HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Media Ignores Call For Gu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:53 AM

Media Ignores Call For Gun Violence Prevention In Loughner Sentencing Hearing

ABC, CBS, and USA Today ignored a call for strong gun violence prevention laws included in statements by Mark Kelly on behalf of his wife, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, at the sentencing hearing for Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner.



While ABC, CBS, and USA Today reported on Kelly's statement to Loughner that "you may have put a bullet through her head, but you haven't put a dent in her spirit and her commitment to make the world a better place," they ignored his comments about the role of high capacity magazines in the shooting and concerns that he and Giffords have about the enforcement of gun laws.

Giffords and Kelly took Arizona governor Jan Brewer to task for downplaying the role of high-capacity gun magazines in the January 2011 shooting that killed six and seriously wounded Giffords and 13 others: "In this state, we have elected officials so feckless in their leadership that they would say, as in the case of Governor Jan Brewer, 'I don't think it has anything to do with the size of the magazine or the caliber of the gun.' She went on and said, 'Even if the shooter's weapon had held fewer bullets, he'd have another gun, maybe. He could have three guns in his pocket' - she said this just one week after a high-capacity magazine allowed you to kill six and wound 19 others before being wrestled to the ground while attempting to reload."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/09/media-ignores-call-for-gun-violence-prevention/191312

104 replies, 8217 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 104 replies Author Time Post
Reply Media Ignores Call For Gun Violence Prevention In Loughner Sentencing Hearing (Original post)
SecularMotion Nov 2012 OP
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #1
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #2
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #3
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #45
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #66
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #70
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #76
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #85
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #47
gejohnston Nov 2012 #49
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #52
gejohnston Nov 2012 #54
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #58
gejohnston Nov 2012 #59
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #71
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #62
glacierbay Nov 2012 #65
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #67
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #69
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #73
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #75
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #77
glacierbay Nov 2012 #78
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #86
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #88
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #81
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #83
aikoaiko Nov 2012 #4
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #5
gejohnston Nov 2012 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #7
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #19
gejohnston Nov 2012 #23
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #26
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #50
gejohnston Nov 2012 #51
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #53
gejohnston Nov 2012 #56
sir pball Nov 2012 #64
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #25
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #8
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #9
gejohnston Nov 2012 #12
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #14
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #48
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #80
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #84
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #89
oneshooter Nov 2012 #98
aikoaiko Nov 2012 #10
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #16
aikoaiko Nov 2012 #18
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #32
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #24
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #22
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #11
gejohnston Nov 2012 #13
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #17
gejohnston Nov 2012 #21
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #27
gejohnston Nov 2012 #29
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #28
hack89 Nov 2012 #30
gejohnston Nov 2012 #31
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #33
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #37
gejohnston Nov 2012 #38
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #40
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #55
gejohnston Nov 2012 #57
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #101
gejohnston Nov 2012 #102
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #103
gejohnston Nov 2012 #104
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #15
gejohnston Nov 2012 #20
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #35
gejohnston Nov 2012 #36
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #42
ManiacJoe Nov 2012 #43
gejohnston Nov 2012 #46
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #60
Dog Gone at Penigma Nov 2012 #82
gejohnston Nov 2012 #87
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #90
PavePusher Nov 2012 #92
PavePusher Nov 2012 #93
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #94
glacierbay Nov 2012 #63
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #74
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #79
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #61
MicaelS Nov 2012 #68
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #34
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #39
oneshooter Nov 2012 #41
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #44
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #91
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #95
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #96
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #97
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #99
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #100
Jenoch Nov 2012 #72

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:08 AM

1. Right. Nobody wants to listen to him.

Meanwhile, ten counties in Illinois voted FOR concealed carry by large margins Tuesday in an advisory referendum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:26 AM

2. Loughner is a Mental Case and a call to our Nation to implement a liberal National Healthcare Policy

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

that includes a progressive stance on Mental Health Issues and a Strong Rehabilitation Program for Prisoners. Also, Education needs to be a top priority in this country.

Thank you for posting this and giving me a chance to, once again, point this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:01 AM

3. Does mediamatters still employ an armed bodyguard?

After so many years of loyal service, are you now turning on the only viable component in the gun control outlook? Be careful the hand you bite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:18 PM

45. Seems Like That Is Your Mantra

Too bad it's not anchored in reason.

MediaMatters supports the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

They support REASONABLE gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:02 PM

66. Unanswered questions become "mantras?" Only on the InnerTube...

(1) Does mediamatters support shall-issue concealed-carry laws; and

(2) Does mediamatters follow the law when using armed bodyguard(s)?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #66)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:18 PM

70. I Can't speak for them

They advocate changing concealed carry laws and/or revising them depending on state and they follow the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #70)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:13 AM

76. Even in D.C., since you are speaking for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:47 PM

85. Irrelevant

Unfortunately, your representatives and courts decide against the wishes of our people.

But alas, let's keep our eyes on the ball ... Guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:22 PM

47. Let Me Guess

You support the NRA over the Democratic Convention party platform on guns, our Candidate who in the debates supported an AWB, and MediaMatters.

Good thing our party allows dissent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:37 PM

49. the election was about the economy

there are some in DU that would love to snuff out any dissent.
If the national DNC adopted the Wyoming Democratic Party's platform, would you still support all of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:56 PM

52. When They Do

Let Me Know!

Thank goodness we didn't need THAT 'swing' state.... As if. LOL.

On the contrary...we embrace dissent.

Let me know how successful you are in 2016 with your gun platform or if our candidate embraces an AWB in the debate.

Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #52)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:08 PM

54. give it a few years

it has gone blue once on presidential races. In governorships, it alternates. BTW, the state platform is probably to the left of the national platform in a couple of ways:
Closing Torture U, once known as the School of the Americas
single payer health care, replacing Nixoncare with Trumancare
repealing "right to work for less" laws
abolishing the electoral college
medical pot
restoring voting rights to everyone
waterboarding is torture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #54)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:19 PM

58. It's Libertarian Side

Extends Only So Far.

Try getting married to the person you love.

But alas, one agenda at a time. Let me know how that Wyoming gun advocacy translates into making that state blue or into changing our party platform against the AWB it currently embraces.... Really?....an AW to hunt? And you call that sport 'left'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #58)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:38 PM

59. it's there too, I'll list the whole thing

since you don't know what an "assault weapon" is, which is functionally the same as any semi automatic with a pretty wooden stock, I'll explain.
hunting regulations allow only five round magazines, if you have a detachable box magazine. It is as true of bolt action rifles as semi autos.
That is probably true in most states. Sport hunting is something rich people from other states, like Scalia and Kagan, go there to do. People who live there hunt for the organic protein source and stick it to the factory farm industry.



Civil Rights

Wyoming Democrats oppose discrimination based on gender, language, national origin or ethnicity, religion or non-religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, race, or political beliefs.
Wyoming Democrats support the right of citizens to own firearms and also support the right of citizens, through their elected government, to prohibit firearms in government buildings.
Wyoming Democrats oppose Government interference in our private lives. We support civil marriage for all, a woman’s right to choose, death with dignity, a person’s ownership of their genetic profile and the right to privacy.
Wyoming Democrats support the right of habeas corpus and oppose the use of torture or inhumane treatment, including waterboarding, for all those held or detained by the government.
Wyoming Democrats support the right to trial by jury and access to the civil justice system, and oppose any effort to arbitrarily limit a jury’s ability to award fair compensation.
The Wyoming Democratic Party supports an amendment to the Federal Constitution that will abolish the Electoral College and base Presidential elections on the national popular vote.

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/2012-platform2010-bylaws

Although "libertarian" has a negative connotation, "live and let live" is a better way of looking at it. When I was a kid, there were a few hippies that used to hang out on the court house lawn, as a place to socialize, in the summer. It was not like being at, say Old Miss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:21 PM

71. Libertarian

First part...rather accusatory...but if you say so.

Second part...cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:12 AM

62. Shit, my deer gun is termed by the Military as a Battle Rifle. Order of magnitude more powerful

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

than a stupid fucking assault weapon. The most popular assault weapon in the United States typically launches a round with 1,124 ft·lb of force. My deer rifle launches its round with 2,981 ft·lb of force.

In fact, that first rifle, the AR15, is illegal for hunting deer in most states, not because it is too powerful, but because it is insufficiently powerful to humanely kill a deer. It is allowed for hunting smaller game. .224 caliber (larger than the AR-15's .223) is the bare-assed minimum for hunting deer in most states.

Your derision of

"an AW to hunt? And you call that sport 'left'?"

is meaningless nonsense/uninformed hyperbole to any person who knows a goddamn thing about actually hunting.

Even if you are 'aghast' at the capacity and fire rate of the weapon, this can lend to humane hunts as well. First off, there are limits on how many rounds you can have in the gun, lawfully, for any particular type of game. Second, some game, like a coyote, may need to be shot on the run. If it is, and the first shot is not lethal, the animal could end up suffering a lot before dying. Fast follow-up shots from modern weapons (made in the last oh, I don't know, 80 years) reduce that risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #62)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:59 AM

65. Here's a picture of an "assault weapon"

 

carried by a soldier in Vietnam.



Just a regular deer hunting rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:04 PM

67. You guessed. Don't play craps. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #67)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:16 PM

69. Do Tell Which One is Incorrect?

You support the NRA position on guns over the Democratic Convention party platform on guns?

You support the NRA position on guns over our Presidential Candidate position on guns who in the debates supported an AWB?

You support the NRA position on guns over MediaMatters position on guns?

If you think I guessed wrong, please tell me specifically which one is wrong to straighten me out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #69)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:22 AM

73. I have no problem with ANY of those, for various reasons.

Firstly, because while the NRA happens to agree with *me* ( as well as some other people
you should know about:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

http://www.bluesteeldemocrats.org/GOCs/usamap.html)

in re gun laws (and almost nothing else), and secondly:

it really, really pisses off self-appointed witchfinders who fancy themselves the guardians
of Democratic purity.

(I used to refer to these wowsers as 'self-appointed zampolits', but research showed me that zampolits
occasionally served useful functions beyond the usual hunting down of spies and counterrevolutionaries.

This latest lot here seem intent upon aping the nuttier factions amongst the Republicans
in seeking to 'purge the heretics' instead of coolly enquiring just why they are failing at
their stated goals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #73)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:18 AM

75. Great Eleanors38

I get it.

You oppose the President on guns.
You oppose the Party on guns.
You oppose MediaMatters on guns.
And you think I'm 'pissed'.......LOL.

Didn't want to 'assume' anything as you point out. Thanks....oh wait....that wasn't Eleanors38.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #75)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:55 AM

77. Opposing MediaMatters is a bad thing?

Their level of hypocrisy is so high, I am surprised anyone cites or supports them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:58 AM

78. Especially when it comes to the 2A

 

They're about as credible as Faux Snooze is on Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:07 PM

86. Gosh

Media Matters or the GOP on Guns.

I go with door number one.

And you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:07 PM

88. Neither...both are wrong in multiple areas

Despite my professional proclivities, I don't see this as a binary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #75)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:43 PM

81. So just who the fuck are you to pass judgements on other Democrats?

You forget that you don't *get* to define the "Party" (as you call it)

A small detail that you and the rest of the other self-appointed witchfinders/inquisitors
elide on a regular basis is that a large number of Democrats do not, in fact, support the
party's national platform re guns- and the party is just fine with that
- see, for example:

http://www.dpo.org/communities/gun-owners

You lot are just as bad as the nutbars who drove anyone with a passing resemblance
to a moderate out of the Republican Party. Just because those same crazies are currently
even less popular than you are does not mean that you are liked. The failure of most new
gun control attempts in the past decade or so testifies to the validity of my claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #81)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:42 PM

83. Nice

Really nice

I'm not passing judgment. I'm stating fact. I'm sure there are good Democrats who disagree with the position of the Party, the President and/or Media Matters position on guns....most of whom have no need to use profanity or to call people 'nutbars' or 'crazies' to make their point.

But what you characterize as 'many' has not been sufficient enough to change the Party or President's position. What's crazy is the ridiculous notion that the majority of Democratic leaders chosen by Democratics oppose gun control or an AWB. The majority does not. It's not me on the fringe...but you. And sure, let's respect different opinions, but saying 'WTF am I' doesn't come close to setting the example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:44 AM

4. So why do you think those who support more gun restrictions are failing so miserably?


You can't get but a few of the gun obsessed legislators to put forward any bills that die in committee ?

You can't get the courts to help you?

You can't get any grassroots referendums going?

You can't even get the mass media to do anything when just a couple of years ago they were supporting the gun restrictionist laws wholeheartedly -- even with in formation to scare people?

You can't even exploit tragic gun violence committed by criminals and the insane?

Why so much failure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:05 AM

5. because of the myth that the NRA has influence?

The reality is that the NRA spent a lot of money on politics, as they have promoting a generally extreme right wing agenda. But the outcome of that spending was not productive for them; the candidates they supported lost far more often than they won, and the candidates they opposed won far more often than they lost.

Numerous polls show that there is a significant consensus for MORE not less gun regulation and enforcement, even among gun owners, and even among NRA members.

That is where the disconnect occurs that demonstrates the NRA is more interested (and probably has more money coming in to them) from the gun manufacturers than members --- and there actions are reflected accordingly.

Everything the NRA does is to promote gun sales, and that includes unrestricted gun sales to crazy people who engage in mass shootings. as well as lots of sales to criminals, drug dealing cartels through straw purchasers -- ANY and ALL sales.

The NRA accomplishes this not only through the money they openly spread around on behalf of gun manufacturers, but also through the actions of ALEC and similar unregistered lobbying activities where they put money directly and indirectly into the pockets of conservative politicians who in exchange willingly enact the legislation that the special interests - including the NRA - write for them.

THAT is what grass roots groups are up against, it isn't a lack of desire, it is organized and extremely well funded opposition. That they also get gullible gun nuts to go along with this is part of why this is a problem. How can anyone take seriously as an honest advocate an organization that includes in its leadership someone like Ted Nugent? They are advocates - but not for gun owners; they are lobbyist, but largely unregistered, corrupt, illegal lobbyists.

Guns are destructive, they are lawless, they are a serious public health issue. Sooner or later, the gun nuts will have to stop sticking their thumbs in their ears, wiggling their fingers, and yelling how patriotic they are -- guns are not patriotic, there is NO legal validity to overthrowing our government, and guns do far more harm in homes to the people who live there than they do good.

You can easily find three or four or more murder suicides with firearms every week; you can find deaths and injuries from guns every week that are suicides; you can find accidents with guns every week, you can find instances of domestic abuse intimidation with guns every week. That is on top of the mass shootings that occur far too often, the almost weekly shootings at locations outside the home like the 60+ Walmart shootings alone this year.

You cannot find that many verifiable, demonstrable, provable instances of firearms protecting people; not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:59 AM

6. just a few things

The reality is that the NRA spent a lot of money on politics, as they have promoting a generally extreme right wing agenda. But the outcome of that spending was not productive for them; the candidates they supported lost far more often than they won, and the candidates they opposed won far more often than they lost.
they did? I only saw one ad.

Numerous polls show that there is a significant consensus for MORE not less gun regulation and enforcement, even among gun owners, and even among NRA members.
If you look at the questions in the polls, at least the ones I saw, they actually support the status quo. The specific provisions asked about have been federal law, some dating back to the 1930s, many of them supported by the NRA.

That is where the disconnect occurs that demonstrates the NRA is more interested (and probably has more money coming in to them) from the gun manufacturers than members --- and there actions are reflected accordingly.
for example?

Everything the NRA does is to promote gun sales, and that includes unrestricted gun sales to crazy people who engage in mass shootings. as well as lots of sales to criminals, drug dealing cartels through straw purchasers -- ANY and ALL sales.
That is actually a croc. They do not support gun sales to any of those people. The NRA supported the current NICS system. The only people supporting straw purchases to drug cartels was a few ATF agents in Arizona.

The NRA accomplishes this not only through the money they openly spread around on behalf of gun manufacturers, but also through the actions of ALEC and similar unregistered lobbying activities where they put money directly and indirectly into the pockets of conservative politicians who in exchange willingly enact the legislation that the special interests - including the NRA - write for them.

THAT is what grass roots groups are up against, it isn't a lack of desire, it is organized and extremely well funded opposition. That they also get gullible gun nuts to go along with this is part of why this is a problem. How can anyone take seriously as an honest advocate an organization that includes in its leadership someone like Ted Nugent? They are advocates - but not for gun owners; they are lobbyist, but largely unregistered, corrupt, illegal lobbyists.
What grassroots? Face it, there is no grass roots gun control movement. Brady Campaign has fewer than 28K members and gets all of its funds from a couple of corporations and a foundation. The NRA has 4 million members and 80 million people that they can mobilize in a grassroots effort.

You can easily find three or four or more murder suicides with firearms every week; you can find deaths and injuries from guns every week that are suicides; you can find accidents with guns every week, you can find instances of domestic abuse intimidation with guns every week. That is on top of the mass shootings that occur far too often, the almost weekly shootings at locations outside the home like the 60+ Walmart shootings alone this year.
dog bits man isn't news, man bites dog is news.

You cannot find that many verifiable, demonstrable, provable instances of firearms protecting people; not even close.
dog bits man isn't news, man bites dog is news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:07 AM

7. That's a knee-slapper

The Joyce Foundation being called a "grass roots group".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:04 PM

19. The Joyce foundation has more transparency than the NRA

and arguably more integrity.

I have no problem with referring to it as a grass roots group, in the sense that it has a wide array of funding partners, funds a wide array of public interest topics, and works with a large group of people at what could be properly called the grass roots level, although they work with other levels of activity as well.

That is more than can be said about the NRAs activity. Or are you that ignorant of ALEC and other activity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:15 PM

23. all of their funding partners are corporations and rich people

and don't give us the "NRA has less transparency" unless you have evidence of legal violations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:18 PM

26. The Joyce foundation is quite open about their sources fo funding

and their money comes from a variety of sources, which doesn't mean that their participants and causes - what they fund and who they fund - aren't grass roots.

The NRA is not nearly as open about what they do with their money, who it comes from. ALEC has been successfully challenged and continues to be so. Transparency is different than violations, but there are certainly far more serious ethical questions raised than anything remotely similar with the Joyce foundation

Perhaps you are not so well informed as you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:37 PM

50. CAN ANYONE SAY GUN MANUFACTURERS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #50)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:47 PM

51. with what evidence?

Sorry, you are thinking of NSSF. Are you saying just US manufactures? US and European? If anything, I would picture the US gun industry pushing to ban imports, oh wait, they did just that. That is how the military surplus ban in 1968 happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #51)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:00 PM

53. Could Not Have Been the Military-Industrial Complex?

LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:14 PM

56. no, because

when Europeans and other countries were switching to assault and battle rifles, they were dumping their WW2 era bolt action rifles on the civilian market. A surplus Enfield or Mauser made a good cheap deer rifle. There were shade tree gunsmiths who made a part time business of modifying them for "sporting" use, like pretty stock, removing military sights, changing the angle of the bolt handle angle etc.

The MIC's money is involved with things like bombs, missiles, planes, ships, that is where the big money in the MIC is. The only gun manufactures on the DoD gravy train are Colt, a US company; FN, a Belgian company; and Beretta, an Italian company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:55 AM

64. Just to be pedantic

Remington (M24/M40 sniper rifles), H&K (MP5, Mk23), Knight's (Mk11/M110 sniper rifles) and a few others have small contracts for specialized arms. Not at all enough to make the original point valid, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:26 PM

25. Joyce:

I eschew ad hominem disparagements and have no time those who do. I have no problem with Joyce in general but I find the term "grass roots" to be a mischaracterization. I don't see large organizations as "grass roots". I don't see the NRA as "grass roots" either.

I don't read the NRA or any the propaganda from their leaders. My ideas are my own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:28 PM

8. Quit with the innuendo and do some research

Numerous polls show that there is a significant consensus for MORE not less gun regulation and enforcement, even among gun owners, and even among NRA members.

That depends who is doing the push polling. (Clue: Its done by both sides). Louisiana passed a gun rights referendum this month. How does that square with your perception of the desire of most people for more gun control laws?

That is where the disconnect occurs that demonstrates the NRA is more interested (and probably has more money coming in to them) from the gun manufacturers than members --- and there actions are reflected accordingly.

Everything the NRA does is to promote gun sales, and that includes unrestricted gun sales to crazy people who engage in mass shootings. as well as lots of sales to criminals, drug dealing cartels through straw purchasers -- ANY and ALL sales.

The NRA accomplishes this not only through the money they openly spread around on behalf of gun manufacturers, but also through the actions of ALEC and similar unregistered lobbying activities where they put money directly and indirectly into the pockets of conservative politicians who in exchange willingly enact the legislation that the special interests - including the NRA - write for them.

The NRA's books are open. You will find that vast majority of income for the NRA comes from members, not the gun industry. Its focus is on safety, instructor certification, and training programs. It gets nothing from the sale of guns, though the states and feds do.

Now for the real kicker...the NRA does not spend a dime on politics. It is not allowed to. There is a separate organization called the NRA-ILA. No member dues are allowed to go there. It asks for and gets contributions from many members and others.

Gun manufacturers have a separate group, not the NRA. There are also other trade associations and gun rights groups.

The NRA has never supported gun sales to those not allowed to have them. That includes crazies and criminals. They have never support straw purchases. As for selling to cartels, you will have to check with the Feds about that...the FFLs were directed by them to allow the transactions to go through.

THAT is what grass roots groups are up against, it isn't a lack of desire, it is organized and extremely well funded opposition. That they also get gullible gun nuts to go along with this is part of why this is a problem. How can anyone take seriously as an honest advocate an organization that includes in its leadership someone like Ted Nugent? They are advocates - but not for gun owners; they are lobbyist, but largely unregistered, corrupt, illegal lobbyists.

There are few grass roots groups against guns. The high profile ones (VPC, Brady, etc) are miniscule in membership and supported by outside benefactors. You are much more likely to be convicted of a felony if your belong to MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) than if you have a CCW. Seems to me the gullible ones are those who swallowing the Bloomberg and the Brady bunch lies.

Guns are destructive, they are lawless, they are a serious public health issue. Sooner or later, the gun nuts will have to stop sticking their thumbs in their ears, wiggling their fingers, and yelling how patriotic they are -- guns are not patriotic, there is NO legal validity to overthrowing our government, and guns do far more harm in homes to the people who live there than they do good.

Typical unsupported emotional screed, but at least its clear that it is just hyperbole.

You cannot find that many verifiable, demonstrable, provable instances of firearms protecting people; not even close
.
Honest people participating in discussions do not make such statements, since Defense Gun Use (DGU) is impossible to document. Hyperbole like yours is found on both sides. The problem is that the vast majority of DGUs are unreported and undocumented. Both sides make their claims, but there is nothing to base it on. IME, there has been one reported incident of DGU in our family (late wife double tapped a home invader), but there have been others unreported, since no one was shot. I am not willing to state that my experience is typical, but it is also clearly not unique.


Long screeds like yours are part of the problem of the anti gun movement. After someone like me demonstrates the clear factual holes, the rest is rejected and the speaker/poster is relegated to the bozo bin in the mind of the recipient. Literally the more you write, the more you impeach yourself, and you history shows you love your screeds.

If you hope to be an effective advocate for additional gun control, you will have to take a more reasoned and rational approach. Start with learning something about the technical side of the subject. Most antis fail there, making them easy to debunk. The emotionalism is easy to spew, but is insufficient by its self to carry the day.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:41 PM

9. NRA expenditures for an example - perhaps you should be doing more research?

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/committee/national-rifle-association-of-america-political-victory-fund/C00053553

NEW: Compare spending and results in competitive races
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND
JanJulJanJul051015Dollars (millions)MONTHLY INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

Contributions are as of the last report.
Filing Frequency: Monthly
See FEC filings PDF | html
Independent Expenditures: $11,787,523.06
Jump to expenditures | Download .csv file of all independent expenditures.

Independent Expenditure Summary
Negative: 78% Opposes Democrats: $8,966,140.80 Opposes Republicans: $186,867.92
Positive: 22% Supports Democrats: $18,624.99 Supports Republicans: $2,615,274.46

This table shows the overall total amount spent by this group supporting or opposing federal candidates in independent expenditures in the 2012 election cycle.
Race Candidate Support/oppose Amount
President OBAMA, BARACK (D) winner Oppose $7,442,253.99
President ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $1,892,203.35
IN (Senate) MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $537,673.92
OH (Senate) BROWN, SHERROD (D) winner Oppose $512,042.89
FL (Senate) NELSON, BILL (D) winner Oppose $288,174.05
VA (Senate) KAINE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL (D) winner Oppose $287,452.37
MO (Senate) MCCASKILL, CLAIRE (D) winner Oppose $219,090.92
IN (Senate) LUGAR, RICHARD G (R) Oppose $179,475.04
WI (Senate) BALDWIN, TAMMY (D) winner Oppose $170,807.19
UT (Senate) HATCH, ORRIN G (R) winner Support $99,685.44
NV (Senate) BERKLEY, SHELLEY (D) Oppose $41,949.11
ND (Senate) BERG, RICHARD A (R) Support $22,107.41
OH (Senate) BROWN, SHERROD (D) winner Support $10,713.48
PA (Senate) SESTAK, JOSEPH A JR (D) Support $7,911.51
NY-26 (House) CORWIN, JANE (R) Support $7,392.89
NY-26 (House) DAVIS, JACK (R) Oppose $7,392.88
TN (Senate) CORKER, ROBERT P JR (R) winner Support $4,799.64
OH (Senate) MANDEL, JOSH (R) Support $4,046.90
FL (Senate) MACK, CONNIE (R) Support $3,390.80
MI (Senate) HOEKSTRA, PETER (R) Support $3,058.38
VA (Senate) ALLEN, GEORGE (R) Support $2,860.65
NV (Senate) HELLER, DEAN (R) winner Support $2,236.39
PA (Senate) SESTAK, JOSEPH A JR (D) Oppose $2,123.44
WI (Senate) THOMPSON, TOMMY G (R) Support $2,107.13
TN-6 (House) BLACK, DIANE L MRS. (R) winner Support $1,937.45
NC-9 (House) PITTENGER, ROBERT M (R) winner Support $1,795.69
CO (Senate) BENNET, MICHAEL F (D) Oppose $1,577.50
CO (Senate) BUCK, KENNETH R (R) Support $1,577.50
IN-8 (House) BUCSHON, LARRY D (R) winner Support $1,565.07
PA-6 (House) GERLACH, JIM (R) winner Support $1,515.67
IN-2 (House) WALORSKI (SWIHART), JACKIE (R) winner Support $1,483.39
VA-2 (House) RIGELL, EDWARD SCOTT MR. (R) winner Support $1,474.30
MI-1 (House) BENISHEK, DANIEL J. (R) winner Support $1,417.16
NH-2 (House) BASS, CHARLES F. (R) Support $1,372.32
FL-10 (House) WEBSTER, DANIEL (R) winner Support $1,347.91
WI-8 (House) RIBBLE, REID (R) winner Support $1,291.73
NH-1 (House) GUINTA, FRANK (R) Support $1,242.14
AZ (Senate) FLAKE, JEFF (R) winner Support $1,170.48
MO-4 (House) HARTZLER, VICKY (R) winner Support $1,167.32
PA-3 (House) KELLY, GEORGE J JR J. JR. (R) winner Support $1,135.14
PA-7 (House) MEEHAN, PATRICK L. MR. JR. (R) winner Support $1,058.41
MO-2 (House) WAGNER, ANN L (R) winner Support $1,041.41
MO-2 (House) AKIN, W TODD (R) Support $985.48
OH-7 (House) GIBBS, BOB (R) winner Support $941.44
CO-6 (House) COFFMAN, MICHAEL (R) Support $895.69
FL-2 (House) SOUTHERLAND, WILLIAM STEVE II (R) winner Support $888.32
MO (Senate) AKIN, W TODD (R) Support $843.49
NC-13 (House) HOLDING, GEORGE E. B. MR. (R) winner Support $796.85
AZ-6 (House) FLAKE, JEFF MR. (R) Support $790.90
CO-3 (House) TIPTON, SCOTT R. (R) winner Support $745.60
PA-18 (House) MURPHY, TIM (R) winner Support $620.35
WI-7 (House) DUFFY, SEAN (R) winner Support $613.83
NV (Senate) AMODEI, MARK EUGENE (R) Support $552.98
OH-16 (House) RENACCI, JAMES B (R) winner Support $441.35
CO-4 (House) GARDNER, CORY (R) winner Support $437.55
NV-2 (House) AMODEI, MARK EUGENE (R) winner Support $300.09
NM (Senate) WILSON, HEATHER A (R) Support $207.36
CO-6 (House) MIKLOSI, JOE (D) Oppose $108.93
MI (Senate) STABENOW, DEBBIE (D) winner Oppose $95.73
NH-1 (House) SHEA-PORTER, CAROL (D) winner Oppose $93.57
FL-10 (House) DEMINGS, VALDEZ VAL (D) Oppose $93.05
FL-3 (House) YOHO, THEODORE SCOTT (R) winner Support $92.98
FL-2 (House) LAWSON, ALFRED J JR (D) Oppose $92.98
FL-3 (House) GAILLOT, JACQUES RENE JR (D) Oppose $92.98
OH-16 (House) SUTTON, BETTY S (D) Oppose $92.10
MO-7 (House) BLUNT, ROY (R) Support $-35.79
Independent Expenditures

This table shows the independent expenditures of $10,000 or more made by this group supporting or opposing federal candidates in the 2012 election cycle. To view a more detailed file of all such spending, click here.
Date Committee Candidate Support/Oppose Amount State Purpose
2012-11-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $143,601.58 TV Advertising
2012-10-29 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $154,450.00 Radio Advertising
2012-10-29 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $125,646.61 Radio Advertising
2012-10-29 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $63,599.83 TV Advertising
2012-10-24 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $14,987.84 Salary / Benefits
2012-10-24 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $16,613.79 Salary / Benefits
2012-10-22 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $880,612.20 TV Advertising
2012-10-22 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $128,296.69 Radio Advertising
2012-10-22 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $566,759.56 TV Advertising
2012-10-17 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Support $10,713.48 OH Phone Bank
2012-10-15 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Oppose $10,713.48 OH Phone Bank
2012-10-15 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $128,260.65 Radio Advertising
2012-10-15 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $15,207.88 TV Ad Production Cost
2012-10-15 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $1,239,990.40 TV Advertising
2012-10-15 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $265,261.28 TV Advertising
2012-10-12 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $21,876.07 Postage
2012-10-11 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $45,132.54 Phone Bank
2012-10-10 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $31,093.12 Salary / Benefits
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $24,950.00 TV & Radio Ad Production
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $1,202,241.96 Postage
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $78,425.01 Postcards - Data and Mailing
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BERG, RICHARD A (R) Support $17,234.16 ND Postage
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BERKLEY, SHELLEY (D) Oppose $33,104.97 NV Postage
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Oppose $265,215.60 OH Postage
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND KAINE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL (D) Oppose $117,353.09 VA Postage
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BALDWIN, TAMMY (D) Oppose $136,174.90 WI Postage
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MCCASKILL, CLAIRE (D) Oppose $175,491.58 MO Postage
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Oppose $15,529.25 OH Postcards - Data and Mailing
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MCCASKILL, CLAIRE (D) Oppose $10,275.61 MO Postcards - Data and Mailing
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $109,686.64 Print 4 Color Cards
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Oppose $24,204.47 OH Print 4 Color Cards
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND KAINE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL (D) Oppose $10,710.04 VA Print 4 Color Cards
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BALDWIN, TAMMY (D) Oppose $12,427.78 WI Print 4 Color Cards
2012-10-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MCCASKILL, CLAIRE (D) Oppose $16,015.95 MO Print 4 Color Cards
2012-10-08 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $1,325,726.88 TV Advertising
2012-10-08 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $128,296.65 Radio Advertising
2012-10-08 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $120,597.94 Online Advertising
2012-10-04 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $423,759.42 Online Advertising
2012-10-04 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $120,597.94 Online Advertising
2012-10-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ROMNEY, MITT / RYAN, PAUL D. (R) Support $21,876.07 Postage
2012-10-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $1,198,013.25 Postage
2012-10-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $68,457.90 Postcards - Data and Mailing
2012-10-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $102,686.85 Print 4 Color Cards
2012-10-01 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND NELSON, BILL (D) Oppose $40,209.79 FL Online Advertising
2012-10-01 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Oppose $26,733.63 OH Online Advertising
2012-10-01 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND KAINE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL (D) Oppose $19,176.68 VA Online Advertising
2012-09-28 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND NELSON, BILL (D) Oppose $40,209.79 FL Online Advertising
2012-09-28 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Oppose $26,733.63 OH Online Advertising
2012-09-28 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND KAINE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL (D) Oppose $19,176.68 VA Online Advertising
2012-09-28 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $15,000.00 Website Development
2012-09-26 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $38,319.20 Salary / Benefits
2012-09-19 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND NELSON, BILL (D) Oppose $204,959.20 FL Online Advertising
2012-09-19 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND BROWN, SHERROD (D) Oppose $136,650.40 OH Online Advertising
2012-09-19 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND KAINE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL (D) Oppose $98,361.88 VA Online Advertising
2012-09-19 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $15,000.00 Website Development
2012-09-11 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $35,031.71 Salary / Benefits
2012-08-29 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $31,526.29 Salary / Benefits
2012-08-27 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $16,831.96 Yard Signs
2012-08-16 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $17,781.50 Yard Signs
2012-08-16 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $28,034.78 Salary / Benefits
2012-08-01 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $27,424.47 Salary / Benefits
2012-07-18 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $27,010.36 Salary / Benefits
2012-07-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $25,907.80 Salary / Benefits
2012-06-26 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND OBAMA, BARACK (D) Oppose $19,725.00 Salary / Benefits
2012-05-05 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $12,437.25 IN Phone Bank
2012-05-05 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND LUGAR, RICHARD G (R) Oppose $12,437.25 IN Phone Bank
2012-05-01 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $34,583.44 IN TV Advertising
2012-05-01 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND LUGAR, RICHARD G (R) Oppose $34,583.43 IN TV Advertising
2012-05-01 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND HATCH, ORRIN G (R) Support $75,892.80 UT Radio Advertising
2012-04-30 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $18,500.00 IN TV Ad Production Cost
2012-04-30 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND LUGAR, RICHARD G (R) Oppose $41,301.24 IN Postage
2012-04-30 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $41,301.24 IN Postage
2012-04-20 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $10,724.88 IN Phone Bank
2012-04-20 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND LUGAR, RICHARD G (R) Oppose $10,724.87 IN Phone Bank
2012-04-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $18,500.00 IN TV Ad Production - Estimated Cost
2012-04-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $88,610.38 IN TV Advertising
2012-04-09 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $67,814.06 IN Radio Advertising
2012-04-06 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND LUGAR, RICHARD G (R) Oppose $41,301.24 IN Postage
2012-04-06 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $41,301.24 IN Postage
2012-04-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $88,610.38 IN Independent Expenditure - TV Advertising
2012-04-03 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND MOURDOCK, RICHARD E (R) Support $67,814.06 IN Independent Expenditure - Radio Advertis
2012-02-28 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND HATCH, ORRIN G (R) Support $10,502.36 UT Independent Expenditure - Postage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:48 PM

12. Each of those canidates and check their opinions on gun laws

If you have the NRA supporting anti gun Republicans against pro gun Democrats, then you have a valid point. If not, the party affiliation is coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:50 PM

14. Actually, you need to read for content and understand the law better

NRA != NRA-PVF != NRA-ILA. By law they have to be.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:36 PM

48. and THAT Says It All




.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:05 PM

80. It says that the poster is clueless about the law and structure of these things

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:44 PM

84. Other than the position and standing from a long list of candidates

...and yet you can reference one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #84)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:23 PM

89. You are as clueless as they are...

NRA cannot and does not collect/donate political contributions...there is a legally separate organization that does that. Required by law.

Are you like Mike and not live in the US? This is pretty basic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #89)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:07 PM

98. He/she lices in DC, which is about the same as another country. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:41 PM

10. But if the actions of the NRA lead to little to no new gun control,


can you really say their influence is a myth?






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:56 PM

16. If by myth, to claim that any effect they have is grossly exaggerated - YES

See below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:02 PM

18. Then to what do you attribute the almost non-existence expansion of gun control laws?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:48 AM

32. That question will not be answered by your interlocutor. Bet on it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:18 PM

24. So, Bill Clinton believes in the "myth?" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:13 PM

22. "Grass roots groups?" That's the trouble with the gun-control outlook: It isn't grassroots...

Few members, few legislative or other programmatic efforts, poorly-coordinated approaches, a sound donor base, etc. These are the characteristics of grassroots groups. Gun-control proponents have depended on MSM to carry its water; now MSM is in decline and is pulling back from making controversial (I would say gratuitous) stands for fear of offending yet another constituency. (In my hometown of Austin, TX, the daily Austin American Statesman now declines to make endorsements in the presidential race, for largely the same reasons.)

"organized and extremely well funded." What group would turn such down? Gun controllers?

My guns are not "lawless." They reside in their locked containers with clean criminal records. They are also not patriotic (I really don't think they give a shit about that or any other abstract concept). And that is the problem with your prohibitionist outlook: You find it difficult to delineate between the hated object (guns) and their possessors (people). They have become one and the same. And that is what captures the thoughts of "gullible" prohibitionists.

The rest of your contentions will be dealt with, I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:44 PM

11. NRA failure successfully to affect outcome of election, despite spending money

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/08/nra_also_lost_big_on_election_day/



The Sunlight Foundation analyzed election spending by the National Rifle Association, and determined that the group had a less than 1 percent return on its more than $11 million investment.

The study, based on FEC reporting, found that the NRA backed 27 winning candidates, but only 0.42 percent of the $11,787,523 it spent on the election went to those candidates. Instead, 78 percent of the money went to opposing Democrats. From the report:

- 0.81% of $10,955,688 spent in the general election and ending in the desired result.
- Supported 27 winning candidates ; 0.42% of money went to supporting winning candidates.
- Opposed 5 losing candidates; 0.39% of money went to opposing losing candidates.

Sunlight also highlights that the Karl Rove-tied American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS poured over $200 million into the elections, but supported no winning candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:49 PM

13. so they had a better return than Rove

is that your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:59 PM

17. Rove AND the NRA BOTH had extremely poor returns --- and in the cas of the NRA, it's not new

My point is that no politician should worry about being opposed or supported by the NRA -- but that what support they exert is for the gun manufacturers, not representing gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:13 PM

21. You don't get it

it's not the NRA, it is grass roots effort of individual gun owners. Frank Luntz is full of shit. To quote Richard Nixon:
Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15.


grass roots?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00113449

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:20 PM

27. Frank Luntz is anything but full of shit

His independent survey/polling is consistent with multiple other polls over a period of a couple of years.

You may not like it, but that doesn't make it inaccurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 06:52 PM

29. he is a right wing propagandist

and partisan. His poll is bullshit because it supports the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:25 PM

28. Yes, grass roots

Your link proves nothing. The Brady campaign is also more transparent with their money than the NRA, both incoming and outgoing. They are not associated with anything like the shadowy operations of the NRA and ALEC. And a large portion of their organization is unpaid volunteers - in other words, grass roots.
Your quote about Richard Nixon is also irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:09 PM

30. But there is no sign that the Brady campaign is having any effect

they are not part of the political discourse. Can you show where these grass root volunteers are having any impact on anything? What legislation have the influenced for example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:12 PM

31. the NRA follows the same laws and is equally transparent

The gun control groups have no organization, no grass roots support. They have a few highly paid staffers, including one of two people holding a class one gun dealer's license in DC. Their "unpaid volunteers" are paid by the Joyce Foundation. When Paul Helmke was president, he made over $200K per year. Joyce gives them about a million per year. what Opensecrets show is only what is filed with the FEC as political contributions. If Brady is so transparent, what do they do with the money they get from Joyce? Joyce gives away $3,056,117 to various gun control groups and shill research.

The Nixon quote is very relevant, he was afraid of a grassroots force that made up at least 25 percent of the US.

Conservative pollster Frank Luntz recently provided right wingers on Capitol Hill a secret 28-page memo entitled The Language of Healthcare 2009—which has leaked! The memo was intended to offer a message framing strategy to defeat President Obama’s plan to provide health care for all. But the document is more useful to progressives than conservatives.

Dr. Frank Luntz is a right-wing spinmeister who won broad influence by acting as pollster for Newt Gingrich, helping to frame the 1994 Republican Contract with America. Over the last dozen years, corporations and conservative ideologues have paid Luntz tens of millions of dollars to craft their messages, and his research has included “hundreds of thousands of telephone interviews, hundreds of dial sessions and focus groups, and literally a million research hours.” In short, he knows what he’s talking about.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009051907/secret-right-wing-strategy-health-care-exposed

One more thing:
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/health/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:52 AM

33. The Brady Campaign membership is outnumbered about 80:1 by the NRA

Yet you paint the Bradys as grassroots, and the NRA as corporate shills.
How can you reconcile the two?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:03 PM

37. No, the NRA is a corporate sock puppegt

These comments by Mark Kelly - gun owner - on behalf of himself and his wife Gabby Gifford - gun owner - is far more representative of gun owners, including NRA members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:11 PM

38. of course the three situations mentioned were also

mental health issues.
Columbine, IIRC, one of the people providing the guns went to federal prison. What was his view before the shooting? Was that part of the show's script? What corporations? The gun industry in the US is not that big nor profitable.

How did the gun laws of Russia, France, and Norway prevent these?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117286311

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:10 PM

40. I could with equal validity claim *this* guy is "representative of gun owners"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11726794#post45



He does not share the same POV as you and Mark Kelly, so is his special pleading
more, less, or equally as valid? And before you carp about his politics, consider this:


http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-girl-killed-jared-loughner-recall-ordeal-meeting/story?id=15288414#.UKLFm4bIt8E

"Parents of Girl Killed by Jared Loughner Recall Ordeal, Meeting with Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly"

...The Greens met with Congresswoman Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, over the Thanksgiving holiday, they said. Giffords and Kelly gave the Greens' son, Dallas, a model rocket signed by Kelly, an astronaut.

"We just kind of hugged each other and supported each other and said, you know, we're all in this together," John Green said. "We wanted to make sure they didn't harbor any guilt."

"It was nice to tell her in person that, you know, we love her, we're praying for you, and we hope you get better every day," Roxanna Green said....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:09 PM

55. Sure

Follow the Money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #55)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:15 PM

57. that doesn't help your arguement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:24 AM

101. Huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #101)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:33 AM

102. If you follow the money to

the gun control lobby, there is no grassroots at all. It is all corporate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #102)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:51 PM

103. LOL

you mean the gun making industry spreading those whispers Obama is taking guns to increase gun sales? LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #103)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:34 PM

104. some gave to his campaign

I doubt Cooper Arms was the only one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:55 PM

15. The NRA is one of the core founding groups of ALEC, gun control popularity

http://patriotacts.com/alec-corporate-lobbying/

and Frank Luntz prominent republican strategist, survey/polling on gun control popularity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/gun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html

The NRA is who was responsible for the NICS being made VOLUNTARY, not mandatory; as a result some 30 states have zero, or at best incomplete submission of data to that database, and each state own the data not the data base. One of the single worst categories for compliance is in submission of data on violent convicted felons and on those adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

The NRA has fought background checks on all private sales, which makes it convenient and easy for criminals to buy guns. The NRA has lobbied for reductions in the staff and funding of the ATF, which makes monitoring compliance from FFLs and other policing difficult if not impossible.

The NRA is NOT against guns in the hands of dangerous people; they oppose law enforcement at every turn, including the promotion of carry laws and castle doctrine legislation like the shoot first laws that have resulted in more, not fewer firearms deaths.

The evidence of shootings and intimidations is well documented in newspapers and court cases; your claimed DGU is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #15)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:04 PM

20. not true either

The NRA is who was responsible for the NICS being made VOLUNTARY, not mandatory; as a result some 30 states have zero, or at best incomplete submission of data to that database, and each state own the data not the data base. One of the single worst categories for compliance is in submission of data on violent convicted felons and on those adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.
Not true either. NICS mandatory, some states does their own background checks, others forward them to the FBI. Also, forwarding records to the FBI is the responsibility of the states, that is how our federal system works, unfunded mandates are not allowed under system. That is how part of the original Brady law got struck down, unfunded mandates on local LEO, violating the 10A.

Everything in the Frank Luntz poll is current law on either the federal level or most states. IOW, it supports the status quo.


The NRA is NOT against guns in the hands of dangerous people; they oppose law enforcement at every turn, including the promotion of carry laws and castle doctrine legislation like the shoot first laws that have resulted in more, not fewer firearms deaths.
Canada has castle doctrine, it dates back to English common law. Carry laws have nothing to do with violent crimes.

Newspapers are not "well documented"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:08 PM

35. English Castle Doctrine includes a VERY strong duty to retreat, always has

The NRA ALEC written laws called shoot first laws do not. Every other developed, civilized nation in the world has some version of a castle doctrine which ALWAYS requires a duty to retreat until unable to do so -- and that was the law in the U.S. for most of our existence as well.

The Frank Luntz poll does NOT support the status quol.

Every state that does not provide the requisite information to the NICS data base is controlled by Republicans or prevented from funding that action by Republicans -- that was the intention in the NRA demanding that state participation in the NICS be voluntary.

Every time there is a mass shooting, like Loughner, like James Holmes, gun sales go up. So it makes perfect sense that the NRA doesn't want to stop these mass shootings - it's good for the business they REALLY represent.

We have record numbers of children killed and injured every year - more than those of the 25 countries most like us combined.
We have far higher numbers of violence by gun crimes than other nations, including both homicides and suicides.
Walmart alone has had more than one shooting a week this year at their stores -- many of them by people with concealed carry either committing crimes or having accidents. Not only have people been hurt and killed, but many innocent toilets in their mens rooms have been shot (seriously - you guys haven't apparently figured out how to go to the john without an accidental discharge).

The typical NRA member is old, white, crabby and flabby. Your board member is a draft dodging felon, who shouldn't own guns.

So don't argue how law abiding and supportive of the law the NRA is; the evidence suggests otherwise.

I just came across this group; at least they came up with an original way to make their point:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #35)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:33 PM

36. how about learning current gun laws and comparing them to the Luntz poll

The Luntz poll does, read up on current gun laws. It supports the status quo, before you argue about gun laws, at least learn what current gun laws are.

Castle Doctrine and duty to retreat is an oxymoron. English common law does have a duty to retreat outside the home. While Canada does not have a castle doctrine by statute, it has by common law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris
Do you understand what castle doctrine means? Do you know what SYG and castle doctrine has been part of US law since the Progressive era? What is civilized about retreating from your home, putting yourself in danger? What is civilized about putting the safety of a sociopath over yours?

Every state that does not provide the requisite information to the NICS data base is controlled by Republicans or prevented from funding that action by Republicans -- that was the intention in the NRA demanding that state participation in the NICS be voluntary.

Every time there is a mass shooting, like Loughner, like James Holmes, gun sales go up. So it makes perfect sense that the NRA doesn't want to stop these mass shootings - it's good for the business they REALLY represent.
Mostly fear of irrational pearl clutchers.

We have record numbers of children killed and injured every year - more than those of the 25 countries most like us combined.
We have far higher numbers of violence by gun crimes than other nations, including both homicides and suicides.
not is not true either. Suicide is independent of means. Many of those countries have higher suicide rates. Are you saying shooting yourself is tragic, but hanging yourself is not?

Walmart alone has had more than one shooting a week this year at their stores -- many of them by people with concealed carry either committing crimes or having accidents. Not only have people been hurt and killed, but many innocent toilets in their mens rooms have been shot (seriously - you guys haven't apparently figured out how to go to the john without an accidental discharge).
have any evidence of this? No, didn't think so.

The typical NRA member is old, white, crabby and flabby. Your board member is a draft dodging felon, who shouldn't own guns.
Not only is that a logical fallacy, it is also racist. You are saying "that organization is bad because most of its members belong to a specific race". That is racist. It is also ageist for the same reason.
Who is the felon? Nugent isn't a convicted felon. If you want to see convicted felons, check out MAIG membership. Not being an NRA member, he isn't my board member.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:11 PM

42. doesn't matter why

Every time there is a mass shooting, like Loughner, like James Holmes, gun sales go up. So it makes perfect sense that the NRA doesn't want to stop these mass shootings - it's good for the business they REALLY represent.
Mostly fear of irrational pearl clutchers.

It doesn't matter why, or how you spin it -- those shootings are good for business. You haven't - and cannot - refute my point.

<i>Do you understand what castle doctrine means? Do you know what SYG and castle doctrine has been part of US law since the Progressive era? What is civilized about retreating from your home, putting yourself in danger? What is civilized about putting the safety of a sociopath over yours? </i>

YES, I do know quite a lot about castle doctrine AND the 2nd amendment. I've read a pretty lengthy reading list of books written by experts. You can''t cite something as historic, when in fact it is not. You are wrong. Acting as judge, jury and executioner is what is not right, not proper, not lawful, and not civilized.

<i> Suicide is independent of means. Many of those countries have higher suicide rates. Are you saying shooting yourself is tragic, but hanging yourself is not? </i>

The typical NRA member is old, white, crabby and flabby. Your board member is a draft dodging felon, who shouldn't own guns.
<i>Not only is that a logical fallacy, it is also racist. You are saying "that organization is bad because most of its members belong to a specific race". That is racist. It is also ageist for the same reason.
Who is the felon? Nugent isn't a convicted felon. If you want to see convicted felons, check out MAIG membership. Not being an NRA member, he isn't my board member. </i>

It factually accurate, it is reflected in their convention attendance, and I suggest you look at the visual images from those events. It coincides with racist right wing politics. You are correct -- he admitted committing multiple felonies, but plea bargained them down to multiple misdemeanors. THAT is still not a man who is law abiding. You also don't deny he is a draft dodger.

I believe I've rebutted your points; you have failed to rebut mine.

Not true, there are multiple studies in multiple countries which clearly show that more people attempt suicide when a gun is available, that it is far more a recourse of impulse than other means, and that it is successful far more often. Do a little homework, starting with the studies done in Switzerland and other countries, and then moving on to the stats and studies here. The countries, like Japan, that have higher suicide rates (and there are not 'many' among similar developed countries that are higher) are countries like Japan where suicide is a very unique part of their culture, unlike any other country. I'm saying - and can back it up - that the more people who have a gun, the more of them, compared to any other group, who will attempt and succeed at suicide, yes. Guns INCREASE suicide rates. All suicide is tragic; that our gun culture leads to more of them is MORE tragic.

Walmart alone has had more than one shooting a week this year at their stores -- many of them by people with concealed carry either committing crimes or having accidents. Not only have people been hurt and killed, but many innocent toilets in their mens rooms have been shot (seriously - you guys haven't apparently figured out how to go to the john without an accidental discharge).
<i>have any evidence of this? No, didn't think so. </i>
Think again. I wouldn't have written it if I wasn't prepared to back it up.

http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2012/09/walmart-shootings.html

"This year it seems like I've been reading about a lot of shootings at Walmarts around the nation. Shootings happen in all sorts of locations and types of retail stores. And yet, for some reason, Walmart seems to bear the brunt of them.

So I started cataloging them. Even I was surprised at the number of shootings that have occurred just this year on Walmart property. 47, at last count, so far in 2012! Reports of shootings involving shoplifters. Police responding to conflicts. Drug deals in the parking lot. Road rage and gang shootings. Even suicides.

Why are there so many? Is it just because there are a LOT of Walmart locations around the country? And yet, other than one or two sporadic reports, you don't hear about so many shootings at Kmart stores, or Target, or Costco. Is it because Walmart sells guns and ammo, and those others don't? As far as I can tell, Target never did. Kmart stopped selling guns and ammo in 2009. Costco in 2006.

Is Walmart's pro-gun stance a factor? Does it make people feel justified in taking their guns to Walmart and settling disputes in a violent manner?

In 2006, Walmart stopped selling guns in two-thirds of its stores, but resumed sales of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition in 2011. They even sell assault rifles. It would be interesting to do a study of shooting incidents before and after they resumed sales.

Walmart's motto these days, is "Save money. Live better." If this is what they mean by living better, I think they might want to re-think their pro-gun stance, or perhaps get more security guards.


So here are the Walmart shooting incidents that I am aware of: (this is a living post, and will be updated with additional shootings as they happen in 2012)"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #42)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:32 PM

43. The fact that one can create a webpage dedicated to shootings at walmarts

is just a sad commentary on life....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #42)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:20 PM

46. you refuted nothing

show me evidence of these felonies
that fact that you said the NRA is bad because it has a lot of white people, or any race, is racist. It is the same as saying hip hop music is bad because mostly black people listen to it. That is equally racist.

You don't have the slightest clue what castle doctrine is. Legal experts that can't tell the difference between defending yourself from vigilantism, are not legal experts. They can't even read a dictionary correctly. They are ideologues.

So you are saying defending yourself in your home is uncivilized vigilantism. You are saying that if someone breaks in to your house, while you are home, you should not have the right to defend yourself. You should try to run out the back door or die trying. You are also saying the life of the home invader is more valuable than yours.
If you disagree with what I just said, you agree with the castle doctrine and have no grasp of what it is.


Not true, there are multiple studies in multiple countries which clearly show that more people attempt suicide when a gun is available, that it is far more a recourse of impulse than other means, and that it is successful far more often. Do a little homework, starting with the studies done in Switzerland and other countries, and then moving on to the stats and studies here. The countries, like Japan, that have higher suicide rates (and there are not 'many' among similar developed countries that are higher) are countries like Japan where suicide is a very unique part of their culture, unlike any other country. I'm saying - and can back it up - that the more people who have a gun, the more of them, compared to any other group, who will attempt and succeed at suicide, yes. Guns INCREASE suicide rates. All suicide is tragic; that our gun culture leads to more of them is MORE tragic.
what those studies actually show is that suicide rates are higher in rural areas than urban areas. I have read those studies, usually written by someone starting with a conclusion and finding the data to fit the conclusion. That is equally true in Japan and South Korea as it is in the US. Stricter gun laws failed to lower suicide rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Hate to break it to you, but many of the countries that have lower suicide rates, also have higher murder rates than we do. Speaking of Japan and suicide in their culture. Murder/suicide in Japan is counted differently there than most places. Murder suicides are counted as suicides. What we would count as one suicide and three murders, they would count as four suicides. The cops also have a habit of writing off cold cases as suicides. The cops there are not big on forensics, they would rather beat confessions out of suspects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:12 AM

60. On what screwed up, backward planet is self-defense equated to law enforcement?

"Acting as judge, jury and executioner is what is not right, not proper, not lawful, and not civilized."

Self-defense, INCLUDING lethal force in self defense has nothing whatever to do with law enforcement. Statutes regarding the use of deadly force in self defense usually (always? I think always, but maybe some backwater state has something anachronistic that I am not aware of) requires a bar of 'reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm'.

This has nothing what-so-fucking-ever to do with judgment (legal aspect/adjudication) finding of fact (jury) or punishment (removal of life via due process).

You are basically peddling hyperbole here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:02 PM

82. It has everything to do with it

In case after case, the person subjectively considered to be a threat was not in shoot first laws.

That applies to the unarmed, to people on the outside of a locked door shot through the door, to people attempting to leave a conflict or confrontation.

In many cases - Trayvon Martin's shooting comes to mind, a kid minding his own business being pursued and harassed by a gun nut, even after law enforcement told him not to pursue --- he was shot while law enforcement was a short distance away, witnesses describe it as 2 minutes or less. Had Zimmerman not stalked that kid, who was clearly frighten by his actions, and had Zimmerman not made a number of false assumptions about him - that he didn't belong in that area when he did, he was visiting his father; that he was drunk or on drugs; he wasn't; or that he had criminal intent - an assumption that Zimmerman made about all black adult males in that area, based on his numerous calls to 911; if not for all of those wrong actions on the part of Zimmerman provoking the confrontation, there would have been no interaction between them whatsoever. Martin would have gone on his way home, and Zimmerman wouldn't have put himself in the position of law enforcement, judge jury and executioner. Any action from Martin he provoked.

That is true in numerous stand your ground / shoot first cases. Those laws are designed so that there can be NO wrongful death law suits and to make it far far harder to convict someone of homicide.

There is NO 'reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm' required, only the completely subjective an one sided claim that someone felt fear, not that it be reasonable fear.

The requirement of ACTUAL bodily harm, as determined by a judge or jury was the PREVIOUS castle doctrine standard. Shoot first laws take that requirement away.

I'm not peddling hyperbole. If shoot first laws worked, there would be a decrease in victims of crime, with a matching increase in criminals being shot. That hasn't been the case. Crime victims continue at about the same rate, and people who are guilty of nothing more than walking up to the wrong door, or unarmed elementary or middle-school aged kids playing who run across someone's yard are getting shot.

As to what I know about the 2nd Amendment, and how the NRA has worked to undermine due process protection, I'd be delighted to match reading lists of scholarly books written on it any time; I'm midway through Saul Cornyn's book right now. You on the other hand apparently prefer to rely on NRA propaganda, or maybe the drek from Faux news. Go do a little fact checking; clearly you were unaware of the frequency for example of shootings at WalMarts.

The NRA has promoted legislation that enables lethal force where law enforcement could instead deal with crises better and as timely; that has everything to do with law enforcement. Law enforcement has been against shoot first laws, consistently, and against many of the carry laws -- with good reason. Law enforcement has been against the relaxation of allowing convicted felons to regain their gun rights -- another trend promoted by the NRA. Turns out that former felons are EIGHT TIMES more likely to violently re-offend with firearms, but that doesn't deter the NRA -- MORE GUNS SALES.

Anyone shot is not someone who was afforded due process or even the chance to tell their side of the story. Anyone shot is not afforded all of the protections of the Constitution. It is wrong to be shooting people for offenses like crossing someone's yard, that are petty misdemeanor tresspass crimes at most --but it is part of the NRA fostered gun culture to use lethal force where it is NOT really necessary.

And if you'd like to try to deny it, I'm well enough versed in what I'm asserting to give you a list of examples as long as your arm.

All to sell more guns. More examples of end running law by the NRA -- due to direct effort by the NRA in the NICS data base, drug users names (the few that are in there at all) are only retained for a year, even if they were sentenced to 20 years, or 3 years. The Bar association pushed very hard in opposition to that, including DEFENSE attorneys, but the NRA bought off enough conservative politicians to get that through --- so despite having been briefly in the NICS, thanks to the NRA, drug users can get a gun even if they are still felons or on probation, or continue to use drugs. Didn't know that? Go look it up. Their position was based on careful research by criminal justice studies experts'.

The NRA doesn't give a tinkers damn about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people; they only care about selling guns and ammo.

I don't see anyone refuting my assertion that Walmart has a LOT of shootings, which demonstrates that carry laws pushed by the NRA has endangered people in public venues. I don't see anyone refuting that Shoot first laws have increased not decreased people being shot, and that it has deprived people of life and due process.

The NRA wants people to buy guns, and to justify sales, they have caused laws to be passed that encourage people to take the law into their own hands instead of letting law enforcement deal with it. I gave you a good example - the Iraq war vet shot in front of his daughter over another kid LEGALLY skateboarding. How many more examples do you need? I have a lot of them.

The NRA has created lax gun laws; in Florida for example, felons have obtained guns under the law, people with warrants out for them have obtained guns under the law, a few hundred hear, a few hundred there --- check out the study done by the Tampa St. Pete's newspaper for the numbers. That had not been a problem before the laws were made more lenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:09 PM

87. your knowledge of the Martin case is not accuate in any way

first, Zimmerman is not a "gun nut" nor a gun person.
Second, he was not chasing Martin after being told not to, nor was he chasing him. The evidence shows, based on the phone call recording's background noise, he was standing still when talking on the phone, after he lost track of Martin.



As for the rest of your rant, can you provide any evidence for any of it? I'm guessing you are getting all of your information from poorly written blogs and Brady Campaign propaganda.


BTW, Saul headed the short lived think tank funded by the Joyce Foundation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:51 PM

90. Where do you come up with this nonsense...

That is true in numerous stand your ground / shoot first cases. Those laws are designed so that there can be NO wrongful death law suits and to make it far far harder to convict someone of homicide.

Not true. What *some* states have banned is civil suits if the shooting is found to be justified under the law. You do not convict some one of homicide, you convict them of murder or manslaughter.

There is NO 'reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm' required, only the completely subjective an one sided claim that someone felt fear, not that it be reasonable fear.

Not true. reasonable fear has been and remains the standard.

The requirement of ACTUAL bodily harm, as determined by a judge or jury was the PREVIOUS castle doctrine standard. Shoot first laws take that requirement away.

Actual bodily hard has NEVER been the standard.


Finally, there are no such thing as shoot first laws. The generic legal standard has been "reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death". A standard that has not changed under SYG nor CD.
- SYG: Must document reasonable fear, no duty to retreat
- CD: Rebuttable presumption of reasonable fear, no duty to retreat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:28 PM

92. "In case after case"?

 

Cite to some stats, please, or some more examples of cases.

BTW, didn't Zimmerman's lawyers decide not to use that defense (presumably because it didn't fit the case)?

Yep. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57492488/george-zimmermans-attorneys-wont-use-stand-your-ground-defense/


Unless you can back up your assertions, you have... nothing but hollow assertions. Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:42 PM

93. And another non-factual claim:

 

If shoot first laws worked, there would be a decrease in victims of crime, with a matching increase in criminals being shot. That hasn't been the case.

That is actually exactly what's been happening. According to government crime stats, crime rates are falling. According to the Florida stats, justifiable homocides have gone up. Oddly, some people claim these are cases that should be considered murder (while citing no evidence).


Those laws are designed so that there can be NO wrongful death law suits and to make it far far harder to convict someone of homicide.

Umm, no, not the case at all. Your understanding of these laws is abysmal... unless you can cite to the portions of some of them that do as you claim...


...but that doesn't deter the NRA -- MORE GUNS SALES.

Perhaps you can cite to anywhere that the NRA endorses selling guns to felons. But I doubt it. They do plenty of hinky things without having to make up complete falsehoods. You can do better.


I don't see anyone refuting my assertion that Walmart has a LOT of shootings, which demonstrates that carry laws pushed by the NRA has endangered people in public venues.

You didn't demonstrate what number of those are commited unlawfully by permit holders, which is the insinuation of criminality you are attempting to make. Looks to me like there are a lot of Walmarts, they are a target (irony) of criminals (for a variety of reasons) and that is all you have asserted.

In short, you've got nothing. Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:53 PM

94. 'numerous' is my favorite made up statistic.

Right ahead of 90%.

Bring some facts to the table, or give it up. Yes, some instances where a person has claimed self defense have turned out to be negligence, a bad idea, or outright homicide. Now, tell us how many. Out of the US DoJ's estimate of 60,000 to 100,000 lawful defensive gun uses every year, how many are 'bad shoots' like Trayvon Martin's murder? 1/10th of a percent? 1 percent? 10 percent? 50%? What is it?.


"data from the most recent available US Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) yields about 108,000 DGUs per year."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:14 AM

63. WalMart most certainly doesn't sell

 

Assault Rifles in any form. They sell semi-auto rifles just like thousands and thousands of stores in the US.
What a surprise, another falsehood from a self proclaime "expert" on the 2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:41 AM

74. They've demonstrated yet again gun control advocacy is religious in nature.

And not "the nice people over at the local church/temple/synagogue/mosque who collect food
and clothing for the poor" religious.

They're the "plant shills in the audience to fake healings/skim the collections/sexually abuse
the faithful/suck up to politicians" religious.

And just like sleazy preachers have their true believers, the gun control cynics and grifters
have theirs- and we're beset with them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #42)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:03 PM

79. Actually the details matter, and you are are yet to get many of them correct

You seem unable to discern between SYG and CD, between types and classes of firearms. Educate yourself lest you continue to embarrass yourself and your side of this debate.


I believe I've rebutted your points; you have failed to rebut mine.


Actually, in the vernacular of the gamers, you've been owned...gejohnson has been gracious, but your defeat was overwhelming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:33 AM

61. Out of control hyperbole again.

"Walmart alone has had more than one shooting a week this year at their stores -- many of them by people with concealed carry either committing crimes or having accidents. Not only have people been hurt and killed, but many innocent toilets in their mens rooms have been shot (seriously - you guys haven't apparently figured out how to go to the john without an accidental discharge). "

You realize there are between 7 and 9 million lawful concealed carry permit holders in this country right? (not to mention there are more than just 'guys' that carry) If 'we guys' haven't figured out how to go to the bathroom without an accidental discharge, where are all the ND's? 7-9 MILLION persons. You claimed a source that indicates 47 shootings?

Really? And you're going to smear indict all CPL holders with that weak-assed link? Especially considering not even all 47 instances involved CPL holders at all? Some are plainly ineligible to purchase a handgun, let alone a concealed pistol license.

Shit, some of the shootings were legal and justifiable, per your own source.

Multiple of the shootings were committed by police officers only. No other firearms involved. (And some by armored car security officers)

I saw two cases out of the entire list of lawful CPL holders discharging a firearm in an unjustified or negligent manner. That isn't 'Many'. Antonyms: few, single.


man·y
    Show IPA adjective, more, most, noun, pronoun

adjective
1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

2. noting each one of a large number (usually followed by a or an ): For many a day it rained.

noun
3. a large or considerable number of persons or things: A good many of the beggars were blind.

4. the many, the greater part of humankind.


Two out of 47, is that 'many' by any English common usage or dictionary definition?
I thought not. I saw two lawful GDU's, by CPL holders, two negligent discharges. Hardly 'many'.

Dial back the hyperbole a bit, will you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:33 PM

68. There should be absolutely NO Duty to Retreat from your own home, none.

The idea that should have to do so to avoid shooting some invader is disgusting. Coupled with your "judge, jury and executioner" rhetoric just proves to me what I have believed all along. That people with your mindset are more concerned about the criminal getting their rights violated by the homeowner than vice-versa.

And one of the best reason to own guns, beyond self and home defense, is a gesture of defiance towards people just like you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:55 AM

34. Frank Luntz, as in "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:35 PM

39. Helps if you present your case honestly.

Accounts suggest his gun jammed. That's a typical feature of such magazines, because of the size of spring required to lift all 30+ rounds into the weapon. It takes a half second to reload, if all goes well.

Cho did it at least 10 times at Virginia tech. Neither of his weapons malfunctioned.

There is a reason there is only one military in the world that uses the weapon/mag combo that Loughner used, and they use it for one situation only. It is tactically disadvantageous.

Cho killed many, many more with normal sized mags in two pistols.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:31 PM

41. But if he did that, then he would have no case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:15 PM

44. Brady - Gifford

Broad Bipartisan Support for Gun Control....even if it took a CRAZY nut!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:53 PM

91. There is no broad bipartisan support for gun control, not much grass roots support for it either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #91)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:19 AM

95. Ok

Ok

Just broad Democratic Party support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #95)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:59 AM

96. I would not be so sure about that

And before you bring it up, only a narrow segment of the part is involved in platform development.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #96)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:35 AM

97. Voted On By Everyone at Convention

Resolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #97)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:19 PM

99. Its Pro Forma and little more

Flog that horse all you want

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #99)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:06 AM

100. Here is that 'Pro Forma' Statement in Platform

Here you go

"We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few."

Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012


PS- What's the difference between this platform and the previous Democratic Party platform on guns and how does that support your argument that it is 'pro forma?'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:31 AM

72. It seems to me that if

the national networks did not respond to the story with opinions of their own, surprise, surprise, they actually reported the news without adding their own opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread