HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » NRA Raises $200 Million a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:51 AM

NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread

December 29, 2011, 9:10 PM EST
By Peter Robison and John Crewdson

Dec. 29 (Bloomberg) -- A toaster that burns the National Rifle Association’s logo onto bread fetched $650 at an auction last month, just one reflection of the money-making power in the gun group’s brand.

The NRA, which began as a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching marksmanship, enters the 2012 election season as a lobbying, merchandising and marketing machine that brings in more than $200 million a year and intends to help unseat the incumbent president. From 2004 to 2010, the group’s revenue from fundraising -- including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism -- grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues, according to NRA tax returns.

More than 50 firearms-related companies have given at least $14.8 million to the Fairfax, Virginia-based group, according to the NRA’s own list for a donor program that began in 2005. That same year, NRA lobbyists helped win passage of a federal law that limited liability claims against gun makers. Former NRA President Sandy Froman wrote that it “saved the American gun industry from bankruptcy.”

--------

That didn’t stop NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre from citing what he called “a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country” during a September speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando. LaPierre said the NRA would work to defeat Obama in 2012.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-29/nra-raises-200-million-as-gun-lobby-toasters-burn-logo-on-bread.html

Do you agree or disagree with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre's allegation against President Obama?

105 replies, 9373 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 105 replies Author Time Post
Reply NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread (Original post)
ellisonz Dec 2011 OP
krispos42 Dec 2011 #1
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #2
krispos42 Dec 2011 #5
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #7
PavePusher Dec 2011 #13
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #16
PavePusher Dec 2011 #19
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #26
PavePusher Dec 2011 #27
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #43
PavePusher Dec 2011 #46
X_Digger Dec 2011 #44
pipoman Dec 2011 #74
spin Dec 2011 #18
ellisonz Dec 2011 #52
X_Digger Dec 2011 #55
ellisonz Dec 2011 #57
burf Dec 2011 #58
X_Digger Dec 2011 #62
ellisonz Dec 2011 #63
X_Digger Dec 2011 #68
ellisonz Dec 2011 #72
X_Digger Dec 2011 #76
PavePusher Jan 2012 #103
spin Dec 2011 #61
ellisonz Dec 2011 #65
pipoman Dec 2011 #75
spin Dec 2011 #84
ellisonz Dec 2011 #87
X_Digger Dec 2011 #88
PavePusher Dec 2011 #90
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #93
spin Dec 2011 #91
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #92
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #105
PavePusher Dec 2011 #3
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #8
PavePusher Dec 2011 #12
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #17
rl6214 Dec 2011 #4
slackmaster Dec 2011 #6
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #9
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #29
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #33
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #36
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #39
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #41
gejohnston Dec 2011 #50
safeinOhio Dec 2011 #73
gejohnston Dec 2011 #77
SteveW Dec 2011 #79
Glassunion Dec 2011 #10
slackmaster Dec 2011 #11
aikoaiko Dec 2011 #14
rrneck Dec 2011 #15
ToolMaker Dec 2011 #21
ellisonz Dec 2011 #53
rrneck Dec 2011 #54
ellisonz Dec 2011 #59
rrneck Dec 2011 #64
ellisonz Dec 2011 #67
rrneck Dec 2011 #69
gejohnston Dec 2011 #70
ellisonz Dec 2011 #71
gejohnston Dec 2011 #78
ellisonz Dec 2011 #83
oneshooter Dec 2011 #85
ellisonz Dec 2011 #86
SteveW Dec 2011 #80
Remmah2 Dec 2011 #20
Hoyt Dec 2011 #22
Callisto32 Dec 2011 #24
PavePusher Dec 2011 #28
Hoyt Dec 2011 #30
oneshooter Dec 2011 #45
PavePusher Dec 2011 #47
burf Dec 2011 #60
gejohnston Dec 2011 #23
Hoyt Dec 2011 #31
gejohnston Dec 2011 #35
SteveW Dec 2011 #81
Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #94
Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #95
Hoyt Dec 2011 #98
gejohnston Dec 2011 #99
Hoyt Jan 2012 #101
PavePusher Jan 2012 #102
gejohnston Jan 2012 #104
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #37
Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #97
Logical Dec 2011 #25
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #34
Logical Dec 2011 #38
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #40
Logical Dec 2011 #42
PavePusher Dec 2011 #48
Logical Dec 2011 #49
gejohnston Dec 2011 #51
ellisonz Dec 2011 #56
SteveW Dec 2011 #82
PavePusher Dec 2011 #89
Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #96
ellisonz Dec 2011 #100
AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #32
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #66

Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:58 AM

1. I don't think Obama would veto anything that had anti-gun language in it...

...solely because it had anti-gun language in it.

I also don't think Obama would veto anything that had pro-gun language in it solely because it had pro-gun language in it.

But I don't know what he would do with a straight-up AWB renewal, or something similar. I know what he's supported in the past, and I know what the official position of the DNC is, and he's the effective head of the DNC right now. And I doubt he would sign a bill to re-open the machine-gun registry, remove the licensing requirement for silencers, or recognize concealed-carry reciprocity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:29 AM

2. None of those issues would

" destroy the Second Amendment in our country”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:00 AM

5. In your viewpoint...

...which I believe is that the keeping and bearing arms is an antiquated privilege clung to by right-wingers.


It would no more destroy the Second than the Patriot Act would destroy the Fourth, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:40 AM

7. True in my viewpoint.

The AWB was in place and didn't destroy the 2nd. Concealed-carry reciprocity, is a states right issue rather than a 2nd and the others are or have been in effect and the 2nd is as strong, if not stronger than ever before.
Ole Wayne and the NRA use those issues as hyperbole to try and get rid of the half-Irish President. They love Newt and Ronny Raygun and they have done worse.

An antiquated privilege would be to go back 20 or 30 years when there were more restrictions than there are now and far fewer gun owners and very few allowed to carry concealed.

The NRA is run by political right wing hacks like Wayne Lapierre, Grover Norquist and Ted Nugent. That's a fact, jack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:48 AM

13. What other Constitutional Rights are "states rights" issues?

 

The Thirteenth Amendment? The Twenty-Fourth? The Fifth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:53 PM

16. I , and most others,

don't think CCW rules are an absolute Constitutional Right. As they are already regulated by states, the 2nd does not seem to be an issue. A better analogy might be the 1st, which includes restriction on speech, can't yell fire, libel and slander, and on freedom of the press, child porn, copy rights,etc.

False Analogy

The Argument from Analogy
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis infering that they also share some further property. The structure or form may be generalized like so:
P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
Object P has been observed to have further property x.
Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

While the 13th and 24th, by their nature seem more absolute than others like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th and 12th as the SCOTUS have ruled there are limits and restrictions on the others.

You need to get beyond your black and white view of the laws and Constitution and see all of the gray areas. If there were no gray areas, there would be no need for a judiciary branch of government, which by the way is part of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:23 PM

19. SCOTUS has declared that "keep" is a fundamental Right.

 

This would seem to indicate that "bear" is as well. Not sure how you could seperate the two.

If CC is virtually banned, then OC would have to be available. In NY, it is not. Hence, Rights, violated.

The First Amendment restrictions you list are not restrictions on speech per se, they are restrictions on doing harm to others. One can yell "Fire!" in a theater all day... if there is actually a fire that warrents such an alarm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:45 PM

26. "would seem to indicate"

is a long way from 'is'. In the majority opinion by Scalia in the Chicago case, he indicated that states do have an option to regulate the "bear" part but not the keep part.

Doing harm to others might include accidental discharge of a fire arm in an urban densely populated area. Just as yelling fire is not allowed if there is no fire and no one is injured. One can not take pictures of nude children and put them on the web, even though the face is not shown and the child is unaware of her or his picture being snapped. That is why we have courts, to decide how to apply the Constitution in all of those gray areas. I don't think the courts will decide that the 2nd means anyone can carry anything, anytime or anyplace. You and the NRA are welcome to pursue that course, but I don't think you'll like the outcome. Common sense is not all that common when dealing with zealots and ideologues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:51 PM

27. You are arguing something I haven't even asserted.

 

"I don't think the courts will decide that the 2nd means anyone can carry anything, anytime or anyplace."

Have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:25 PM

43. Every day is a good day, here.

Thanks, anyway.

Your quote.

"SCOTUS has declared that "keep" is a fundamental Right
This would seem to indicate that "bear" is as well"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 08:49 PM

46. Fundamental does not mean absolute.

 

There are plenty of restrictions you can place around the Second, but outright denial to the vast majority isn't one of them.

P.S. In re-reading my previous post, my last sentence rings as fairly dismissal. That wasn't my intention, and my apologies if that's how it came across.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:39 PM

44. Where do you get from the decision that 'keep' is unregulated?

I'd love to see that one, heh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 08:21 AM

74. The examples you have given here

of restrictions on other rights/liberties are so extremely minimal as to barely be considered "restrictions". There are none of the other enumerated rights in the BoR which is more restricted than the 2nd with it's 6,000 + legislated limitations and restrictions. To try to make some assertion that all rights except the 2nd are restricted is completely fallacious. (I might add that many of the existing restrictions are in place with the support and blessing of the NRA).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:13 PM

18. The AWB was NOT a ban. It was a merely "feel good" law...

promoted by those who wanted to look like they were doing something to combat gun violence. Of course it didn't destroy the 2nd Amendment. In fact it didn't do a damn thing except make the weapons it was targeted at extremely popular.

I would actually like to see concealed carry reciprocity left at the state level. Why get the Federal government involved in any way shape or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:04 PM

52. IMHO I think the gun mania of this country...

...is doing a good enough job of making overkill weapons extremely popular for self-defense.

It did ban further sales though...

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was only a small part (title XI, subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

The act created a definition of "assault weapons" and subjected firearms that met that definition to regulation. Nineteen models of firearms were defined by name as being "assault weapons". Various semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns were classified as "assault weapons" due to having various combinations of features.

The act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration changed the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds and which up to the time of the act had been considered normal or factory magazines. These ammunition feeding devices were referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices". Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which lasted until the ban's sunset.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban#Provisions_of_the_ban


If it did nothing its opponents wouldn't be rejoicing at its expiration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:31 PM

55. No, it made manufacturers change features or model names..

For those specified by name / model number -- easy enough to change the name / model number (DC-9 -> AB-10).

For generic ones based on 'features'? Remove enough 'features'- pin the muzzle brake, pin the collapsible stock, grind off the bayonet lug.

Oh gee, it only has one 'feature' now- so it's not actually a so-called 'assault weapon'.

Even today, in ban-happy california, the practice remains:

None of these are 'assault weapons' per CA law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:52 PM

57. What do you think that says about the integrity of the gun manufacturers?

They actively sought to circumvent the law. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as an assault weapon, it means we need a stricter better definition and better enforcement. Shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:59 PM

58. I guess it says the gun manufacturers are

in the business of making and selling guns to make a buck. Duh. They are probably the most regulated industry in the country. If you don't like their product, don't buy it. If the majority of the country feel the same as you, the gun industry will be sent to the dust bin of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:12 PM

62. They met the letter of the law. A boneheaded law.

Imagine if a law was passed that said red cars were banned.

Would you seriously expect car makers to not just change colors?

If these weapons were so dangerous because of a few features, why not remove them and be good? Now do you see the inanity of the law? It was a publicity stunt, easily avoided, but a perfect first step to more draconian measures. Get people used to the idea of bans based on 'eww scawwy bwack wifles, waaah' -- and move up from there. Which brings me to..

There is no 'stricter better definition' -- what, ban semi-automatics? Fuck that. We're not going back to 1885 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Ritter_von_Mannlicher). Ban detachable magazines? We're not going back to 1779 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:59 PM

63. You have very low expectations for corporate responsibility. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:14 AM

68. Well isn't that special..

What, a company should just shut it's doors because some bunch of numbnuts in DC can't pull their fingers out of their collective asses and come up with a non-vague, non-idiotic law?

Right.

They complied with the law. The fact that the moron-o-meter in DC was stuck on stupid is not their fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:06 AM

72. A company should respect the intention of the Federal government...

The law is the law - doing whatever you can to get around the letter is not noble by any means - you're not seriously endorsing corporate profits by any means necessary are you?

The gun manufacturers behavior in this regard is a disgrace. They're putting money ahead of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:34 AM

76. I'm endorsing following the law as written

And the fact that the percentage of 'assault weapons' used in crime didn't aprpeciably change, and the murder rate continued to drop during and after the ban expired- proves that it was an idiotic piece of legislation.

I know, you would have loved it if they'd stopped selling 'ebil scawwy bwack gunz' as the murder rate dropped - then you'd claim causation.

Sorry to burst your emotional bubble. 'Feel good' / 'do nothing' legislation deserves to be mocked for the political theater it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:46 AM

103. If the intent was to have companies stop manufacturing semi-auto firearms....

 

perhaps Congress should have passed a law forbidding the manufacture of semi-auto firearms.

But they didn't, so it never happened.

The fault is not with the manufacturers. Perhaps Congress needs to learn how to speak in plain English, or you need to develop more accurate telepathy for devining their intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:12 PM

61. Read further down the article you linked to...


The law banned certain feature combinations that many firearms experts considered to be arbitrary. Manufacturers complied with the law by removing the banned features while leaving the core functionality of the weapons intact. For this, they were criticized as attempting to circumvent the spirit of the law by many gun control groups and even by then-president Bill Clinton. Pro-gun groups responded by pointing out that the manufacturers made and sold exactly what was permitted, and that they could not be held to any standard higher than the law itself.

For example, the AB-10 was a legal version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were sold without folding stocks or bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol grips. As the production of magazines holding in excess of 10-rounds for civilians had been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.

The ATF technology branch determined in 1994 that muzzle brakes were not impacted by the AWB, and that muzzle brakes on threaded barrels were not an assault weapon feature, so long as they were welded or soldered in place.

The law prohibited newly manufactured detachable magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds manufactured after enactment of the law from sale, transfer, or importation. One effect was the increased importation from other countries of large quantities of magazines manufactured before the ban. Former Warsaw Pact countries had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants. Existing stocks of pre-ban American-made magazines were likewise exempt from the ban; this resulted in a brief surge in domestic manufacture of high-capacity magazines before the law took effect. Large capacity magazines manufactured post-ban for military and law enforcement were stamped or etched with the logo "LEO" (for "Law Enforcement Only" and it was illegal for civilians to possess LEO magazines during the ban....emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban#Provisions_of_the_ban


So what exactly did the AWB ban?


Assault rifles vs. "Assault weapons"

The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud
...emphasis added

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._.22Assault_weapons.22


So while you can correctly argue that the AWB banned the manufacture and sale of firearms that had a certain combination of features, it did not stop the sale of semi-auto black rifles. Most buyers really were not all concerned if their new weapon had a bayonet mount or a threaded barrel designed to accept one. Who needs a grenade launcher anyway? It might be nice to have a folding or telescoping stock and a pistol grip but the main thing was the semi-automatic feature and the versatility of the weapon. The black rifles sold like hot cakes at the country fair and so did semi-auto pistols.

During that time frame every almost every regular shooter at the range I shot at purchased assault weapons. I was amazed to see shooters who had absolutely no interest in owning a rifle that looked like a modern military weapon prior to the ban feel a need to run out and get one during the ban. They all had to get a bunch of hi-cap magazines to go along with their new weapon.

I remember these same people telling me prior to the ban how rifles such as the AR-15 were crappy inaccurate pieces of plastic junk that were worthless compared to their highly accurate bolt action rifles with walnut stocks. I found it fascinating how merely banning something makes it popular and irresistible.

I also found that I was the rare shooter on the line with a old fashioned revolver and I was surrounded by shooters with Glocks and 17 round magazines. I have still not bought a black rifle although I am considering it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:09 AM

65. Thats because the arms manufacturers are snakes...

...and the political will is too weak. It doesn't irk you that they basically spat in the face of the law?

I think with our increasingly militant culture the AWB ban wasn't as big of a motivator as you'd think; entertainment media did quite a bit of promotion too for the armed-to-the-teeth cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 09:19 AM

75. Virtually every law and restriction

on any subject has definite, unambiguous language which sets guidelines for compliance. Virtually every entity effected by laws and restrictions make their product or service conform...often, maybe even usually, they are on the verge of noncompliance. This goes to vehicle makers and cafe standards, employers and employment law, journalists,..everyone..most people drive a couple of mph over the posted speed limit, but within the built in margin, particularly on highways. Larry Flint and Fred Phelps certainly are good examples of pushing right to the line of acceptability. Fact is, I can't think of a single law or restriction which any effected party bothers to try to determine intent of the lawmakers when attempting to be in compliance...no, they depend on the actual language in the law to be sure they are in compliance..if ambiguity is determined later by the restricting agency or lawmakers, they have an amendment process to clear up that ambiguity. Laws don't have faces, they have words, if the words are unclear or noninclusive then the words must be rearranged.

Even the BATFE couldn't write a definition of "Assault Weapon" when asked by lawmakers. Laws.....all laws, are written with words with common legal definitions, if the common legal definition isn't quite right for the application, the word is set forth in the law with a definition which only applies to the law being written. If the term "assault weapon" were not ambiguous, or was clearly defined, there would be no problem. I think it was Carolyn McCarthy who said at one point, when asked to define "assault weapon", that 'I know one when I see one', which seems to be what you are expecting manufacturers to abide by. This isn't an acceptable legal standard regardless the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:39 PM

84. No it doesn't irk me in the least...

Because of the AWB and the efforts of the arms manufacturers to produce a product that did meet the letter of the law, American gun owners discovered the value of an extremely accurate and versatile class of rifles which have become extremely popular for target shooting, hunting and in some cases self defense. As I explained, prior to the AWB, there was far less interest in this class of rifle. As soon as something is banned people begin to develop an interest in it.

The assault weapons ban imposed limits on the size of the magazines that were manufactured after a certain cutoff date. Firearm manufacturers decided to develop some new more compact semi-auto handguns that would be far more suitable for concealed carry than the big bulky handguns that were most affected by the 10 round limit. The result was some excellent new handguns such as the Ruger LCP. While such handguns often hold less than 10 rounds, they have proved to be extremely popular.

Gun control advocates shot themselves in the foot by pushing for the AWB and getting the law passed. Their efforts not only helped firearm manufacturers to find new markets but they also caused the development of some new firearms which has made shooting a far more interesting hobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #84)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 02:17 PM

87. And this is a good thing?

"American gun owners discovered the value of an extremely accurate and versatile class of rifles which have become extremely popular for target shooting, hunting and in some cases self defense."

Or just reveled in their notion that they have a practical need for such firepower...when nothing could be truer than the contrary. It's overkill and it's lead in no small part to a militarized police force. They never know when someone is going to try to come at them with one of the damn things. If the ban hadn't expired the mania we are seeing now would not be happening because the damn things wouldn't be in production - the price would be higher because the supply would be low.

---------

There's a difference between 10 rounds and 30 - and don't give me the discourtesy of such an argument as the ones that have been made to the contrary.

---------

The firearms manufacturers are no better morally than hedge fund managers, energy traders, and the big tobacco companies IMHO. Snakes in the grass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 03:30 PM

88. "damn things wouldn't be in production" -- did you forget? Production never stopped.

Features were removed to comply with the law.

Derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 03:56 PM

90. You certainly are upset with people for complying with the law.

 

One wonders... Why?

Well, not really....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #90)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:11 PM

93. The AWB was concieved and passed during a moral panic.

The moral panic mongers quickly discovered that, in spite of Josh Sugarmann's assurances, said moral panic had little traction outside DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 04:48 PM

91. The War on Terror has contributed far more to a militarized police force...

than the fact that many honest American citizens own semi-auto rifles today than in the past.


Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons
Dec 21, 2011 4:45 AM EST

A decade of billions in spending in the name of homeland security has armed local police departments with military-style equipment and a new commando mentality. But has it gone too far? Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz of the Center for Investigative Reporting report.

Nestled amid plains so flat the locals joke you can watch your dog run away for miles, Fargo treasures its placid lifestyle, seldom pierced by the mayhem and violence common in other urban communities. North Dakota’s largest city has averaged fewer than two homicides a year since 2005, and there’s not been a single international terrorism prosecution in the last decade.

But that hasn’t stopped authorities in Fargo and its surrounding county from going on an $8 million buying spree to arm police officers with the sort of gear once reserved only for soldiers fighting foreign wars.

Every city squad car is equipped today with a military-style assault rifle, and officers can don Kevlar helmets able to withstand incoming fire from battlefield-grade ammunition. And for that epic confrontation—if it ever occurs—officers can now summon a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret. For now, though, the menacing truck is used mostly for training and appearances at the annual city picnic, where it’s been parked near the children’s bounce house.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html


Yes there is a difference between magazines that hold ten rounds and hi-cap magazines. Ten round magazines are more reliable. Hi-cap magazines often cause a gun to jam and it takes longer to clear a jam than it does to change a magazine.

Watch this video on changing a magazine:

Quick mag change practice...

&feature=related

Than watch this video on clearing a jam. (Be sure to watch all the way through.)

How to clear jams in your auto loading pistol


Obviously you can change a magazine faster than you can clear a jam.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:03 PM

92. Still insist on following Josh Sugarmann's failed line?

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." -- Josh Sugarmann


People are buying more of them and there is no move to resurrect any AWB, at the same time murder and violent crime are at historic lows.

So much for moral panic mongering...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:08 PM

105. Italian proverb:


A book whose sale's forbidden all men rush to see, and prohibition turns one reader into three.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:53 AM

3. I think Bloomberg is jealous and a whiney fuck of an Authoritarian.

 

I think an NRA toaster is an ingenious marketing gimmick, and Bloomberg is crying in his beer over the fact that no-one would ever buy a toaster that used his MAIG logo.

I think that President Obama won't do anything, Second Amendment-wise, to jeopardize re-election, but after he wins, all bets are off.

Oh, did I mention Bloomberg is a whiney fuck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:43 AM

8. All bets are off.

Dang, I'd bet you a thousand bucks that if Obama, or should I say when, Obama is re-elected, the feds will not take away one gun you own now.

Did I mention Wayne Lapierre is a right wing fear monger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:46 AM

12. Did I say I thought anyone would try to take away guns?

 

Did you assemble that Strawman from scratch, or did you buy a kit?

There are a lot of ways to undermine the Second Amendment without resorting to actual confiscation of currently-owned arms.

I make no predictions past the election because my crystal ball has never been reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:59 PM

17. You are the one that said

if he is re-elected, all bets are off, just like what Wayne Lapierre is saying. Like I said, too bad all bets are off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 08:30 AM

4. I don't believe in conspiracies

 

but I do believe that one should always stay vigilante for the extreme elements that that may want to do wacky things such as outright bans or confiscations.

On edit I do think $650 is a bit out there, I have seen NFL logo toasters go for $30 but you never know out there when it comes to a fundraiser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:27 AM

6. Their power could be curtailed in the blink of an eye

 

If the Democratic Party would drop its anti-gun platform planks and embrace the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:56 AM

9. Precisely. It's the only issue I can think of where the party is horrifically out of step with

 

the vast bulk of American voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:03 PM

29. You are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Do you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on assault weapons? 1/15-19/11

Favor 63%

Oppose 34%

Unsure 3%

Can you find any recent polls to support your statement "It's the only issue I can think of where the party is horrifically out of step with

the vast bulk of American voters."?

On other 2nd Amendment issue it looks like the country is about evenly divided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:32 PM

33. That is a horse-shit poll and I think you know why.

 

Virtually no gun-ignorant (that is not an insult) Americans know what is meant by "assault weapons"...they just think they're something awful because of the propaganda of the Brady Bunch and misinformed politicians. It's a push-poll of the worst possible variety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:50 PM

36. Like I said,

find a different one that proves your "vast majority" statement? Any non-horse-shit poll you want to use. The URL I listed had many different polls by different pollsters. Pick any or find any other that supports your imagined, so called fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:18 PM

39. This one (from your own link) shows a drastic DECLINE in support of more 'control'

 

"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?"


.
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %


1/13-16/11
52 45 3


4/21-24/09
51 48 1


4/22/07
61 36 3


10/06
61 37 2


5/02
57 37 6


1/01
59 39 2


5/00
67 30 3


4/00
64 34 2


9/99
63 35 2


8/99
63 34 3


5/99
67 31 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:22 PM

41. Yup ,

Proves that a small majority favor stricter gun control, as opposed to your statement that a vast majority are against it. Looks like a fact, jack.

next

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:49 PM

50. the question I always had about this poll is

how well did pollsters explain the current laws? If the respondents did not have the slightest clue what the current federal laws are, is it valid? Think about it, how many times have talking heads say "handguns are totally unregulated"? Norman Goldman told his listeners that.
about seven months ago Think Progress and others claimed anyone could buy a machine gun at a gun show with no background checks (the Al Qaida scare), and how many times over the years have politicians since the 1970s told everyone "anyone could just go to a gun shop in the next state" even though it already violated federal law since the 1960s if not the 1930s?
Mail order handguns? Not since 10 May 1927.
For all we know, current law could be the "stricter gun control" they favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:03 AM

73. Polls of gun owners show that a majority of them

are for background checks on private sales of handguns. But, what would gun owners know about guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #73)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:02 PM

77. most of us expressed the same here

still have the problem with the commerce clause and how to enforce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:00 PM

79. "Confusion to the enemy!...."



"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." -- Josh Sugarmann

And what term(s) have MSM settled on recently? Has anything changed with them?

Of course, 3/4 of Americans think the Second recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms, the militia not withstanding. Seems like the "division" is rather less than "even" on this issue, and has been for over 50 years.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:01 AM

10. What I REALLY want to know is

Can I get a toaster that burns an effigy of Jackie Gleason in my toast?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:30 AM

11. Would you settle for Eric Estrada?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:51 AM

14. As a Democrat and NRA member I hate the over-the-top language from LaPierre and most of the NRA.


On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the NRA's rhetoric and the massive gun buying panic has caused our President to abandon those who would increase gun control.

And yes, any gun ban of a class of firearms does damage to the 2nd Amendment. A little death. A little destruction.

As many have pointed out before if Democrats stopped proposing stupid gun control laws and renounced federal gun bans (and mean it), the NRA would no longer have any clout.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:53 PM

15. If Obama comes out for

RKBA and makes people aware of what he has done in that respect so far, it will cut idiots like LaPeePee off at the knees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:32 PM

21. I partially agree...

While Obama has not done anything that is particularly harmful wih regard to 2A, he really hasn't done anything that can be seen as ardently supportive either. The few bills that he has signed into law that were favorable to gun owners, were only signed because they were parts of legislation that he very much wanted passed. Had those same issues arisen as lone pieces of legislation, I have no doubt that he would not have signed them. His is not the same as being supportive of an issue, it is simply a matter of making concessions.

Obama's past record on 2A Will be difficult to overcome wih anything short of real support, rather than token gestures. I think there is little doubt that saying things like "we're working, ya know, under the radar" are far more damaging to him than the modest forward steps he has taken on this issue.

Regardless of what he does politically, it would take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that he truly supports the individual right stance. I do appreciate that, so far, he has not put what I believe are his personal views before what is now a supreme court ruling, and this a matter of law. We will see what the coming term holds. I would prefer for him to be a vocal supporter of the 2A, but will settle for him remaining silent on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:08 PM

53. Who said he was against...

RKBA is not an absolute concept in application.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:19 PM

54. Who said he was against...

Not me. I said if he comes out FOR it. When the gun owning political center is reassured that there will be no new silly Democratic anti gun initiatives it will steal the NRA's thunder and cut them off at the knees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #54)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:02 PM

59. Well much of the rhetoric here that is so popular out there...

...certainly does not help the cause of "gun owning political center is reassured that there will be no new silly Democratic anti gun initiatives." We need reject the selfish view that any gun control is an attack upon the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment. Until more people become more responsible for the impact of their rhetoric, such a goal will be impossible in such a polluted political environment, which the NRA and its allies fully promote. Stand up for gun control, doing so is the duty of responsible gun owners.



Only about a third of American adults can name all three branches of government, and a third can't name any. Fewer than a third of eighth graders could identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

-------

Limited knowledge about the three branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial — emerges starkly in Annenberg surveys, which also found that 15% of adults correctly named John Roberts as United States chief justice, but almost twice as many (27%) could identify Randy Jackson as a judge on the television show "American Idol."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-civics-20111227,0,3247832.story


And we wonder how people like Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy get on the Court...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:06 AM

64. and a third can't name any...

Because they tend to think in cartoons.

Nobody with any sense is against all gun control. Nobody with any sense is for a gun ban. Do you plan to actually discuss the issue, or just bounce around and flash cartoons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:11 AM

67. Definitely not political cartoons...

To see those you generally have to go to the editorial page of a newspaper, and we know how few Americans are reading those these days. There are about 45 million daily newspaper readers - there are 80 million gun owners I'm told.

So what gun control are *you* for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:20 AM

69. It's about as good as it's going to get right now. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:33 AM

70. how is this remotely relevant?

What gun control are you talking about? Current laws as is? Improve current laws? It is not a binary world. The real world is so analog that it is not even varying shades of gray, it is Technicolor.
Since much of what you propose was theater created by the dim for the dim, how can we as responsible gun owners take any of it seriously? Like the absurd "AWB"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:02 AM

71. How is it not relevant? n/t



Bill Clinton described much of what goes on in this country in terms of the lack of gun control as "madness." I tend to agree...

Also, when you bandy about rhetoric like "theater created by the dim for the dim" in conjunction with "how can we as responsible gun owners take any of it seriously" you're doing exactly the rhetoric that I am denouncing and essentially playing into Wayne LaPierre's hand. What don't you understand about the NRA's political effect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:08 PM

78. I fail to see how

since we have had federal gun control since 1927, the "lack of" is not really accurate. We also had local and state controls since the founding, so we have gun control and always have. Clinton/Bush NAFTA was madness.
The AWB was theater and nothing more. Perhaps it was more of a written by the dim for the clueless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:22 PM

83. "Perhaps it was more of a written by the dim for the clueless."

Are you saying that all those who support such legislation are clueless?

I think if we closed the loopholes that were exploited it would be a great piece of legislation. I'm really not convinced by the toters that they need that much firepower for any legitimate purpose and if a little "inconvenience" - their words, mean more public safety so be it. I'm really not seeing the sacrifice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 02:04 PM

85. Please, enlighten us of the loopholes of which you speak. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #85)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 02:10 PM

86. It's not hard to write such legislation...

During the time of the 1994-2004 ban, I heard that criminals were still able to commit crimes with assault weapons. How was that possible?

The 1994 law includes several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.

Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake" and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.

Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.

Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/assault-weapons-faq


I answered your question, you'll get no further response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:03 PM

80. Keep those NRA royalties rollin' in! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:28 PM

20. $650 for a toaster???? WTF

 

Some people know how to waste money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:18 PM

22. An "assault" or "tactical" toaster would go for $1500 and sell in the millions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:07 PM

24. No, because that would be stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:53 PM

28. Grenade launcher, assault toast thrower, it's all the same to him.

 

Wheat with lots of butter and honey for me, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:22 PM

30. Just like the guns that folks seem to covet for some irrational reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:52 PM

45. More like the firearms you have a irrational fear of, for no reason. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 08:52 PM

47. We've given you plenty of rational reasons.

 

The irrationality is completely from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:07 PM

60. Maybe not,

if it reloaded itself and put butter and jelly on the toast! Something along the line of an assault toaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 03:28 PM

23. compared to Brady and VPC

the NRA is still very grassroots. The way to get rid of the LaPierre faction is for the DNC to drop gun control from the platform. That would do two things:
That could put the traditionalists/environmentalists back in power (if there are any left) reversing the Cincinnati Revolt.
Would bring more of the traditional Dem base back to the party (as long as the suburban snobs and regional bigots can STFU)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:26 PM

31. Hope that never happens. Guns in public is a regressive cause, no matter how many votes it attracts.


Anyone who votes Republican simply because the GOP promotes/endorses/carries/usesgunsforintimidation has a problem (and likely many beliefs best left with the right wingers).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:44 PM

35. hope what never happens?

DNC dropping the issue from the platform?
or
traditionalists/environmentalists counter revolution take the NRA back from Ted and Wayne? Not that they have to be the same Fudds, but I do miss seeing Sierra Club and NRA stickers on the same car.
Either way, I agree with Raymond Kessler that gun control is basically a conservative or regressive cause.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:07 PM

81. Gun-control must be a "conservative cause." It's worked so well for the Right! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #35)


Response to gejohnston (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:40 PM

95. I think you'd like seeing the bumper of my car.


I've got a pro-recycling sticker, and one that reads "Intolerance will not be Tolerated" right next to my California Rifle & Pistol Association decal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #95)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:39 PM

98. Where I'm from, you usually see confederate flag, "insured by S&W," W, and NRA sticker on vehicles.


Here, those into guns are clear where they stand politically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #98)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 08:31 PM

99. Glad I'm not from Georgia

Wyoming looks really civilized from where you are sitting does it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:35 AM

101. Dick Cheney country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #101)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:42 AM

102. Somehow, I doubt the entire state is represented by a single man.

 

You really need to take your bigotry and stereotyping and go fuck yourself with it. It's vile, puerile, indicative of a lack of rationality and facts, and wouldn't be tolerated in any other forum here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #101)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:54 PM

104. it is also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:58 PM

37. We sure are lucky the Colonists didn't have any guns, otherwise we might have our own country

 

instead of owing fealty to the Queen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:55 PM

97. "Guns in public is a regressive cause..........."


Suuuuuuuure Hoyt.

That's why the deep blue states of Washington and Oregon (to name just two) went shall-issue w/regard to concealed carry many years before Texas and Arizona did.

Just can't help yourself from spewing nonsense, can you buddy? By all means......please continue to do so. Your continuous display of ignorance undermines your "cause" as it bolsters those who support the RKBA.

Happy New Year, friend!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:38 PM

25. The NRA is a bunch of right wing idiots. Who will lie to raise money. Hate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:36 PM

34. I recently joined, not because I think LaPierre is a good guy, but because I'm interested in protect

 

ing the 2nd amendment. I've owned (yes, absolutely owned) guns for 62 years and have never had one of them jump up and attack somebody. Maybe you think that makes me a rightwing idiot, I suppose it's your privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:18 PM

38. I think you are supporting a right wing group. Like if you joined pro-life group or

joined the RNC.

The NRA hates Obama and lies about Obama.

But of course it is your decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:20 PM

40. Yes, it is my decision.

 

I never told any anti-gun people they have to own guns and I sure as fuck don't want them telling me I can not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 07:24 PM

42. ?? What does this have to do with the NRA......

You can be pro-gun and also think the NRA is a bunch of right wing nuts. Many here do.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 08:53 PM

48. Sooooo, let's turn into a more centrist group. By joining.

 

Standing outside and screaming doesn't seem to work, does it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:31 PM

49. I don't think it would work. The NRA would lose too many members if they started....

having pro-gun dems as speakers, etc.

The membership is I bet 90% right wing and they can raise a lot of money from that paranoid bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:57 PM

51. maybe

shrillness and paranoia always sells and opens wallets. They all do it.
Pro-gun Dem as speakers? I think most of the loss would be due to exploding heads for the first couple of times. They would be replaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:35 PM

56. Correct. The NRA is not about inclusiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #56)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:10 PM

82. Only 1/2 royalty payment for this one...

Since the cartoonist broached the "confused" subject of "semi-automatic" fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #56)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 03:50 PM

89. Stereotyping. Broad-brushing. Pigeon-holing.

 

Wonderful tactics, eh? Bigotry, it's O.K. if it serves your purposes, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #89)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:44 PM

96. Notice that the latest scary buzz terminology


"semi-automatic" was inserted?

I recently engaged in a short debate on Facebook (short because the pro-restrictionists ran away) wherein one member tossed out the descriptor "semi-automatic" to infer that such firearms are super-duper-deadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #89)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:18 PM

100. I think how the NRA spends its money speaks for itself. n/t

So far for the 2012 cycle 90% of the NRA's donations to members of Congress have gone to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2012

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:29 PM

32. I think LaPierre is fearmongering to raise revenue.

I disagree with his allegation.

I also don't think Obama would veto a new AWB, but neither will he push for one to be passed by the Congress.

Despite the junk in Change.Gov during the election, around gun control stuff he wanted, he's been pretty fair to gun owners, both poltically, and rhetorically. I have quite a bit of respect for him on this issue, at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:09 AM

66. I would bet...

...that the NRA's ability to raise that kind money began just about the time that the Democratic party embraced gun control like a child's security blanket.



ETA: Oh... btw... Of course the NRA is fear-mongering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread