HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Why I'm not going to rejo...

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 02:09 PM

Why I'm not going to rejoin the NRA just yet.

I'm waiting to see if they actually are the non-partisan supporters of the Second Amendment they claim to be. If they are, their only honest course of action
in a Rmoney/Obama race will be to withold any endorsement. If they do go into the tank for Willard, they're no more than a better-financed version of the
Second Amendment Foundation.

96 replies, 9807 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 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why I'm not going to rejoin the NRA just yet. (Original post)
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 OP
ellisonz Mar 2012 #1
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #2
ellisonz Mar 2012 #3
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #4
ellisonz Mar 2012 #5
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #7
ellisonz Mar 2012 #8
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #11
ellisonz Mar 2012 #13
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #14
ellisonz Mar 2012 #16
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #25
ellisonz Mar 2012 #26
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #27
ellisonz Mar 2012 #29
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #32
PavePusher Mar 2012 #34
ellisonz Mar 2012 #35
PavePusher Mar 2012 #37
ellisonz Mar 2012 #38
PavePusher Mar 2012 #39
ellisonz Mar 2012 #40
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #52
ellisonz Mar 2012 #53
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #56
ellisonz Mar 2012 #57
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #58
ellisonz Mar 2012 #59
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #61
ellisonz Mar 2012 #62
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #95
ellisonz Mar 2012 #96
GreenStormCloud Mar 2012 #64
hack89 Mar 2012 #65
PavePusher Mar 2012 #69
PavePusher Mar 2012 #70
ellisonz Mar 2012 #71
PavePusher Mar 2012 #80
ellisonz Mar 2012 #81
shadowrider Mar 2012 #82
ellisonz Mar 2012 #83
shadowrider Mar 2012 #84
ellisonz Mar 2012 #85
shadowrider Mar 2012 #88
ellisonz Mar 2012 #89
shadowrider Mar 2012 #90
ellisonz Mar 2012 #91
shadowrider Mar 2012 #92
PavePusher Mar 2012 #68
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #6
ellisonz Mar 2012 #9
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #12
ellisonz Mar 2012 #15
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #18
Simo 1939_1940 Mar 2012 #21
ellisonz Mar 2012 #23
Clames Mar 2012 #30
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #45
ellisonz Mar 2012 #46
mvccd1000 Mar 2012 #48
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #51
oneshooter Mar 2012 #19
ellisonz Mar 2012 #24
oneshooter Mar 2012 #36
gejohnston Mar 2012 #42
oneshooter Mar 2012 #43
ellisonz Mar 2012 #54
gejohnston Mar 2012 #67
ellisonz Mar 2012 #72
gejohnston Mar 2012 #73
ellisonz Mar 2012 #74
gejohnston Mar 2012 #75
ellisonz Mar 2012 #76
gejohnston Mar 2012 #77
ellisonz Mar 2012 #78
gejohnston Mar 2012 #79
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #94
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #17
ellisonz Mar 2012 #22
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #44
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #10
ellisonz Mar 2012 #28
socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #31
ellisonz Mar 2012 #33
rl6214 Mar 2012 #86
ellisonz Mar 2012 #87
Simo 1939_1940 Mar 2012 #20
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #50
Simo 1939_1940 Mar 2012 #93
GreenStormCloud Mar 2012 #41
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #47
GreenStormCloud Mar 2012 #66
Logical Mar 2012 #49
ellisonz Mar 2012 #55
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #60
GreenStormCloud Mar 2012 #63

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 02:17 PM

1. They're already in the tank for Rmoney...

...because they're in the tank against Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 02:23 PM

2. I wrote them a letter and said they had to find a way to reach out

to the Dems because I couldn't find any way to justify my voting for a Repuke again.

I have seen quite a few shooters her on DU and I believe the NRA needs to
face up to the facts that the GOP is a dead party. They are offending just about
everyone this time around.

It seems that guns are accepted or not based on how you are raised.
Either you shoot or you don't.
Here's a twist - I shoot and my father was a Quaker.

I think the NRA is going to miss the boat if they don't loosen up a bit
and reach out to the Dems who are members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 02:29 PM

3. It doesn't matter how many letters you write...

...they know who butters their bread and it isn't the Democrats.

Supporting the NRA is supporting the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 03:50 PM

4. Change has to begin somewhere...

If nobody ever spoke up and tried to crack the ice we'd never make any change.

The NRA wants members and there seem to be quite a few here on DU

Having gun-friendly members here in DU makes for some spirited discussions
wouldn't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 03:55 PM

5. Define "gun-friendly" in policy terms.

Assault weapons regulation? Stand-your-ground laws? Toting in public buildings/political events?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:12 PM

7. Simply meant as sports people and not anti-gun, that's all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:15 PM

8. One doesn't have to be "anti-gun"

To think the NRA-type view on firearms ownership and use is nuttery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:23 PM

11. All they are doing is protecting the second amendment.

How can you say that their beliefs are nuttery and the say you're not anti-gun?

O.K. - you're pro-gun to an extent, right?

I apologize for not using the exact words you need to hear.
Please just take my post as an opinion trying to make a
point from the middle of the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:53 PM

13. They are not protecting the Second Amendment...

...they are protecting an extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I'm not pro-gun, I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-responsible firearm ownership. Apology accepted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:55 PM

14. You are confused between the NRA and local laws

"Stand-your-ground laws? Toting in public buildings/political events?"

These laws are local. The NRA didn't put these into effect.

The assault weapon ban - that was fought against by the NRA.
Th ereason was that this was initiated by the Brady Bunch and
had to do with banning gun ownership for rediculous reasons
like a rifle with a bayonet and pistol grips. what difference does
it make if you have a rifle with or without a knife on the end?
They were trying to chip away at gun ownership.

Next we can talk about gun registration. Why don't you expound
on gun registration and WWII. You should be familiar with the
negative repercussions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:59 PM

16. Rubbish.

The NRA is a national organization with national reach.

Explain to me why government can't and shouldn't regulate the mass sale of military-style firearms - "a well-regulated Militia" - even Antonin Scalia doesn't agree with the position for unlimited firearm ownership rights:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:06 PM

25. Military guns have been collected for generations

You seem to want to imply that "military weapons" or "assault weapons" are more dangerous than
the weapons we should be "allowed" to own.

If someone kills with a .22cal or a .45cal are you more dead?
People have collected military guns for a long time. I don't see people wandering the streets with
M1 Garands and military rifles. You said you were in favor of responsible gun ownership but it doesn't seem like you will allow anyone the trust to be responsible.

As far as Scalia's writing:
" Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"
"in common use at the time" - where the hell is that line in the constitution!
Besides - people had muskets at the time and they were the rifle in common use at the time. Therefore we should be able to carry muskets but not "modern" guns? We can only own guns from the 1770's? I think not - So, going back to the previous statement, if people owned muskets and muskets were the military rifle of the time then, we should also be able to carry the military rifle of our time. Before you go off on your rant - I am not saying that we should own automatic weapons - what I am doing is using the logic you gave me from your Scalia quote and used it for the current day.

Tell us now, you really don't want anyone to own a gun, do you? Because, I'd say that the people who presenting logic about legal gun ownership are sure a lot less emotional than the people who are throwing out all this "responsible ownership" stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:13 PM

26. I agree with the Supreme Court of the State of California...

"The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.”


Also, this is an emotional statement:

Tell us now, you really don't want anyone to own a gun, do you? Because, I'd say that the people who presenting logic about legal gun ownership are sure a lot less emotional than the people who are throwing out all this "responsible ownership" stuff.


Sounds a little bit hysterical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:15 PM

27. An obvious projection - re-read the statement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:17 PM

29. Oh I have...

You should probably refrain from ascribing positions to people that they do not hold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #29)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:22 PM

32. You wrote it - not me. It's there for all to see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:30 PM

34. The Cali S.C. is a bunch of ignorant political hacks.

 

""The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage....." As does every other firearm in existance. So what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:34 PM

35. I'm sure Jan Brewer and company agree with you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:37 PM

37. Screw Brewer, she's got nothing to do with this. Stay on-topic. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:46 PM

38. You insulted the Supreme Court of my home state...

Pardon me for pointing out the right-wing cabal that governs yours.

You're not on-topic, there's nothing to respond to in your post other than insults

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:54 PM

39. They are ignorant on the technical aspects of firearms, basic math, ballistics, physics and logic.

 

If that's insulting, try getting them educated or have better judges picked.

Not my problem, except that such irrationality may spread.

And for the record, I'm only in Arizona as a guest, curtesy of the USAF. My home of record and voting place is Vermont. We don't seem to have problems with .50 caliber rifles. Perhaps Californians just aren't as trustworthy as Vermonters? Makes as much sense as any of your flights of fancy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:02 PM

40. Prove it...

You don't have problems because your home state has a small percentage of the population of my state.

Also:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:48 AM

52. So, how many crimes *have* been committed with .50 caliber rifles in California?

Has there been a spate of long-range snipings that we haven't heard about? (Note: the offended sensibilities of certain members of state government
don't count)

Heated rhetoric and arguments from authority aside, Vermont doesn't have problems because almost no one has problems with .50 cal rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #52)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:53 AM

53. This isn't a social science argument.

This is a public security argument.

Maybe you ought to have access to yellow cake since no one has set off a dirty bomb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:57 AM

56. That's not answering the question.

And maybe you shouldn't have access to gasoline because you might kill 87 people with it:

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

I'd also note that oh-so-wise lawmakers of California find the following firearms and cartridges perfectly acceptable for use in the Golden State.
Most of them are more accurate at long distances than the the .50 caliber. Seems the CA Legislature exhausted their supply of FUD, as none of these seem to
be any more of a problem than the .50s were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum

The .338 Lapua Magnum (8.6x70mm or 8.58x70mm) is a specialized rimless bottlenecked centerfire cartridge developed for military long-range sniper rifles. The Afghanistan War and Iraq War made it a combat-proven round with ready and substantial ammunition availability. The .338 Lapua is a dual-purpose anti-personnel and anti-materiel round...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_Timberwolf

The C14 Timberwolf MRSWS (Medium Range Sniper Weapon System) is a manually operated bolt action sniper rifle built by the Canadian arms company PGW Defence Technologies Inc. In 2005 they won the contract to supply the Canadian Forces Land Command with the C14 Timberwolf MRSWS for $4.5million.

The military version of the rifle, which is being used to replace the C3A1 sniper rifle, started as a civilian precision sport rifle. The military rifle however has several modifications to make it better suited for military use and many accessories are available.

The official military designation for the rifle is C14 Timberwolf Medium Range Sniper Weapon System (MRSWS)...


http://barrett.net/firearms/model98b

Thanks to its modular layout, this rifle can be adapted to fit each user’s exact needs. Its straight-line design, running from the muzzle to the shooter’s shoulder, tames recoil. It also allows for faster, more accurate follow-up shots fed from the 10-round detachable magazine. The ergonomic pistol grip reduces muscle fatigue and provides total control over the fully adjustable trigger. An intuitive, thumb-operated safety can be accessed without compromising the firing grip. This allows the shooter to maintain a solid weld to the adjustable cheek piece. The oversized bolt handle can be easily manipulated, feeding a fresh round into the chamber as the bolt silently glides through a polymer guide.
Model 98B

The Model 98B rifle’s aluminum upper receiver boasts an 18-inch M1913 optics rail, offering plenty of space to mount substantial optics as well as a night vision device or other accessories. The forward receiver is drilled and tapped for accessory rails to be mounted at the 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions.

This impressive long-range weapon isn’t all work. Equipped with a rear monopod and forward bipod, it’s also a pleasure to shoot. From its highly efficient muzzle brake to its shooter-adaptable design and unprecedented performance, the 98B is ingenuity in action...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett

The Barrett .416 cartridge was designed by Chris Barrett, son of Ronnie Barrett. The bullet was designed using NACA low-supersonic-drag equations to design the shape.

The cartridge was designed as an improvement to the .50 BMG cartridge, a common machine-gun and rifle cartridge. It is similar to a wildcatted .50 BMG case, shortened to 3.27 inches (83.06 mm) and necked down to accept a .416 caliber, 400-grain (26 g) projectile; It is however of proprietary dimension. Because the two cartridges, the .50 BMG and .416 Barrett, have identical base dimensions, all that is needed to convert a rifle to use one or the other cartridge is a relatively quick barrel swap.

For some time, the only commercially-available rifle in this chambering was the single-shot Barrett Model 99. In August 2009, Zel Custom Manufacturing released the Tactilite .416 Barrett upper for AR-style rifles. Recently the Bohica Arms FAR-50 MK-II bolt-action, single-shot AR-15 upper receiver conversion became also available in .416 Barrett. Noreen rifles makes a rifle in .416 Barrett and other large calibers. Barrett now also chambers its semi-automatic M82A1 in .416 Barrett...

...A few jurisdictions in the United States, most notably California as well as a few nations such as Australia, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands restrict or prohibit civilian ownership of rifles chambered to use the .50 BMG cartridge, but not the .416 Barrett...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_HS_.50

HS .460

...The rifle is also available in the proprietary .460 Steyr round, developed for markets where ownership of the .50 BMG by private citizens is banned, but .46 rounds are not, such as California. The .460 caliber version is known as the HS .460.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #56)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:02 AM

57. You're making a really good case for better gun control...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:42 AM

58. Why? Gun crime is on the decline- wait, I forgot...

The purpose of gun control isn't crime control...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:56 AM

59. Ironically...

...the argument could be made that more and better gun control has contributed to decline in crime.

Moreover, there is a very clear public safety argument to be made from the Constitution beyond what is stated in Heller, which is very clear, as the Constitution is clearly designed to and is evident from the preamble to the Ninth Amendment. But then again, I suppose you object to the idea of that there is a right to privacy too.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:16 AM

61. When has an enumerated right *ever* been held subordinate to an un-enumerated (and ill-defined) one?

You will note that cases like Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Lawrence v. Texas were all decided against state governments that claimed an interest in banning actions they claimed were a threat to public safety or order. The Supremes rightfully told them all "nunya bidness". Griswold,Roe, and Lawrence all explicitly upheld a right to privacy- a truly progressive idea.

BTW, what's your take on United States v Jones? (The disinterested observer will note that Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in a 9-0 decision...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #61)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:43 AM

62. "A well-regulated Militia" - No member of SCOTUS denies that gun control is Constitutional...

...the disagreement is over how that is weighed against the supposed individual right.

I think they ought to get a warrant, but at the same time, like with the various provisions of the Patriot Act there is a national security exception. My position isn't the popular one, but ultimately, it's the logically consistent position. The Constitution isn't designed to enable criminality or terrorism in the face of legitimate law enforcement efforts. Speaking of other current events, I don't know why Holder failed so badly at making a Constitutional argument for Anwar Al-Awalki strike, simple, same Constitutional category as a "pirate."

Article I, Section 8, cl. 10-11

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


Seems Congress did do that with the Authorization of Military Force:

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 02:16 PM

95. "Legitimate law enforcement efforts" FOLLOW the Constitution.

If they are legit, the cops can and should get a warrant. If they don't, they damn well better have a good claim of 'exigent circumstance'
ready to present in court...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #95)

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 02:18 PM

96. Mahalos. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 10:26 AM

64. No, that argument can not be made.

You said: Ironically the argument could be made that more and better gun control has contributed to decline in crime.

Except that gun control has been in retreat for almost 20 years. Dozens have states have greatly loosened their gun control laws, either voluntarily or have been forced to by court decisions. You have NOT had MORE and better gun control, you have had LESS and better gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 10:31 AM

65. So you think that gun control has increased over the past 20 years?

and caused the corresponding decline in violent crime?

So what recent gun control acts do you think have significantly impacted crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:49 AM

69. Not in any way, shape or form.

 

As stated above, you have not proved that there is a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:55 AM

70. No, it's an empirical evidence argument, and you have none.

 

If you can cite to a legit, safe use of yellow-cake for the average Citizen, I'll argue that it should be legal to have in one's garage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #70)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:05 PM

71. That's not how we make laws in this country. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #71)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:41 PM

80. Heh, well played.

 

I concede the point, we should be allowed to have the stuff as long as we do no harm with it.

For something like that, however, merely having it could actually indicate harm. Radioactive and toxic. A gun can't kill someone just sitting inertly on a table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #80)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:49 PM

81. Mahalos

Bottom-line: government being by, of, and for the people can impose restrictions in the interest of public safety and such restrictions are Constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #81)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:55 PM

82. Great. Let's restrict the rights of vocal opponents to President Obama

because their rhetoric COULD cause someone to do something nasty which is a first amendment application.

I guess you're good with that restriction, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #82)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:02 PM

83. I think you need a reality check.

Don't threaten anyone (including yourself).
Do not post anything which could be construed as a threat toward any person, on DU or elsewhere.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice


This is Democratic Underground, not FreiRepublic where you are free to endorse the nasty messages and incitements to violence of our more demented opponents. The First Amendment does not protect speech that is construed to produce violence or civil disorder. Want to test that theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #83)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:18 PM

84. I'm not advocating violence against anyone

Simply saying you want to restrict 2A in the public interest

I'm asking if you're ok with restricting the 1A in the public interest. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #84)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:20 PM

85. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is already restricted.

It has always been restricted according to common law...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #85)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:24 PM

88. Would you restrict the 1A rights of people based on their political preference?

Would you shut conservatives up if you could?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #88)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:28 PM

89. Hell no.

And I resent your implication as such...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:40 PM

90. Well, my question is a simple one

Why restrict one right for the public good/interest

And not other rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #90)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:52 PM

91. Not all Amendments are identical in construct...

Try read the Bill of Rights objectively and not through an ideological lens sometime, it's informative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #91)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:57 PM

92. You and I disagree

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:48 AM

68. Prove what? That crimes commited with .50 cal rifles are essentially non-existant?

 

You are asking me to prove a negative. I'm sure you know better.

The burden is on you to prove that these items are a problem and are actually used criminally in enough numbers to warrant restriction. That's how it is supposed to work in this country, California's governmental retailing of fear and hysteria not withstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:07 PM

6. But what if it was Democrats?

 

It doesn't matter how many letters you write......they know who butters their bread and it isn't the Democrats.

But what if it was Democrats? What then? What if the NRA overnight became a lobbying wing for the liberal cause?

Supporting the NRA is supporting the Republican Party.

In the last election all of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA. 3 of them were the endorsed candidate.

I voted for all of them but the guy with the F rating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:16 PM

9. And you voted for the Republican...

Case in point. The NRA is a lobbying wing for right-wing views on gun-ownership, that won't become a Democratic Party policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:39 PM

12. It very well could

You are saying that gun ownership is "right wing"

There are a bunch of people here in DU that are liberal and believe in gun rights.

Just because gun rights have been a right wing issue in the past does not mean that
it can't transition to the left because of philosophical evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:56 PM

15. I said no such thing...

...here are specific NRA policies that I disagree with because they are right-wing: .50 cal rifles for all, gunshow/private sale loophole, firearms industry shield law, no limits on bulk sales and more.

"A well-regulated Milita"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 05:24 PM

18. ".50 cal rifles for all"

 

What is wrong with ".50 cal rifles for all"?

Take a look at the Barrett price list:

http://barrett.net/pdfs/Price-List.pdf

These are several-thousand-dollar rifles. They weigh around 30 pounds. The cartridges for them cost $4 a shot.

Rifle crime in the United States is very rare. .50 caliber rifle crime is probably non-existant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 05:42 PM

21. +1


I have a friend who could legitimately claim that the ownership of a rifle that could stop a vehicle constitutes home defense, but I doubt he'd spend the money for one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 05:59 PM

23. I agree with the Supreme Court of the State of California...

"The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:17 PM

30. California Supreme Court...

 

....what a load crap... Empty rhetoric + technical incompetence = .50 BMG "control".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:20 PM

45. I agree with that also.

 

"The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.”

I agree with that also. This makes it a fantastic weapon in keeping with the purpose of the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 10:05 PM

46. You also...

...agree with extrajudicial murder - so yeah...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:25 AM

48. So does the Obama administration...

...will you be calling them out, as well?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” Mr. Holder said. “This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvccd1000 (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:42 AM

51. But that's okay- they're authority figures, dontcha know?

Note the non-response to the Mirkarimi case in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117221689

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 05:30 PM

19. Lets see here...........................

.50 cal rifles for all. Are you against all .50 cal rifles? Or just a few of them?

gunshow/private sale loophole. This has to do with private sales and the NCIS. It is also a problem that has to be addressed by each state, as the Constitution prevents prevents the Feds from doing anything.

firearms industry shield law. You want to sue firarms manufacturers for each death caused by the misuse of firearms? Pass the Law, but make no exemptions for ANY manufacturer of anything. You do believe in equality under the law, don't you?

no limits on bulk sales . Fine, but again it is a state law that must be passed. Once a product is in the state then the Commerce Clause has no more teeth. Get each state to pass your law, and again, NO exemptions, musn't be unfair.

As for the others, get your laws passed in all 50 states, then we'll talk more.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:01 PM

24. This isn't rocket science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:36 PM

36. If it ain't rocket science then why do you keep avoiding the questions asked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:32 PM

42. since MAIG is not a law enforcement agency

they do not have access to ATF trace data. That means, they make shit up.
Check out their score card for each state. If they were honest, each state would have at least five points because of federal laws including one that passed in 1938. The other five has little or nothing to do with trafficking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:14 PM

43. It is really strange that a person who claims to be so highly educated wants to avoid

answering questions from a Mud Marine.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

The fear, you can smell it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:54 AM

54. Cite please.

"using 2009 data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #54)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:06 AM

67. The Tiahart Amendment was passed in 2004

This is what MAIG claims about the amendment

The Tiahrt Amendments, named for their original sponsor, U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), are provisions attached to federal spending bills that make it harder for law enforcement officers to aggressively pursue criminals who buy and sell illegal guns. Since it was formed in 2006, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been fighting to reform the Tiahrt Amendments.

In 2007, hundreds of mayors joined with 30 national and state law enforcement organizations to wage a campaign against the Tiahrt restrictions. The campaign's efforts helped to defeat proposals that would have made the restrictions even worse, and also secured certain improvements to the Tiahrt amendments in the FY 2008 appropriations bill. In 2009, mayors and police chiefs successfully pushed revisions to the Tiahrt language in the FY 2010 appropriations bill, which restored full access to crime gun trace data for state and local law enforcement.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

That is false, because local law enforcement always had full access. MAIG wants access to non law enforcement and the trace data be admissible is civil suits.
http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news_article?id=411&XSL=xsl_pages%2Fpublic_news_individual.xsl
The above is dated 2007.

Here I explain the score card
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=20582
for this I cite Gun Control Act of 1968 (including the Lautenberg Amendment) and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #67)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:08 PM

72. That doesn't prove your argument...

...which is that the MAIG numbers are cooked. I would gather that if even more information was included it would confirm the trend in the MAIG data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #72)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:17 PM

73. yes it does

because how could they have obtained the numbers in 2009 when there was no legal way for MAIG to obtain them. Would you like to discuss the other examples of MAIG's dishonesty?
Also, MAIG claims or implies that there is large scale straw purchasing and trafficking in places like Wyoming. There is no evidence of that, at least not that the ATF has found. The typical crime gun is 11-14 years old. Eighty percent of them have been reported stolen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #73)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:31 PM

74. Actually, no it doesn't:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 21, 2007
No. 14

MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS PRAISES DEFEAT OF MEASURE THAT THREATENED POLICE WITH PRISON FOR TRACKING ILLEGAL GUNS

Joint Statement from Coalition Co-Chairs New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino

"This week Congress defeated a more insidious version of the Tiahrt Amendment, the appropriations rider that restricts the access of cities and states to aggregate crime gun trace data. This data is critically important to the efforts of local police to identify regional illegal gun trafficking patterns, and yet the defeated version of the Tiahrt Amendment threatened our police officers with prison terms for using the data for exactly that purpose. That would have been a true travesty of justice.

"While we remain staunchly opposed to the anti-police Tiahrt Amendment provisions that remain, we are pleased that Congress said 'No' to making the Tiahrt restrictions worse. In addition, we applaud Congress for heeding our call to eliminate the Tiahrt Amendment's geographic restriction on data requests, which blocked police officers from getting critical information on out-of-state sources of illegal guns. While too many restrictions on trace data remain in place, it is nevertheless encouraging that following the national campaign our bi-partisan coalition of mayors, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has begun releasing trace data that it had previously refused to release. Our coalition will continue fighting against restrictions on crime gun trace data, and continue fighting for other pieces of common sense legislation that will help our police officers keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr014-07.shtml


The only years it appears such data was unavailable was 2006 and 2007, not 2008-2009.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #74)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:59 PM

75. since MAIG lied about everything else

the law prohibits the ATF from releasing trace data from non LE It is not that they refuse to. If ATF gave MAIG data they violated the law
and where is the study? Why can't we read it for ourselves? Given their level of dishonesty about current gun control laws, their dishonesty about the Tiahart Amendment by claiming that it does not allow ATF to give data to local LE when in fact it does.

This sentence here:
Tiahrt Amendment's geographic restriction on data requests, which blocked police officers from getting critical information on out-of-state sources of illegal guns.


On a per capita basis, more members of MAIG have been convicted of felonies CCW holders or the public at large, do you seriously expect me, or any critical thinker, to accept anything they claim at face value?
How is the Tiahart Amendment "anti-police"?

It is up to them to back up their claims by providing the evidence that their claims are based on. They have not because they can not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #75)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:15 PM

76. Now you're getting into...

...conspiracy theory territory. I just showed you proof that that MAIG had access to the data they claim to have had access. Your only logical option is to concede the point: I guess the data is from the ATF, is substantial, and has correctly been analyzed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #76)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:27 PM

77. No it did not

nothing I said was "conspiracy theory" territory. Everything I said can by verified by looking at current federal laws. It is demonstrable fact the number of MAIG felons vs everyone else.

No, it is not logical to "guess it is correct" because they reached the conclusion before the data, and the demonstrated dishonesty in general. If the NRA or SAF made a claim about anything you did not take at face value, would you be in "conspiracy theory territory?"
In other words, it is up to them to show their work and to propose ideas that deal with trafficking instead bitching about shall issue and complain about states not having redundant state laws, when federal laws already exist to deal with the issue. I also notice you looked over another lie, that the amendment hinders local law enforcement, when it reads

That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such data, in any civil action pending on or filed after the effective date of this Act in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding


What MAIG actually opposes is the underlined. ATF and Tiahart are correct on this. My tax money should not be used to support propaganda regardless of who it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #77)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:31 PM

78. ^^^^

ranting/whining

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #78)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:35 PM

79. in other words,

you are and not willing to admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 21, 2012, 02:11 PM

94. Poopyhead- you're not recognizing the "higher truth" in MAIG's statements.

Some things are just too important to let quaint notions like factual accuracy impede them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 05:17 PM

17. Yes, I think it is important to send policy messages through voting where possible.

 

And you voted for the Republican...Case in point.

Yes, for the one, single Democratic candidate who had an F rating, Scott Gilliland, I voted for the Republican as a protest vote against him for his anti-firearm-rights stance.

Note that I voted for Obama in the presidential election despite his NRA rating. Things have to be balanced against everything else at stake, and I didn't want perpetual war and imperialism under more Republican leadership.

The NRA is a lobbying wing for right-wing views on gun-ownership, that won't become a Democratic Party policy.

I'm working to change that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 05:54 PM

22. Good luck with that, single-issue voter...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:18 PM

44. If I was a single-issue voter, I would not have voted for Obama.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:18 PM

10. I think they will always lobby for gun rights

The idea I am trying to point out is that there are a lot of Dems here on DU that support
gun issues.

As you have sited, there are quite a few Democrat congress people who support the second ammendment.

It's just another reminder that generalizations usually have their limits.

Democrat gun supporters are not necessarily any less liberal... they just
support guns rights. To what extent probably varies with each individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:15 PM

28. Democratic*

Republicans primarily use Democrat as an adjective and not a noun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:20 PM

31. That's because I wrote what I meant - Democrat.

Sorry ell but there comes a time when the logic gets lost....

A Democrat is a person and therefore, is a noun.

As before REREAD the statement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:29 PM

33. Oy Vey

As you have sited, there are quite a few Democrat congress people who support the second ammendment.

It's just another reminder that generalizations usually have their limits.

Democrat gun supporters are not necessarily any less liberal... they just
support guns rights. To what extent probably varies with each individual.


"Democratic congress people," "Democratic gun supporters," and cited not sited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:20 PM

86. If all you can do is complain about spelling and whether a word is a noun or a verb

 

You have lost:rolf:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #86)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 03:22 PM

87. You should take that...

...hey guys it's democrat party not Democratic Party to GD if you're serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 05:39 PM

20. I understand and agree with your position, but I believe

that in these cases you really need to write the NRA.

I also find myself in rare agreement the member who felt that the railing against President Obama is essentially an endorsement of the GOP candidate. More that a little disenchanted with that. If the NRA endorses neither candidate it will appear to me to be a transparent ploy to both eat and have cake.

ETA: I'm too broke right now to even consider non-essential spending - so it's a moot issue for me when it comes right down to it. I've been a member because I agree with those Dems who believe change in the organization can only come from the inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:32 AM

50. No point in donating money to people that piss on the President, while accepting Mitt's AWB.

I think he signed it into law less because of a deep and sincere concern for the people of Massachusetts, but more of a deep and sincere concern for the political career of one W.M. Romney. Rhetoric aside, the guy has done more against the stated goals of the NRA than President Obama has.

That's why I'm holding off- I want to see if they hold to their stated principles, or will Mitt's power to cloud men's minds work on them as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 08:01 PM

93. Well said - and I agree with your perceptions


on Mittens.

It will be interesting to see what transpires here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:13 PM

41. Obama is not allowing the Korean M-1s to return to this country.

They were made in America by Americans but because they are semi-auto military rifles he is against it. Sorry, but Obama is anti-gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:12 AM

47. True, but Rmoney signed MA's "assault weapons" ban into law.

In terms of rhetoric, Obama is more anti-gun than Mittens- but Mittens is more anti-gun in terms of actions taken.

I've no doubt Mitt will lay on the charm offensive to try and get NRA members to vote for him, but there's a saying here in Mass about him:
"Mitt used to pretend he was from Massachusetts, and now he's pretending he isn't". The guy is a real-life Milo Minderbinder!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 10:40 AM

66. Obama's record as a Senator is profoundly anti-gun.

Obama voted against the PLCAA of 2005 and for the Kennedy Amendment to that same act. Kennedy designed the amendment to outlaw common hunting ammunition, specifically naming the .30-30 cartridge as a "cop-killer". For those not familiar with cartridges the .30-30 is the most common deer hunting cartridge in the U.S., and was designed in 1893. It is used in lever action rifles such as this one:



Romney signed a MA AWB which I don't like either.

Neither of the two have recanted any earlier gun positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:28 AM

49. All anti-gun is a level! You do not like obamas level, I do. He as...

 

Not been as bad as your type were predicting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:55 AM

55. "Sorry, but Obama is anti-gun."

So you're voting against him in November?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 02:59 AM

60. I can't speak for GSC, but I'm certainly voting Obama in November.

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Thing is, the President has been more pro-gun in action (as opposed to rhetoric) than Mittens.
So a single-issue pro-gun voter would have to 'go Obama'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 10:18 AM

63. I'm not a single issue voter.

I reserve the right to gripe about positions he has taken, while agreeing with other ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread