nd Amendment as it is the law in many states and has not been deemed unconstitutional by any court. Asking me why I'm pro 2nd would be like me asking why you are a Democrat when you bash the leader of the party every chance you get.

No you do not get it. He has never called for anything that is unconstitutional as ruled by the courts at the time. Yes there are reasonable restrictions on all liberties spelled out in the BoRs. This is a vast and diverse country and people in Chicago and NY City think different than those in Arizona. While you agree with Palin and Beck on issues, not everyone else does. Because you happen to agree with them on gun laws, I would hope you question some of their other views, just as I would. If you look at gun issues as only black and white with no middle ground, that would make you an ideologue on the issue. I'm sure you can come up with some reasonable restrictions on the 2nd while others here want none at all.

[PavePusher]

65. Right. And politicians NEVER LIE.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on....

[pipoman]

72. Yet he never quite got around to defining any of these one liner talking points

and continued to maintain a desire to renew the expired AWB on his web sites and literature. It is quite possible that the NRA embellished Obama's intentions during the campaign. It would have been impossible had Obama defined this talking points on the issue, which he chose not to do. So in not bothering to define and continuing to advocate for renewal of AWB, that left Obama's past record as an IL legislator as the only real road map of Obama's stance on RKBA. Obama had stated support for the Chicago hand gun ban as well as several other RKBA limiting pieces of IL and Chicago legislation. If Obama would have made, or would make a statement to the effect that he will not support any new firearms legislation during his term as President but would advocate for strong enforcement of existing firearms law, and maybe something about the unfortunately monikered 'gun show loophole', it certainly would have limited the effectiveness of the NRA's embellishments.

[one-eyed fat man]

79. the only reason he got "religion"

He was in a hot primary fight when he made his infamous "San Francisco fundraiser" quip about about Pennsylvania voters "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles." He didn't go so far as stage a phony duck hunt, but he was hard and fast on damage control with a newly found reverence for the Second Amendment.

His support for the AWB didn't annoy me as much as the explanation why that was all over his websites from candidate though transition to whitehouse.gov.

"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

There can only be two explanations for making that statement. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive people who don't know the difference. Or he doesn't know the difference himself. Deceit or dumb-ass, take your pick! Why else would anyone say they are going to solve the problem of MACHINE GUNS IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS by banning guns which are not? It would not be any different if he had said, "Oranges are a problem in Chicago thus I support a ban on apples."

Clearly, based on his own words and his voting record, the President has only grudgingly kept his own counsel concerning future plans for further gun restrictions. He is certainly shrewd enough a politician to see that the momentum of public opinion is not on his side on this issue. He appears unwilling to risk a repeat the 1994 debacle where, as Bill Clinton now freely admits, the backlash over the '94 Assault Weapons Ban vaporized a forty year lock on Congress. Regardless of his personal beliefs about gun control, for the time being he appears willing to not push it. I will give him credit for two things:

1. He did sign legislation restoring the rules for concealed weapons to align with the state laws of the state where a National Park is located, as they had been prior to 1982. That it was attached to a credit card reform bill he desperately wanted tempers my enthusiasm. But seeing as how LEGAL concealed carry in the National Parks had not been a problem for the first century and a half of their existence it was pretty likely to remain that way after the repeal of a Reagan era rule.

2. He quickly squelched talk about reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban after the trial balloons floated by both the Attorney General and the Secretary of State a year and a half ago. For the time being, at least, no more talk about 'machine guns in Chicago' as that was quietly removed from the White House website in May.

He certainly suspects that his only foreseeable opportunity will come as a 'lame duck.' When that time comes where he no longer has to worry about re-election it will be interesting to see if he embraces gun control with the same fervor he had as an Illinois Senator.

[safeinOhio]

91. So, you'll be voting for Palin?

No lies there.

[cowman]

96. Boy you

really are a case aren't you.
Where did he ever say he would vote for Palin?

[one-eyed fat man]

126. You are something else!

The only one who is talking about Palin is YOU!

You gloss over most of the post where I point out that regardless of what his personal feelings may or may not be that he signed the Credit Card Bill, despite the rider to return the National Park gun policy on concealed weapons back to what it was before 1982.

He was also quick to stifle talk about reinstating the AWB when the Attorney General brought it up. That does not mean he has had a change of heart. He's not having a long lunch and taking target practice on the Secret Service's range in the basement of the White House like Teddy Roosevelt. It's a pretty safe bet he won't be checking out a new rifle for the Army by popping a few shots at a shingle on the White House lawn like Lincoln did.

Did he say he wanted to reinstate the AWB?

Did he say he supported a Federal ban on concealed carry laws?

Did he say cities like DC and Chicago should be able to ban guns?

Is he willing to risk a repeat of the 1994 debacle where the Democratic Party lost a Congressional majority it had had since Packard was still building cars and Eisenhower was President?

As long as the answer to the last question is "NO" the other questions are moot. It does not change the fact, that he said "YES" to the others, emphatically and repeatedly in the past.

[safeinOhio]

134. The last question can be answered by

showing the 1994 debacle was because of the Congress Post office scandal. Even with his previous statements, he won the election against A+ Palin and company by almost 10 million votes. All he has done is show a willingness to represent the majority of voters by moving to the middle on many issues, including guns. This will get him and Democrats re-elected. Sounds like you are hoping for him to pass unpopular bills to get him run off so you can take back the country. You still fail to give him any credit for what he has done and instead are hanging on to that "secret plan" thing. Until he DOES anything unpopular on gun rights, WTF.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

149. Take this one step at a time!

In his book, My Life Bill Clinton had this to say about the 1994 elections.

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

I believe President Clinton's assessment is several orders of magnitude more credible than yours.

Now I don't know why you are being willfully obtuse, but you are gravely in error when you claim I have not give the President credit for what he has done. I have, on several occasions, including twice, in this thread alone, but you seem to have somehow ignored it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=332402&mesg_id=332523

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=332402&mesg_id=332620

The only thing I have stated is I'd like to see him stay out of the gun control minefield.

How do you twist that into "Sounds like you are hoping for him to pass unpopular bills....?

[AtheistCrusader]

115. Actually, he reacted to Hillary's more right leaning pro-2A rhetoric during the primaries.

He had to. But he left that bullshit about the AWB up on his site. HIS SITE. Please explain.

[X_Digger]

47. I notice you left out the 'true', 'partly true' and 'mostly true' items. Telling. n/t

[safeinOhio]

62. So, you subscribe to the

secret 10 plan of Obama, along with Palin, Beck and Nugent. Pretty telling about you, I'd say.

[X_Digger]

75. Quite a long leap you made there, don't hurt yourself.

Feel free to address the words that actually came out of my mouth, rather than what you think I said.

[aikoaiko]

68. Ah, fact check, the organization funded by the anti-gun Annenberg organization.

Its true that the NRA's description of the "Obama ten point plan" is hyberbole, but then again so is Factchecks claims of what is "false" about the NRA's claims. Calling them lies is really no different than the hyperbole that the NRA uses.

[safeinOhio]

70. I guess we will

all just have to support the Palin, Beck, Nugent, Angle. The post was about the NRA relationship with those folks. Yet people here are defending the right wing wackos and screaming that Obama has a secret 10 point plan to take away your guns. Guess you supporters will just have to use your 2nd Amendment remedies to take back your country.

So, if factcheck is a commie run organization, which part of the NRAs imaginary secret 10 point plan has been acted on? How many guns banned? How many laws passed to make it a crime to protect your home with a gun? How many guns confiscated?

[Euromutt]

78. Does the phrase "false dichotomy" mean anything to you?

There are other options that either refusing all association with the NRA one the hand or fully supporting "the Palin, Beck, Nugent, Angle" on the other. I can be a member of the NRA while at the same time refusing to cast my vote for any Teabagger, and ultimately, that is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to "support." In a sense, I welcome the Teabaggers in that by driving the Republicans to the right in the primaries, they'll alienate swing voters in the actual elections

The simple fact is that the NRA is the 400-pound silverback gorilla of gun rights organizations; it gets things done that the GOA or JFPO (neither of whom I'd touch with a bargepole) or AHSA (sympathetic as I am to them) have not been able to achieve, and probably will not be able to achieve any time in the foreseeable future. While the SAF/CCRKBA (they're for all practical purposes the same outfit, run out of the same office in Bellevue, WA) has had success by means of lawsuits, it's essentially a two-man band consisting of Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman, and their constant whingeing in mailings and press releases about the supposed "liberal agenda" was enough to turn me (someone who self-identifies as a liberal) off the outfit within a year*.

Call me cynical, but it strikes me that if Democrats who are NRA members (such as myself) were to renounce their NRA memberships in the name of ideological purity, it would not benefit the Democratic party anywhere near as much as it would the anti-RKBA lobby. It wouldn't deprive the Palinites of a single vote, because no Democrat would vote for them in the first place, while it does provide wonderful PR for types like Paul Helmke, Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy (all of whom are, for all practical purposes, more Republican than Democrat) by enabling them to claim that even pro-RKBA Democrats are deserting the NRA because it's too "extreme." Well, guess what? I didn't spend five years gaining U.S. citizenship only to acquiesce to being treated as a mere pawn in someone's political chess game.

* - To be candid, my interest in the SAF was largely the product of it keeping a list of pro-RKBA lawyers that is only accessible to contributors. When another outfit (the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/) sprang up for the purpose of offering the same service, I had no further use for the SAF.

[aikoaiko]

110. You're as good if not better than than the NRA at hyperbole.

Supporting the NRA is not the same thing as supporting the Palins, Becks, Nuges, and whoever in the world. In a post downthread I explained why I support the NRA.

The post (my post) you responded to shed some light on the producers of the "facts" you cited. I certainly never called FactCheck a "commie run" organization. If you want to have a conversation about our President's anti-rkba rhetoric, I am happy to oblige, but I don't think you really want to discuss it.

You asked where are all the things that the NRA promised would happen? As you know, they haven't happened. I attribute that to a practical decision by the administration after the massive surge in buying guns and ammo after his election. Once the administration saw how motivated people were to protect their access to guns in certain configurations and ammo for those guns, they realized that the electorate might retaliate against them in the voting booth if they pushed for their promised AWB, bans on private sales at gun shows, etc.

The people spoke with their wallets during a terrible recession and the administration took notice.

Sadly, I don't think there has been a serious change of position. I say that because there has been no rhetoric to suggest it is so. I'd love for the President to say, "No new Federal gun bans", but I don't think he has it in him (at least not yet).

[cowman]

27. C'mon

be honest, all you've got to do is look at Obama's history of gun control as an IL state senator, there wasn't a gun control measure he didn't like, such as a federal ban on CCW, banning the most popular ammo, a permanent ban on so called assault weapons, and many many more. I've no doubt that if he could get away with it, he would ban handguns and most rifles, his record speaks for itself.
BTW, Dennis Hennigan is a world class asshole.
Also, it's not even if he supported the AWB, he did support it and voiced it and it was on his campaign web site.

[tucsonlib]

37. Yeah. I'm Sure Gun Control Is Way Up There On Obama's "To Do" List

But really, this is off-topic.

Here's an absolute guarantee: There will be NO gun control legislation passed during the Obama administration. None. Zilch. And in the end, the Gun Manufacturers, the Ammo Manufacturers, the NRA and the right-wing fear-mongers will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[cowman]

38. It was up there on his to do list

but he got smart and remembered what happened in 1993 but I've no doubt that if he felt he could get away with it, he would enact every gun control law he could think of, a leopard doesn't change it's spots overnight. And I do support the NRA because the ACLU certainly doesn't.
Maybe, just maybe if the Dems would get rid of gun control in the party platform, we might get more of the NRA's endorsements and gain more seats in the congress

[pipoman]

73. Funny that

Here's an absolute guarantee: There will be NO gun control legislation passed during the Obama administration. None. Zilch. And in the end, the Gun Manufacturers, the Ammo Manufacturers, the NRA and the right-wing fear-mongers will be laughing all the way to the bank.

I see you saying this, the Obama campaign never said any such thing, ever. If they had it would have effectively quashed the NRA's claims...simple solution which was never implemented..why is that?

[AtheistCrusader]

116. While I agree

there will be no new ban, Obama could easily de-fuze this issue, once and for all. Yet he leaves a potent political weapon in their hands. Why?


And there will be no new ban, not as some sign of benevolence from Obama, but because the opposition to one, among a majority of the population is SO strident, it's nuclear. He won't even put it on the table, because he knows it's polling as a loser.

I'm glad he's smart enough to listen to the polls, makes it much easier for me to back him 100%, but I will keep the pressure on. Just in case.

But yeah, I look forward to voting for Obama again in 2012, and doing stuff to campaign for him. The freepers and teabaggers are just too much fun not to mess with.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. The AWB travesty that is still enforce in CA tried to

Also semi automatic weapons are the most popular in the country for hunt, competing and just plinking. The Democratic party needs to seen the errors in its ways and reverse its position. Otherwise we will continue to lose to repukes in closely contested elections.

[Doctor_J]

52. wtf does extending an existing ban on one particular gun have to do with

"taking away all the guns". The NRA are liars and propagandists, a point which you didn't bother to "refudiate" in your last response.

[cowman]

54. You really

should know wtf you are talking about, the AWB has already sunsetted, all your doing is showing your ignorance. The NRA is what it is today because of groups like the Brady Bunch and the VPC and people like you.

[safeinOhio]

63. It is what it is because of Palin, Beck and Nugent

and you supporters of them. I would say you show your ignorance in supporting right wing wackos. I hear you tear down a Democratic President while siding with the above 3 getting together with the NRA to con you into thinking they are on the side of freedoms as in Sharon Angles 2nd Amendment remendies to majority winners that aren't wackos.

[cowman]

74. Show me where I

said I supported those 3? You are either misinformed or a liar, the latter I suspect, and the NRA is what it is today because of groups like the Brady Bunch, the VPC and people like you, and the ACLU certainly doesn't support the idea of an individual right.
BTW, I stand by my statement of your anti gun posts.

[safeinOhio]

90. Read the original post by tucsonlib

I agree with everything said in that post. While all I hear is your support for the NRA and as the post points out that org is promoting the Palin, Beck agenda. On the other hand all I hear from you is about what a lier the President is. Anyone that views the 2nd, other than your radical view, is anti-gun rights, when nothing could be farther from the truth. I think groups like the KKK and White Supremacy groups make the NRA what it is today as they use fear to garner support. Show me where you support the President.

[cowman]

93. I support the Pres in a lot of things

and I don't have to justify any damn thing to you or anyone else except my wife. Just because I support the NRA doesn't mean I support RW assholes despite what you might believe. If you were just a little bit honest you would admit that he is very anti gun, all you have to do is look at his voting record as an IL state sen.

[safeinOhio]

106. All I care about is

what he has done as President. I don't give a damn about his "secret 10 point plan to take away your guns" as published by the NRA in 2008.

I do know for a fact that the NRA promotes and provides a platform for Palin, Beck and Nugent on a current and regular bases. I think that trumps any and all actions Obama has taken against the 2nd Amendment as President. I'll be honest and say perhaps Obama has a negative view of guns. That in no way means he is preparing to change the Constitution. Now if you were just a little bit honest, you'd admit that the NRA has promoted fear that has turned out to be unfounded. That they promote and provide a platform for the above crazy people and will never give Obama any credit for his record as President.

You appear very upset when I take your post and infer your support for the right-wing crazies. Yet, have no problem by first concluding I'm anti-gun because I disagree with the NRA and the company it keeps and promotes.

[X_Digger]

107. You don't seem to connect the two-

What do you think changed the president's mind about renewing the AWB? Had the NRA kept mum and the public hadn't snatched up anything and everything possibly covered by a new AWB or H.R. 1022, do you really think there wouldn't be a push from the administration for more gun control?

[rrneck]

108. I think that will change.

It's early yet, but the more support RKBA gets from Democrats, the less you will hear from the rightwingnuts associated with the NRA.

The first rule of politics is to find a group of people who are headed somewhere and get out in front of them.

[one-eyed fat man]

128. You might want to read a little history

Homer Cummings was Attorney General from 1933 to 1939. He wrote the first Federal gun laws and pushed for handgun registration continually while in office.

He was also the head of the DNC in the Twenties. During the 1924 Democratic convention, in the fight between the Ku Klux Klan & the "drys" vs. Tammany Hall & the "wets," he backed William Gibbs McAdoo who had the support of the Klan delegates. The Democratic Party convention that year ended with a giant celebration and cross-burning. The 1924 Democratic National Convention was still notorious a generation later, when John F. Kennedy referred to it during his 1960 campaign.


Klanbake Convention

Gun control and the KKK have gone together since the beginning. That was the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1866. For a 100 years the Klan was to the Democratic Party what the IRA was to Sinn Fein. It finally started to unravel with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[safeinOhio]

133. I'd be more than glad to make a bet

that the current KKK has more members registered with the NRA and the Teabaggers than the ACLU or for that matter their more of them that vote Republican than Democratic now days. If you look at current history, the racist moved from the Democratic party to the Republicans starting in the late 60s after Johnson.

The current Patriot crowd that includes the KKK, anti-immigration groups and the militia movement are a major force in the NRA. Just go to any big gun show and you'll find their propaganda booths along side the NRAs. I haven't seen any Southern Poverty Center's booths or NAACP's there.

What do you think the modern GOP is? The party of Lincoln?

[X_Digger]

76. The ban expired.. it doesn't 'exist' anymore.

I didn't say 'taking away all the guns', you did.

Re their mailer, seems to be hyperbole based on Obama's actual record.

[Statistical]

80. What existing ban? n/t

[benEzra]

111. "One particular gun"? Huh?

wtf does extending an existing ban on one particular gun have to do with "taking away all the guns"

The "assault weapon" fraud encompasses all civilian firearms with capacities over ten rounds, and the most popular non-automatic civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States. It is not about one gun, or 19 guns; it is about hundreds of models and variants and tens of millions of guns---and the most popular ones, at that.

If Operation Rescue introduced legislation to outlaw 75% of abortions in the United States, would that be OK with you as long as the legislation didn't ban them all?

How about if the Moral Majority or Focus on the Family sought a ban on the books they object to? Would you be OK with that, if they weren't fighting to ban all books?

[SteveM]

143. Some clarification in order...

The so-called "assault weapons ban" had a 10-year life span that ran out in 2004. It has not been renewed. Now, if you will look up the Democratic Party Platform for 2008, you will see a call for an expanded and permanent AWB. A proposed "new ban" would encompass far-more gun types (many used for hunting), and make it virtually impossible to de-list them. Of course, given the track record of gun-controller/banners, there would be continuous efforts to add more and more and more to the ban.

Incidentally, the author of the AWB (passed in 1994) was rumored to be the arch-rightist/prohibitionist Bill Bennett. Last I heard, he was a GOPer.

[TheCowsCameHome]

26. Never mind the facts. They're such a nuisance in cases like this.

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

36. I've yet to see a cite, have you? n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

67. Speaking of facts. Still waiting on your proof on this matter. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331344#331500

As you said "nice try though" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

61. That's the only way the right win can rise -- violence, lies and stolen elections --

[Glassunion]

86. Which magazine exactly? They publish several.

Perhaps a link?

[Euromutt]

202. Well, American Rifleman is the "official journal"

American Hunter and America's First Freedom are ancillary to that.

[Glassunion]

203. Actually I was seeking the specific issue where

It stated "Oct and Nov issue for 2008. Clearly stated if Obama was elected he'd take away everyones guns. Seems they lie almost as bad as Palin."

I receive both Amerian Rifleman and America's First Freedom(gross). I do not recall either making that statement outright.

[Doctor_J]

53. Yes, they do take a more Constitutional view of 2A than the NRA's

"If I want a tank or a nuclear weapon, it's my right as defined in the 2A" view.

[cowman]

56. Well it seems that the

SCOTUS takes a different view than you and the ACLU, and that tired old strawman about being able to own a nuke is pure bullshit, and you can own a tank if you have the time and money to go thru all hoops.

[Doctor_J]

95. Ah yes, once again invoking the backing of the current SCOTUS

I will take the ACLU's reading of the Constitution versus Roberts-Scalia-Alito-Thomas ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. You might also cite Bush v. Gore since you're in love with the current SCOTUS. It's the same corrupt group (worse actually).

[cowman]

97. Are you aware

that all 9 justices agreed that the 2nd Amend meant an individual right?
And what existing ban were you talking about?
And are you aware that the vast majority of americans disagree with yours and the ACLU's take on the 2nd Amend?
That ship sailed a long time ago, GTFOI

[Doctor_J]

101. Oh, my. The majority disagrees with me.

Likely in an NRA poll, but even if it's legit, who cares? Maybe next week we'll have a poll that speed limits in school zones are unpopular. The National Vehicular Homicide Association can raise big bucks to lobby the right-wingers in Congress to come up with a "Scary Commies Led By A Kenyan Black Man Want to Grab Your Cars" campaign, and Hate Radio can jump on.

Save it. We hear the same NRA-speak every couple weeks. Let me know when something new comes up.

[cowman]

102. Is that the best you got?

Pathetic, just pathetic.
If you did just a little research you would find it is a Gallup Poll, but you wouldn't believe that either because you are convinced that guns bad, bans good.

[SteveM]

146. Hey, I think I've figured out your problem...

You are so flustered and disgruntled about the tea-baggers and right-wing getting all the attention, that you have decided to pick on progressives and liberals in your OWN DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and use them for a punching bag by making up stuff about them. I can sympathize with your frustration, but you are only smearing people who are not your enemy. This phenomenon often occurs when a more powerful force (the far right) has succeeded in bullying down someone until they "turn on their own."

Quit being a tool for the far right. Quit giving them the satisfaction of playing out a script they wrote... but you picked up.

[oneshooter]

100. What hoops?

In Texas all you have to have is ID and money to buy, a whole lot of money. Here it is just another vehicle, albeit a LARGE vehicle. Now if it has a live main gun then that is a different matter, you have to get a DD permit from the Feds.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

77. Nice straw man, did you pack his backside yourself?

Please cite the NRA saying that individuals should be able to acquire nuclear weapons.

Maybe you didn't know, but you already can have a tank, that's never actually been illegal. However, tanks have never been considered in scope for the protections outlined by the second amendment, as 'arms' typically refer to 'bearable' weapons.

You do realize that all nine of the SCOTUS judges ruled in Heller that the right is individual, but 4 of them disagreed about the level of regulation, yes?

You do realize that a majority of americans disagree with your (and the ACLU's) interpretation?

from 2008:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx


recently:

Most people in the United States interpret their Constitution’s Second Amendment in the same fashion, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 81 per cent of respondents believe the Second Amendment means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35735/americans_agree_on_second_amendmentaas_meaning

[SteveM]

145. Speaking of lies...

Do you have a source for "Yes, they do take a more Constitutional view of 2A than the NRA's 'if I want a tank or a nuclear weapon, it's my right as defined in the 2A' view."

Where can I find this quote? Who said it? If you don't have a link, then did you make it up? If so, then perhaps you are doing the thing Mr. Rose Icons said above.

[Euromutt]

81. That acceptance of the very notion of a "collective right" is such a fucking embarassment

And I say that as a (literally) card-carrying ACLU member. Is there a single item in the Bill of Rights that anyone could argue with a straight face to be a "collective right"? If someone were to suggest that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" or "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" only applied to members of a state-run organization in their role as such, would the ACLU say "oh yeah, that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation"? Would they hell, and rightly so.

The very idea of a right that applies only to a group, but not to individual members of that group, is absurd. Is it acceptable for the NSA to tap individuals' phones and DSL lines, or the police to raid individual people's houses, all without a warrant, as long as they don't tap everybody's phones or raid everybody's houses? Is it acceptable for the government to prohibit the free exercise of a particular religion, as long as it only has a small number of adherents? Is it acceptable for the government to shut down individual newspapers, radio stations, or websites, as long as it doesn't shut down every single newspaper, radio station and website? At least, not all at the same time. Is it acceptable only to deny civil rights to blacks, as long as they are not denied to non-blacks?

The very notion of a "collective right" invites invocations of Martin Niemöller's routine about "when they came for x, I did not object, for I was not x (repeat several times for different values of x); when at last they came for me, there was nobody left to object <on my behalf>." It's impossible to acknowledge a right as belonging only to a group, but not individual members of that group, because that way, it can be denied the individual members one at a time until, finally, the entire group has been deprived of its right, just not as a group. The ACLU has (in)famously defended the right of unsavory outfits like the National Socialist Party of America to march in Skokie, IL and the Aryan Nations to march in Coeur d'Alene, ID on the rationale that, if you claim the authority to suppress white supremacists' freedom of speech today, you open the door to the suppression of the freedom of speech of pro-choice, civil rights, anti-war etc. protestors tomorrow, with the ultimate outcome that freedom of speech is rendered a dead letter because only "the collective" can exercise it, but any collection of individuals smaller than "the collective" cannot.

[east texas lib]

144. Killer post.

:thumbsup:

[Francis Marion]

192. Roger that and well said.

...Chirpchirp.... chirpchirp... chirp chirp...

The lovely sound of crickets this evening; so peaceful.


Armed, free, self-governing population? Nothing to fear there.

Our Constitution clearly acknowledges that individual right of THE PEOPLE, and yet many legislatures and 4/9 of the supreme court choose not to respect it: this scares the living hell outa me.

You can insist that they respect all of our rights, all the time, or else we'll enjoy instead such privileges which 'they' deem acceptable for the peasants.

[Pullo]

82. The ACLU only stands up for 9 of 10 amendments in the BoR

If they embraced the 2nd and defended it as vigorously as the other 9, they'd gain a lot of credibility in the pro RKBA community.

[Doctor_J]

92. Well. that males them 9 times better than the NRA

even if, as the brainwashed NRA membership believes, they DON'T support the 2nd (a misrepresentation in my view)

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

104. Ooops

you just said the magic phrase which will get your post deleted, but before you go, those names are of people who run the most ridiculous anti gun groups, the Brady Bunch and the VPC.
Now we really know how you feel about gun owners IE, gun nuts.
enjoy your stay at DU

[Pullo]

103. The NRA's mission statement is to protect the 2A

Its a single issue organization, and it surprises the hell out of some people that they'll endorse Democrats, or whomever, as long as they demonstrate strong RKBA support. But at least they stay true to their cause.

The ACLU by contrast, compromises itself by not defending the entire BoR, which it claims as its mandate.

[Glassunion]

87. "their lies about the president wanting to take away all guns"

Link or source?

[Taitertots]

94. Obama did that himself by publicly supporting harsh firearms restrictions

Additionally, I'd like you to quote where the NRA said Obama would take away all guns. It seems the only person spreading lies and propaganda is you.

[SteveM]

140. Keep in mind that the "run on guns & ammo" started 2 years before Obama...

was a candidate for prez.

Sorry, but the gun-control movement has made the modern NRA. If you gotta beef about the NRA, look closer to home, esp. the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Campaign. (Please note: this Republican group has been cited often by gun-controllers/banners in this forum.)

[tucsonlib]

16. Do You Really Believe The NRA Is Non-Partisan?

If they were, they certainly would avoid giving their enthusiastic support to extremists such as Beck. By associating with the Teabaggers, solely because of their 2A stance, the NRA is giving tacit approval for even the most egregious, racist, bigoted, hateful beliefs spouted by these groups.

[X_Digger]

17. That is the definition of non-partisan.

ie, they don't care what other beliefs or positions you espouse, they rate on this one issue, regardless of party.

They also endorsed Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, and Howard Dean (much to the chagrin of the right, I might add).

[Callisto32]

39. That phrase...

"non-partisan single issue organization"

I don't think you understand what it means.

It means exactly that, if the people agree with you on one issue, you support them DESPITE any other position on anything else.

Maybe you ought to get behind people's rights, rather than condemning an organization that has decided to focus on one.

[safeinOhio]

151. Exactly, they'd support

Hitler(beck) or any other fascist as long as they "say" they support the 2nd. Buyer beware.

[katandmoon]

7. You are all the same to gun haters like me.

[jody]

14. LOL learn to live with law abiding citizens keepin & bearing arms for self-defense. We promise not

to come to your aid if you are attacked.

When attacked by a criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away.

[tucsonlib]

18. Not Very Rational Or Productive

"Hating" an inanimate object, that is.

:silly:

[cowman]

34. And you gun haters are

all the same to us, shrill and emotional without any substance. All you have is bullshit.

[Callisto32]

42. Prejudice is a very progressive thing.....

[PavePusher]

66. You have a point? Please, expound...... n/t

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Your problem, not mine.

[SteveM]

147. I believe you. You do a LOTTA hating. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. The names mentioned in the OP deserve each other.

Assholes, every one of them.

[jody]

12. NRA has about 4 million members against over 80 million voters who own firearms. About 95% of gun

owners already don't support the NRA.

Brady Campaign has only a few thousand members so they have even less support than NRA.

[tucsonlib]

20. Why The Un-Recs?

Just curious. Seems to me the topic is legitimate. And indeed, it's generating some uncommonly civil, rational comments, no?

So why?

[X_Digger]

23. We're used to it..

Anything short of demonizing 'teh ebul gunz' gets down to zero.

[jody]

32. Agree re "uncommonly civil, rational comments". Non-commenters are uncivil & irrational? n/t

[Bitwit1234]

22. The fact is they only want your money and the people

stampeded into joining are stupid ignorants for not knowing this.

[jody]

33. Is that why a few thousand people join the Brady Campaign? n/t

[spin]

46. The NRA does a lot for shooting sports ...

I belong to the NRA because they support my hobby, teach gun safety to hunters and civilians, train police officers, etc, etc, etc.

[tucsonlib]

88. Yeah, And The Nazis Built The Autobahn n/t

[shadowrider]

89. Somebody is in a bad mood and needs a hug n/t

[spin]

109. O.K. let's look at NRA programs ...

The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA's youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, U.S. Jaycees and others.

Due to the overwhelming growth of NRA's shooting programs, a new range was needed. Gen. Ammon B. Crichfield, Adjutant General of Ohio, had begun construction of a new shooting facility on the shores of Lake Erie, 45 miles east of Toledo, Ohio. Camp Perry became the home of the annual National Matches, which have been the benchmark for excellence in marksmanship ever since. With nearly 6,000 people competing annually in pistol, smallbore and highpower events, the National Matches are one of the biggest sporting events held in the country today.

***snip***

After the war, the NRA concentrated its efforts on another much-needed arena for education and training: the hunting community. In 1949, the NRA, in conjunction with the state of New York, established the first hunter education program. Hunter Education courses are now taught by state fish and game departments across the country and Canada and have helped make hunting one of the safest sports in existence. Due to increasing interest in hunting, NRA launched a new magazine in 1973, The American Hunter, dedicated solely to hunting issues year round. NRA continues its leadership role in hunting today with the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.

***snip***

Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi.

In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 55,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 2,800 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 21 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim® seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies.

***snip***

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly four million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."
http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx

I understand that many people are opposed to firearm ownership as exists in our country. That's fine with me, as people often disagree on many issues. The fact remains that firearms do exist and will continue to exist and people will own them for target shooting, hunting and self defense.

There is absolutely no doubt that firearms when handled irresponsibly are dangerous. The NRA offers a number of excellent firearm safety and training programs that have been every successful in reducing tragic accidents.

Surely you don't disagree that firearms owners should have good training programs available to learn how to safely handle their weapons. Does the Brady Campaign offer such programs?

I find it hard to understand why you compare the development of the Autobahn under the Nazi's to the NRA. The idea of the autobahn was actually an invention by the Social Democrats of the Weimar Republic although serious construction did start under Adolf Hitler.

Autobahn - History

Autobahn - Germany

Autobahns were first conceived, planned, and built on a limited scale in Germany during the Weimar Republic era in the 1920s, but apart from the AVUS in Berlin, construction was slow, and most projected sections did not progress much beyond the planning stage due to economic problems and a lack of political support. One project was the private initiative HaFraBa which planned a "car only road" (the name autobahn was created in 1929) crossing Germany from Hamburg in the North via central Frankfurt am Main to Basel in Switzerland.

Just days after the 1933 Nazi takeover, Hitler enthusiastically embraced an ambitious autobahn construction project and appointed Fritz Todt the Inspector General of German Road Construction. Soon, over 100,000 laborers worked at construction sites all over Germany. As well as providing employment and improved infrastructure, necessary for economic recovery efforts, the project was also a great success for propaganda purposes. Another aim of the autobahn project was to strengthen centralized rule and national unity and also to provide mobility for the movement of military forces (see Nazi architecture).
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Autobahn_-_History/id/4819993

I realize that you were probably just making a snarky comment, which is often a characteristic of many replies from those who oppose firearms and post in the Gungeon. Would you also insinuate that the Eisenhower administration was similar to the Nazis as they also launched a interstate highway system similar to the Autobahn?

The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956<8> – popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 – on June 29. It had been lobbied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower also had gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.<9> In addition to facilitating private and commercial transportation, it would provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

[tucsonlib]

122. Thanks For The History Lesson

But as the owner and regular shooter of several pistols and long guns, I was surprised to learn from you that I "oppose firearms". What gave you that idea? Got a link?
Obviously, the point I was trying to make is that just because you may like one or two things about a person or organization, it's not necessarily sufficient reason to wholeheartedly support or join them.
If Beck or Palin actually support the 2A (and I have my doubts), good for them. But I still despise their politics and methods. And if the NRA teaches oodles of gun safety classes, Bravo! But it's not enough to convince me to join any group that would enthusiastically share a stage with Beck and Palin.

[spin]

129. Sorry that I falsely accused you of being against firearms ...

I misinterpreted your comment, probably due to the mention of the Nazis and the autobahn.

In the Gungeon, those who oppose firearms launch frequent vicious attacks against the NRA. I just jumped to a false conclusion and grouped you with them.


I am a member of the NRA but I do not contribute to the NRA-ILA or the NRA-PVF. The majority of my membership dues go to the non political activities of the NRA such as their training programs, therefore I feel my money goes to a good cause.

The fund-raising that sustains NRA’s legislative activities is conducted by ILA. Federal and many state election laws dictate that funds used to assist candidates for office must be raised separately, and that is the task of NRA’s political action committee—the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF). Neither NRA member dues nor contributions to ILA can be used directly for the election or defeat of candidates.

Because of these clearly defined parameters, and because only a small fraction of ILA’s operating budget comes from regular NRA membership dues, both ILA and NRA-PVF must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA’s legislative and political activities. The resources expended in these arenas come from the generous contributions of NRA members—above and beyond their regular dues.

edited to add comment

While NRA doesn’t expect every member to contribute to every fund-raising mailing, the mailers do double as legislative alerts, providing important information that empowers members to take specific actions: calling lawmakers, writing letters or completing and returning postcards. Sending solicitations periodically allows NRA to keep its members informed on the issues and threats gun owners face, while attempting to accommodate individual member budgets.
http://www.nraila.org/About/PoliticalVictoryFund/

[east texas lib]

58. Just to piss off you and your buds, of course...

The fact that they advocate for politicians who honor the RKBA no matter what their political stance is of course, beside the fact. They wouldn't have to exist if not for the genuine need for pro-2nd Amendment advocacy. Pat yourself on the back, because people like you helped them become the political force they are today.

[aikoaiko]

69. They deserve my support because the ACLU has failed me.

I don't like the hyperbole of the NRA and how the rightwing fills their rank and file, but I dislike even more many politicians' anti-rkba stances. They are other options, but none as effective.

For those Democrats who really want to undermine the NRA, then get the ACLU to zealously defend the 2nd Amendment as much as they do with other civil liberties and civil rights.

[Euromutt]

84. Henigan is not merely "some guy associated with the Brady Campaign"

He's the Vice President for Law and Policy at the Brady Center, and the Director of its Legal Action Project. He's the Brady Campaign's counterpart to Chris Cox, the Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, which makes him de facto the second-in-command of the entire outfit (if you ignore the figurehead NRA president and Brady Campaign chair).

And Jesus, it's the fricking HuffPo; they'll give space to any conspiracy nut, woo-woo artist and anti-vaxxer as long as they have a halfway decent level of writing ability (which is the only reason Jenny McCarthy doesn't have her own column on HuffPo). Yes, I will happily file Dennis Henigan's opinions right next to those of Deepak Chopra and Harmon Leon (who thinks concerns about skin cancer are overblown and puffed up by a conspiracy of dermatologists http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harmon-leon/is-profit-behind-dermatol_b_640929.html) where they belong: in the trash can.

[tucsonlib]

112. And Just Why, Precisely, Is This Pertinent?

Fact remains, the NRA is co-sponsoring an event with Beck and Palin. Sure, the writer has an agenda, and harbors opinions you and I might disagree with. But that doesn't change the facts. Funny how you and others here will dismiss and discredit based solely on the source, and yet accept as gospel truth anything you read in an NRA publication. As if they're unbiased and objective.

[Euromutt]

152. Because it seeks to obscure the possible extent of Henigan's bias

When you describe person as being "some guy associated with the Brady Campaign," that makes him sound--to the uninformed observer--a lot less likely to be prone to bias in line with the organization's agenda (in other words, more objective) than if you describe him as the second most senior person in the organization's hierarchy. To compare, if somebody cited a column written by Chris Cox, and described him as "some guy associated with the NRA" rather than as the head of the NRA-ILA and Wayne LaPierre's personal protege, wouldn't that make you go "wait a minute"?

Funny how you and others here will dismiss and discredit based solely on the source, and yet accept as gospel truth anything you read in an NRA publication.

That would be funny, if I actually did accept anything I read in an NRA publication as gospel truth. I've recommended Richard Feldman's book Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist on more than one occasion on this forum, primarily because Feldman is highly critical of the NRA leadership's strategy of dragging out political battles rather than winning them so that they can continue to appeal to the membership for more money; of how the leadership (read: Wayne LaPierre) has managed to finagle the organization's by-laws so that it is practically impossible for the membership to have him removed; and indeed, of LaPierre himself.

Jeez, last year my subscription somehow got switched from American Rifleman to America's First Freedom, and what a pile of garbage that was. Absolutely an insult to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking ability. And if you want a detailed explanation of why the NRA's fearmongering concerning the United Nations' Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons is almost entirely bullshit, I'm your man (and note, I'm a former UN staff member, and I'm also happy to expound at length on what I consider to be wrong with the UN, in spite of which, I still support the organization's purpose).

For that matter, I don't advocate dismissing a piece of information "solely on the source," but I do believe that a dubious source (and the HuffPo is an extremely dubious source) warrants an elevated degree of skepticism when assessing information promulgated in that source.

[tucsonlib]

177. Facts Have No Bias

Either the NRA is cosponsoring the event with Beck and Palin, or they're not.

[Euromutt]

200. Facts can be presented in a biased manner

The definition of propaganda is "information presented for the purpose of influencing opinion"; the information can be true or false. The best propaganda is that which tells no falsehoods, but doesn't tell the entire truth either.

Fine, so the NRA associates with certain Teabagger Republicans. The Brady Campaign's leadership is also largely composed of Republicans. Paul Helmke, its president, has run for numerous offices as a Republican, most recently in 2002. Sarah Brady, its (mostly honorary) chair was a registered Republican until she broke with the party over gun control (in every other respect, she's still a Republican). Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4), while notionally a Democrat, was a lifelong Republican and initially tried to run for Congress as a Republican, but switched parties after local Republican party officials refused to support her bid; New York's 4th District consistently elected a Republican representative from 1952 till 1996, and when you get right down to it, that hasn't changed.

So basically, the foremost organizations on both sides of the issue are tainted by association with the Republican party. That's a distinct possibility with single-issue organizations in a two-party political system. But that certainly makes it more than a little hypocritical for the vice president of the Brady Campaign to be bitching about the NRA associating with Republicans.

[tucsonlib]

204. Still...Off Topic

Either the NRA is cosponsoring the rally, or they're not. Any bias or opinions expressed by the reporter is irrelevant.

And this goes way beyond the NRA merely "associating" themselves with certain Republicans. If they are in fact cosponsoring an event, and sharing a stage with the likes of Beck and Nugent, then they're giving their tacit approval to the most extreme fringe of the right wing - and all the hate-spewing, violence-incitement and Obama-bashing that it stands for.

[Glassunion]

85. That's because we (Democrats) are slow to move sometimes...

Things that we "today" consider to be progressive values, were initially not our values.

If I were alive in 1864, I would be voting Republican. The Democratic party voted for slavery.
If I were alive in 1919, I would be voting Republican. The Democratic party against a woman's right to vote.
If I were alive in 1939, I would be voting Republican. The Democratic party supported the Jim Crow laws and Poll taxes.
If I were alive in 1957, I would be voting Republican. The Democratic party was against the Civil Rights movement.

If I were alive in 1961, I would be voting Democrat and every year since. I cannot explain what happened, and why it happened so fast. But our party in the early 60's made a severe shift in focus and defined a new set of goals. We became the champions of civil rights instead of attempting to quell them at every turn. The Rebublicans, slowly lost their grip on civil rights, and slowly abandoned them.

I honestly believe that if Abraham Lincoln was alive today... He would be a Democrat and would be shamed by what his party has become.

For too long the Democratic party has abandoned the 2nd Amendment. If the NRA does not support a Democrat, then it is not the fault of the NRA, but of the Democrat. Think of it like this. Back in the day the NAACP supported Republicans. When they showed their support for Republican candidates, would that make the organization "un-American" in your view?

Remember a few things. The NRA is supporting more and more Democrats with every passing year. The only reason they support a candidate is due to their stated goals of protecting the 2nd Amendment. If a candidate does not support the 2nd Amendment, they do not receive the support of the NRA. Lastly, supporting the NRA is not the same as supporting the GOP. Membership into the NRA does not give any financial gain to any candidate. You have to donate to the PVF arm of the organization. As of today, 30% of the PFV money is going to Dems. A month ago only 27% of that money was going to Dems. Something is happening in our party, not unlike 1961, where we are finally coming to the realization of the error of our ways. For too long our party has been tossing aside a civil-right by making knee-jerk laws to insure re-election that on the whole do nothing but strip rights from people.

[Francis Marion]

105. So Palin, Nugent, Beck et al...

are willing to publicly stand up for OUR gun rights.
I applaud this.

Where, may I ask, are their Progressive and democtratic counterparts?
When it comes to publicly affirming and respecting OUR second amendment rights, progressive and democratic champions of Liberty are AWOL.

You dump on these folks for publicly standing up for gun rights?

The real problem here consists of what you don't see: Public, prominent progressive affirmation of the Second Amendment.

[tucsonlib]

113. Re: "You dump on these folks for publicly standing up for gun rights?"

No. I "dump" on these folks for being fear-mongering, hate-spewing, rabble-rousing bigots. Hitler was a vegetarian. So am I. That we share one thing in common doesn't cause me to despise him any less.
Likewise, while I believe in the RKBA, and (supposedly, in public, at least) these rotten excuses for human beings do as well, I don't wish to associate myself with them or their cause. The NRA is inferring that every gun owner should naturally rally 'round these assholes. Sorry. I value and respect ALL my Constitutional rights. Unlike those fascist "patriots".

[shadowrider]

118. Please provide a link

which shows the NRA says we should "naturally" rally.

I'll wait.

The NRA is endorsing Harry Reid, and has endorced Bill Richardson. Are they assholes in your opinion?
NOTE: Answer REQUIRED.

[tucsonlib]

120. "Endorsing" Someone Is Quite A Step Down From CO-SPONSORING

...a large political event together with leading figures from the extreme right. Just doing so implies that all gun owners do, or should, support their platform. By painting 2A supporters as political extremists, they do a great disservice to, and cause great damage to the cause of gun rights. In addition, I am INSULTED to be, even by implication, associated with Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent or any other ignorant, teabagging Yahoo.
The NRA doesn't speak for me. If they speak for you, fine. I'm sure Sarah will appreciate your vote in 2012.

[cowman]

123. Youv'e really

jumped the shark on this one haven't you?
Just because I support the NRA implies that I support the RW platform?
Pass some of that weed to me please.
You have now entered th twilight zone.

[tucsonlib]

124. Re: "Just because I support the NRA implies that I support the RW platform? "

No. Not to me. But thanks to the NRA, a lot of people out there will be believing precisely that. Guns = The RW

That's the message your NRA is sending.

[cowman]

125. So why should I

care what other people think of me, It's enough for me and my friends to know that I am not a RW whackjob and just because I belong to the NRA doesn't mean I support these assclowns but if people want to believe that, well thats their problem not mine, and I'm am not implying that you think I support these assclowns and I apologize for any earlier nasty comments.
On a lighter note, tomorrow is my final day as a Las Vegas Firefighter/Paramedic, after 35 years, I am finally pulling the pin although I will still volunteer at our town's local FD to keep my Para license active.

[tucsonlib]

127. Congrats!

That's a helluva long time to have done what you did. I was a fire/medical dispatcher at Tucson 911, and after 15 years and a heart attack I had to call it quits....

I also couldn't care less what others might think of me, but it rankles to be stereotyped.

[Walk away]

119. The last I heard, this is the Democratic Underground not the Gun Underground.

If you are lovin' Palin, Nugent and Beck you are the oddest Democrat I have ever heard of.

[tucsonlib]

121. Amen n/t

[Francis Marion]

130. It's OUR Bill of Rights

So tired of politicians from the major parties trying either to 'own' the Bill of Rights or else to selectively ban the exercise thereof. Both parties have offended in both areas.

But the deafening Democratic public silence, with respect to supporting/affirming the gun rights of the people, leaves the field uncontested to the opposition. Loss by default. Why allow the other side to win? Because, again, of selective support for the Bill of Rights. Prominent Democratic lawmakers neglect this easy way to win votes simply by protecting our Constitution. Or else, more often, they vote against our gun rights happily. And as long as they do so, Palin Beck and the rest will win the gun voters every time.

I don't expect both major parties to make nice at the same venue, but there's no reason (except for personal and political prejudices against private gun rights) that lawmakers couldn't, from time to time, speak out in support of the Second Amendment, and vote accordingly. That means no gun bans, no import bans, no ammo bans, no magazine bans- all of which have "Democrat" stamped upon them within the past two decades as the result of congressional vote and/or executive ukaz. When gun owners regard the record of law and voting, they remember who caused the damage. So let's put away the wrecking ball and support gun rights and earn more voters thereby.

No, this isn't Gun Underground, but it is the 'gun' forum. The party loses votes on this every election. Suppose there are over 80 million gun owners in the US. It's worse than a shame to antagonize them with bad laws and disrespect for the Bill of Rights- it's stupid.

[Euromutt]

132. Nicely put, but you get bonus points for using the term "ukaz"

You could have gone with "decree" but the Russian Tsarist term (which frankly also applies to post-Soviet heads of state like Yelstin and Putin) adds a certain cachet to the thing.

[Francis Marion]

193. For accuracy.

It's the right word to describe the imperious, authoritarian, uncontestable, un-American, Bill-of-Rights-offending, Clinton "Assault Weapon" ban by executive order.

Same word good for misnomer "Patriot Act" by the other guy.

[Euromutt]

131. While I can't dispute the accuracy of that statement...

...where did anyone in this thread express admiration or support for Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and/or Ted Nugent?

Let me put it this way: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. The ACLU has, on occasion, defended the right of free speech of the National Socialist Party of America and the Aryan Nations. Does that mean that every ACLU member is ipso facto a white supremacist? Not by a long shot.

Similarly, it is quite possible to be a member of the NRA without "lovin' Palin, Nugent and Beck." I'm doing it right now, in fact. I also despise Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, and I think Oliver North is a traitor to the American people who should still be serving a long stretch in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, not sitting on the NRA's Board of Directors. However, I can't vote against him unless I maintain my membership of the organization.

For a liberal Democrat (which I consider myself to be) who is also pro-RKBA, being a member of the NRA involves a certain amount of holding one's nose, I won't deny it. But as I've said elsewhere on this thread, the NRA is the 400-pound silverback gorilla of gun rights lobbying organizations; when it comes to getting stuff done protect and promote gun rights, nobody else comes close. By demanding I curtail my support for the NRA, the OP (and others) are ineffect demanding I give up the most effective lobby for the protection of gun rights that is available to me.

Let me state at this juncture that I am by no means a single-issue voter when it comes to gun rights; if I have to choose between one candidate who is anti-RKBA but pro-choice and at least somewhat pro-gay rights and another who is pro-RKBA but anti-choice and anti-gay rights, I'll vote for the former every time. In practice, in this state, it means I'll almost always vote for the Democrat. But a clear benefit of having the NRA around as a political lobby is that they may intimidate (why mince words?) pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidates into withholding support for gun control measures, which means I can vote for such candidates without compromising on the issue of gun rights. And there may be gun-owning swing voters who might otherwise have voted for the Republican who might vote for the Democrat because they don't consider him or her a threat to their gun rights.

The long and short of it is that if Democratic candidates swerve away from gun control because they're scared of the NRA political machine, and continue to get elected as a result because they get swing votes that might otherwise have gone to the GOP candidate, that's a good outcome in my book.

[PavePusher]

136. And this is the Gun section of D.U.

No-one here has been "lovin' Palin, Nugent and Beck".

[SteveM]

148. You like that "lovin'" thing. Came so natural to some folks I knew...

growing up in North Florida. Only they had some other people in mind.

[SteveM]

137. So, you cite a GOP-founded, GOP-led group to support your views?

Personally, I don't care who you use for your "sources." But let us not hear again whining about how folks use "Fox," or some right-wing gun-rights group, as "Republican mouth pieces;" otherwise, you might be mistaken as a hypocrite.

edit. for sp & gram.

[spin]

150. The NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of people in public housing ...

NRA Protects Second Amendment Rights Of Residents In Public Housing
Monday, August 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 am

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- Gun owners and sportsmen earned a victory this week as the House Financial Services Committee considered and adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) to protect the Second Amendment rights of public housing residents.

His amendment to H.R. 4868—the Housing Preservation and Tenant Protection Act—was adopted by a voice vote on Tuesday evening. The measure would restore and protect the right to possess and lawfully use firearms for self-defense and other legitimate purposes in federally assisted housing, and would bar housing authorities from restricting residents’ legal ownership of guns. This amendment is very similar to the one that Congressman Price offered to H.R. 3045 last year. That amendment was adopted in committee on July 9, 2009 by a 38-31 vote.

Anti-gun Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) attempted to amend the Price amendment with a “second-degree amendment” to H.R. 4868. The Waters amendment—that would have allowed housing authorities to impose gun registration requirements—was defeated in committee by a 24-38 vote.

Adoption of the Price amendment indicates that the majority of committee members understood that a person should not be forced to give up Second Amendment rights just to have a roof over his head, and that many public housing projects are high-crime areas where people most desperately need the right to defend themselves. The NRA has long fought this battle both in the courts and in legislatures around the country.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/08/02/second-amendment-rights-of-residents-in-public-housing/

I wonder where the Brady Campaign stands on this issue.

[KansasVoter]

153. Progressives who support the NRA are idiots because.......

They are supporting an organization who supports 79% of all GOP people running for office.

How can you support an organization that helps elect GOP idiots? Makes no sense!!

[Euromutt]

154. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

The NRA-PVF issues ratings and endorsements based on one criterium, namely a candidate's position on gun rights, with incumbency as a tie-breaker (on the basis that incumbent has a proven track record). If 79% of the NRA-PVF's endorsements go to Republicans, it's because those Republicans have indicated, by word or deed, that they are more friendly to gun rights than their opponents. (Note, incidentally, that in heavily gerrymandered states like Texas, the NRA-PVF frequently endorses one Republican over other Republicans, because there's no Democrat running. Does that figure into your numbers?) When, in a particular race, the Democrat and the Republican are both pro-gun rights, the NRA will endorse neither, or the incumbent. For example, in the 2006 New Mexico gubernatorial race, the NRA endorsed Richardson over his Republican challenger, because while both expressed equal support for gun rights, Richardson as the incumbent had shown he "walked the walk."

[KansasVoter]

156. How many times do I have to explain it to you......

I would not support any organization that spent millions to defeat GREAT progressive candidates over ONE issue! No single issue is worth great progressives losing!!! GET IT???

[DonP]

159. Then why did you join the NRA?

You spent the better part of a thread a week or so ago gloating about how you joined the NRA and were going to make it very expensive for them to have you as a member.

Now you denounce anyone that's a member.

So you are supporting the NRA with membership dues or was that a lie?

It's very hard to take you seriously with all the conflicting stories you post.

[KansasVoter]

160. I have already cost them more than the $15 sent them! And....

I denounce anyone here who thinks they deserve monetary support and support them donating money to defeat progressive candidates.

And as much as you whine, there is no conflicting stories.

[DonP]

164. $15?, Oh that's right, you lied about your daughter to join

I forgot what an "honest and upright person" you have proven yourself to be. You've taught your daughter that it's OK to lie to people if you don't agree with them. Nice moral lesson.

I'm sure your daughter is so proud of you and she'll probably never, ever lie to you if she doesn't agree with you.

Be careful and make sure she never sees the magazine you subscribed to for her and intercept all the mailings she'll be getting. She might learn something and we can't have that.

You'll excuse the rest of the adults here that choose not to lie about their children for some kind of cheap political point.

I'm an NRA member and I paid for my daughter, a Chicago Public School teacher and union member, my son in law, Chicago fire fighter and union member and my son, a GS16 to be members as well.

I guess none of us are "Real" Democrats. But there are still over 4 million of us out here and I checked, not one of them gives a shit what others think.

[KansasVoter]

166. LOL....are you paying attention......I have posted this before....

my daughter is 17, and she also hates the NRA so you FAIL again in that argument. She was glad to subscribe. LOL....typical "enthusiast"!!

When did I lie to anyone. Your daughter is a member. How is that any different? LOL!

They also fedexed me some hard copy research for $28 so I have cost them at least $13!

If you want to support an organization that spends millions to defeat good dems then do it. But don't call yourself a progressive!!

Please respond with any more fake crap you want to make up!

[Glassunion]

170. I've been paying attention.

As I recall you claimed you were going to commit mail fraud.

Also that $15 you spent. Not on penny was going towards any candidates. The $23 you claim you made them spend did not effect any contributions to any candidates. It did take away money from gun safety programs, firearms training and wilderness conservation among a few things. Way to go!

[KansasVoter]

172. It was for valid research! They agreed. And your rich ass can donate the money I cost them.

[Glassunion]

174. Lol. Since you know so much about me. How rich am I, exactly?

Nice dodge on the mail fraud. And way to take money away from gun safety(who needs it), training programs(who needs it) and wilderness conservation(yay! Shale oil drilling! That's what we need!) for your "valid research"...

[DonP]

175. Big difference between our you, me and the daughters

I paid for my daughter's and SIL memberships as a gift so they could take several gun safety courses and have access to a shooting range for practice. Of course I also didn't teach her that lying is OK and hating something you really don't understand is a way to live your life.

Clearly you have taught your daughter other standards it appears.

I really don't think you have any basis to critique others for not being "progressive". since your hating and encouraging your child to hate sounds much more like the GOP than progressive by anyones standard.

Oh, and for the Nth time. The NRA dues do not go to any political candidate. Is that too complex a concept for your little tiny hateful mind to grasp?

But on behalf of all of us "enthusiasts" it's nice to have a shiny new punching bag to work out on.

[KansasVoter]

176. So how did I lie to my 17 year old daughter? And she did not have to have me....

teach her to hate the NRA. She figured it out on her own when they oppose extremely good dems for one reason only.

The NRA wanted Palin as VP in 2012 and spent millions to defeat Obama. You think my daughter could not see all she needed to see there?

She watches Rachel every night. So once again, how did I lie to her. She knew I was signing her up for the NRA and laughed her ass off when she got her stupid card in the mail.

[shadowrider]

194. when they oppose extremely good dems for one reason only.

That makes sense. Since the NRA is a SINGLE ISSUE organization, they only need ONE reason to support/not support any individual.

If more Dems supported RKBA, they NRA would support more Dems.

[beevul]

185. Put your money where your mouth is.

"No single issue is worth great progressives losing!!!"


Lobby all those great progressives to leave the gun issue alone.


If you really mean what you said, that is.


I wont be holding my breath...

[friendly_iconoclast]

198. "Great progressives" need to learn that gun control is *not* progressive

If an otherwise progressive politician supports gun control, it means one or more of the following:

1. They are unable to learn from history.
2. They have a 'religious belief' in gun control.
3. They are actually statists like Republican gun control supporters like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Bennett
4. They are willing to throw part of the Constitution under the bus. Out of 'concern', naturally

[Euromutt]

201. "No single issue is worth great progressives losing!!!"

As beevul remarked above, if that's the case, why not simply ditch the one platform point that's the albatross? Which, incidentally, is exactly what increasing numbers of Democratic candidates are doing, and the NRA-PVF is consequently endorsing more Dems, or at least giving them passing to good grades. Personally, I don't care whom the NRA-PVF endorses, but I would ideally like to be able to vote for a Dem with at least a passing grade on gun rights.

The NRA-PVF, at least, is evidently not tied inextricably to the Republican party, provided the Democratic party satisfies it on the issue of gun rights. From my perspective, if my Democratic candidates are willing to steer clear of additional pointless gun control measures in order to placate the NRA, and they get elected as a result, that is an ideal outcome to me.

See, what your problem is, is that you're all stick and no carrot. You insist that we pro-RKBA Dems curtail our support in any shape or form for the NRA, but I'm not hearing any positive incentive. In exchange for abandoning our support for the strongest gun rights organization, what do we get in return?

[oneshooter]

155. I was wondering how long it would take

Mr Lock Step to chime in.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[KansasVoter]

157. LOL......

:rofl:

[spin]

158. As more and more Democrats support RKBA ...

the percentage of NRA-ILA and NRA-PFV support for Democrats will increase proportionally.

If the majority of Democrats supported RKBA and the majority of Republicans opposed it, the NRA would support far more Democrats than Republicans.

As has been explained many times, the NRA is a one issue organization.

[KansasVoter]

161. 78% against now. Thanks for defeating great dems!!!

[Glassunion]

163. Actually it is only 70% NOW. Seems like more Dems are picking up $$$ from the NRA.

[KansasVoter]

165. LOL......70% to defeat great dems. And you celebrate it.

[Glassunion]

167. Yes... Because that tells me that with every passing election, progressive candidates are supporting

my civil rights. And therfore are deserving of support from the NRA.

The NRA is supporting more and more Democrats with every passing year. The only reason they support a candidate is due to their stated goals of protecting the 2nd Amendment. If a candidate does not support the 2nd Amendment, they do not receive the support of the NRA.

Lastly, supporting the NRA is not the same as supporting the GOP. Membership into the NRA does not give any financial gain to any candidate.

You have to donate to the PVF arm of the organization. As of today, 30% of the PVF money is going to Dems. A month ago only 27% of that money was going to Dems. Something is happening in our party, not unlike 1961, where we are finally coming to the realization of the error of our ways in regards to civil rights.

For too long our party has been tossing aside a civil-right by making knee-jerk laws to insure re-election that on the whole do nothing but strip rights from people.

So... If a Democrat is not supported by the NRA-PVF, it is not the fault of your made up "Right-Wing, GOP front called the NRA" it is the fault of the Democrat.

[KansasVoter]

168. LOL...not even CLOSE to justifying it. But nice try! So you are also happy they oppose Kagan?

[Glassunion]

169. Lol. You can't explain away the points I raised so you chose to ignore them and change the subject.

Try again.

[KansasVoter]

171. I look forward to your support of the Dems in 2010! LOL.

[Glassunion]

173. Again. You can't explain away the points I raised so you chose to ignore them and change the subject

Try again.

[tucsonlib]

178. Supporting An Individual Candidate Is One Thing

But when the NRA cosponsors an event put on by the teabagging wing of the Republican Party, that's something else altogether. Maybe the NRA is a "single issue" organization, but the extreme right certainly is not. Their disdain for every Constitutional Right except the 2A is cynical, self-righteous political pandering of the most sordid kind. When a group as powerful as the NRA throws its full support behind another organization, it is, in the eyes of the world, giving tacit approval to that organization's entire platform. Would you defend the NRA if they cosponsored an event with the KKK? Or the Aryan Nation? Those groups also champion gun rights.

[Glassunion]

179. What a conundrum. I give monetary support to the ACLU as well.

And they have defended the KKK directly.

I don't have to like what they say... They can call me nigger, tell me I should go back to Africa, etc... But I will defend their right to say it, and continue to support an organization that defends that right.

[tucsonlib]

180. Who Was It That Complained...

"You can't explain away the points I raised so you chose to ignore them and change the subject"?

Try again.

[Glassunion]

181. Try reading.

I was asked questions to which I gave a reply. The question was "Would you defend the NRA if they cosponsored an event with the KKK? Or the Aryan Nation? Those groups also champion gun rights."

So please explain how I dodged a question, avoided the point or changed the subject?

I remember a passage as a kid... "it pays to read"

[tucsonlib]

182. Nonsense

The ACLU defended the KKK's 1A rights. It's what they do.

But I guarantee you won't find the ACLU cosponsoring any KKK rallies.

And that, in essence, is exactly what the NRA is doing.

Get it, yet? No? Try this, then: If the ACLU DID cosponsor a KKK rally, would they STILL merit your support?





:banghead:

[Glassunion]

184. And I guarantee you won't find the NRA cosponsoring any KKK rallies.

If the NRA defended the KKK's 2A rights they would be defending the right not the group, just like the ACLU.

"And that, in essence, is exactly what the NRA is doing." no it is not.

Kinda handy having a black president huh? When ever someone speaks out, disagrees, reports on, campaigns against, buys a gun, etc... We can easily label them "white racists anti black president types".

I have not agreed with Obama 100% since he took office. I also disagree 100% with him on his stance on firearms. I guess that would make me a white racists anti black president type?

I disagree completely with the Tea Party's views. Does not mean they are racist. It's an easy label for some to toss around.

[tucsonlib]

187. Did You READ The O/P?

The NRA is cosponsoring a rally with the Beck/Palin faction of the extreme right. A group not a whole lot different, in my eyes, from the KKK.


But obviously, you either refuse to admit, or are unable to see, the truth here.


"Kinda handy having a black president huh?" WHAT??


Okay, you "disagree completely with the Tea Party's views". (Except for their view on the 2A, I assume you meant to say.) So can we conclude that you'd never dream of supporting them - either monetarily or by agreeing to be a keynote speaker at any of their events? Of course you wouldn't. Doing so would make it appear to everybody that you were "one of them". Like the NRA is doing....

[Glassunion]

188. Ok. You win.

Beck: a man just on the other side of bat shit crazy.
Palin: a woman past the other side, on a different planet.

But the two of them combined do not = the KKK. Could you explain to me, because as you said "I might not be seeing it" the correlation of Beck/Palin and Ted Nugent equaling the KKK.

To me the way I look at it is this. I disagree with all of Ted Nugent's views. That did not stop me from working with him. There was a greater good. And we did and do a lot of good.

[cowman]

186. I'm a little confused here

CAN ANYONE PLEASE TELL ME WHEN THE NRA EVER CO-SPONSERED A KKK EVENT, ANYONE, ANYONE?
I think you are completely wrong about that statement.

[shadowrider]

195. ???????????? I'm confused

but the extreme right certainly is not. Their disdain for every Constitutional Right except the 2A is cynical, self-righteous political pandering of the most sordid kind.

And some (not all) "Progressives" and "Liberals" on this forum show a respect for all rights EXCEPT the 2nd. It's the same thing only different.

So what, exactly, is the point of the post?

[spin]

183. If more great Dems supported RKBA ...

and got good ratings from the NRA, we might get more Dems reelected.

RKBA is a wedge issue that has cost our party dearly in close elections. There are far more important issues to deal with. Many gun owners agree with our party's position but since they have large quantities of money invested in their hobby, they turn into single issue voters.

We are currently in a financial situation where police departments are cutting back on officers. It's logical that many citizens feel a need to be able to defend themselves and their families. Statistics show that draconian gun control and the lack of law enforcement empowers armed criminals and gangs. While allowing citizens to own firearms for self protection may do little to decrease violent crime, it at least allows some citizens to survive life threatening attack.

More guns might not equal less crime, but more guns does not increase crime (oddly enough). It simply defies logic, but still it is a fact.

You may disagree and I will always respect your opinion and enjoy debating with you. Still, if I have the choice, dying on my knees begging for mercy without any opportunity of at least trying to defend myself or my family has little appeal.

I don't fear death but I at least want a chance to survive. The first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun.

Personalities and background differ. You may prefer to trust the authorities to protect you and your family. If you live in a gated community with security guards, a few minutes away from police, that may work. Many people live in potentially dangerous neighborhoods with lengthy police response times. Basically they are on their own. The police will arrive in time to set up a crime scene and tape off the area. Police, all too often, are investigators not protectors.

If you don't like firearms for self defense then just don't own any. If you do own firearms for sporting purpose only, just unload them and lock them in a safe secure enough that only a professional thief can obtain them. Chances are that you will NEVER have a need to use a firearm for self defense. I have no problems with that.

Many people feel differently from you and prefer to be prepared for any possible eventually. A few of those people will find that their preparation will save their lives. Very few honest people ever misuse their weapons. Why deny them the right to use firearms for self defense? Statistics show that many crimes are foiled by armed citizens, often without firing a shot.

[tucsonlib]

189. I Agree With Everything You've Written

But it's off topic. I have no objection to the NRA defending the RKBA. I have MAJOR objections when they align themselves with the radical right. It perpetuates the public perception that the RKBA is a left/right issue and, frankly, stereotypes all gun owners in a negative light.

If the teabagging crowd were to actually promote or defend some 2A issue, it would be appropriate for the NRA to lend support. For that one issue. But cosponsoring a large event implies a blanket endorsement of the group's entire platform.

[Glassunion]

190. Blanket enforcement of the entire right-wing platform? O'really?

Here is someone for you.
He has sided with pro-choice groups 90% of the time.
He has sided with animal rights groups 75% of the time.
He has sided with human rights groups 100% of the time.
He has sided with gay and lesbian rights groups 92% of the time.
He has sided with education rights and policies 91% of the time.
88% on the side of conservation issues.
Aids, public health, etc... The list goes on and on.

Here is his speech at an NRA "sponsored" event. In fact it was a solely NRA event.

Those damn right-wingers. In fact, I would have voted for the guy for president. I think he would have done a fine job.

Thank you for allowing me to take this time to address the NRA "Celebration of American Values."  Responsible gun ownership, the right of law abiding citizens to own guns, is, indeed, a historically-cherished American value and tradition.  As a Western governor, I understand and support the Second Amendment.  I am grateful to have received the formal endorsement of the NRA as a Congressman, and again as governor in 2006.
This position doesn't always make me the most popular guy in the room with certain audiences.  But the reality is that New Mexico has an age-old history of hunting, sportsmanship, and other lawful shooting activities.  It also has a proud history of defending the nation and its Constitution, both in times of conflict and peace.  I have a long record, both as a Congressman and governor, as a defender of the rights of citizens to own guns.  You may have heard that I not only supported New Mexico's "Concealed Carry" law, I have a permit myself.
As you know, I'm running for president.  The 2008 election will be one of the most important elections we've ever had.  Our country is adrift, divided and partisan, and we've lost our standing in the world.  The next president must be able to bring people together to heal our deep divisions, and restore America to its place as a true global leader and beacon of hope for the world.  We need change, and we need someone with the experience to get it done.  I believe I am that person.
You have a lot at stake in this election as well.  In recent years, our civil and personal rights have come under attack.  As president, I will lead an all-out effort to restore and protect our rights, including the Second Amendment.  I am a Democrat who will work hard for you, for the rights of all citizens, and to once again make America the land of individual opportunity and collective greatness.
Just as I do not hide from my audience my support for responsible gun ownership, I will not down-play my belief that we can, and must work together to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  We must work diligently to enforce existing laws and improve communications among law enforcement agencies.  If we do, we will crack down on the real criminals.  Then there will be less pressure on the rights of law abiding citizens like you and me who wish to own guns for protection, hunting or other recreation.
I'd like to thank your president, Wayne LaPierre, and the NRA for helping our Department of Public Safety provide high-quality fire arms for safety training programs for New Mexicans.  I applaud your support of law enforcement across this country.  As a governor, a Westerner, a supporter of our individual freedoms, and a Democrat, I urge all NRA members to stay involved in the election of candidates of both political parties.  In America, we have a long and honorable tradition of solving our problems in a bipartisan manner.  Your voice needs to be heard.  When I'm president, it will be.
Today, I'm proud to join you in celebrating freedom, and I thank you for your support. 

[spin]

191. I believe that Bill Richardson would have made a great President ...

I have a lot of admiration for him.

Unfortunately, he didn't get the nomination. I voted for Obama in the election. Obama has a history of opposing gun RKBA, but that is not unexpected from a politician from Illinois.

So far he has lived up to my expectations on gun control. He has wisely avoided purposing any new draconian gun laws.

I wish he would have pushed harder for a better heathcare program, but at least we have a start. I have a feeling that the economy is finally starting to turn around. Obama may be headed for a second term.

He had a lot on his plate to deal with when he took office, and he still does. Hopefully, next year we can finally develop a rational immigration policy and treat undocumented aliens fairly.

[Callisto32]

197. I would be loath to call anybody not in favor of all rights "great"

no matter from which party they come.

[Glassunion]

199. What we progressive gun owners need is an organization.

We need a non-profit organization, one that supports our 2nd Amendment Rights, but also offers its members and the community with an array of benefits.

An organization that teaches gun safety to children. Not the type of safety where you would teach a child how to handle a firearm, but to leave it alone. Maybe with some simple rules of STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. And tell an Adult. Also, this program should not be only for members, but non-members who can ask for this. And, it should all be done at a low cost, supplemented by membership fees. Also they should offer an avenue of grant funding so that schools, law enforcement and libraries do not have to pay for it out of their budgets. The purpose of the program should not be to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program should make no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms should ever be used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense. The program should have no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the parent organization. Nor should it encourage children to buy guns or to become organization members. The parent organization should not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor should it be a trade organization. It should not be affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

This organization should also teach gun safety for parents. They should publish a guide for safety aimed specifically at parents. In a home where guns are kept, the degree of safety a child has rests squarely on the child's parents. Parents who accept the responsibility to learn, practice and teach gun safety rules will ensure their child's safety to a much greater extent than those who do not. This program should emphasize the parent's responsibilities. Since most states impose some form of legal duty on adults to take reasonable steps to deny access by children to dangerous substances or instruments. It is the individual gun owner's responsibility to understand and follow all laws regarding gun purchase, ownership, storage, transport, etc. Because if you own a gun and do not know how to operate it, you need to remember that an untrained adult can be as dangerous as a curious child.

This organization should also provide training from beginner to developing competitor, the organization should develop safe, ethical, responsible shooters through a network of 10's of thousands of instructors, coaches and training counselors. With millions of those who hunt, the organization should also offer hunters a wide range of programs addressing all aspects of hunting, including youth hunter skills, advanced skills training and the conservation of our natural and wildlife resources. It should work toward the common goal of instilling and promoting the skills and ethics that will ensure the continuance of America’s proud hunting heritage.

This organization should also offer programs directed solely at women. Whether a woman’s interest is personal safety, gun safety, gun knowledge, marksmanship, hunting, or recreational or competitive shooting, the organization should offer a variety of programs and activities that all encourage female participation at all skill levels.

This organization should also be a leader in law enforcement training. The organization should establish a program specifically to provide the law enforcement and military community with a “certified” and standardized law enforcement firearm instructor training program. Again, this organization should have thousands of instructors nation wide.

That should be a good start. I'm sure there should be hundreds of other more narrow scoped programs(gun smithing, shooting clinics, range development, wildlife conservation, museums, free insurance for the police harmed in the line of duty, marksmanship tournaments, personal defense training, scholarship programs, etc...) that the organization should offer. But above all there should be grant programs to make these programs affordable for everyone, not just members.

On top of all of that, they should defend our civil rights in our nation's courts from any over-reaching government legislation.

I have no idea what we should call it.