HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The NRA is a Republican a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:55 PM

The NRA is a Republican ancillary organization.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre is a right wing extremist Republican.

http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Blog/entry/the-nra-big-badass-and-flush-with-cash.html

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington in February, LaPierre promised that his organization will help make Barack Obama a one-term president.


As the NRA is a Republican Party ancillary organization, it should be no surprise that a Republican state rep, Dennis Baxley, who is a lifetime member of the organization sponsored the stand-and-shoot bill seven years ago in Florida.

172 replies, 16908 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 172 replies Author Time Post
Reply The NRA is a Republican ancillary organization. (Original post)
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 OP
lastlib Mar 2012 #1
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #3
X_Digger Mar 2012 #14
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #33
Pacafishmate Mar 2012 #2
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #4
Pacafishmate Mar 2012 #7
Major Nikon Mar 2012 #16
2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #18
iverglas Mar 2012 #19
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #47
crowhill1974 Apr 2012 #171
Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2012 #172
EFerrari Mar 2012 #96
safeinOhio Mar 2012 #11
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #66
freshwest Mar 2012 #5
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #6
arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #8
freshwest Mar 2012 #12
2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #169
freshwest Mar 2012 #9
freshwest Mar 2012 #10
GreenStormCloud Mar 2012 #15
freshwest Mar 2012 #17
GreenStormCloud Mar 2012 #26
mmonk Mar 2012 #154
villager Mar 2012 #13
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #27
villager Mar 2012 #30
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #50
Straw Man Mar 2012 #153
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #158
iverglas Mar 2012 #20
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #41
iverglas Mar 2012 #46
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #48
hack89 Mar 2012 #21
Upton Mar 2012 #23
CreekDog Mar 2012 #28
badtoworse Mar 2012 #31
CreekDog Mar 2012 #34
badtoworse Mar 2012 #93
CreekDog Mar 2012 #92
hack89 Mar 2012 #35
CreekDog Mar 2012 #40
hack89 Mar 2012 #51
CreekDog Mar 2012 #73
hack89 Mar 2012 #76
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #39
hack89 Mar 2012 #52
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #54
hack89 Mar 2012 #59
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #67
hack89 Mar 2012 #72
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #74
hack89 Mar 2012 #77
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #78
hack89 Mar 2012 #80
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #81
X_Digger Mar 2012 #86
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #87
X_Digger Mar 2012 #88
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #89
X_Digger Mar 2012 #90
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #99
X_Digger Mar 2012 #102
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #104
X_Digger Mar 2012 #107
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #109
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #110
X_Digger Mar 2012 #113
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #114
X_Digger Mar 2012 #115
hack89 Mar 2012 #94
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #98
Upton Mar 2012 #101
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #103
krispos42 Mar 2012 #106
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #111
krispos42 Mar 2012 #116
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #123
krispos42 Mar 2012 #132
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #136
hack89 Mar 2012 #120
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #126
hack89 Mar 2012 #134
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #135
hack89 Mar 2012 #138
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #140
hack89 Mar 2012 #143
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #144
hack89 Mar 2012 #145
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #146
hack89 Mar 2012 #155
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #157
hack89 Mar 2012 #159
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #160
hack89 Mar 2012 #161
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #162
hack89 Mar 2012 #165
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #168
hack89 Mar 2012 #170
X_Digger Mar 2012 #75
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #79
hack89 Mar 2012 #95
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #97
hack89 Mar 2012 #118
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #119
X_Digger Mar 2012 #121
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #124
X_Digger Mar 2012 #150
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #151
X_Digger Mar 2012 #152
hack89 Mar 2012 #122
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #125
hack89 Mar 2012 #127
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #129
hack89 Mar 2012 #130
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #133
hack89 Mar 2012 #137
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #139
hack89 Mar 2012 #141
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #142
stevekatz Mar 2012 #128
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #131
stevekatz Mar 2012 #147
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #148
stevekatz Mar 2012 #149
Logical Mar 2012 #61
hack89 Mar 2012 #65
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #68
hack89 Mar 2012 #71
certainot Mar 2012 #22
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #38
Upton Mar 2012 #24
iverglas Mar 2012 #25
badtoworse Mar 2012 #32
iverglas Mar 2012 #42
badtoworse Mar 2012 #117
iverglas Mar 2012 #156
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #69
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #37
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #45
Logical Mar 2012 #62
Freddie Stubbs Mar 2012 #29
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #36
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #44
LineLineLineReply .
fascisthunter Mar 2012 #56
rhett o rick Mar 2012 #108
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #43
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #49
KamaAina Mar 2012 #53
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #55
KamaAina Mar 2012 #57
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #70
madinmaryland Mar 2012 #58
KamaAina Mar 2012 #63
madinmaryland Mar 2012 #64
Logical Mar 2012 #60
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #83
baldguy Mar 2012 #82
KG Mar 2012 #84
cstanleytech Mar 2012 #85
apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #91
fascisthunter Mar 2012 #100
krispos42 Mar 2012 #105
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #112
FiercelyIndependant Mar 2012 #163
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #164
FiercelyIndependant Mar 2012 #166
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #167

Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:09 AM

1. It makes sense. NRA is largely a front for the gun manufacturers...

catering to/manipulating the rank-n-file so it can keep the gun money flowing in to the businesses that sell/promote the products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:14 AM

3. Exactly! The NRA is a front for the gun manufacturing industry

And the infantilized NRA-loving doofuses that have a cowboys-n-indians mentality and dream of being gun heroes, spend their lives itching to shoot somebody somewhere.

The NRA is a psycho's dream come true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:17 AM

14. Actually, that is a different lobbying org- the NSSF

(National Shooting Sports Foundation) - nssf.org

The US gun industry is rather small- $6b per year (http://www.hoovers.com/industry/gun-ammunition-manufacturing/1200-1.html)- Chewing gum is a $19b per year industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gum_industry)

eta: Actually, $6b for guns and ammo, including gov't sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:35 PM

33. Here you go...


The report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.

Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.


http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:16 AM

4. The NRA is a Republican organization, its CEO is a f GOP nutjob,

its major lobbyist in Florida is a fucking gun nut (AND REPUBLICAN), Repukes are the ones out there promoting gun nutjob activities, and further enriching the gun industry.

But carry on trying to make it seem a benevolent organization with fine goals. Perhaps you'll succeed. In your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:27 AM

7. More democrats are showing support for gun ownership.

 

It happens to be an issue that I support. Also, I don't see enriching the gun industry as a problem any more than enriching the car industry is a problem. Obviously, you see boogeymen everywhere.

By the way , what is a "gun nutjob activity" ? I suppose for you, only gun nutjobs own or shoot guns, therefore any activity involving a gun is only fitting for a nutjob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:29 AM

16. "gun nutjob activity"

Here is the creme-de-la-nutjob himself, none other than the Head Nutjob in Charge of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, exposing the vast left wing conspiracy for all to see...

http://wonkette.com/453659/nra-chief-obama-trying-to-steal-your-guns-by-not-stealing-your-guns

So do please tell us again how the NRA is a friend to Democrats. That was a knee slapper. The entertainment value alone demands an encore.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:38 AM

18. "...what is a 'gun nutjob activity' ?"

* Saying Democrats are going to grab your guns.

* Stockpiling an ungodly amount of ammo because Democrats are going to grab your guns.

* Going to a right-wing rally, brandishing a gun.

* Going to a right-wing rally, not brandishing a gun, but holding a sign saying, "We Come Unarmed... This Time"

* Attacking people just for saying they don't have a gun, even if they're pro-RKBA.

I'm sure others can remember more. I'm kinda lazy today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:50 AM

19. hm, isn't gun ownership, like, a choice?

 

So wouldn't showing "support for gun ownership" be kinda like, oh, showing "support for abortion"? Or support for eating pizza, or support for wearing pink socks ...

I suppose for you, only gun nutjobs own or shoot guns, therefore any activity involving a gun is only fitting for a nutjob.

Be careful what you suppose. You know how supposing makes you look like a support hoser.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:53 PM

47. There are exceptions to everything, which is why they're called exceptions, because it's not the

rule.

There are indeed SOME Democrats that might be gun-nuts, and defend the NRA. Who knows, there might even be SOME Democrats that are in favor of males deciding what women may or may not do with their bodies. There might be SOME Democrats that might even camp outside of prisons to cheer when a capital punishment sentence is carried out. There are always exceptions in every sphere and every arena of life.

However, exceptions is now what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the majority. And the NRA is a right wing organization, gun-obsession is a right wing activity, and everything that cascades from that adoration of gun and gun lobbying is right wing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #47)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 08:06 AM

171. And the NRA is a right wing organization, gun-obsession is a right wing activity, and everything tha

What is a "gun-obsession"?
What is "adoration of gun"?

I would really like to hear the definition of these terms. If you could please explain i would greatly appreciate it. thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crowhill1974 (Reply #171)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 11:56 AM

172. The NRA is a right wing organization. Expect me NOT to be thrilled that you like it nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 02:51 PM

96. Your equivalence doesn't really work.

The US arms the world. It doesn't sell rides to the world or rather, it lags behind China and the EU in production.

The gun lobby is protecting its bottom line, not our rights which they don't give a sh!t about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:42 AM

11. NRA speakers don't sprew misinformation, so stop saying that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222381
Here is the NRA list of speakers for the nutty NRA meeting next month in St Louis.....

Ted Nugent
Rick Perry
John Bolton
Roy Blunt
Oliver North
Romney, Newt and Santorum
Eric Cantor
Scott Walker
Bobby Jindal
and the token black guy - Ken Blackwell, right wing nut and current Vice Chairman of the RNC!


All FR favorites

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:27 PM

66. Ooh such a fine, select group of... uh... nutjobs? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:19 AM

5. Interesting. Obama has done nothing to incur the wrath of the NRA or gun owners. NOTHING at all.

There is no cause, under protecting the Right to Bear Arms under the Second, to go after him to get him out of office.

So they may really be onto something I doubt most people ever thought about. I don't know why I never connected this.

Was Charlton Heston active in the GOP as well as the NRA, I wonder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:25 AM

6. It's nothing new that the NRA is directly affiliated with the GOP, and it's no surprise

that they would go after our president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:32 AM

8. I've always thought the NRA and GOP

were two sides of the same coin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:54 AM

12. I thought they were just about guns, not anything else. Going after Obama disproves that.

Because he has not done one single thing to infringe on gun ownership despite all the conspiracy hysteria that was put out when Obama was elected. There was a rash of gun sales as the rightwing media claimed he was for confiscation. It has not happened and he's never pushed it.

Whereas if the Koch brothers pushed for SYG and the liberalization of gun laws to the extreme that they now have been, they are up to no good.

Greenpeace protests at Koch brothers' rally

...The talks began at 1pm with sessions that focused on how to fight the Obama administration, which the Kochs see as a threat to the free market and unfettered wealth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/30/greenpeace-protests-koch-brothers-rally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 10:17 PM

169. They are about getting the far right into absolute power and nothing more.

Guns are just the method this particular groups uses. Other groups use religion. Yet others use xenophobia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:39 AM

9. But it doesn't connect with their mission of protecting gun ownership. Unless...

The NRA is a sham organization that doesn't really care about it. The fact that they are part of the gun manufacturers group makes them a trade organization, not a civil rights group. I think more than a few people have been snookered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:40 AM

10. Edit: Going after Obama is a waste of time. Doesn't protect gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:23 AM

15. He won't let one million M-1s back into the country.

In the 1950s and 1960s the U.S. gave to South Korea about one million M-1 rifles. SK no longer needs them and wants to return them to the U.S. to be sold to civilians. Those rifles were made in America by Americans. New ones are still being made and sold to civilians, completely legally. But Obama won't let those rifles back in.

As a senator he voted against the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and voted for the Kennedy Amendment to that same act. Kennedy said, in his speech that the bill would outlaw "cop-killer" cartridges such as the .30-30. That cartridge was designed in 1893 and is the most common deer cartridge in America. Banning it would have banned almost all huntin ammo.

Obama still supports reinstating and making permanent the Assault Weapons Ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:35 AM

17. Those effect sales and are often what law enforcement lobbies for, not confiscation.

Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2012, 02:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama is not taking anyone's guns away. We still make guns and they can be manufactured. Why would we want a lot of old guns from abroad?

That sounds like the complaint of a firm importing to make a quick buck. No danger to gun owners right to bear arms in any of that.

And the police are opposed to assault rifles being freely available, especially after they were outgunned in that CA bank robbery years ago and with other massacres have happened.

None of those are adequate reasons for Democrats or progressives to campaign against Obama or vote GOP.

The guys in charge of the NRA have been known to be bombastic fear mongers in the past and now that we catch one actively working against Obama, the NRA is on my list for a bad organization. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:53 AM

26. The M-1 is NOT an assault rifle.

It is semi-auto only.
It does NOT have a detachable magazine. Internal magazine is limited to eight rounds.
It does not have a pistol grip.
It does not have a flash suppressor.
It does not have a collapseable stock.
It does not have a grenade launcher.

It does have a bayonet lug.

And if you screw up loading it, it will mash and bruise your thumb. Many GIs and Marines learned the hard way by getting an M1 thumb.

The M1s are to be sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (A Federal program), NOT by some firm looking for a quick buck.

Here is a picture of the rifle that was designed in the late 1930s:


Although I am not a single-issue voter, I am very displeased by Obama's stance on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:58 AM

154. Yes. That is the smoking gun so to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:11 AM

13. It is, absolutely. To claim anything else is either massive denial, or deliberate mis-truth

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:52 PM

27. Yes! I've been confronted by folks in denial, claiming the NRA representing libs as well as

GOPers, and that's pure bs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #27)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:12 PM

30. NRA: National Republicans' Auxiliary

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:56 PM

50. That's perfect! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 01:28 AM

153. BS?

Yes! I've been confronted by folks in denial, claiming the NRA representing libs as well as

GOPers, and that's pure bs.

I guess that makes Howard Dean a GOPer, right?


Endorsed by NRA eight times as VT governor

John Kerry criticized Dean's 1992 statement to the National Rifle Association that he opposed any restriction on private ownership of assault weapons. "Howard Dean's opposition to sensible gun safety measures is indefensible," Kerry said. "It explains why he has been endorsed by the NRA eight times. I believe we must put the safety of our children and families ahead of special interests like the NRA."

Dean responded, "I come from a rural state with a very low homicide rate. We had five homicides one year. It's a state where hunting is a part of our life. I understand that's not the traditional Democratic position." Dean said "when you're running for governor, they ask you what you would do in your state." Dean aides said the opposition to restrictions on assault weapons that Dean expressed on the signed 1992 NRA questionnaire applied only to a state ban, defined broadly enough to also apply to shotguns commonly used by hunters in Vermont.

Source: Associated Press in Minneapolis Star-Tribune Oct 31, 2003

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #153)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:16 PM

158. Straw Man? Is that what you're about? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:52 AM

20. anybody want to visit H&M?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #20)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:45 PM

41. I went there. What's CG and would you mind explaining this to those of us who aren't sure

what you are referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:51 PM

46. did you mean GD? General Discussion, here? ;)

 

The OP wasn't by me. Just thought those who are finding the growing presence of gun militancy in General Discussion perturbing (since there are no longer moderators to flush the Guns forum denizens back to their gungeon) might want to see/add to that thread, for instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #46)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:54 PM

48. Ah, ok. I'm with you there. Gun adoration should be confined, preferably to any forum that

Rush Limbaugh would frequent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:54 AM

21. Yet they support incumbent Democrats in elections

if they support the RBKA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:09 AM

23. Yes they do..

seems rather simple to me..support the RKBA, get treated favorably by the NRA..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:56 PM

28. they don't support Obama who is an incumbent Democrat up for election

hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:20 PM

31. Does anyone here honestly believe Obama is pro-RKBA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:36 PM

34. evidence he's not?

hey, but if you want to vote for a Republican, i challenge you to be forthright about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:07 AM

93. His voting record in the Senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 03:04 AM

92. Yes i do

Unless rkba means being able to buy/sell them out of vending machines in bars and colleges, which half the gungeon wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:37 PM

35. Because Obama has a history of supporting gun control

the NRA is a single issue organization - they support Democrats who support RBKA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #35)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:45 PM

40. gun control is not against the RKBA

it's a right wing meme, which you're participating in, to say that any gun control is tantamount to being against the RKBA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:02 PM

51. The AWB certainly was. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:56 PM

73. are you a single issue voter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #73)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:02 PM

76. Of course not. But I don't have to worry about gun control when I choose who to vote for.

the Democrats are smart enough to avoid the issue so it is not going to be an issue in the election.

I have never voted for a Republican - I have been very fortunate to live in blue states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:44 PM

39. Lots of NRA supporters said the same thing. See my response, #36, which applies to this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:12 PM

52. So as more Democrats support RKBA then the NRA will become

less of a Republican organization right? That's what your post says. So let's get more Dems to see reason on gun rights and the NRA becomes less influential in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #52)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:19 PM

54. As I said, an exception is not a rule. You're assuming that exceptions are the rule, the majority,

and that exceptions are the trend. An exception is an exception. That's why the word exception exists, because exceptions are exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #54)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:34 PM

59. Well hopefully Democrats will get smart about gun control

and take the issue off the table. That is the best way to neuter the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:29 PM

67. ROFLMAO! Oh yeah, right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:52 PM

72. Being on the wrong side of history is not a good thing.

if they are not willing to embrace the 2A then they should simply stop talking about gun control.

Judging from the reaction to the death of Trayvon Martin that's what Democratic leaders are doing. Notice Obama never mentioned stricter gun laws in his comments?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:58 PM

74. Let's see here: You're against Democratic leaders? Against Obama?

What's your political affiliation?

Whom did you vote for in the past 4 presidential elections?

What liberal causes do you support?

As is clear, I'm having serious doubts about which side of the fence you're on, so pony up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:15 PM

77. I support him whole heartily. Since he is silent on the issue of gun control

I don't have any conflicts. And even if he spoke out in favor of gun control I would still vote for him - there are more important issue like jobs and civil rights (abortion and marriage equality top two).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #77)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:36 PM

78. How do you stand on welfare? How about taxing the rich at a higher rate? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:02 PM

80. Support both. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #80)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:03 PM

81. Ok. You're extremely confusing, you know. I think you realize that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #81)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:46 PM

86. No, he's like most of us gungeon regulars.

But by now we're used to being tarred with that brush.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #86)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:56 PM

87. Most of us meaning NRA members? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #87)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:59 PM

88. I meant what I said. 'most of us' = gungeon regulars. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #88)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 12:01 AM

89. What's your story? What got you into guns? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #89)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 12:42 AM

90. Always had them. Always will.

Grew up in rural Virginia, fourth generation UMWA miner. My great-grandfather was a union organizer at Maetwan and War Eagle, a justice of the peace then deputy sheriff for forty years in Buchanan County, and was a crack shot. Both he and my great grandmother kept a handgun on their nightstands. 38 special for him, 32 for her.

This is me as a kid with him-



My grandfather spent twenty-five years in the mines, my father 15 before having a rock fall on his back, putting him out of work for five years. He still has a cough that makes people cringe when they hear it.

I walked the picket line in 1989 at the Pittston strike, I went door-to-door for Jackie Stump, handing out write-in sample ballots. We faced security guards armed with automatic weapons, and were routinely harassed by Virginia State Troopers. We were beaten, kicked, shoved, arrested, had our cars vandalized, our utilities were cut (in the dead of winter in the appalachian mountains), and were ran off the road by coal trucks.

I worked three years above ground and one below before getting out.

And as for my bona fides- as I said recently to Paladin, who never misses an opportunity to declare us gungeon regulars 'right wing'--

I daresay I've done more, in more campaigns, in more states to support our party than you have. I was in a union picket line before I could stand. I handed out buttons and fliers when I was ten. I've worked on four different campaigns for representatives in Virginia (3 delegates, one senate). I was the co-chair of the Young Democrats at the Clinch Valley College of the University of Virginia for three years. I registered at least a hundred dem college students to vote during that time.

In Tennessee, I was assistant to the secretary of the democratic party of knox county for a year. Between 1993 and 1996, I can't count the hours I spent canvassing for candidates, ferrying people to polls, helping register poor and minority voters, and lobbying for democratic measures in the city council- whether it was additional funding for city facilities, decrying racist policies of the KPD, or helping raise support for a new bond initiative to support the emporium (performing arts center).

In 2008, I put 650 miles on my wife's car ferrying mostly elderly and poor voters to the polls- from the time early voting started all the way through the day of the election. I phone banked and stuffed envelopes for Bill White in 2010, as well as putting another 400 miles on our vehicles. I *still* hear from a few of those elderly voters when they need help (the most recent was a korean war vet who needed a ride to the VA center in Arlington.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #90)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:44 PM

99. Very cute kids. I know that in the past, guns were used for catching food. No longer.

What's the purpose for having guns now?

I can understand someone admiring their ancestors. My grandma is from another country. As a young woman, she did the wash by hand, scrubbing it against rocks in a nearby stream, then hanging it to dry. I admire the woman. She was a remarkable woman! But should I continue the washing of clothes against a rock by a stream because I so admire my grandma? Or should I get with the times and move on, and use a washer and dryer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #99)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:50 PM

102. I carry to protect myself in the unlikely, but potentially serious chance I may need it..

.. to thwart violent attack.

The same reason I have a first aid kit and fire extinguisher in my vehicle. Because the consequences of needing it and not having it are more serious than having it and not needing it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #102)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:54 PM

104. Protect yourself from? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #104)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 07:28 PM

107. Potential violent attack.

I used to service network equipment in COs (central offices) for a telecom company all over Texas, Louisiana, and sometimes Oklahoma. I went into every kind of neighborhood, town, and city, and stretches of deserted scrub in between.

After having my truck broken into twice, and being mugged at gun point then getting my head almost cracked by the junkie's buddy, I decided to carry a pistol.

As I said to someone else a couple of years ago..

Last year in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, I was in Galveston trying to get phone service back up for residents. As I was ferrying ~$10k worth of network testing gear from my rig to the switch around dusk, I was approached by a 20-25 year old guy asking for money.

I offered him a bottle of water and an energy bar (I keep those in my truck too, am I afraid of dying of thirst/hunger?). He became agitated and again demanded money. He got close enough that I could see that he had a mouth full of mostly black stumps instead of teeth, and continued to follow me as I went around my truck to the open driver's door.

As I reached into the center console of my truck for a bottle of water, he pulled a knife from his overcoat (an overcoat in September in Texas- yah, nothing at all odd about that) and took a step toward me. By that time I'd unholstered my pistol, put the open truck door between us, and told him to piss off. He took another step toward me, I raised my pistol and pointed it at his chest. He looked down, then turned and ran. I got on the company radio, and an hour later, a DPS officer came by to check on me. He took my statement and left.

You know what really pissed me off at the time? That I'd offered the guy a bottle of water and something to eat. I've been approached many times by some rather stinky characters (Texas heat and homelessness / vagrancy tends to mix into a rather odoriferous combination.) Most were just panhandlers- the kind that you see with cardboard signs (my favorite was one that read 'why lie? want beer') or a bouquet of flowers weaving in and out of traffic at stop lights. I usually have a dollar for them if they make it to my truck before the light changes. So yeah, I was pissed that I offered to help this guy and he turns around and pulls a knife on me.

Shit, if he'd asked nicely, I would have gotten on the radio and asked for a pick-up from the Texas City FD / Galveston PD / TX natl guard who had a crisis response center about ten minutes away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #107)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:21 PM

109. That's different. You were like a police officer, going into all kinds of neighborhoods, and

dealing with all kinds of people, going into people's homes, etc. Like a cop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #109)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:22 PM

110. On the other hand, if I ever had anyone enter my home with a weapon...

I'd call the police on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #109)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:01 PM

113. Err, I was a guy with a truck.

I mostly serviced those little brick buildings without any windows you see scattered all over the country and wonder, WTF is that?!? Most of the time, my biggest worry was whether or not possums, rats, or rattlesnakes had gotten into our stuff and gummed up the works. (Rattlesnakes especially- warm, dark spot in the middle of scrub plains on a chilly fall morning.)

I was mugged in a small 'burb just north of Houston, in a middle-class neighborhood- mostly homes from the 80's and 90's.

I was no more a cop than the UPS delivery guy is, or the guy who comes to read your meter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #113)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 10:02 PM

114. Fine, but you spent your life going in and out of places all day long, correct? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #114)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 10:37 PM

115. For the most part, yep.

But I had no special authority, was in no special danger. No more so than anyone who works outside their home.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #81)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:31 AM

94. You really can't accept the idea of a pro-gun Democrat, can you?

we are not all urban liberals - many of grew up and live in places where guns are a normal part of life. I got my first 22 rifle when I was 10. We don't see guns as evil incarnate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #94)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:38 PM

98. A pro-gun Democrat is like an anti-abortion Democrat who thinks males should decide women's rights

I'm sure they exist, but they're the exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #98)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:49 PM

101. Sure are a lot of exceptions..

we exist alright...and in much larger numbers than you and the rest of the antis can imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #101)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:52 PM

103. Thanks to the NRA and the promotion of gun ownership as benevolent.

That's why this is such a violent nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #98)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 07:04 PM

106. Why is being pro-gun assumed to be an inherently conservative position?

And the converse... why is being anti-gun assumed to ban an inherently liberal position?



In "Don't Think of an Elephant" George Lakeoff explained it as the difference between the "strict father" mentality and the "nurturing parent" mentality, which I can understand in terms of other things but not in terms of being for or against citizen ownership of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #106)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:23 PM

111. Read the OP, for starters. Second, who is out there waving the flag of gun ownership?

Not Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #111)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 10:38 PM

116. I'm asking why it's inherently liberal or conservative

Not which party is supporting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #116)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:34 PM

123. Oh. Hmmm... excellent question. Many reasons...

1) Gun-love goes right along with the love of authority, violence, punitive ideology, force, violence, aggression, a feeling of one-upsmanship, power, control, shifts power to the person with the gun, makes powerless men feel powerful, and it allows people to imitate Hollywood movies, TV programs, and books in which there's usually a man shooting 'bad guys.'

2) Republicanism, right wingerism, fascism, and all the right wing, conservative ideologies are based upon fear, a need to be constantly protecting oneself, a feeling that there's always someone, somewhere waiting to hurt one, a need to have a 'bad guy' to fight against at all times, a desire to feel an "us versus them' 'good versus bad' feeling, to view the world as a tremendously dangerous place, a view of life as either you win or you lose, a desire for someone to be punished at all times for being 'bad,' a very positive view of violence and punishment, and a Hollywood fight movie view of masculinity as creatures with guns at the end of their hands.

Gun love and rightwingerism work in lockstep with one another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #123)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:58 PM

132. So then the goal of anti-gun liberals is that...

...by disarming the population, they will reduce all these things?

Reduce authoritarianism, aggression, etc?

Or is it a symptom of undesirable mental attitude?



I ask because I don't think I have too many of these characteristics you list.

So are liberals against guns simply because the hated conservatives are for them? Are there no liberal reasons to own guns?

It is possible to own guns and like guns for left-wing reasons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #132)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:02 AM

136. "Anti-gun liberals" Hmmmm! That phrase tells me something about you nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #98)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:13 PM

120. You really need to get out of the city

all those Democrats that live in the South and West - guns are part of their culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #120)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:40 PM

126. I live in the South and am very involved in organizations in which Dems are prevalent

I know plenty of Dems. Of those, only ONE is a gun-lover, and he is a former Repug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #126)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:00 AM

134. So why have so many states with Democratic majorities

loosened their guns laws? There is only one state in the entire country that does not permit concealed carry. Congress refused to reinstate the AWB. The President is silent on gun control. How is that possible if all Democrats hate guns like you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #134)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:01 AM

135. Because the NRA is one of the most fucking lucrative lobbying organizations

greasing the pockets of every Repuke around to pass pro-gun-lover laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #135)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:05 AM

138. But why are Democrats passing pro-gun laws?

since according to you they don't support gun then the NRA should have no influence over them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #138)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:07 AM

140. You mean why is the NRA now suddenly trying to lobby Democrats?

Is that your question? Or are you trying to make it appear as if the history of the NRA has consisted in lobbying Dems? (Which it has not, since the NRA is a right wing organization, which has spent its history lobbying Repukes).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #140)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:10 AM

143. I am saying that Blue states have been passing pro-gun laws over the past 20 years.

why would they be doing that unless many Democrats support gun rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #143)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:11 AM

144. They don't. But the NRA is a lobbying organization, trying to lobby as many politicos as possible

And this is new to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #144)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:14 AM

145. So Democrats are caving to the NRA?

why would they if their constituents don't support gun rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #145)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:15 AM

146. Look up the term politicos. However, perhaps I need to repost my article

in which the NRA is explained as a right wing organization whose history consists of lobbying Repukes, and only recently have they tried to lobby Democrats, NOT VERY SUCCESSFULLY because Democrats, by and large, are NOT gun-lovers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #146)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:17 AM

155. What about the past 20 years

when Blue states have been passing CCW laws? That's a lot of Democrats passing pro-gun legislation. NRA had nothing to do with that because they were doing what the voters wanted?

There is only one state that bans CCW - how is that possible if Democratic voters do not support pro-gun laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #155)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:12 PM

157. I keep hearing you saying, "BUT BUT BUT BUT.."

You'll never stop till I say that flooding this country with guns, was a WONDERFUL idea, and that we should continue on until no one can step outside of their home without getting their ass shot off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #157)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:20 PM

159. No - just pointing out that America is experiencing historically low levels of gun violence

and it is still declining.

Can you show that more guns has caused a problem? Do you disagree with the FBI crime stats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #159)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:21 PM

160. No, actually, it's you always and 24/7 defending gun-love.

That's all it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #160)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:43 PM

161. No - you want to restrict my civil liberties

and I take offense at that.


You support an a la carte Constitution - got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #161)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:44 PM

162. No, actually, your gun love is restricting MY civil liberties, and you live misinterpreting the

II and III amendments to achieve your goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #162)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:55 PM

165. The entire Supreme Court and the President disagree with you

my opinion is the least of your problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #165)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 10:12 PM

168. The Supreme Court was turned right wing so my response to you is DUH.

And DUH.

What did you expect from a right wing Supreme Court? Caution about the continued influx of deadly weapons into this already-violent, high-gun-crime nation? Hell no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #168)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 10:48 PM

170. So there are no liberal justices? None at all?

even the Heller dissent recognized an individual right to own guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 07:00 PM

75. e.g. the 1924 Democratic Convention, aka the Klanbake, in NYC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:39 PM

79. The deceptive re-defining of what the Second Amendment was for...

is not only damaging this country, but it's an evil act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #79)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:39 AM

95. So the Bill of Rights is not a list of individual rights?

it was not intended as a limit on government powers? You need to study the history of the Constitution and learn what the intent of the 2A really was.

The BOR delineates your civil liberties - the right to own and bear arms is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:37 PM

97. These amendments were ratified in 1791, when there was NO MILITARY

II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Let me repeat that. These amendments were ratified in 1791, when there was NO MILITARY. People merely grabbed a gun and shot because there was NO MILITARY.

Let me repeat it. NO MILITARY.

This is 2012. We now HAVE a military.

You know these things. However, gun-lovers mis-employed and used these ancient, useless laws as a justification to arm this country to the gills, and turn it into the violent, crime-ridden gun nation it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #97)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:03 PM

118. So what was the intent of the BOR?

your grasp of US history is appalling. The reason the BOR was added to the Constitution was to ensure that individual rights were recognized and protected. EVERY right delineated in the BOR is an individual right.

Do do realize, don't you, that the unorganized militia is still in Federal law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #118)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:11 PM

119. Bullshit. And I'm trying to be as polite as I can be.

Both amendments were put there because the U.S. had NO MILITARY.

Now please go tell someone who is unaware as to why they were ratified. Maybe they will agree with you out of their ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #119)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:16 PM

121. Read the preamble to the bill of rights.. the instruction manual, if you will..

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.


Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #121)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:38 PM

124. Let me repeat.

II and III Amendments were ratified in 1791, not 1971, not 2012. We now have a military. We did not have a military in 1791, which is the ONLY REASONS FOR AMENDMENTS II AND III.

Now please stop it.

I feel like you're trying to sell me the idea that there really, really is a Santa Claus, and I don't enjoy bs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #124)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:57 AM

150. You're assuming your own premise.. circular reasoning. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #150)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:59 AM

151. Circular reasoning is the canned response to anything you have no real response for

And it's become quite fashionable to say, hasn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #151)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 01:03 AM

152. I wouldn't know..

I just recognize it when I see it.. although I can't remember seeing it here in quite a while.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #119)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:20 PM

122. Good luck with that.

considering even the dissent in Heller says it is an individual right, don't expect things to change in your lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #122)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:39 PM

125. You've done it several times already. Re-read your posts. Gun-lovers redefine the II and II

Amendments and pretend it was designed so that you can own guns and play cowboys-n-indians, and big man around town.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #125)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:51 PM

127. “I believe the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.” BARACK OBAMA

I support the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #127)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:54 PM

129. Why do gun-lovers make me have to repeat myself?

I've already said that I'm for gun control regardless of who's for gun control, and who's against it.

I HATE living in a country with a tremendously high rate of gun crime. I blame gun lovers for this country having a high rate of gun crime. I blame gun lovers for my not being able to cohabit in a low crime country. I blame gun lovers for the bs that pouring more country into a high gun crime country is the solution. That's like F saying that a cancer patient will be cured by having the cancer spread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #129)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:57 PM

130. Are you ready for a lifetime of disappointment?

because you are on the losing side of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #130)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:00 AM

133. I'm already disappointed. I blame you people for this country being dangerous nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #133)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:04 AM

137. Ok - your fear is irrational but I do honestly feel sorry for you.

hopefully you will educate yourself and realize that you are not really in that much danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #137)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:06 AM

139. As I said, I blame you gun lovers for the high gun-crime rate we suffer in the U.S. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #139)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:09 AM

141. Oh well - I am sure we will learn to live with your scorn. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #141)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:10 AM

142. That's not my concern. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #97)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:53 PM

128. Not True

The United States did have a military in 1791,
It was fighting Indians in the northwest territories (Ohio) from 1785–1795.

As someone else stated, your knowledge of history is poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevekatz (Reply #128)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:57 PM

131. Incorrect. Plain citizens grabbing guns and running to fight is not a pro military

Try and do that now. Disband the professional military, and have ordinary citizens just grab a gun and go fight whenever there's a need and see what happens. Then sit back and enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #131)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:18 AM

147. wrong again

The Northwest Indian War was fought by a mix of militia and federal soldiers commanded by professional officers.

You have no idea what your talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevekatz (Reply #147)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:22 AM

148. You just made my argument for me...

that little militia is the reason for the II and III. In order to have gun ownership for ordinary citizens, the II was ratified. And because there was no serious military, ordinary citizens were asked to keep citizens in their homes, since there was no adequate military in the U.S. in 1791.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #148)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:27 AM

149. No I didn't

I just showed how little understanding of history you have,
You started out saying the US had "NO MILITARY" in 1791, which is completely false.

Your wrong about that, and your wrong about the 2nd and 3rd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:36 PM

61. You seriously think they are not partisan???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:06 PM

65. If more Democrats were reasonable on gun control

then they would be less partisan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #65)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:30 PM

68. "Reasonable" on gun control? Is that like being "reasonable" on letting men control women's bodies?

Kinda like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:43 PM

71. There is a Constitutional right to abortion. There is a Constititional right to bear arms.

so no - it is not like letting men control women's bodies.

Letting the government severely restrict a civil liberty is like letting men control women's bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:06 AM

22. and public airwaves AM radio is a 24/7 ad for them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to certainot (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:43 PM

38. Rush Limbaugh, perhaps? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:13 AM

24. Some info for you..

The NRA does endorse some Democrats....64 of them in the last election cycle..

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/nra-endorses-candidates-on-both-sides-frustrating-gop/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 09:14 AM

25. I've debunked this noise so many times ...

 

Let me just say, this time:

(a) there are "Democrats" who are indistinguishable from Republicans; if the legislative agenda they support is identical to a Republican agenda, why would the NRA miss the chance to make it possible to say they support Democrats? Ever noticed how the Democrats they support are also overwhelmingly, oh, anti-choice, for instance?

(b) the NRA knows which side of its bread is buttered, and will obviously back the likely winner, all other things being equal (as they sometimes are); too obviously it is to the NRA's advantage to give money to candidates on both sides of legislatures, to have the best chance of its legislative agenda getting enacted

(c) the NRA has not backed a Democratic presidential candidate in my memory, and I would guess that if it ever did, it was before about 1968 when the modern "gun rights" movement was born out of the racist right-wing anti-desegregation movement

(d) the NRA actively campaigns against, spreads misinformation about and spends millions and millions of dollars to defeat Democratic presidential candidates and large numbers of Democratic candidates for other office, and its national campaigns operate to the detriment of Democratic candidates in general, notwithstanding local (and essentially passive) support for individual candidates; Bill Clinton didn't attribute the 1994 results to the NRA for nothing (not to "gun control", as he is constantly misquoted in the Guns forum and elsewhere as having done):

"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 and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker." -- Bill Clinton, My Life, pp 629-30

I won't presume to disagree with Bill, myself.

(For a now-extinct discussion on this subject in the Guns forum a few months ago, see here.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:23 PM

32. I don't recall any Democratic presidential candidates running on a pro-RKBA platform.

Can you name a few and give us some examples of what they've done in that regard. I'm drawing a blank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:47 PM

42. I don't recall any candidates for anything backed by the NRA

 

running on any kind of a platform that I would call remotely progressive, myself. Oh, okay, there's that odd southwestern governor guy, Bill Richardson, that's it, and of course every rule has its exception. I'll go with candidates backed by the NRA being right-wing scum in ovehwhelming numbers.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Gun_Control.htm

A: The issue here, I believe, is instant background checks. Nobody who has a criminal background or is mentally ill should be able to get a weapon. That is the key, and that includes gun sales. That includes gun sales at gun shows. The key is going to be also attacking poverty, dealing with those kids in the ghettos that are heavy users of gun violence and that are victims of gun violence, to make sure that this country attacks the core problems of poverty.

Uh oh ... gun shows ... did the NRA hear that? And maybe he just isn't aware that being "mentally ill" doesn't show up on NICS checks, I dunno. And of course we'd really have to ask the people living in those "ghettos" how they feel about the fact that they're still waiting for that socioeconomic utopia to arrive while their communities and kids keep being victims of the gun violence that those kids with guns commit ...


There's just this odd confluence I find virtually every time I look up one of those "pro-RKBA" politician folks. (By the way, do Democratic candidates ordinarily run on "anti-RKBA" platforms??)

They're right-wing in pretty much every other important way, too.

Now, conversely, do you recall what the presidential candidates the NRA has backed have actually done for that "RKBA" cause?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/050400-01.htm

The National Rifle Association's second-ranking officer boasted at a closed meeting of NRA members earlier this year <2004> that if Republican nominee George W. Bush wins in November, "we'll have . . . a president where we work out of their office."

... At the same time, the NRA is becoming more openly aligned with the GOP this election season than ever before. In 1999 and 2000, the NRA has given the Republican Party $537,500 in "soft money" donations, which can be given to political parties in unlimited amounts. In the 1996 cycle, the NRA gave $87,725 in soft money to the GOP, and in 1997-98 it gave the Republicans $350,000. It donated no soft money to the Democrats in all those years.

NRA officials say they will spend more this election season than ever before--$12 million to $15 million, and possibly more, on ads, political donations, direct mail and phone banks. The investment is leading to rapid growth in NRA membership, they said--up 1 million, to 3.5 million.

Wonder what they got for all that cash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #42)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 10:51 PM

117. I asked about Democratic presidential candidates running pro-RKBA

Have there been any or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #117)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:08 PM

156. are you familiar with Obama's platform plank on the issue?

 

I'll leave you to look it up.

Of course, maybe you're using your own private definition of "pro-RKBA".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:32 PM

69. Yes, there are SOME liberals who are obsessed with guns as any right wingnut. SOME.

Not the majority. In other words, it's an exception.

Which is why the NRA's leaders are all Repukes, and the financial and verbal supporters of the NRA are Repukes, and the ones speaking out against gun control are Repukes, and I can go on ad infinitum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:42 PM

37. See my reply #36, which responds to your assertion as well. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:51 PM

45. They're still a Republican organization. You can tell by all the lies they spew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:37 PM

62. Drop that old line! Look at the speakers! All you need to know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 03:59 PM

29. Don't tell that to the 58 incumbent House Democrats that were endorsed by the NRA in 2010

Pro-gun Democrats win endorsements from NRA

By Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 7, 2010
N
ot a lot of things have gone the Democrats' way this year, but dozens of their House candidates are getting a late boost from an unusual source: the National Rifle Association.

So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority.

The endorsements aren't the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.

The policy has been in place for some time, and the NRA has always backed a number of Democrats, but the group's choices have become especially contentious this year because control of Congress is at stake and because so many gun-supporting Democrats were elected over the past four years.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #29)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:40 PM

36. The NRA is a Republican organization, historically funding Republican candidates. Recently...

they have given money to a few Democrats, which is not their modus operandi.

The reason this is news, is because the NRA is a Republican organization, that backs fundamentally Republican candidates, and the fact that they would back any Democrat, makes news because it is not the NRA usually does its 'business.'

I suppose the best other example of this oddity, is when Repukes backed Ralph Nader, and he accepted their funding.

Here you go:

Historically, the NRA has overwhelmingly supported Republicans. But Democrats began backing many pro-gun House candidates in 2006, and now the NRA is coming to their defense.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/House/2010/1008/Why-the-NRA-is-rallying-behind-endangered-Democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #29)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

44. The NRA is a Republican thug organization, and you should take your support for them elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #44)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:24 PM

56. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:10 PM

108. Good grief Freddie. They only support Blue Damn Dog's, not real Democrats.

Do you know what DINO means Freddie? Why are you backing the NRA over real Democrats? Dont bother answering, the question is rhetorical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

43. Thank you for this thread

Recently, I've been saying that the gun folks on DU are the only people who can get by with openly worshiping a Republican organization. I'm very happy to see that you've said this much more concisely than I've been able to. I'm going to keep beating that drum too. If guns are your thing, great. If the NRA is your thing, then we're going to have a problem, because I don't like Republicans.

Anyway, thank you for the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #43)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:55 PM

49. I also detest Republicans. They make me sick to my stomach. You're quite welcome. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:19 PM

53. That makes Michael Moore a life member of a Republican ancillary organization

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:20 PM

55. You are going to have to elaborate. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:29 PM

57. Michael Moore is a life member of the NRA

The OP is claiming, with some justification, that the NRA is a Republican ancillary organization. To the extent that the claim is correct, that makes Moore a life member of a Republican ancillary organization. (Of course, he probably joined before it became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Repukes, Inc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #57)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 06:38 PM

70. Here's why he made himself a member - to dismantle the NRA. Just thought you might like to know

Following the Columbine High School massacre, Moore acquired a life membership to the National Rifle Association (NRA). Moore said that he initially intended to become the NRA's president and dismantle it, but he soon dismissed the plan as too difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

Here's what some NRA supporter says of Moore's "Lifetime Membership" in the NRA now:

http://bowlingfortruth.com/moore-nra/

In Bowling, Michael Moore brags that he is a “lifetime member” of the NRA. So it might be expected that Moore would inform viewers about the NRA’s noble anti-slavery history, but not quite. In his brief history of America cartoon he attempts the opposite and does an admirable job of welding racism to the NRA wherever possible as detailed in other places of this site. The main issue here is Moore’s phony respect for the organization. Instead of coming out against it and opposing what he feels are dangerous and detrimental actions, he feigns neutrality in Bowling For Columbine when it is clear he despises the organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:33 PM

58. Michael Moore paid $750 to become a life member so that he could run against

Charlton Heston. I would not actually consider him a member.

He wanted to take it back to being a gun-safety organization and the defacto Republican Arm that it had become.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #58)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:37 PM

63. That sounds like something he would do

Now I get it. He should consider running again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #63)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:51 PM

64. He could run again, but he probably wouldn't get many votes.

So many of their members have been brainwashed by the BS of the NRA leaders for years, that they have lost their ability to think and reason, and as such would never vote for Moore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:36 PM

60. Are you serious? You must not read much about why he did that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #53)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:06 PM

83. Which he joined with the intention of fucking up from the inside.

He did fail, which is unusual. He generally succeeds at what he attempts. The man is good at what he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:04 PM

82. K&R for the utterly obvious truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:41 PM

84. rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:44 PM

85. And News Corp is the GOPs free PR firm so what else is new?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:05 AM

91. Yep. And we have our very own sub-forum dedicated to spewing the NRA's talking points here at DU.

It's chock-full of the same kind of right wing, assholish "pro-gun" filth that the NRA distributes on a daily basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #91)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:46 PM

100. yup... funny how some don't notice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 06:56 PM

105. Well, I can't really understand why the NRA isn't on the Democratic side

I mean, sure, the majority of Democrats posting in gun thread in GD are expressing their deep hatred for guns and gun-owners, and support laws to outlaw concealed-carry, open-carry, stand-your-ground, castle-doctrine, or just all guns. And the DNC platform contains support for another assault-weapons ban.

But past that, I just don't see why...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #105)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:24 PM

112. Past that... lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:48 PM

163. You posted this as if it was a situation somehow unique to the GOP

 

Media Matters
UAW
AFL/CIO

Stop pretending to be indignant...it is disingenuous.

As someone who is firmly planted in the middle of the American political spectrum, I find this sort of nonsense distasteful in the extreme.

Intellectual honesty is what is needed, not political hackery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiercelyIndependant (Reply #163)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:51 PM

164. You must not have read the OP article. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #164)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 04:56 PM

166. Actually I did...

 

And my point remains the same.....

You (and the article) seem to be making some point about the NRA acting as a component organization of the GOP. Which if it were a unique case, would be notable. Given how intimately entertwined the DNC and the UAW are, how deeply connected the NEA and the DNC are...it doesn't seem nearly so nefarious or notable...it just seems like the same thing on the other side of the fence.

There is nothing the vast middle of American politics hates more and sees through faster than when either the GOP or the DNC begins excoriating the other for the very thing they do themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiercelyIndependant (Reply #166)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 10:11 PM

167. Again, the #1 lobbying organization for gun manufacturers here and abroad is the NRA

The NRA and the GOP have been in wedded bliss since the NRA's inception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread