HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » So for the anti-gunners, ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:41 PM

 

So for the anti-gunners, what is wrong with Bill Clinton's analysis?

In his book "My Life," in which he analyzed the loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994, he wrote:
"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

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

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html

Why, exactly, are you crusading for a revival of the 1993 issue?

59 replies, 5404 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 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply So for the anti-gunners, what is wrong with Bill Clinton's analysis? (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 OP
Loudly Sep 2012 #1
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #2
DrDan Sep 2012 #3
gejohnston Sep 2012 #6
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #7
ileus Sep 2012 #21
glacierbay Sep 2012 #4
Deep13 Sep 2012 #5
1GirlieGirl Sep 2012 #8
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #9
1GirlieGirl Sep 2012 #15
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #17
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #19
1GirlieGirl Sep 2012 #20
RegieRocker Sep 2012 #42
1GirlieGirl Sep 2012 #43
TPaine7 Sep 2012 #44
Marengo Sep 2012 #25
PavePusher Sep 2012 #28
gejohnston Sep 2012 #12
oneshooter Sep 2012 #22
Deep13 Sep 2012 #23
oneshooter Sep 2012 #24
Deep13 Sep 2012 #35
oneshooter Sep 2012 #48
Deep13 Sep 2012 #50
PavePusher Sep 2012 #52
Deep13 Sep 2012 #55
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #53
gejohnston Sep 2012 #26
Deep13 Sep 2012 #34
gejohnston Sep 2012 #36
Deep13 Sep 2012 #40
krispos42 Sep 2012 #45
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #57
rDigital Sep 2012 #27
Deep13 Sep 2012 #30
gejohnston Sep 2012 #32
Deep13 Sep 2012 #41
rDigital Sep 2012 #37
PavePusher Sep 2012 #29
Deep13 Sep 2012 #31
gejohnston Sep 2012 #33
PavePusher Sep 2012 #39
PavePusher Sep 2012 #38
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #58
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #10
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #11
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #14
spin Sep 2012 #54
gejohnston Sep 2012 #13
Yavapai Sep 2012 #16
gejohnston Sep 2012 #18
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #46
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #49
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #51
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #56
spin Sep 2012 #59

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:49 PM

1. Who needs Congress? Executive order and some good judges can do what's necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:51 PM

2. Consequences will be the same

 

If the anti-gunners want to ensure a republican president in 2016 that would be a very effective way to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:57 PM

3. so how would you vote? . . . who would you send your $$$ to? . . . who would you make calls for?

I think I know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:06 PM

6. how would you label Jerry Brown?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:08 PM

7. Well

 

If he continued the same polices he would not get my vote, time, or money. I wouldn't vote, donate, or campaign for the republican either. I will not vote for someone who tries to disarm me, simple as that and I'm willing to have the democrats suffer the consequences. Eventually my fellow lefties will learn, at least I hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:13 PM

21. Voters can't do shit about what judges want.

It only takes one shitty judge in the right court to destroy the Second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:01 PM

4. Sorry

 

the Pres. cannot issue an executive order banning firearms or ammo., that's blatently unconstitutional. Our system of govt. doesn't work that way.
Why are you so eager to hand the reins of power back to the R's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:05 PM

5. Because some people are using high-capacity...

...semi-auto pistols and rifles to commit mass murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:15 PM

8. Ditto

There are some people (me, me!) who aren't "anti gunners" but just want some SANITY in gun laws. High capacity magazines, assault rifles...come on! I have no problem with keeping a gun or 2 in the house, hunters, marksmen, ok. But a little sanity, please. Does it have to be one extreme or the other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:24 PM

9. Well

 

The last assault weapons ban did nothing but raise prices, didn't affect crime at all since rifles are already used in very very few crimes, and thankfully we don't reinterpret the 2nd amendment based on your opinion. It did however lead to a republican wave in congress because we the people do not like being disarmed unconstitutionally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:31 PM

15. Always with the nasty tone

This is why I generally keep away from discussions with NRA people. It's like talking to a republican. No matter how civil I am, they always come back with the mean smarmy tone. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:42 PM

17. I am trying to understand but, I am sorry - I do not see the nasty tone in that post

or the smarmy tone either.

can you point it out to me? How should that post be phrased?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:54 PM

19. Perhaps a more civil tone here...

 

1) High-capacity magazines are a phantom issue. I don't train regularly and I can drop an empty magazine and load a full one in less than four seconds. What difference does it really make if I fire 30 rounds from one magazine or have to pause for 4 seconds halfway through to fire the last 15? It's seriously not an issue.

2) "Assault rifles" have, in fact, been heavily regulated since the 1930's. An "assault weapon" is simply a semiautomatic rifle that bears no practical difference to most hunting rifles other than it's usually black and "looks scary" to some people. It's like putting a rear spoiler, neon lights and shiny wheels on a car and painting it black. It's still just a car, but it looks different. Functionally, an "assault weapon" is no different than a hunting rifle.

The problem is that, just as certain pro-gun groups spread untruths to gain support, certain anti-gun groups also spread untruths to gain support. They both use (or create from whole cloth) hot-button issues that have little basis in fact to scare people who don't have a lot of actual knowledge of the subject.

Obama is NOT going to take everybody's guns and neither "assault weapons" nor high-capacity magazines have any appreciable effect on gun crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:12 PM

20. Thank you. That was very pretty.

Civil tone and well stated. You didn't change my opinion, but I appreciate the information. I will look into it and see if I can take my emotions out of it and look at the issue in a more logical way. I doubt it, but you are a good spokesperson for your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:00 AM

42. You

 

doubt if you can take out your emotions and look at it in an logical way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #42)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:07 AM

43. Yes, that's correct

I'm flawed, but honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #43)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:45 AM

44. And I am impressed. Don't let us put you off here in the gun forum,

 

we sometimes get intense, but many of us are open to learn from those with differing points of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:59 PM

25. Is Reasonable Argument a member of the NRA?

I don't know myself, just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:19 PM

28. If by "nasty tone" you mean truth and uncomfortable facts, then yeah, maybe so.

 

But the problem then is not that of the other poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1GirlieGirl (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:47 PM

12. assault rifles have been tightly regulated and registered since the 1930s

because they are automatic weapons, machine guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

What you are thinking of is a political term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

It was coined by Josh Sugermann to confuse a semi automatic rifle that looks ugly, but functionally no different than the same gun with a wooden stock, with a military grade full auto.

"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, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988


BTW, what is a high capacity magazine? I would define it as an after market magazine that held more than that gun was designed for. In other words, it would vary with the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:09 PM

22. You mean rifles like this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:53 PM

23. I'm thinking of the 34-rd. Glock magazines...

...and 30 or 40 rd. AK or M-4 magazines. Especially ones with collapsible, concealable stocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:55 PM

24. What is the difference between those and the one shown?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #24)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:37 PM

35. I'm guessing 10-20 rounds. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #35)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:36 AM

48. So it is ONLY the ammunition capacity that you care about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:40 PM

50. Mostly, and concealability.

Look, I don't want to disarm the public or even bring back the AWB. OTOH, the expressed language of the 2nd Am. specifically allows for regulation and is intended to protect STATE security. When people go to a public event they have a right to expect that they won't be shot. Limiting magazine capacity is a modest way to limit the damage someone can cause. Stopping to reload gives police or private citizens an opportunity to stop the assailant before he can start using lethal force again. The alternative is to live in a police state where we are searched (4th Am.) everywhere we go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 09:42 PM

52. The "regulation" you refer to is related to the militia, not the people when outside the militia.

 

"the security of a free State" argueably begins with security of the individual, unless you actually want that police state you next allude to. And violation of the Fourth Amendment is certainly not the answer to abuse of the Second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:49 PM

55. The "people's right" is the right to insure regulated, state security.

The first clause is the purpose, the second the operative part. Don't forget, "people" is a collective noun. Grammatically--and as it was used in the 18th c.--it was not the plural of person ("persons.") I am not suggesting that people=state, but it does not equal an individual either.

So what is the solution if it is not restricting highly destructive weapons? A civilian arms race? They (whoever "they" are--no one is a criminal until he commits a crime) have pistols, now "we" have them. So now they have body armor and rifles. Do we have to walk around in body armor and rifles? Then what? Grenades? Do we need a mentality of constantly watching over ones shoulder being "ready for them"? The problem with that is that people who view violence as a solution to problems will eventually resort to violence and not just in defensive situations either.

I was in two places over the summer where I simply did not need to worry about crime generally, to say nothing of gun violence. I was able to walk around day or night without my usual American mentality of "relaxed vigilance." And I gottah tell yah. It was a refreshing change. One was Paris. I was there 8 days. The other, oddly enough, was Irbid, Jordan--30 minutes from the Syrian border. Walking down a street in the middle of the night, seeing a group of young men coming my way might be a cause for concern at least in Cleveland. In Jordan, I did not need to give it a second thought. It simply is not a violent society. People there do not look to violence to solve problems--either would-be criminals or people generally. You know those sliding door soda coolers stores have? Vendors keep them outside in Jordan. No one steals anything. Over night, the merchants put small locks on the glass, cooler doors and not worry. The cops over there enforce traffic laws and that's about it. There are other police whose function is state security, but there aren't many of them around. I know I'm rambling, but I am lamenting the fact that Americans always seem to look at violence as a first option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 10:01 PM

53. Take a look at what actually happened in real life.

There have been two mass shooting in which high capacity magazines were used. In BOTH cases the hi-cap mags jammed. The shooting was stopped due to the unreliability of such magazines. In numerous other mass shootings the shooter was using the standard mag for that particular gun and was able to reload before he could be stopped. The VT killer reloaded 17 times.

Your speculation fails in the light of the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:00 PM

26. Why Glock?

What about FN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:36 PM

34. You mean the Five-Seven?

Kind of an odd-ball weapon. The standard magazine holds 20 rounds of pricey, specialty ammo, 14 fewer than the long Glock mag. I note Glock because of its ubiquity. A shooter can get a Glock 17 or 26 in his belt and the long mag in his coat. Then it's shoot 34 times without stopping to reload.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #34)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:38 PM

36. You can get 30 round mags for the five seven

they don't look as "clown car" as the Glock ones. My son has a five seven, not the 30 round mags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:19 AM

40. I've got 20-rounders for my Beretta carbine.

Pretty sure Mec-Gar makes a 25 or 30. I suppose the long Glock mag. was intended for carbines, like the Kel-tec model.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #40)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:29 AM

45. I believe the long magazines were built for the full-auto Glock 18

As a machine pistol, it had a very high rate of fire. I imagine it could empty that magazine in 2 seconds, probably less.

I assume it was intended for brief bursts of automatic fire in some sort of specialty military or police role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:59 AM

57. They're great in the G19 at the range.

 

Changes the balance a bit, but less reloading mags at the range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:02 PM

27. Collapsible stocks? They only shorten the weapon by 4.72 inches on an M4 type rifle. That's not

 

really going to make it concealable. A short barrel would help in a minimal way, but a pistol is infinitely more concealable.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m4-m4a1-e.html

The point of a collapsible stock is not concealment, but to more comfortably accommodate different sized shooters. In a military role, a collapsible stock is also used to account for the added shoulder thickness due to body armor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #27)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:24 PM

30. I know it's not the manufacturer's purpose.

And an M-4 is not as compact as an AK or a Mini-14 with a folding stock. Sure, pistols are much more compact, but not as lethal. The guy that got Gifford used a pistol. The Batman shooter used an AK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:31 PM

32. he didn't use an AK

He used a Smith and Wesson M&P, which is AR based, but most of the carnage was with the shotgun because his mall ninja magazine caused the gun to jam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:22 AM

41. I see.

*chuckle* mall ninja magazine.

When I bought my SW M&P15 several years ago, it came with promotional Magpul 30-rounders. That's the limit for magazines in Ohio, except for .22LR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:39 PM

37. The Batman shooter used an M&P-15 (AR-15), a Remington 870 shotgun and a Glock 22. No AK in sight.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:23 PM

29. "collapsible, concealable stocks"

 

You don't know what you are talking about, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #29)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:29 PM

31. I realize the buffer tube limits the collapsability

of a Stoner rifle stock, but shorter is still more conceable than a full-length A-2 stock, especially if you saw the fixed flash-suppressor off a 14" barrel. But I mainly was thinking of the folding stock on an AK or a Mini-14. The reciprocating operating rod on those models means there is no buffer tube allowing a true folding stock. I suppose one could put a folding stock on a $1400 M1-A, but I've never seen that done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #31)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:35 PM

33. with a 14 inch barrel,

you either have a pistol, an NFA violation, or really dumb to jump through the hoops to do something really bad. Or, did I miss something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #33)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:14 AM

39. A fixed flash-suppresor counts as part of the barrel length. (welded or pinned)

 

A removeable one does not. (threaded or snap-on).

So a 14" barrel with a 2" f.s. welded in place would be a legal 16" barrel length.

It's just another fucktarded piece of do-nothing gun law that Americans have to navigate.

http://www.mcso.us/public/emanual/Documents/measure.pdf

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-barreled_rifle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #31)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 12:04 AM

38. Sigh.

 

Firstly, it's not a "collapsing" stock, it's an adjustable stock. The most I've seen that you can shorten them is about 4 inches. This does not markedly make them more "concealable". Sawing an inch-and-a-half off a rifle barrel really isn't going to be much help either.

Secondly. A true folding stock will, yes, shorten a rifle by 10-14 inches or so. So what? This again makes them only marginally more "concealable". Most rifles so equipped can't actually be operated, or operated effectively, with the stock in the folded position. The folding-stock was intended to aid storage and portability in tight spaces (vehicle crew members) and overt portability (airborne troops). If this is a significant factor in crime, I'd like to see it in some government crime data. If you can show that it's been a factor in any significant number of crimes, then you have a talking point.

Otherwise, it's merely selling fear and hysteria. And that is against the purpose of this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:05 AM

58. Some people are also using fertilizer and fuel oil to commit mass murder.

 

Some people (arsonists) use a match and gasoline to commit mass murder.

Some people (bad drivers) use a vehicle to commit mass murder.


The issue isn't the tool, it's the act. It's illegal to kill somebody with a car...or a homemade bomb...or fire. It's not illegal to own or use a car...or fertilizer...or matches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:37 PM

10. John Kasich proved you wrong.

B grade by the NRA, voted for the AWB while in congress along with anti-hunting bills, won over Democratic Governor Ted Strickland with an A grade from the NRA.

Generalizations sound sooo good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:39 PM

11. This was discussed in another post

 

He was swept in due to the backlash from the affordable care act, not his stance on gun rights. Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:54 PM

14. All the excuses in the world do not

change a fact.

As I recall Obama got about 10 million more votes than McCain too, without NRA support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 10:53 PM

54. McCain was never all that popular with gun owners. ...

The NRA is a fairly middle of the road organization compared with the GOA.

Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a gun rights organization in the United States with over 300,000 members. They make efforts to differentiate themselves from the larger National Rifle Association (NRA), and have publicly criticized the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be the selling out of the gun rights movement.

The organization has often been in opposition to the NRA in their respective endorsements and ratings of politicians and candidates. For instance, the GOA was outspoken in its opposition to John McCain's 2008 presidential bid, describing his gun-rights voting record as "abysmal, wretched, and pathetic" and rating him with an F- on Second Amendment issues since 2004 as opposed to the NRA's (through its PAC, the NRA-PVF) C+ rating of McCain. The GOA took issue with the NRA over the 2007 NICS Improvement Act....emphasis added

They have been described by Congressman Ron Paul as "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." This quote from Paul has long been displayed front and center on the homepage of the Gun Owners of America website, and Paul was the only 2008 Presidential candidate to gain an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America


The NRA does seem to harbor a hatred of Obama. Perhaps their endorsement of McCain was indeed a sell out. Obama in his first term has been friendly to those who support gun rights yet I suspect the NRA will endorse Romney. Romney, in my opinion, will sell out gun owners in a heartbeat if he senses a political advantage. He has been on every side of every issue at one time or another.

Always remember that 0nly 4.3 million of the 80 million firearm owners in our nation pay for an NRA membership. There has to be a reason for this and I suspect that many gun owners are fed up the the constant efforts of the NRA-ILA (the NRA's political wing) to garner money by publishing propaganda about how the Democrats in Congress will pass laws to greatly restrict gun rights if it doesn't receive donations. If there was actually a clear and present danger of this happening the NRA membership would increase dramatically and large amounts of money would flow into the NRA-ILA.

I feel most gun owners are far more politically savvy than Liberals give them credit for. They sensed John McCain was no real friend and refused to show up at the polls to vote for him or chose to vote for Obama as they were totally fed up with Bush the Junior and the Republicans in Congress. They ended up proven correct as no significant gun control legislation passed a Democratically controlled congress despite the fact that our party had a majority in both houses for two years.

The fact is that many elected Democrats and the leadership of our party realize that draconian gun control is a losing issue. Perhaps gun owners are beginning to realize this. Of course some elected Liberals in the Democratic Party do oppose gun rights as they come from gun unfriendly areas of our nation. Since they are often well known Democrats, their voices carry a lot of weight and consequently are wildly publicized by our media as the media is definitely opposed to gun rights.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:51 PM

13. How much was due to high tech ballot stuffing?

From what I understand from Thom Hartmann et al, those Diebold machines are easy to hack and have been known to change your votes.
http://www.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:42 PM

16. Clinton's anti-gun stance was enough for me to not vote for him!

 

I was always a Democrat and had worked in every democrat campaign since JFK. So in 1994 I voted Republican for the first time in my life.

After watching Clinton bring us NAFTA (a policy that could not have been brought in by a Republican President) I even changed my voter registration to Libertarian. I didn't vote for Al Gore because he also supported the Brady bunch.

By 2004, I again started voting Democrat, but changed my party to Independent. I support most every other Democrat policy but abhor giving up any of my constitutional rights.

I voted for Obama in 2008.

Do you anti-gun people really want to bring this shit-storm back down on the Democrat party? That will be the cost of pushing this again. I know that I was not alone in this then or even now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:53 PM

18. it is the Democratic Party, has been since Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans

but I agree with you about NAFTA and GaTT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:30 AM

46. The Deadly Myth of Gun Control in Electoral Politics

It is hard to make a case that the assault weapons ban was decisive in 1994.

The law certainly enraged many N.R.A. members and might explain the loss of certain Democratic seats. However, there were other major factors in the Democrats’ 1994 loss, starting with perceived Democratic arrogance and corruption (overdrafts at the House bank came to symbolize that).

Add to that voter unhappiness with Mr. Clinton’s budget, his health care fiasco, the Republican Party’s success in recruiting appealing candidates, and that ingenious Republican vehicle for nationalizing the elections known as the “Contract With America.” The contract, by the way, did not mention guns.

Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election campaign actually stressed his gun control achievements. James and Sarah Brady spoke in prime time at the ’96 Democratic convention, and Clinton campaign ads trumpeted his role in enacting the assault weapons ban and the ’93 Brady law requiring background checks for gun buyers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html?_r=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:52 AM

47. I agree with that analysis

 

It's never about one issue, but when you piss off a large and well funded voting block it can easily add enough votes to cost you the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:25 PM

49. So why, exactly, are you crusading for a revival of the 1993 issue?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:21 PM

51. Yeah, let's just the NRA run the entire show.

 

The United States of Gun-Buyers.

The NRA is certainly proof that constant brainwashing combined with big bucks donations works like a charm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:58 AM

56. Why do you equate private gun ownership with the NRA?

 

Yes, the NRA supports private gun ownership, but so do a lot of individuals (both liberal and conservative).

If not for the left "ban all guns" fringe, the NRA wouldn't have nearly the power that it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:20 AM

59. You make a damn good point. ...

There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation but only 4.3 million belong to the NRA. That's 5.3 percent!

The NRA is used as a scapegoat by those who support draconian gun control. The fact is that the NRA is not all that popular with gun owners but gun rights are.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread