The NRA opposes Republicans on the filibuster issue?

[quaoar]

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2846157,00.html

Anti-filibuster ad campaigns target senator

By SAM BISHOP News-Miner Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON--A national conservative group announced Friday that it would target Alaskans with a television advertising campaign opposing filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.
The announcement by Progress for America Inc. comes as Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, continues to argue for more discussion with Democrats, who want the right to filibuster.

Murkowski said she opposes filibusters of judicial nominees but also opposes an effort to pass a Senate rule that would eliminate them as an option. She is looking for a compromise with Democrats, she said Thursday.

< snip >

Murkowski said she doesn't want to pass a rule eliminating filibusters because, while it has been Senate tradition not to filibuster judges, there may come a time when it is necessary.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said Thursday that he agrees with Murkowski. Young noted that the National Rifle Association, on whose board he sits, opposes the elimination of the filibuster.

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Hmm.... NRA... .wonder what they want in a compromise....

I dunno, I may be way off base here. Not all rethugs are buybing into this no-fillabuster idea. They realize that their power is slipping through their fingers the more and more they appear like school-yeard bullies. Perhaps some may be actually thinking ahead and using their brains... perhaps...

[wakeme2008]

2. right the NRA knows there are 51 votes to pass the assualt weapons ban

the only thing that saved it was th Filibuster.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. You bet they do

Without the filibuster, there will be gun control passed when the Democrats retake control of Congress.

The Republicans don't seem to realize that this is a double-edged sword.

[jody]

4. "gun control passed when the Democrats retake control of Congress"?

That's inconsistent with the Democratic Party Platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

The AWB did not reduce crime and now that it's dead, crime has not increased.

If the Democratic Party pledges to "protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms", then just what gun control laws do you expect to be passed when we reclaim Control? :shrug:

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Gun control is a broad topic

And frankly, I would feel better if the AWB remained in place.

[beevul]

7. Can you articulate why that is?

Why you would feel better "if the AWB remained in place"?

What specifically is it about the ban that would make you feel better if it remained?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Of course

1. Assault weapons are designed to kill a number of people rapidly. This level of force far exceeds what is normally needed for protection of homes or businesses.

2. Making assault weapons available to the public also makes them available to criminals. Assault weapons, if available on the open market, would be made more easily avialable on the black market for those ineligible to purshase them or stolen.

ON EDIT

I could be wrong; in that case, please feel free to try to educate me and the many others who feel as I do. Nevertheless, if it's a politically popular move, the motion will carry.

There is really no point in dicussing the merits of this argument here. Perhaps I am wrong and, thanks to a Senate filibuster, cooler heads will prevail. That is why it is a little more difficult to get legislation through the Senate and why Senators only have to face voters once every six years: so they can be cooler heads and put the breaks on popular but ill-advised legislation.

[beevul]

9. My bad...

What I meant to ask and didn't do such a good job of at all, was what did the AWB do that would have made you feel better if the AWB remained in place.

What controls in particular did it impose that made you feel better?

"1. Assault weapons are designed to kill a number of people rapidly. This level of force far exceeds what is normally needed for protection of homes or businesses."


What is it about assault weapons that makes them designed for that?
I guess what I am asking for is clarity on this. I may or may not agree with what you're saying, before that can happen though, I have to know in specific what you are saying. What guns are you referring to when you say "assault weapons"? The now defunct legal definition of one? Do you mean automatic weapons? No offense, but the term "assault weapons" gets bandied about in enough different ways, with enough different subsets of firearms ascribed to it, that unless someone makes themselves clear, theres no way to know what exactly they are saying.

I have to know what you mean.

"There is really no point in dicussing the merits of this argument here. Perhaps I am wrong and, thanks to a Senate filibuster, cooler heads will prevail. That is why it is a little more difficult to get legislation through the Senate and why Senators only have to face voters once every six years: so they can be cooler heads and put the breaks on popular but ill-advised legislation."

I agree with you about the senate. The filibuster needs to stay IMHO.

[Steel City Slim]

6. Exactly