What The NRA's "All In" Failure Means For The Media

[SecularMotion]

The National Rifle Association said they were "all in" on the 2012 election. They lost. Now it's the media's responsibility to stop portraying them as an invincible electoral juggernaut.

The media has warned for years that strengthening gun violence prevention laws is impossible because of the political power of the gun lobby. This claim was always flawed; studies show that the NRA and its allies do not wield outsized power, and common sense gun policies are favored by large majorities of Americans and even, in some cases, NRA members.

But yesterday's election results provide incontrovertible evidence that the media's portrayal of the politics surrounding the gun issue has been inaccurate.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/07/what-the-nras-all-in-failure-means-for-the-medi/191205

[sarisataka]

1. <duplicate>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1752912

[krispos42]

2. There has also been basically no national movement on gun laws

So the premise that the NRA is a paper tiger will need to be tested. Any volunteers?


The NRA has also won a string of victories on the state level in the past 4 years. I see an awful lot of new concealed-carry laws, for example, and damn few limits on magazine capacity or assault-weapon bans.

[HankyDub]

6. I think we also need to challenge the idea that the NRA is a single issue advocacy group.

They attacked a president who did virtually nothing in the way of gun laws and favored a candidate who signed an assault weapons ban.

It's time to point out what we all already know. The NRA is a right wing special interest group whose primary interest is supporting the republiklan party. Guns are a secondary concern.

[glacierbay]

9. I don't like the NRA

but they are a single advocacy group, gun rights only, if you have proof of other issues that they advocate for, by all means, post the proof w/links.

[HankyDub]

11. this is obviously untrue

and the last presidential election is a great example, as I showed. The NRA is just a right wing advocacy group.

Proof with links? Open your eyes.

[glacierbay]

12. Post the proof that the NRA

is anything other than a gun advocacy group, have they advocated for the repeal of ACA? Reproductive rights? Gay rights? What other issue have they advocated for?
If you want to be taken seriously, then provide proof w/links, otherwise, you have nothing.

Here is their mission statement.


http://www.nrafoundation.org/giftannuity/mission.asp

Established in 1990, the NRA Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context.


I provided my proof, now provide yours.

[HankyDub]

16. Proof is in the pudding.

You continue to ignore the fact I have presented here, because you can't refute it. The NRA chose to support a man who as governor signed a ban on assault rifles against a president who actually expanded gun rights.

Then theres the fact that the NRA has paid speakers like $arah Palin and Blenn Beckkk to appear at its annual idiot festival, and those persons clearly do take positions on a variety of issues.

And no, posting mission statements from the NRA's website isn't proof of anything.

[glacierbay]

18. What Proof?

You've posted nothing but your opinion while OTOH, I've posted proof that they are a single advocacy org.

I'll ask again, post the proof that they advocate for anything else besides American's gun rights.

[HankyDub]

20. Continue to ignore it

but it's still the giant elephant in the room.

The fact is that the NRA supported a candidate who signed an assault weapons ban against a president who expanded gun rights. You can't dispute that. It's a fact.

It's also a fact that the NRA's various board members, such as Ted Nugent, routinely advocate a number of right wing causes, such as opposition to medicare and marriage equality. They cross-pollinate with Grover Norquist and Ollie North and Ken Blackwell, who are used as spokespersons on a variety of issues by the republiklan party.

[glacierbay]

22. Just as I thought

you have no proof. Their board members can advocate what they want, but have you EVER seen it on the NRA website?
If so, then provide the links. Really simple if you want to be believed.

Show us where on their website that they have EVER advocated any thing other than gun rights. That's all I'm asking for, proof.

[HankyDub]

24. as I thought

You continue to ignore the facts I presented about the presidential election, because you can't refute them. Several times I iave repeated this fact, and each and every time you have ignored it. You haven't even attempted to dispute that.

The NRA's website is geared toward promoting the NRA. The NRA's website isn't a credible source of anything.

Their board members routinely advocate for all kinds of right wing causes, it's a "who's who" of despicable right wing filth. Their board members represent the NRA and when the advocate those other causes they are doing so with the approval of the NRA with the imprimatur of the NRA. When Ted Nugent rants hatefully about gay people, people know that his political relevance is solely ascribable to his position as an NRA board member.

When they pay speakers who are right wing lunatics like $arah Palin and Glenn Beck, those persons also have the implied support of the NRA.

I expect you will continue to ignore all facts presented and insist on "proof" from the NRA propaganda organ itself. You argument is pathetically weak.

[glacierbay]

25. And you continue to refuse to provide proof.

so at this point I can only conclude that your refusal to provide the oft asked for proof means that you can't find it.
If you can't, just admit it and move on.

[HankyDub]

26. I have provided ample proof

but you have failed to address any of my points. Is that what you always do when you are losing an argument?

The NRA is a republiklan lobbyist group. Just admit it and move on.

[glacierbay]

28. One more time

What proof? Where are your links to your alleged proof? That's all I'm asking for, is links to your proof, if you can prove that the NRA advocates for anything other than gun rights, then I'll apologize, and I don't mean the personal views of the board members, I mean what the NRA advocates for, you said that the NRA advocates for issues other than gun rights, and I've asked you time and again to provide proof with links that show the NRA is something other than a gun rights org..

Provide the proof w/links and I'll apologize. Seems really simple to me.

[HankyDub]

32. why is it you continue to ignore the centerpieceof my argument?

The NRA supported Governor Romney, who signed an assault weapons ban into law, against president Obama, who decreased gun restrictions.

Deal with that fact or apologize for wasting my time with all of your evasions.

[glacierbay]

35. Here's what you said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117285438#post6

So far you've provided no proof that the NRA is anything other than a single issue advocacy group.
You seem to think the proof is that their board directors are bat shit crazy repukes, so what? The views of their directors have no bearing on what the mission of the NRA is, that is to promote American gun rights.
Now if you can show me where the NRA takes a position on other issues, not the personal views of the directors, but the NRA itself, w/links to those positions, then I will apologize.

[Travis_0004]

130. As for second Admendment rights, Romeny is more pro gun than Obama.

Yes, I realize Obama has passed no gun laws in his first term. However he publicly states that he supports an assault weapon ban. I realize Romeny passed a state AWB, but he said he is now against it. He is simply appealing to his audience. In MA, gun control is is not as big of an issue as it is on the national stage. I'm confident that Romney would not have attempted to pass any gun control laws, because it would have cost him a reelection.

So on the 2nd amendment, I can see exactly why the NRA supported Romney.

I do not support an assault weapons ban, and it is my belief that Obama would try to get one passed, if he picks up enough votes in the house from the 2014 election.

[gejohnston]

30. your proof is the personal rants of the board of directors

and do not speak for the organization when they run their mouths.
Does Sylvester Stallone speak for the Brady Campaign when he says something right wing?

[HankyDub]

31. that is just one piece of evidence I provided

I also pointed to the fact that they supported a candidate for president who signed an assault weapons ban into law against a president who actually decreased weapons restrictions. This is the crucial piece of information from my point of view.

I pointed out that the NRA sponsors speakers like $arah Palin and Glenn Beck at their annual gooberfest.

[glacierbay]

33. Now your changing.

You said that the NRA advocates for issues other than gun rights did you not? And I've asked several times to prove it w/ links. So let's review what you've proved so far.......................(tick tock)..................(tick tock)...................., so far, nothing. No proof w/links, nothing, meanwhile I've proved with links that the only thing the NRA advocates is gun rights.
Check and Mate. Been nice playing but you can take your marbles and go home now.

[HankyDub]

36. I said that they opposed a president who reduced restrictions on guns

and favored a candidate who signed an assault weapons ban into law.

There is no other conclusion to draw. If their single issue was gun rights, they would have supported Obama, or at least remained neutral. Instead they attacked the president with a neutral/pro-gun history as chief executive in favor of a candidate whose record as chief executive of MA would have disqualified him in their eyes...IF he was a democrat. But because they are just a republiklan advocacy group, the facts of these two men's records was immaterial.

[glacierbay]

37. No,

you said that they were more than a single advocacy group, what other issues, besides gun rights, do they advocate for?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117285438#post6

[HankyDub]

39. You have now avoided responding to my central point about 5 times now

This means you lose.

[glacierbay]

42. That's funny you saying that I've failed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117285438#post6

You haven't provided proof of what you claim and now I'm convinced that you can't provide any proof.
Have a nice day.

[HankyDub]

43. I have provided excellent evidence

and I know it's excellent evidence because you absolutely refuse to make any argument against it.

[WinniSkipper]

85. You're not very good at this debate thing. nt

[doc03]

126. I agree with you. I have gone through the same argument with

these people, no matter what you say they come up with some strawman argument.
He starts out saying he doesn't like the NRA than refuses to admit they have any agenda outside of gun laws. What you said about Romney supporting the ASB and Obama actually expanded gun rights proves the point. If you waste your time finding links they come up with a new argument. In Ohio in 2010 we had Ted Strickland a Democrat that is a lifetime hunter and Kasuck that voted for the AWB. Oh I think they went through the motions of endorsing Strickland and maybe gave him a token contribution, they pretty much had to. If it was the other way around they would have moved heaven and earth to defeat Strickland running anti Strickland ads 24/7.

[glacierbay]

127. Still doesn't answer the question

what other issues does the NRA advocate for besides gun rights? Maybe you can answer that.

[gejohnston]

34. All of Obama's bills

were riders of larger bills. Do you seriously think he would veto the credit card regulation bill, which is something very important, because of some trivial rider?
So you can now put a gun in checked baggage on AMTRAK, just like the airlines. Of course pearl clutchers were freaking out about "now you can take your gun on the trains" which was less than accurate. If Obama signed a stand alone bill, you would have a more valid point.
So Palin and Beck got speaking gigs at the convention. Beck doesn't count because he doesn't actually believe any of the shit he says. He just knows right wing conspiracy nuts make more money than a left wing one would.

[HankyDub]

38. So they paid right wing lunatics iwth other agendas

They don't count because they are just as bat shit crazy and mendacious as Wayne LaPierre? Fail.

Obama's record vs. Romney's record. If they were truly a single advocacy group, they would have stayed neutral or supported Obama.

If Romney had been running as a democrat with his record (signed assault weapons ban) the NRA would have opposed him. Since he was a republiklan, they spend large amounts of money to support him.

The only rational conclusion is that party affiliation is more important than the actual record.

[glacierbay]

40. But what other issues, other than gun rights have they advocated for?

Why is it so difficult for you to answer this question, either they advocate for issues other than gun rights or they don't. Do they advocate for or against gay rights? For or against abortion? For or against the ACA? What? Just provide the proof w/links that they are taking a position on issues other than gun rights.

[gejohnston]

41. so the NRA support for Strickland over Kaisach

didn't happen?
Their support for Bernie Sanders over the Republican he bumped off didn't happen?

Tell you what, if 2016 becomes Brian Schweitzer vs Guliani and the NRA supports Rudy, then you will have a valid point.
Would Obama sign the bills if they were stand alone? AMTraK, maybe. National parks, don't think so.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/nra-endorses-romney-ryan-ticket
I'm inclined to think they were endorsing Ryan's view than Mitt's.

[HankyDub]

44. How many ways can you guys avoid discussing the point I made?

Let's play this game!

[gejohnston]

45. because your conclusions are based on guesses without

complete information. I have discussed the point you made. You don't want a discussion, you want blind agreement. Care to discuss my counter point?

[HankyDub]

46. what counter point?

Did Strickland or Kasich sign a bill that bans assault weapons?

If not, then your counter point is counterpoop.

[gejohnston]

47. Kasich voted for the federal one in 1994

the NRA backed Strickland while the Kochs backed Kasich. Your point was supposed to be that the NRA always sides with Republicans.

[HankyDub]

48. Congratulations!

On making a good argument, something that whatshisname was unable to do. I did not know this about Kasich.

Your point was supposed to be that the NRA always sides with Republicans.

My point was that the NRA sided with a candidate who had signed an assault weapons ban into law and against a president whose record as executive is neutral/mildly pro gun.

In the most high profile race, they spent millions to support the guy who signed an assault weapons ban. I'm afraid the argument that they liked Paul Ryan isn't particularly believable.

The question remains...would they have supported a democrat for president after he had signed an assault weapons ban?

And the answer is clearly "no." Logically, one must conclude that their support is primarily based on ideologies other than RKBA.

[doc03]

128. The NRA (had) to endorse Strickland just what did they do to support him?

They may have tossed him a dollar or two but if Strickland would have been the one that voted for the ASB the NRA would have been running ads 24/7 against Strickland. Why did the NRA support Romney over Obama because Romney said he hunted "small rodents if you will"?
That's how they bullshit their members, they say we endorsed so and so many Democrats but when it comes to money it is tepid support at best..

[gejohnston]

129. my understand of why

according their apologists anyway, that Obama would nominate "anti RKBA justices" to the SCOTUS and sign the ATT, which the manufactures support. Of course there is the crazy shit about executive orders that makes you wonder what happened to civics education in the US. Of course they ignore Pelosi telling Holder to STFU about another AWB.

At least that is what their apologists tell me when I mention Mitt pandering to both sides. Now if you want to see some serious pearl clutching (I mean both sides doing it) mention that Kagan and Scalia are hunting and shooting buddies.

[dumbledork]

51. So...did you actively support and work for the candidate whose gun position matched yours?

If not, why not?

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. An interesting question that will probably be ignored...

[HankyDub]

59. Unlike 2a fanatics

I'm not a single issue voter.

[dumbledork]

83. I am a Constitutional fanatic...THAT is my single issue.

Unlike Salad Bar "Christians" with their 'inerrant' book, I accept the Constitution without picking and choosing.
(And I bought 2 more guns today at the local gun show.)

[HankyDub]

84. But of course you do pick and choose

As all of us do. If you look at your precious 2a, you choose to ignore the first part of the amendment that discusses "well regulated" and militias.

Though the US constitution is a good blueprint, it is not perfect. There are several oversights and problems in the document. Fetishizing the constitution is as silly as fetishizing the bible. One problem with the constitution is that the right to privacy is not clearly defined and another is that the right to vote is not explicitly guaranteed.

Then, of course, comes the matter of court interpretation, which has left a great deal to be desired in my opinion. Citizens United, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Buckley v. Valeo...

[dumbledork]

86. Well, at the end of the day...make that the end of the century, all this bloviating and parsing

of linguistic oddities aside, your fellow gun grabbers will still be emulating Don Quixote and we defenders of the longstanding, still-approved constitutional right to keep and bear arms will still be keeping and bearing. Cry, complain, whine, shout, insult, scream, bitch and moan all you want, it won't make a teacup of spit's worth of difference.

[HankyDub]

87. So you concede that your argument sucks

Thanks!

Anyhoo, I don't want to grab your gun. Stroke it and love it if that pleases you.

Be careful about overconfidence. If you refuse to be reasonable when you have the upperhand, your side may well be forced into a very bad spot when the pendulum swings.

[dumbledork]

88. Could you spare a couple grams of whatever you're smoking?

I have a couple of former friends I'd like to sucker into some more brain damage.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Nor is anyone else here-that's why we voted Obama.

You seem to be eager to argue with people that aren't actually here.

[HankyDub]

91. actually many of you seem to be single issue people

who only post here because you're obsessed with guns.

Honestly, how many people would you guess post ONLY here? I mean how many people have posted only a handful of times on any other issue, but lurk here in case anyone dares to criticize the holy mother of gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Ahem- *You* post here a lot and are... shall we say, "concerned" about guns, no?

Would you piss on other posters that concentrate on Environment and Energy and Public Transportation and Smart Growth (two of my subscriptions, BTW)?
Have you considered that 'false consensus effect' just might be affecting your views about those that don't share your opinions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=86334

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

In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal' and that others also think the same way that they do. This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a 'false consensus'. This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem. The need to be "normal" and fit in with other people is underlined by a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment...

...The false-consensus effect is not necessarily restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority. The false-consensus effect is also evidenced when people overestimate the extent of their particular belief is correlated with the belief of others. Thus, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.

This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X

The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes

Lee Ross, David Greene, Pamela House

Stanford University

Abstract

Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes

Judging by recent political trends in gun law legislation, I daresay there are far more people like me in the Democratic Party than you might care to admit...

[HankyDub]

93. Let's count.

My 225 posts, many of which are not related to guns in any way. What percentage of your 7500 posts have been on this forum or about guns? 90%?

You seem to have wasted a lot of time on wikipedia rebutting arguments that I never made. That's a shame.

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. That does not in any way affect the validity of what I say.

I've got news for you- I do most of my political activism in the real world, not cyberspace.

To be more specific, disability activism and trade unionism (I'm an SEIU member). Sure, I'd
love to do stuff with the Liberal Gun Club...

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=16171

...but between work and other activities, I don't have time to get to a range much less
get into Boston for activities beyond what I'm already doing. So my pro-Second Amendment
activism is mostly electronic.

You've somehow got into your head some fixed image of what the pro-gun people here are
like, and it seems that you don't want to hear anything that conflicts with that picture.
I find that to be kind of sad, and hope you realize that your prejudices are limiting your ability
to see what's actually there.

[backwoodsbob]

100. 41% of your posts are to this forum

does that make you obsessed ?

[Eleanors38]

54. Oh, your pudding? Conservatives change infrequently. Reactionairies, never. Which are you?

[Jenoch]

99. You have not

posted any proof that the NRA is interested in anything other than gun rights. Of course the NRA ILA supported Romney. He is a republican and republicans have traditionally supported RKBA more than have democrats. Since President Obama has recently stated that he supports a ban on so-called assault weapons, the NRA of course supported Romney, who although signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, surely would not have anything to do with a federal ban had he been elected president.

Are you really this obtuse or do you have another agenda?

[glacierbay]

101. I've been trying to get him to explain what other issues other that gun rights

the NRA advocates for and so far, all I've gotten is the runaround and insults, so I gave up.

[safeinOhio]

49. Gun rights only?

I've watched their ads and they always seem to mention more than the 2nd Amendment in them. Like "mountians of debt" "trillions in spending", nothing to do with the 2nd.

http://www.nrapvf.org/media-center/2012/obama-chipping-away.aspx

[glacierbay]

50. Once again

What other issues, as in ISSUES, like abortion, gay rights, health care, do they advocate for? Just because they might mention something isn't proof that they advocate it, so what proof do you have that the NRA is an advocacy group for anything else than gun rights?
Do they lobby for anything else?

[HankyDub]

60. It seems that you have great difficult with reading comprehension.

Try reading SafeinOhio's comment again.

[glacierbay]

62. Not playing your little game anymore.

I made my point and that's it, go argue with yourself.

[apocalypsehow]

144. Translation: "this being on the losing side of an argument really bites." I notice you in that

position on DU a lot.

[apocalypsehow]

143. Once again: that ad mentions "debt," "spending," and "threats to sovereignty," and

explicitly blames President Obama for not only all of that but also "chipping away" at our rights, and then goes on to say "vote Romney/Ryan."

This silly little game of "do they lobby for anything else?" isn't really fooling anyone, you know it?

[glacierbay]

145. Links?

The NRA is a one issue org.
I get the feeling that you're pissed off because your dream of more gun restrictions isn't even pushed by Pres. Obama, hell. he's even expanded gun rights. How do you feel about that, hmmmmmmmm.

[apocalypsehow]

146. What do you mean, "links"? Right there in #49, one of the posts we're arguing about it.

Or are you going to pretend you've already forgotten what reply initiated this charming sub-thread?



More silly game-playing by a poster who is an expert at it.

"I get the feeling that you're pissed off"

LOL - I don't know whether this is projection or what, but if you think I'm "pissed off" you haven't been paying attention. I am delighted: my presidential candidate won the election. The pro-NRA, right-wing candidate - the one that NRA ad is begging people to vote for - lost. "RKBA" went down in the Senate, too, and is hanging on by a thread in the House.

And it is the preview of what's to come: as the demographics of this country continue to shift, the pro-NRA, right-wing party, the Republican party, is going to either come around to progressive positions and liberal policies or it is going to go the way of the Whigs. And with that transition, getting closer every election, is going to come more politicians in elected office committed to sensible gun control.

So, "pissed off"? Nope: I'm tickled to tears. Sensible gun control is coming to the United States, sooner or later. And when it does, folks who like to strut around town with a pistol perched in their pants are either going to have to join the Army, or pass the MMPI and apply for a job at their local police department. Canadian-style gun control is eventually coming to America, my friend, and probably in our lifetimes: it is as inevitable as the day is long. And folks who don't like it are just going to have to get over it.

[glacierbay]

147. Welllllll

you just keep believing that if that's what makes you sleep better at night, meanwhile, gun rights keep marching on and the gun control crowd are fast approaching the garbage heap of history.
See ya later.

[Logical]

58. You are 100% correct!

[apocalypsehow]

142. The notion that the NRA is anything BUT a right-wing advocacy group is so obviously ludicrous

that it is utterly fantastic that anyone would dare challenge it.

Yet I see an entire sub-thread here where our local "pro gun progressives"* insist fervently, without a shred of evidence, that it is not: the poor, poor misunderstood NRA is all about....gun safety! Hunter education!

Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars that right-wing outfit has spent the last few years to defeat Democrats in general and progressives in particular...no sir, all they really spent all that money for was to enhance gun safety! It really tops the 'ole absurdity meter.


*( )

[glacierbay]

3. Anything coming out of MediaMatters

I treat like Faux Snooze, pure utter bullshit propaganda.

[HankyDub]

17. Many right wingers do hate mediamatters

Mostly because they quote right wingers verbatim. Nevertheless it is incumbent on an intelligent person to refute arguments rather than ad hom the source.

[glacierbay]

19. So are you accusing me of being a RW? nt.

[HankyDub]

21. I'm pointing to your ad hominem

and encouraging you not to behave like a right winger.

[glacierbay]

23. That's your opinion and I soundly reject it.

I'll behave as I want, and it's certainly not like a RW, I posted my opinion about MM, if you don't like it, the alert button is down and to the left, feel free to click on it.

[Glaug-Eldare]

27. A reply on glacierbay's behalf

Media Matters does good work when it publicizes some of the truly insane things that are said on the right. But too often, they wind up with ludicrous articles, like this one, that kill their credibility for me. What they're doing here is spinning the results of a general election and pretending that it was a referendum on gun issues. It wasn't. The fact that the NRA was unable to obtain a victory for the Republican who signed a state "assault weapons" ban over the Democrat who signed a bill permitting handgun carry in national parks doesn't strike me as a death knell for gun rights. The NRA invested relatively small amount of money in races they felt they were in danger of losing. Their concerns proved to be well-founded, as their selectees simply weren't popular enough to win. Republicans are losing for a lot of reasons, and popular support for gun control is not a significant contributor.

Simply put: Any single-issue organization can throw their resources into elections. The popularity of their issue is not a guarantee of success, and failure to win is not a sign that multi-issue voters want the kind of gun control the Bradys do.

Is that what you meant to say, glacierbay?

[glacierbay]

29. Thank you

that's putting it much more eloquently than I could. And that's basically what I meant.

[Eleanors38]

55. Does the head of mediamatters still have an armed bodyguard accompanying him?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. Disagree

.

[Eleanors38]

4. Secular. MSM has been & continues to be the gun prohibitionist's pressure group.

You want MSM to do the footwork, organizing, fund-raising, outreach -- all the things a viable special interest group is supposed to do! I.E., Washington Post, h-e-e-l-l-p m-e-e-e.

Frankly, MSM has a lot more to worry about than to resume a biased culture war they have lost, and which may be cutting into a shrinking reader/viewer audience.

Want some political juice? Try organizing like everyone else.

BTW, does the head of mediamat still employ an armed bodyguard?

[Atypical Liberal]

5. As I said before, don't make the wrong assumption.

Don't make the wrong assumption that just because the electorate has woken up to the fact that there are bigger fish to fry than second amendment rights right now that we will now and forevermore sit idly by if politicians move against the second amendment.

Pro-second amendment people such as myself have been free to vote on other issues besides the second amendment specifically because we feel confident that politician's can't move against it.

This will change if politicians start attacking the second amendment. I will not support any politician from any party that attacks the second amendment.

For this past election, I could find absolutely zero positional information on the second amendment for any of my Democratic candidates. They did not respond to issues questions from the NRA and vote-smart.org, and Google turned up nothing, and there was nothing on their web sites. This enabled me to vote for every Democratic candidate except one, who I voted against because he was less qualified than the Republican candidate running against him (he was not an attorney, she was, running for Probate Judge).

[SecularMotion]

7. The Democratic platform on guns

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.

http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

[glacierbay]

10. Pretty much mirrors my beliefs also.

with a caveat on the war on terror, I do support the war on terror but it needs to be done differently. Better intelligence gathering, repeal the Patriot Act, there's nothing patriotic about it, rework the terrorist watch list to be more transparent so that name addition can be disputed before the addition, the no fly list needs a massive overhaul, I'm still up in the air about drone strikes.
Just a few suggestions.

[sarisataka]

13. Careful

It looks like some believe you have to be all in or nothing.

All-in?? where have I heard that lately...

[glacierbay]

15. I can't believe that post was hidden.

[Eleanors38]

56. No surprise. The content was fine. But prohibitionists get their way on alerts. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. Please Do Not Lump Us All in One Group

I support strong gun control laws and agree that the NRA got it wrong and our party platform got it right regarding guns. I also think that the jury got it wrong with Atypical Liberals post #8 which was hidden. Very disappointing....all for expressing an opinion....HIS. I disagree completely with his position on guns but defend his right to express his opinion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. Post #8

I support strong gun control laws and agree that the NRA got it wrong and our party platform got it right regarding guns. I also think that the jury got it wrong with Atypical Liberals post #8 which was hidden. Very disappointing....all for expressing an opinion....HIS. I disagree completely with his position on guns but defend his right to express his opinion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. for once you and I are in agreement. Bad alert. Bad hide.

[tortoise1956]

89. I don't know what's more disturbing...

that someone alerted on the post, or that 4 of 6 jury members found it to be against standards. What in the name of Murphy was in violation? Is it now against standards to state that you will not vote for someone who holds beliefs antithetical to yours? That's not very open-minded at all.

I'll say it also. I WILL NOT support someone who intentionally acts to suppress or dismantle the rights that the constitution recognizes...ANY of them. I don't care what political party they claim to represent. My family has fought in every war from the American revolution to present, and many of them paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can enjoy the fruits of freedom. I refuse to act in a manner that would cheapen or nullify their sacrifice.

If this violates the community standards, then I submit that the standards are morally suspect.

[aikoaiko]

14. Bipolar nature of anti-RKBA folks: the NRA is too powerful vs the NRA has no power

Which is it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. It's Called an Election

Happens sometimes. LOL.

[ellisonz]

52. Losers.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. NRA LOST

LOL.

[hack89]

61. Which is a good thing. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

65. Agree

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. Pro 2Aers helped to re-elect Obama. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. And So Did Dems Whose Majority and Party Platform Support an AWB

.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. Nobody can get it all right every time.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Not Talking about 'Nobody'

Talking about the majority of Democratic delegates to the Democratic Convention.

Of course one person can't get 'everything' right. Not even clear to being a fair analogy.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

75. A lot of us held our nose on that rotten board in the platform and stepped around it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Ok

......but you can't say it did not have wide support among delegates. It did.

Disagree with the plank but not how many supported it. The majority did.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

77. Yes, it is a major bone of contention within this party as is abortion for republicans.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. Fair Enough

...but both pro-gun with no AWB among Dems and pro-choice among Repubs are minority positions within respective parties.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

80. agreed and a lot of it (on both sides) I think, has to do with the nebulous definition of both words

interesting to me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. That's Probably True

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. Dissenters in Each

Agree.

edit
And nothing wrong with that.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

139. The NRA is doing nothing but eating sour grapes after losing big;

they do not have the support OR represent a majority of the voters in the US.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. Agree

.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. So all your crying wolf about the NRA was really much ado about nothing...

At least you're now coming to see the light...

Now you'll have to find something else to fear though. Sucks to be like that...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Disappointing

I support strong gun control laws and agree that the NRA got it wrong and our party platform got it right regarding guns. I also think that the jury got it wrong with Atypical Liberals post #8 which was hidden. Very disappointing....all for expressing an opinion....HIS. I disagree completely with his position on guns but defend his right to express his opinion.

[doc03]

82. Oh boy 81 posts on this, looks like you rattled the chains in the gungeon.

I dare you criticize the NRA. They support the guy that implements an assault weapons ban and campaign against the one that expanded gun rights. Then they want some kind of link to prove it. No matter what you do they come up with another strawman argument, it's a waste of time.

[hack89]

94. This is actually good.

since it is clear that the NRA is a paper tiger, we can stop talking about them.

The NRA can completely disappear and it will not change the losing path gun control is on in America. At the end of the day, it is the voters that matter. And the past 20 years make it very clear what the voters want.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. I think it just didn't matter in this election because

it was in the thrall of the political biases of the top leadership, rather than representing the membership. Everyone who might have been swayed by the NRA was already a locked-up sure thing vote, long before decided on.

There are other elections where the NRA will matter. Just not this one. 4m already-decided voters, and a drop in the bucket donation-wise compared to the money that was thrown at this election.


Also, fuck the NRA until they shitbarn their entire current leadership, and start working on their single issue again, rather than broad spectrum political activism.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. Word. I wrote the NRA off long ago.

[Jenoch]

98. Do you have an opinion

of your own on this topic? Or are you fine with the way things occurred during the election on the topic of gun control. Since you have not voiced your opinion on the topic, everyone on this board has no choice but to come to the conclusion that you are fine with the gun laws as they currently are enforced.

[graham4anything]

102. The NRA lost bigtime in 2012. Great article, and more great news to come in future

especially coming down the pike, MEEK MAYOR MIKE is riding in, and Meek Mayor Mike is already making them NRA folk sweat bullets with the knowledge that in the ensuing years,
the NRA will be toast, much like cigarettes are now frowned upon by the vast majority of Americans.

It will not be instant, but the tsunami to follow will be evident.

Great article above.

(though I myself would want MORE out of the box thinking on gun control to get each and every gun and bullet OFF the street altogether (but allow those to keep such in their own home, long as it is NOT outside THEIR home). (see the Zimmerman case among many others).

I would start a

I am a bowling sportist and
I don't pack bowling ball in a movie theatre restaurant or bar, therefore a gun sportist shouldn't need to pack their hobby in one either.

or
I am a collector of stamps
and I don't pack stamps in a movie theatre restaurant or bar, therefore a gun collector shouldn't need to pack their collection in one either


in 2012, one needs to reframe the argument because after all, waste of times like the Brady Bill were compromises the million dollar suits in the NRA wrote in the first place, and is meaningless in the real world.

[gejohnston]

103. Meek Mike lost big too

have you noticed Scott Brown lost?

[graham4anything]

105. He supported more winners than losers. He supports those that support gun control.

And he will defeat the NRA. Because good always defeats evil

[gejohnston]

106. as far as I know, Brown was the only pol Mike supported

once Mike leaves the mayor's office, MAIG will have to become self supporting instead of being supported by NYC taxes. According to the NYC website, MAIG uses the government web servers and is treated as an official NYC govt agency.

[graham4anything]

107. Bloomberg was the biggest supporter of Angus King among many, many others

Last edited Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Mayor Mike indeed is the great equalizer when it comes to taking on the dreaded million dollar suits in the NRA


click link for whole article-someone on the gun thread complained the whole article(all of which is unfavorable to the NRA)(Imagine someone who loves the NRA attempting to surpress a 1st amendment right so nobody can read views opposite the million dollar suits)... so have to edit to just a couple of paragrahs, the rest need to be read itself=

Here are the greatest hits from the article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/13/michael-bloombergs-next-political-move/

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent upwards of $9 million of his own money in the final ten days of the 2012 campaign in support of candidates who shared his views on gun control and political moderation, (snip)...

This is just the beginning,” promised Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Bloomberg (snip...)
“On issues like guns and education, Mike Bloomberg is poised to play an even bigger role in advancing a mainstream agenda and influencing elections.”

---(snip)===
What’s clear from Bloomberg’s heavy spending in such a short period of time is the mayor has no plans to leave the national political stage (snip)...
in fact, seems likely to gear up rather than ratchet down his spending for those who support his agenda and against those who don’t. That Bloomberg spent heavily to defeat an incumbent Democrat and to help two Republicans also suggests that he is genuinely committed to backing candidates of either party who share his vision on issues.

(snip)...

[gejohnston]

108. so you are OK with him supporting canidates who coddle the criminals on Wall Street

and to pass restrictions that will only affect people who do not prey on others, and do damage to the party? Bloomburg is an authoritarian plutocrat and really doesn't care about the one percent. He is Charles Koch light. Singing his praises on a Democratic, and left leaning populist, web site is repulsive.

[graham4anything]

109. You consider Angus King a bad person? The NRA is bad. Mike is the Equalizer.

guns don't belong on a left leaning site. They are WMD's and created to kill something or someone. And whomever they kill, kills the spirit of their families.

and Mike is born and raised a lifetime democrat.

And he backed Obama, lest you forget.

And he is a big believer in climate change. Lest you forget.

The NRA supports Zimmerman, a cold blooded murderer. Who stalked an unarmed man and shot him coward style dead. The border patrol shot 2 unarmed men in the back.
The NRA supports vigilantes.
(however, real men walk away from fights.)

The 2nd amendment was for ROTC or national guard. Only a corrupt court ruled otherwise.

Mike is not going away. And he mother was something like 102 when she died.

Nobody needs to bring a gun in a bar and then get drunk. I don't bring my stamps to a bar.

Someday guns will be obsolete. Brains will prevail.

[gejohnston]

110. never heard of Angus King.

guns don't belong on a left leaning site. They are WMD's and created to kill something or someone. And whomever they kill, kills the spirit of their families.

Nonsense

and Mike is born and raised a lifetime democrat.

So was Fred Phelps, he ran as Gov of Kansas as a Democrat.

And he backed Obama, lest you forget.

and?

And he is a big believer in climate change. Lest you forget.

so do most Republicans when they are honest

The NRA supports Zimmerman, a cold blooded murderer. Who stalked an unarmed man and shot him coward style dead. The border patrol shot 2 unarmed men in the back.
The NRA supports vigilantes.
(however, real men walk away from fights.)

What does the border patrol have to do with it? When I was in California, SFPD did the same thing and got away with it. As for Zimmerman, the NRA does not care about him. The evidence does not support a murder charge, and you can't walk away when you are getting your head pounded in the sidewalk.

The 2nd amendment was for ROTC or national guard. Only a corrupt court ruled otherwise.

History and constitutional scholars, including Larry Tribe says otherwise. Your opinion did not exist until the 1930s.
Mike is not going away. And he mother was something like 102 when she died.

Nobody needs to bring a gun in a bar and then get drunk. I don't bring my stamps to a bar.

That is also a felony in every state and territory, unless you are talking about NYC cop bars.

Someday guns will be obsolete. Brains will prevail

They will be replaced with phasers some day.

[graham4anything]

111. Angus King is the newly elected independent Senator from maine who will caucus with Democrats

and Zimmerman killed in cold blood.
His life was not in danger when he shot a kid in cold blood in a fit of rage.

Real men control their rage. Yes, they can walk away.

The wild wild west is a relic in the past.

And yes, you can keep guns in homes legal, but you can legislate guns outside the home
being illegal.
Meaning ALL guns, good and bad(assuming there is a good gun, which is a large assumption).

[gejohnston]

113. good to hear.

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:20 AM - Edit history (1)

and Zimmerman killed in cold blood.
His life was not in danger when he shot a kid in cold blood in a fit of rage.

forensic evidence and eye witness accounts say otherwise. That is why Zimmerman's defense is under Duty to Retreat rules, SYG is not relevant. There is no evidence of a fit of rage on Zimmerman's part. There is no evidence of racism on his part, in fact quite the opposite.

One more thing, the wild west never existed.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0717hill0717.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. "guns.... They are WMD's" Then Bush was right about Iraq? AK's were and are common there.

That was a war your inamorata supported, btw:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/nyregion/23about.html?_r=0

.. In May 2004, a year after the invasion, Mr. Bloomberg served as host to Laura Bush, who had come to New York in an effort to rally support for the war effort. Mrs. Bush visited a memorial for Sept. 11th victims. Standing next to Mrs. Bush, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, Mr. Bloomberg, right, suggested that New Yorkers could find justification for the war at the World Trade Center site, even though no Iraqi is known to have had a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Don’t forget that the war started not very many blocks from here,” he said that day in 2004.

[derby378]

131. This is one of the funniest posts I've read in a long time

I don't even need to elaborate. Winning, duh!

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Ahem- "Saint Michael of Bloomberg" supported one notable winner in 2004: George Bush

You might want to lay off the hagiography before you embarass yourself even further.

[graham4anything]

116. I posted this on the OWS thread- however, 75% of it is relevant right here.

the following was posted on the OWS/Sandy/Buying and relieving debt thread, however, taking a few paragraphs out of the following-the part about Bloomberg is much relevant to the gun groupies/NRA fans thread here-
so I will post it in its entirety.(As it took me 65 minutes to compose and post there, not going to waste anymore time deleting paragraphs-I am sure the NRA has million dollar suits that write short concise paragraphs, me I don't have a press agent to do it, so I will just post the entire 65 minutes worth here-(c) g4a.

So can one like OWS2 not much having agreed with the tactics of OWS1?
(so maybe a new name for OWS2 would get rid of the negative connotations of OWS1

(In the same way Cindy Sheehan did a wonderful job up to the start of Katrina, and it was quite admirable.
However, the respect for her diminished greatly once Bush left Crawford for the west coast in the days after Katrina, and even furthered devalued the time after it.

So I can back OWS and their accomplishments now, forgetting about how they overstayed and overplayed the OWS Wall Street.

So they are a work in progress, can we agree on that?
You have convinced me this indeed is admirable, and they have learned and grown.

Now, let me ask you something-
I have not liked the treatment of Mike Bloomberg here. And the hatred and stereotyping of him.

Being that there are 4 different Bloomberg's-
the man himself-who has and will keep giving his money (that he earned fairly and squarely, with the help of many others) all away before he dies. (He is giving billions away to those causes, and the needy and as charity).
the mayor of NYC-which has as all positions have, needs that have to be looked at in context with the job, the law, and the powers given to the position in, and also, what is not able to be done in the context of the job
the company he runs (the news organization that is extremly far to the left of Murdoch's News Group i.e. Fox News)
and his new Super Pac for the issues he himself wants to see accomplished

Now, if you asked me, what Bloomberg has done in 2 of the four is quite the same wavelength so to say OWS is. (Though at this point Bloomberg has given many times the amount that OWS has raised.)

So why the hatred for him?
He is after all on the same side of the issues of OWS2.

One thing that has to be taken into account with regard to OWS1 is that he (and me) are NYC (though he is a Boston raised liberal democrat, now in NYC).
And those in NYC have different needs than say those who own/run Wall Street companies

You do realize how 9-11 happened in NYC?
And you do realize how many billions and billions of dollars were lost after 9-11, in NYC and the global financial markets don't you?
And that after 9-11, you just cannnot do things that were done pre-9-11.
Cops are different (and the mayor only in name runs the NYPD, everyone knows they are more powerful than the mayor and run themselves from time started).
And that NYC in the 1990s and pre-9-11 vastly improved on the late 1970s/1980s NYC, with regard to income, with regard to crime, with regard to image.
And that 9-11 took alot of that away.

So you have the Bloomberg, who was elected after the failed power grab by Rudy Giuliani,who anyone and their mother would have to admit was 100 times worse on his best day, than Bloomberg on his worst day, needing to govern in a post 2001 world/city.

And you do realize that Bloomberg is along with Al Gore, probably the #1 Green candidate ever.
(Wanting to make Times Square into a concrete beach and remove cars/trucks from polluting the air and atmosphere.
Wanting to better Americans diet (another area derided, but people seem to be missing the big picture.
Wanting to help those that cannot afford healthcare by changing the message from post-problems to wellness (the point of the 48ounce soda ban), one that is working
Wanting to rid as should be, cigarettes from the equation
And, much to my happiness, now wanting to be the Equalizer against the NRA super pac, by having an even bigger funded pac of his own.

Seems admirable to me and the majority of New York City'ers who support Barack Obama, though of course because of politics, not everyone can publicly admit it.

the election in 2004 and his treatment supposedly of OWS1 were necessitated by other factors that any mayor in these times would have done. As Mayor he was acting under the law, and was more than generous with OWS1 than most others would have been.
(I suspect Rudy would have on day one removed them.)
The OWS1 people should have on their own retreated much earlier to plan for the future.
By the time of the problems(which for the most part were not major problems anyhow),they had used up the vast majority of their good will capital and were a nuisance and no longer accomplishing.

The stereotyping of Wall Street as a whole, something NYC itself needs to survive as they count on that money from those workers/companies for their own way to pay the bills needed that cities need- after all, Wall Street pays rent and taxes.
That is how government is funded and works.
After 9-11, with billions lost for a good decade, wanting to punish 100s of thousands because of 10 CEO's who may or may not be good people, when the same 9 to 5 people were the actual ones who died at the WTC
(Canter-Fitzgerald was housed in the WTC, major Wall Street group and lost more people in the WTC than any other company thanks to the faulty directions given from the Fire Department that morning).
I don't think for one second that anyone in OWS1 remembered that the 9 to 5 workers, the 99% of Wall Street were just regular average Joes and Josephines, getting a normal NYC salary to pay their bills in the 2nd most expensive area to live in the nation.
And probably a great number of those inconvienced were akin to being the parents of the youngsters protesting (the rebels without a cause as most of them, honestly, did not know what it was they were protesting. A % knew, but a great % also were just there from the soundbytes.)

So it turns me off when I see Mike Bloomberg being called the same ugly things that the NRA folks on the gun thread call him, when in fact, Mike and OWS2 are working for the same goals.
Even if they don't see it.

Much like the Civil Rights protesters were Blacks and Jews marching together, strategizing together, not working apart, which made the movement even that much broader.
(Same like Dr. King and LBJ working together.)

SO I can admire OWS2 even if I was not a fan of OWS1.

Bloomberg the person, and his new super pac, are doing (in major $$$ amounts) what Abbie Hoffman and others have done.
You might not agree on all his issues, but you have to admit he is making headway too.

And as climate change makes NYC the new Florida for bad storms, there will be more and more destruction and devastation.

And btw, I am a strong union person, and you have to remember that the Mayor of NYC has their own issues with unions that a personal person would not have. There are rules, and there is only a limited amount of funds available.
(Much of which is provided by the tax money from those "Wall street" firms/workers that are so hated.

It all works hand in hand.

But I give OWS2 credit.
I just hope minorities are getting their fair share from this. Being that their education funding is worse than any other group in NYC (and the nation).

I wonder, if you or anyone in OWS had a billion dollars, would you give away every single last penny before you die?(like Mike Bloomberg is doing, and a select few other mega rich people?
Not all of them should be lumped together as bad people. Money is not evil, unless the causes with the money used are bad.

It's like seeing a needy person in the Bowery asking for money. I would rather give a sealed package of food to that person. and/or if I had the funds, find out the cause behind the person being on the street, and attempt to find a solution for them and their families, be it homelessness, be it alchohol, drugs, etc.

Again, as Bob Geldof found out, two big events did not solve anything, and in fact, led to major charity fatigue for a few years after, thereby making matters worse, not better.

as this post took me more than 65 minutes to compose, and is stream of conscious style topic wise, feel free to pick just parts of it to respond to if you care to respond at all.
I think I will post this on the gun thread topics too as the vast majority of this is similiar to as I am anti-gun to their pro-gun(much like Bloomberg is anti-gun and hated by the NRA gun folks, as the NRA pays millions to have professional publicists posting short concise retorts to anyone who disagrees with them, something I don't have the luxury of having (a press agent that is).

Are you OWS fans so sure you want to be so similar in your absolutes to the NRA groupies/disciples? It would seem the two are polar worlds apart. One from the left, one from the right, with nothing in between.
(If I had to guess, I would suggest most NRA fans outside of NYC think like Hank Williams Jr. negatively sings about NYC,(in his deriding but great song "A country boy can survive" and would eagerly love to bring their guns into NYC and rid the city of any/all protesters,along with any and all minorities including the one Mike Bloomberg himself is that stereotyping people lump him and the bankers as.)

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. What are you, Bloomie's 'advance man' for 2016? The shilling is blatant.

[graham4anything]

133. He is not running in 2016 is he? A woman will be our next president45. Meet Hillary Clinton.

Madam 45
She will be alot more liberal than Bill was.

Bloomberg could be vp if he moves to Mass. or Hillary puts her residence as Illinois

Whomever Obama backs will win.
It will be Hillary.

[gejohnston]

134. personally, I see Brian Schweitzer

that is who I would be rooting for.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1#.UKqXoJtA6lo

[graham4anything]

135. IMHO-the dems won't nominate a white male. Just fact of demographics. The base after all

whereas the republicans will nominate two as they always do.

Winning is the key.

He is another good VP choce though.
(like a coach with a superstar QB and 10 solid other players on the team)

[gejohnston]

136. People didn't vote for Obama because of his race,

they voted for him because he was the better of the two. I will grant you that some voted against him because of it, just like I am sure some some evangelicals voted against Mitt because he is Mormon.

[graham4anything]

137. Here you are 100% correct. But history shows we need a woman next.

and because of the party, WE democrats must be the one and not cede it to the republicans.

(and Hillary being the single most qualified candidate, like her or not, would cause most of the other candidates to either drop out or run for VP.
IMHO, the only reason she did not win(and i was most certainly NOT a fan of hers in 2008, was because she did not get Obama's voters(he did LOL).
I would find it hard to believe Obama would not fully support her and Bill. Especially after the help Bill gave him this year, and the great job Hillary did as SOS.

(now, if Michelle were running, I would say Michelle but I feel if a political run is in her future, it will be after her daughters finish school.

Who ever is the candidate has my vote in 2016 without question.

[Glaug-Eldare]

104. Can you give me an example of a law that would violate the 2nd Amendment?

(Bearing in mind that state and federal law both define me as a member of their respective militia.)

[Glaug-Eldare]

112. I guess not.

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Your inability to communicate with anything other than sound bites and platitudes (and rambling, barely-coherent stream of consciousness) speaks volumes, graham.

[graham4anything]

117. My right to peaceful assembly is ruined by your right to ruin my right to assemble peacefully.

My first amendment right is violated by your wrong reading by a corrupt court of the 2nd

My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, all men are created equal was written by a vile person named Thomas Jefferson who did not live by the words he himself created. He was a major fraud, as he abused the slaves that were not people that he owned (and had his way with the female ones he owned.)

My right to peaceful assembly is ruined by your right to ruin my right to assemble peacefully.

My wifes right to privacy is violated by a person with a gun who would kill her claiming self defense like Zimmerman did in Florida.


btw-you seemed to ignore my post above. Being that you could not possibly have read it.

but bad laws will be changed.

and guns are like cigarettes. I would think in the past 90% of the nation smoked. Now maybe 10% do. And no law was even changed. People moved from the 1850s to the present with cigarettes, and shall do so with guns.

Guns are extreme rightwing tools.

Guns are death.
One cannot have peace with a gun in the world.

[Glaug-Eldare]

118. Whaaaat?

Your rights aren't violated because "someone might do X!"

My right to vote isn't violated because some motorcyclist MIGHT run me over on the way to the polling place. My right to be secure in my home isn't ruined because a plane MIGHT crash into it. My right to jury trial isn't ruined because a raccoon MIGHT bite the judge.

[graham4anything]

119. But my right to my peaceful right to assemble is ruined-ask Gabby Giffords when that extremist shot

her and the judge. With a legal gun.

[Glaug-Eldare]

120. So nobody can safely assemble again?

Nobody can safely watch a movie? Nobody can safely vote? Nobody can safely cross the street? Nobody can safely climb a ladder?

When you talk about hypothetical possibilities as though they were certainties, you sound ridiculous. You can peacefully assemble whenever and wherever you please, and your risk of being shot (or stabbed, or punched, or run over, or beaten) is virtually nil. There is no way to guarantee that you will never, ever be prevented from exercising your rights by a criminal act, but it's absurd to live your life operating on the assumption that you will be.

Also note: I have no right to ruin your right to peacefully assemble. I have a right to keep and bear arms. If I interfere with any of your rights, I should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[graham4anything]

121. in your home you (may) have a right. Not on a public street.(someday)

You do not have the right to be judge, jury, executioner outside of your home.
You don't own the street, even if you own your home.

and you can get rid of illegal guns on the street by banning all guns on the street.
Then it will be easy to find and disgard all guns on the street.

It would of course take time to implement after the laws are changed.
But it would work.

Most career criminals do not use guns when they rob a home anyhow. They are smart enough to know a real gun will add time to them.

and you as a gunowner cannot shoot a member of the mafia (gang) and not think that the rest of the gang will get you to revenge the death of the mafia member.

Now of course the law is the law thanks to the rightwing courts.
But someday it may not be.

and if my safety is violated by a gun, I would damn well want better security in place, just like they have at sporting events in NYC, where I have been frisked for 30 years now going into Madison Square Garden(of course they were not looking for weapons but booze),but people know going in they will be frisked and if they don't like it, they don't go in.(Same at the airport)

[Glaug-Eldare]

122. Do you have a reply to #120, or just more rambling?

[oneshooter]

123. I am going to peacefully assemble a large group next weekend.

There will be 1-2 hundred of us, possibly more, raising funds for local charities. There will be prizes given and gamed played. We hope to raise several thousand dollars. All funds raised will be donated to local charities.
Is this a good thing to you?

[graham4anything]

124. I hope Zimmy from Florida is not part of your group

[graham4anything]

138. As Katrina proved, the only riots in Katrina were the cops acting as vigillantes

on Danzinger bridge who like Zimmy shot innocent black people just looking for dry land.

There were NO other riots.

Zimeister the victim? Just like Mitt. Same types biggest whiners ever.

Instant Karma as John (c) Lennon sang should get Zim