Still a Proud Member of "Your" NRA?

[tucsonlib]

Karl Rove and Mike Huckabee were featured speakers at the 137th Annual National Rifle Association Leadership Forum Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky (along with Glenn Beck (aka The Racist Nutcake), certifiably insane Nazi rocker Ted Nugent and convicted perjurer Oliver North). Predictably, Karl and Mike stuck it to Obama, Clinton and Dems in general with a string of infantile jokes and thinly veiled racist/chauvinist/right-wing remarks. The appreciative audience (One of only 3 or 4 such audiences still available to Mike and Karl) ate it up.

Now, you DU gun enthusiasts out there who consistently defend the NRA as being non-partisan, single-issue-driven advocates for the "rank and file" little guy should do yourselves a favor and reassess just where you stand these days. If you are, in fact, supporters of the George Bush/John McCain policies of the past seven years, then fine, the NRA is your kind of club. But if, as I suspect, most of you despise the current Republican Party and everything it stands for, then I have to ask just why the hell are you still sending membership dues to the fascist, treasonous, hypocritical gang of neo-con assholes who comprise the leadership of "your" NRA?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/16/politics/fromtheroad/entry4103477.shtml

[beevul]

1. Still a proud member of the brady org?

Sarah and Jim Brady were republicans.

Paul "assaultweapongunshowloopholebrokenrecordrepeatinguntruths" Helmke IS a republican.

But if, as I suspect, most of you despise the current Republican Party and everything it stands for, then I have to ask just why the hell are you still sending membership dues to the dishonest, treasonous, hypocritical gang of assholes who comprise the leadership of "your" brady campain?


Pot, meet kettle.

[tucsonlib]

2. ummmm....WTF???

How about replying to the OP? Who the hell said anything about the "Brady campain(sic)"? I don't belong to the NRA or the Brady group.
Please, either post a rational comment or just stfu.

[beevul]

10. I belong neither to the nra nor to brady, but...

I belong neither to the nra nor to brady, but whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ergo pot meet kettle.

[tucsonlib]

14. Re: "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"

Also re: "pot meet kettle". Also re: "Brady campain (sic)".
Allow me to add: "A stitch in time saves nine."
What do they all have in common? None of them even remotely addresses the topic of the OP.

Or did you just pull them from beevul's "Book of Non Sequiturs".

[beevul]

18. I adressed it.

Just not in a way you like.

Get over it.

[tucsonlib]

22. Re: I adressed it

Maybe, but you never addressed it. Why would you want to associate with such a crowd? A man is known by the company he keeps.....

[beevul]

23. Aparently, remedial reading is in order.

Aparently, remedial reading is in order.


That or you need glasses.


I said "I belong neither to the nra nor to brady"


Get it?

On edit:

In case you don't get it, supporting and defending the second amendment, and gun rights, is no more "associating" with republicans than supporting and defending the first amendment is "associating" with the KKK.

Just ask the ACLU:

ACLU Praises Cleveland Mayor's Support of KKK's First Amendment Right to March (8/3/1999)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLEVELAND -- The American Civil Liberties Union today praised the Cleveland Mayor Michael White for his efforts to protect the First Amendment right of marchers scheduled to rally in Cleveland later this month.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11015prs19990803.html


Now, you were saying?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

27. ahh, the last resort of those losing an argument - a crack on spelling.

"Unfortunately, you confuse discourse with insults. (Not just in this thread, but in nearly every post of yours that I've dredged up.) And, alas, I find myself susceptible to being reduced to your level. So rant away - I'll no longer reply to your grade-school diatribes. But just one more thing before I rejoin the adults: There's a new invention out there. It's called "spell-check". If you really want to convince people that you're not as ignorant as your comments would suggest - USE IT! Get it?"

"A man is known by the company he keeps"

Thats because insults - and "shiny metal penis" references are 98 percent of what one deals with when theres any "discourse" about guns hereabouts, from people whom are quite likely to be the company YOU keep. Those wouldn't be the adults you speak of rejoining, would they?


But I digress...

There are a few words that get me every time, that I haven't managed to ever get right. And at 3am and some change, the brain forgets to tell the finger to click spellcheck occasionally before one posts.

"If you really want to convince people that you're not as ignorant as your comments would suggest..."

Right. Because one can not have a valid opinion, or cite valid fact, or make valid observations, should they mis-spell a few words after 3am and forget to use spell check... :eyes: And an easy way not to actually respond to anything I wrote to boot, eh?

"But just one more thing before I rejoin the adults"


If you and most of the "company you keep" crack on the nra for reasons that are less than valid instead of cracking on them for real true and valid reasons, you'll be rejoining something...but adults is the point that something is farthest from.

And the best for last:

"...you confuse discourse with insults. Not just in this thread, but in nearly every post of yours that I've dredged up."

I have been around here, and involved in debate on the topic of guns for a long time - going on 5 years - and reading for a couple years longer. If I'm not so nice to someone, theres a reason for it. You don't have to like that reason, understand that reason, or even know that reason for it to be valid. When people come in the guns forum blathering on about the nra and how republican it is without giving so much as 2 words recognition to how and more importantly WHY they got that way, when people come here blathering on about the assault weapons ban without knowing what weapons it did or didn't effect or why people are so opposed to it, when people come here making "shiny metal penis" references or calling gun owners and concealed carry advocates paranoid, when gun haters come in here trying to milk every last bit they can from a tragedy to ban or severely restrict the guns owned by potentially 80+ million people that weren't involved in said tragedy and will never be involved in a tragedy...

Its going to be met with a degree of hostility.

You did one of those things, and if you try real hard, you might be able to figure out which. If none of those things are important to you, you got it comin. If they are, try your post again, and bounce it off reality first. Tell the WHOLE story.

[iverglas]

40. gooses, pots??

Where???

What has the Brady Campaign or any other firearms control organization done to get Republicans elected???

You obviously know something, so you really should share.

Gander = NRA donates massive amounts of money to the Republican party and its various outcroppings
Goose = the Brady Campaign donates exclusively to Democratic party organizations and candidates, with the exception of one pro-firearms control Republican who consistently receives token donations (Michael Castle)

Pot = the NRA consorts with and promotes Republicans at every opportunity and uses its website to denigrate Democrats
Kettle = the Brady campaign ... huh, maybe I'm missing something, but the website portal doesn't seem to contain any partisan political news or views at all ...


http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2004&cmte=C00053553

Donations from the NRA pac to other pacs:

2004 Joint State Victory Cmte $50,000
Republican National Cmte $30,000
National Republican Senatorial Cmte $30,000
National Republican Congressional Cmte $15,000
National Republican Congressional Cmte $15,000
US Smokeless Tobacco $9,950
Alliance for the West
(Affiliate: Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho)) $9,900
Together for Our Majority
(Affiliate: Thomas M. Reynolds (R-NY)) $8,450
Americans for a Republican Majority
(Affiliate: Tom DeLay (R-Texas)) $8,000
Blue Dog PAC $7,950
Storm Chasers
(Affiliate: Steve Buyer (R-Ind)) $7,450
New Republican Majority Fund
(Affiliate: Trent Lott (R-Miss)) $5,000
Republican Party of Tennessee $5,000
Bluegrass Cmte
(Affiliate: Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)) $5,000
Bob Barr Leadership Fund
(Affiliate: ex-Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga)) $4,950
Republican Party of Illinois $4,950
Rely on Your Beliefs
(Affiliate: Roy Blunt (R-Mo)) $4,500
America's Foundation
(Affiliate: Rick Santorum (R-Pa)) $4,000
Vision for Tomorrow Fund $4,000
Glacier PAC
(Affiliate: Max Baucus (D-Mont)) $3,500
American Conservative Union $3,000
Principles Exalt A Nation PAC
(Affiliate: Mike Pence (R-Ind)) $2,500
Black America's PAC $2,500
Midnight Sun
(Affiliate: Don Young (R-Alaska)) $2,500
American Prosperity PAC
(Affiliate: Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif)) $2,000
Heart PAC
(Affiliate: Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan)) $2,000
Senate Majority Fund
(Affiliate: Jon L. Kyl (R-Ariz)) $2,000
Missouri Republican State Cmte $1,950
American Success PAC
(Affiliate: David Dreier (R-Calif)) $1,000
Every Republican is Crucial PAC
(Affiliate: Eric Cantor (R-Va)) $1,000
National Conservative Campaign Fund $1,000
Congressional Leadership Fund
(Affiliate: Chris Cox (R-Calif)) $1,000
Promoting Republicans You Can Elect
(Affiliate: Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio)) $1,000
Volunteer PAC
(Affiliate: Bill Frist (R-Tenn)) $1,000
Majority Initiative-Keep Electing Repubs
(Affiliate: Mike Rogers (R-Mich)) $1,000
Northern Lights PAC
(Affiliate: Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)) $1,000
Tallatchee Creek Inc
(Affiliate: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala)) $1,000
Republican Party of Minnesota $1,000
Senate Victory Fund
(Affiliate: Thad Cochran (R-Miss)) $1,000
Campaign for America's Future
(Affiliate: Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)) $1,000
Stearns, Cliff $1,000

Brady pac:

Cmte for a Democratic Majority
(Affiliate: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass)) $1,000
HILLPAC
(Affiliate: Hillary Clinton (D-NY)) $250


Can you elaborate just a tad on the analogy you appear to be seeing here?

[beevul]

59. Somethings wrong with your math...

Gander = NRA donates massive amounts of money to the Republican party and its various outcroppings
Goose = the Brady Campaign donates exclusively to Democratic party organizations and candidates, with the exception of one pro-firearms control Republican who consistently receives token donations (Michael Castle)

Pot = the NRA consorts with and promotes Republicans at every opportunity and uses its website to denigrate Democrats


Kettle = the Brady campaign ... huh, maybe I'm missing something, but the website portal doesn't seem to contain any partisan political news or views at all ..."

Gander = nra donates to donates massive amounts of money to the Republican party and its various outcroppings Pro-gun politicians.

Pot = the NRA consorts with and promotes Republicans at every opportunity and uses its website to denigrate Democrats who are anti-gun because they are anti-gun, not because they are Democrats , yet endorses pro-gun Democrats like Bill Richardson for example.

Goose = the Brady Campaign donates exclusively to anti-gun Democratic party organizations and candidates BECAUSE they are anti-gun party organizations and candidates , with the exception of one pro-firearms control Republican who consistently receives token donations (Michael Castle)

"Kettle = the Brady campaign ... huh, maybe I'm missing something, but the website portal doesn't seem to contain any partisan political news or views at all ..."


"What has the Brady Campaign or any other firearms control organization done to get Republicans elected???" (Hands off the goalposts)

What has the brady campain done to get republicans elected? Thats easy. By spewing garbage about firearms and firearms laws, by using misleading statistics like adults in thier "childern killed by guns" mantra, by claiming that 50 caliber rifles are need banning "because it can shoot down an airplane ( a lie)" in spite of esentially no use in crime at all, by claiming to be a group dedicated to preventing and reducing gun violence yet being utterly disinterested in the causes of same and instead concentrating on going after legally owned guns, and last but not least:


Selling all of the above to the Democratic Party, exploiting the caring element of members of the Democratic party in doing so.

That got more republicans elected than whatever money the nra spent.

[Tejas]

66. think I just heard the heads of some antis explode

and it wasn't because of your typos LOL!

well done!

[iverglas]

70. did it sound like this??

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Tejas]

68. "certifiably insane Nazi rocker Ted Nugent"

Oh yeah, that's a "rational comment", good luck with the rest of what you have to say.

So whoever picked the keynote speakers for the NRA conference didn't do their homework and evidently didn't compare notes/plans with the speakers. From your post, it sounds like it wouldn't have mattered if they had Mother Teresa up there.

[iverglas]

71. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Mother Teresa up there

She made quite a habit of consorting with vile, corrupt, fascistic scum.


Anyhow. Let's end the Ted Nugent charade, shall we?

http://www.nraleaders.com/ted-nugent.html

On South Africans:
"Apartheid isn't that cut and dry. All men are not created equal. The preponderance of South Africa is a different breed of man. I mean that with no disrespect. I say that with great respect. I love them because I'm one of them. They are still people of the earth, but they are different. They still put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, they wipe their butts with their hands. These are different people. You give 'em toothpaste, they fucking eat it ... I hope they don't become civilized. They're way ahead of the game."
--Detroit Free Press Magazine

On Racism:
"I'm a fun guy, not a sexist or a racist. I use the word nigger a lot because I hang around with a lot of niggers."
--Detroit Free Press Magazine

On Hillary Clinton:
A "Toxic cunt This bitch is nothing but a two-bit whore for Fidel Castro."
--Westworld Newspaper

On Dating:
"I met a couple guys in line yesterday who go, 'Write something to my girlfriend, she won't let me go hunting.' I wrote her something and I said, 'Drop dead, bitch.' What good is she, trade her in, get a Dalmatian. Who needs the wench?"
--WRIF FM Radio, Detroit, Michigan

On the Confederate Flag:
"Those politically correct motherfuckers can take the flag down but I am going to wear it forever."
--The Fort Worth Star-Telegram

On homosexuality:
A "despicable act" performed by "guys that have sex with each other's anal cavities."
--Hannity and Colmes

If you'd like more, it can be delivered.


Any adjectives you'd like to suggest?

[krispos42]

98. "batshit insane" works for me

[hendo]

136. he is the "motor city mad man"

Ted Nugent the person may be a bit off the deep end, but Ted Nugent the rock star has some great music.

I met him about 10 years ago at an NRA event and got some of my albums signed.

[maxidivine]

101. Alright he is a nut

Why did it take so long for iverglas to finally put some evidence up? Why couldn't the two calling him an insane nazi and a prick have put some of these little gems up?

[iverglas]

107. oh sir, you are too kind

Really.

You are too kind.

Nugent is not a nut.

He is a very deliberate, very calculated, very conscious extreme right-wing, racist, misogynist piece of shit.


Why couldn't the two calling him an insane nazi and a prick have put some of these little gems up?

Some things really are quite accurately characterized as "common knowledge". And for those who don't know them already, there's a little thing called Google.

"ted nugent" nazi
Results 1 - 30 of about 41,800 for "ted nugent" nazi
is about all it takes.

But why did *you* not know this?? Conversely, why did you pretend not to know it? Myself, I find it completely beyond the realm of crediblity that anyone so immersed in this issue and devoted to this cause didn't know it.


Why did it take so long for iverglas to finally put some evidence up?

You can probably guess, but I'll help you.

Because I don't pander to disingenuous bullshit artists.

Once they've played their game long enough to make themselves obvious, I don't mind making them look like fools, though.

[madrchsod]

12. i am....so what if they are republicans?

there are some republicans that actually can think for themselves and do not follow lockstep with the nra over gun "rights" issues

[beevul]

19. You'll have to forgive me.

You'll have to forgive me.

I can't see giving money to republicans, let alone a group who's republican president is ok with giving some of the places with the worst gun violence some of the best grades on their little "report card", and giving places with almost no gun violence like Vermont an F.

On edit:

2007 Brady Campaign State Scorecard Rankings


1
CALIFORNIA
79
2
NEW JERSEY
63
T-3
CONNECTICUT
54
T-3
MASSACHUSETTS
54
5
MARYLAND
53
6
NEW YORK
51
7
RHODE ISLAND
47
8
HAWAII
43
9
ILLINOIS
28
10
PENNSYLVANIA
26
T-11
MICHIGAN
22
T-11
DELAWARE
22
13
NORTH CAROLINA
20
T-14
OREGON
18
T-14
VIRGINIA
18
T-14
WASHINGTON
18
T-17
COLORADO
16
T-17
IOWA
16
19
ALABAMA
15
20
OHIO
13
T-21
MAINE
12
T-21
WISCONSIN
12
T-23
MINNESOTA
11
T-23
NEVADA
11
T-23
NEW HAMPSHIRE
11
T-23
SOUTH CAROLINA
11
T-23
WYOMING
11
28
NEBRASKA
10
T-29
GEORGIA
9
T-29
TEXAS
9
T-29
VERMONT
9
T-32
INDIANA
8
T-32
MONTANA
8
T-32
FLORIDA
8
T-35
KANSAS
7
T-35
TENNESSEE
7
T-37
ARIZONA
6
T-37
ARKANSAS
6
T-37
IDAHO
6
T-37
NEW MEXICO
6
T-37
SOUTH DAKOTA
6
T-37
WEST VIRGINIA
6
43
MISSISSIPPI
5
T-44
ALASKA
4
T-44
LOUISIANA
4
T-44
MISSOURI
4
T-44
NORTH DAKOTA
4
T-44
UTAH
4
T-49
KENTUCKY
2
T-49
OKLAHOMA
2

Conveniently they removed the report from their website for DC. Gee...I wonder why? :eyes:

You'd think, an organization that "claims" to want to reduce gun violence would give grades based on how well a specific state was doing in regards to gun violence, rather than just what laws they have with no respect whatsoever given to that states level of management of gun violence.

Theres just no un-ringing of that bell.

[iverglas]

41. you do seem to be confused

I can't see giving money to republicans ...

Are you under the impression that money given to the Brady Campaign goes into the pockets of individuals?

Why else would you characterize it as "giving money to 'republicans'," when the only Republican I've ever seen the Brady Campaign PAC give money to is Michael Castle, an elected Republican who supports the measures advocated by the Brady Campaign?

How/why would you characterize giving money to the Brady Campaign as giving money to Republicans?

[beevul]

61. Are you under the impression that helmke works for free?

Thanks for playing.

[iverglas]

64. you seem to be under the impression

that ridiculous noise like this doesn't make you look like an idiot. If you want to pretend that someone was talking about the salaries of the officers and employees of the organizations in question, hey, be my guest.

[beevul]

65. You seem to be under the impression...

You seem to be under the impression that I could give 3 shits and a dogs breakfast, what someone that who complained like a broken record about people discussing guns in the guns forum yet uses "facts" like people discussing the katrina gun confiscation in the proper forum as evidence that those discussing it care nothing about katrina except for the gun confiscation, actually thinks about me.

"If you want to pretend that someone was talking about the salaries of the officers and employees of the organizations in question, hey, be my guest."

Right. And If you want to pretend that the someone that was talking about the money going to the brady org republicans was someone other than myself, and put words in thier mouth, go ahead. But keep your words out of mine, thanks. And If you want to pretend that the money donated to the brady org isn't used to pay the salaries of the people it employs - including republican helmke, go right ahead.

[SteveM]

121. Vermont 9? Bradys are obsessed with moral-sounding paper laws. (nt)

[cornermouse]

28. Jim Brady took a bullet to the head.

Why would you use him?

[pipoman]

29. Jim Brady and his wife use him as a poster child,

so what are you saying? That they can spout any lies and misdirection they like and because he has been injured his nutty ideas can't be challenged?

[cornermouse]

30. I think I'll let that statement stand as a representation

of you and what you apparently are like.

[pipoman]

32. Fine, it is hard to answer those questions

without either agreeing with me or sounding foolish, huh?

[beevul]

33. Use him?

The point that was made, is that the things the OP said apply equally as well, and equally as much to the bradys and thier flunky helmke.

This is a group that has deliberately included adults in thier "statistics" to inflate them. No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claims to want to prevent gun violence, yet gives grades on a per state basis based on how much they restrict guns rather than how high or low the level of gun crime/gun violence is in that state. Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that civilian owned 50 caliber rifles which are esentially never used in crime could shoot down aircraft, which is a huge lie, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that opposes concealed carry, even though police as a group are convicted of a larger number of crimes than CCW holders.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that "assault weapons" were the choice of criminals, in spite of the fact that ALL rifles - which 99 percent of so called "assault weapons" are - are used in less than 3 percent of all firearm homicides, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.




They may as well be "the brady campain to reduce guns", because 90 plus percent of the things they stump for are aimed squarely at doing just that.


And did I mention that they thought a republican would be a good fit as president of thier org?


I have said it many times in this post:

No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would go after legally owned guns, unless thats what they want gone. They aren't interested in reducing gun violence unless its through restrictive gun laws aimed at people who by and large aren't a problem in the first place.

Do they look at root causes of gun violence? No. They go after guns.

Do they bother investigating how much the "war on some drugs" effects gun violence? Of course not. Like good little republicans they never bring that up, and go after guns instead.

As far as they're concerned, its the guns, and that should put them at odds with anyone who values his or her rights where firearms ownership is concerned.

All of which supports what I said at the top of this post:

The things the OP said apply equally as well, and equally as much to the bradys and thier flunky helmke.

[Tejas]

69. Like a brick wall

this is some sobering stuff. I tried to play devil's advocate but come up losing every time.

"No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would go after legally owned guns, unless thats what they want gone."


Can you imagine living under a government like that?

oh wait......

[Mojambo]

3. The NRA is a joke and does far more to hurt gun ownership rights than to protect them.

JMHO of course.

[SiNNiK]

5. Is it?

Have you formed your humble opinion by researching and educating yourself, or is your humble opinion baseless? If you know something I don't, please educate me. I love to learn!

[tucsonlib]

6. You're new, so some slack is being cut....

Start off by responding to the OP. Then you might earn the right to comment on others' comments. Otherwise, you won't "get no respect" here, Rodney......

[SiNNiK]

8. I did

I posted in regards to the OP first, by 4 whole minutes. Still have a problem?

[Mojambo]

13. Stick around junior. I'm sure you'll learn lots.

Welcome to DU.

[SiNNiK]

15. I needs me some learnin'

Thanks. ;)

[iverglas]

124. and yet you didn't stick around ...

:(

[SiNNiK]

4. ?

"certifiably insane Nazi rocker Ted Nugent"? Is this sarcasm, or hyperbole? I can't tell.

[madrchsod]

9. it`s the truth

well he`s not a nazi,he`s just a just a little prick

[maxidivine]

42. Pro-gun=nazi prick?

Is there something wrong with Ted Nugent I'm unaware of?

[iverglas]

46. who said that????

Seriously: who said that????

Other than you.

[maxidivine]

51. madrchsod did! And so did fingrpik!

"madrchsod (1000+ posts) Mon May-19-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. it`s the truth
well he`s not a nazi,he`s just a just a little prick"


"fingrpik (209 posts) Mon May-19-08 02:06 AM
Original message
Still a Proud Member of "Your" NRA?
Edited on Mon May-19-08 02:49 AM by fingrpik
Karl Rove and Mike Huckabee were featured speakers at the 137th Annual National Rifle Association Leadership Forum Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky (along with Glenn Beck (aka The Racist Nutcake), certifiably insane Nazi rocker Ted Nugent and convicted perjurer Oliver North)."


I am seeing fingrpik call Ted Nugent a certifiably insane nazi rocker, and madrchsod say he isn't really a nazi, just a just a little prick.

Since there is nothing else about him there, other than that he was featured at the 137th Annual National Rifle Association Leadership Forum Meeting, and so can be reliably and objectively called pro-gun, I have to guess that to fingrpik and madrchsod that the reason he is a little nazi prick is because he is an outspoken civil rights advocate.

[iverglas]

53. FALSE! UNTRUE! NOT FACTUAL! CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE!

NOBODY said "Pro-gun=nazi prick?" EXCEPT YOU.

You put a clever little question mark on the end of it to make it look like someone else had said it, and you were questioning his/her statement.

NOBODY said it EXCEPT YOU.

So if you're saying it, own it.

If you're saying someone else said it, prove it. Or retract your false allegation.


I have to guess that to fingrpik and madrchsod that the reason he is a little nazi prick is because he is an outspoken civil rights advocate.

Only if you're a completely ignorant fool. You aren't, are you?

[maxidivine]

54. You are ignoring the meat of the question

Nice moves though.

[iverglas]

55. "question"?

What question would that be?

How about if I say to you, in response to your assertion that your sandwich contains green cheese:

moon=green cheese?

I'll bet you're going to feel duty- and honour-bound to explain to me that you never said that, and you wouldn't have said it because it's moronic and false, and if I don't know where green cheese comes from you'll be happy to explain it to me; right?

You certainly wouldn't think that I was attempting to portray you as a fool and tell me to piss off, would you?


"Question". Yeah. Why haven't you stopped beating your dog?

[Tejas]

67. perish the thought,

that comparison would NEVER cross an anti's mind. In all likelyhood the words have never been uttered, much less put in print on the web.


:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

72. well hell

Someone somewhere has undoubtedly said The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

I wonder why maxidivine didn't bring that up ...

[madrchsod]

7. the nra has always been a republican stronghold

they hate anyone who would dare regulate who should have guns and who should`t..i used to belong to the nra until i woke up and realized just how fucked up they had become...

[SiNNiK]

11. Just so I understand this...

I'm curious, why did you join in the first place if you do not appreciate the NRA fighting against those who would tell you what kind of gun you are allowed to own? Maybe I'm missing something, do you feel like explaining that one to me?

[madrchsod]

16. i`ll say this...my father in law was a hunter,trapper,and fisherman

his entire life. he was a lifetime member of the nra until the day he read where they were backing the right to hunt with assault weapons.he could`t understand why anyone would hunt with one of them.

i used to have three guns when i lived in the country,two shot guns,and a great 22lr bolt action rifle but i gave them up when i moved into town . i no longer had any need or anywhere to usa my guns. i`m not opposed to gun ownership what i am oppossed to is the unregulated sales at gun shows and the need for more background checks. there also needs to be more investigation on the smuggling or sales of ak-47`s and other weapons that are hitting the streets in the major cities in this country. chicago has to arm the police with military issue m-16`s( i forgot the actual gun they are using) because the gangs are using ak-47`s...

when the police in this country are calling for a crackdown on assault weapons and the nra is upset that someone is going to take away their guns, i question the nra`s mission.

[SiNNiK]

21. Sounds like a great man, maybe a little uneducated though.

I know some Bow hunters that sniff derisively at people who use guns to hunt with, calling them an unfair advantage. But they would never call for a gun ban just because they don't like hunting with them.

So I would imagine that you are referring to the AR-15 as "assault weapons", and I would also imagine that you are referring to them as "assault weapons" because they are black, have a forward assist, and a dust cover. But I'd rather not assume anything, so would you please tell me what, in your own words, what is an "assault weapon"?

Thanks

[beevul]

25. Whats an "assault weapon"?

Lets be sure were on the same page here, and referring to the same firearm.

When you say "assault weapon" what weapons are you referring to?

[jmg257]

56. You must not realize that banning "assault weapons" has a real impact on

some of the most popular semi-autos in the country - especially the AR-15. New "assault weapon" bans would also impact arms like the M1 Carbine, the M1 Garand, numerous semi-auto shotguns, semi-auto Thompsons, M1As, etc. etc.

Not my concern if one chooses to hunt with a Woodmaster 742, an AR-15, and M1A, or a Benelli M1S90, as long as the caliber is appropriate for the target, and the capacity meets with the gaming laws; why would your father-in-law care?

[iverglas]

114. howzat now?

I'll readily admit to a rather low level of interest in "assault weapon bans", but I do wonder about this:

You must not realize that banning "assault weapons" has a real impact on
some of the most popular semi-autos in the country - especially the AR-15.

How would the bans in question affect an AR-15 that did not have the requisite combination of features to constitute an "assault weapon"?

[jmg257]

126. New proposed bans have changed the definition. They are broader then the original.

And several require only one feature along with the detachable magazine (AR15= pistol grip), define certain weapons by name (M1 carbine), and also define as an AW "any" semi-auto not deemed "sporting" because it is based on a military design (AR, M1, M1A etc.)


Sorry on getting to this so late - just saw it.


From last year's HR1022:


"`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
...
`(xi) M1 Carbine;..."


"`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;...
`(iii) a pistol grip;..."


`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'..."

[jmg257]

127. NY's proposed one is in some ways even worse...

22. "ASSAULT WEAPON" MEANS ANY:
8 (A) SEMI-AUTOMATIC OR PUMP-ACTION RIFLE THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO
9 ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
10 (I) A PISTOL GRIP;
... (V) A MUZZLE BRAKE OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR

(D) SEMI-AUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
35 (I) A PISTOL GRIP OR A VERTICAL HANDGRIP;


And includes registration:

"WHICH THE OWNER OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON LAWFULLY POSSESSED PRIOR
35 TO JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND NINE IS TO DELIVER AN ASSAULT WEAPON AND
36 VERIFICATION OF A BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED BY 18 USC S 922 TO THE
37 REGIONAL PROGRAM FOR TESTING AND PROMPT RETURN. UPON RECEIPT OF THE
38 SEALED CONTAINER AND INSPECTION OF A CERTIFICATE PROVING THAT A BACK-
39 GROUND CHECK HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AND THE OWNER IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM
40 POSSESSING A FIREARM, THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE SHALL CAUSE TO BE
41 ENTERED IN THE AUTOMATED ELECTRONIC DATABANK PERTINENT DATA, INCLUDING
42 BALLISTIC INFORMATION RELEVANT TO IDENTIFICATION OF THE SHELL CASING AND
43 TO THE ASSAULT WEAPON FROM WHICH IT WAS DISCHARGED, AND THE DATE AND
44 PLACE OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK AND THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO
45 CONDUCTED SUCH BACKGROUND CHECK...."

[krispos42]

134. A sizable percentabe of Americans can no longer own them

Between California, New York, Massachusettes, Connecticut, and New Jersey, about a quarter of the US population can no longer buy new or used "assault weapons", or transfer them to any private owner in that state.

And the definition of "assault weapon" is generally both arbitrary and cosmetic. Behold the California-legal AR-15. Semiautomatic, fed from a detachable magazine, equipped with a flash supressor. But because there is no folding stock, thumbhole stock, or protruding pistol grip, it's legal.



This one has the finger-activated magazine release replaced with one requiring a "tool" to open, in this case the point of a bullet or pen. This technically makes it a "fixed magazine" semiautomatic rifle, and not an "assault weapon".

[beevul]

17. Nra endorsed Democrats...

Nra endorsed democrats from 2004:

Heres a bunch of NRA Endorsed Democrats..."Bush-DeLay Brownshirts" This is only 36 states worth. They all Zell wannabees?

(D) Howard Dean (D) Mark L. Doumit,(D) Jim Hargrove, (D) Jean Berkey, (D)Brian Hatfield, (D) Brian Blake, (D) William 'Ike' Eickmeyer, (D) Joe Baca, (D) Mike Schneider, (D) Barbara Buckley, (D)Genie Ohrenschall,(D) Ellen Koivisto, (D) John Oceguera, (D) Jerry D. Claborn, (D)Richard D. Perkins, (D) Mo Denis, (D) David Parks, (D) James Alexander, (D) Gino White, (D)Wendy Jaquet, (D) Mike McGrath, (D) Jim Elliott, (D) Lane L. Larson, (D) Kim Gillan, (D) Paul Clark, (D)Brennan Ryan,(D)George Golie, (D) Bill Wilson, (D) John W. Parker,(D) Margarett H. Campbell, (D) Ralph L. Lenhart, (D) Gary Matthews, (D) Monica J. Lindeen, (D)Gary L. Forrester, (D) Jayne Mockler, (D) Larry Caller, (D) Keith Goodenough, (D) Ross Diercks, (D)George W. Bagby,(D)Marty Martin, (D)Ann Robinson,(D) *Mary Meyer Gilmore, (D) Bill Thompson, (D) Jim Matheson, (D)Mike Dmitrich, (D) Eli H. Anderson,(D)Laren "Larry" C. Livingston, (D) Carl Duckworth, (D) Brad King, (D)Linda Aguirre, (D) Marsha Arzberger, (D)Pete Campos, (D)Shannon Robinson, (D)Mary Kay Papen, (D)Phil Griego,(D)Patricia Lundstrom, (D)Dona Irwin, (D)Andrew Nunez, (D) Joseph Cervantes, (D)Pauline Ponce, (D)Thomas Swisstack, (D)Bob Hagedorn,(D)Lois Tochtrop, (D) Liane "Buffie" McFadyen, (D)Max Sandlin, (D)Nick Lampson, (D) Henry Cuellar, (D) Mark Homer, (D) Chuck Hopson, (D) Jim McReynolds, (D) Robby Cook, (D) Dan Ellis, (D)Patrick M. Rose, (D) John Mabry, (D) David Farabee, (D) James "Pete" Laney, (D) Mike Villarreal, (D) Kevin Bailey, (D) Dan Boren, (D) Jim Wilson, (D) *Jeff Rabon, (D)Richard Lerblance, (D)Susan Paddack, (D) Charlie Laster, (D) Mike Morgan, (D) Jerry Ellis, (D)Glen "Bud" Smithson, (D)Neil Brannon, (D) Mike Brown, (D)Joe Eddins, (D) Ben Sherrer, (D)Barbara Staggs, (D)Ray Miller,(D) Terry Harrison, (D)Paul Roan, (D) John Carey, (D) Dale Turner,(D) Bob Plunk, (D) John Young, (D) Danny Morgan, (D) Joe Sweeden,(D) Terry Hyman, (D) Raymond McCarter, (D)David Braddock, (D) James Covey, (D) Purcy Walker, (D) Abe Deutschendorf, (D) Roy "Butch" Hooper, (D) *Joe Dorman, (D)Lucky Lamons, (D) Darrell Gilbert, (D) John Auffet, (D) *Debbie Blackburn, (D)Rebecca Hamilton, (D)Al Lindley, (D) Mark Gilstrap, (D)Chris Steineger, (D) Jim Barone,(D) Anthony Hensley, (D) Henry Helgerson, (D) Doug Gatewood, (D)Robert Grant, (D) Bill Feuerborn, (D) Jerry Williams, (D) James Miller,(D) Bonnie Sharp, (D) Tom Burroughs, (D) Margaret Long, (D)Candy Ruff,
(D) Harold Lane, (D) Jerry Henry, (D) Sid Regnier, (D) Jim Ward, (D) Janice Pauls, (D) Dennis Mckinney, (D)Stephanie Herseth, (D)Jim Peterson, (D) Gil Koetzle, (D) Garry Moore, (D) Frank Kloucek, (D) David Sigdestad, (D) Dawn Jaeger, (D) Gerald Lange, (D) Richard Engels, (D) Mary Glenski, (D) Gary Stodelmon, (D) Dale Hargens, (D) Paul Valandra, (D) Thomas James Van Norman, (D) Mike Wilson, (D) David O'Connell, (D) Larry Robinson, (D)Joel Heitkamp, (D) Dorvan Solberg, (D) Lyle Hanson, (D)Joe Kroeber, (D) Ole Aarsvold, (D)Ralph Metcalf, (D) Arden Anderson, (D) Bill Amerman, (D)Pam Gulleson, (D) Collin Peterson, (DFL) Kent Eken, (DFL) Loren A. Solberg, (DFL) Tom Rukavina, (DFl) Anthony "Tony" Setich, (DFL) David Dill, (DFL) Paul Marquart, (DFL) Mary Ellen Otremba, (DFL) Al Juhnke, (DFL) Lyle Koenen, (D) Leonard Boswell, (D) John Kibbie, (D)Dick Dearden, (D)Eugene Fraise, (D) Michael Gronstal, (D) Greg Stevens, (D) Marcella Frevert, (D) Dolores Mertz, (D) Roger Thomas, (D) Dick Taylor, (D) Geri Huser, (D) Jim Lykam, (D) Philip Wise, (D) Kurt Swaim, (D) Paul Shomshor, (D) Ike Skelton, (D) Victor Callahan, (D) Jim Whorton, (D) Rachel Bringer, (D)Wes Shoemyer, (D)Terry Witte, (D) Wayne Henke, (D) Thomas Green, (D) Gary Kelly, (D) Mike Sager, (D) Terry Young, (D) Ray Salva, (d)Paul LeVota, (D) Curt Dougherty, (D) Al Liese, (D) Allen Icet, (D) Tim Meadows, (D) Ron Casey, (D) Wes Wagner,(D) Harold Selby, (D) Belinda Harris, (D) Frank Barnitz, (D) J.C. Kuessner, (D) Terry Swinger, (D) Mike Ross, (D) Randy Laverty, (D) Jack Crichter,
(D)Jim Hill, (D) Jimmy Jeffres, (D)Gene Jeffress, (D) Percy Malone,
(D) Ken Cowling, (D) Robert Jeffrey, (D)Randy Rankin, (D) Lenville Evans, (D) Jay Bradford, (D)Scott Sullivan, (D) Dewayne Mack, (D)Bob Mathis,(D) Dawn Creekmore, (D) Dwight Fite, (D) Janet Johnson, (D) Sandra Prater, (D) Jeff Wood, (D)Will Bond, (D) Preston Scroggin,
(D)David Evans, (D) David Dunn, (D) Wayne Nichols,(D)Leroy Dangeau,
(D) Bill Stovall, (D) Charles Ormond, (D) Travis Boyd, (D) Dave Obey,
(D)Roger Breske, (D )Robert W. Wirch, (D) Julie Lassa, (D) Terry Van Akkeren, (D) John P. Steinbrink, (D ) Amy Sue Vruwink, (D) Marlin D. Schneider, (D)Barbara Gronemus, (D) Jerry Costello, (D) Pat Welch,
(D)William Haine, (D)Gary Forby, (D) Jack Franks, (D) Mike Boland,
(D)Patrick Verschoore, (D)Careen Gordon,(D)Frank Mautino, (D)Lisa Dugan, (D) Michael Smith, (D) Gary Hannig, (D) Robert Flider, (D) Kurt Granberg, (D) Bill Grunloh, (D)Steve Davis,(D)Jay Hoffman, (D) Thomas Holbrook, (D) Dan Reitz, (D) John Bradley, (D) Brandon Phelps,
(D)Gene Taylor, (D) Bud Cramer, (D) Sanford Bishop, (D) Tim Golden,
(D)Michael S. Meyer Von Bremen, (D) Steve Thompson, (D) Valencia Seay, (D)Steve Henson, (D) Mike Snow, (D) Barbara Massey Reece, (D) Buddy Childers, (D) Bill Cummings, (D) Jeanette Jamieson, (D) Don Wix, (D) *Stephanie Stuckey Benfield, (D) Hugh Floyd, (D) R. M. Channell, (D) Curtis S. Jenkins, (D) Lee Howell, (D) Robert F. Ray, (D) Bobby Eugene Parham, (D) Jimmy Lord, (D) Dubose Porter, (D) Johnny W. Floyd, (D) Greg Morris, (D) Penny Houston, (D) Ellis Black, (D) Ron Borders, (D) Jay Shaw, (D) Hinson Mosley, (D) Allen Boyd,
(D) Will S. Kendrick, (D) Dwight Stansel, (D) Sheri Mcinvale, (D) Lincoln Davis, (D) Jim Cooper, (D) Bart Gordon, (D) John Tanner, (D ) Tommy Kilby, (D ) Jerry W. Cooper , (D ) Jo Ann Graves, (D ) Rosalind Kurita,(D) Roy Herron, (D ) John S. Wilder, Sr., (D ) Harry Tindell, (D) Dennis Ferguson, (D ) Jim Hackworth, (D ) George Fraley, (D ) Frank Buck, (D ) John Mark Windle, (D ) Jere L. Hargrove, (D ) Charles Curtiss, (D ) Mike McDonald, (D) Stratton Bone, (D) Michael L. Turner, (D ) Ben West, Jr., (D ) Curt Cobb, (D ) Joe Fowlkes,(D) Eugene E. (Gene) Davidson, (D) David A. Shepard, (D) John C. Tidwell, (D ) Willie (Butch) Borchert, (D) Mark L. Maddox, (D) Phillip Pinion, (D) Craig Fitzhugh, (D) Ben Chandler, (D) Dennis L. Null, (D) Joey Pendleton, (D) Walter "Doc" Blevins, (D) Johnny Ray Turner, (D) Ray S. JonesII, (D) Denise Harper Angel,
(D ) Charles Geveden, (D) Fred Nesler, (D) Frank Rasche, (D) Mike Cherry, (D) *J.R. Gray, (D) *John A. Arnold JR., (D) *James E. Bruce, (D) *Joseph E. "EDDIE" Ballard, (D) Gross Clay Lindsay, (D) *Jim Gooch JR, (D)Tommy Thompson, (D) Brent Yonts, (D) Dottie J. Sims, (D) Jody Richards, (D) Rogers Thomas, (D) Rob Wilkey, (D) Jimmie Lee, (D) James H. Thompson, (D) Steve Riggs, (D) Perry B. Clark, (D) Robert R. Damron, (D) Rick W. Rand, (D) Royce W. Adams,(D) Charlie Hoffman, (D) Arnold R. Simpson, (D) Mitchel B. "Mike" Denham, (D) John Will Stacy, (D) Carolyn Belcher, (D) Don Pasley, (D) Adrian K. Arnold,(D)Susan Westrom, (D) Harry Moberly JR, (D) Rick Nelson, (D) Ted "TEDDY" Edmonds,(D)Ancel Smith, (D) W. Keith Hall, (D) Charles "CHUCK" Meade, (D) Robin L. Webb, (D) Hubert Collins , (D) Tanya Pullin, (D) Rocky Adkins, (D) Baron Hill , (D) Craig Fry, (D) Patrick Bauer, (D) Thomas Kromkowski, (D) Scott Pelath, (D) Dan Stevenson, (D) Chester Dobis, (D) Robert Kuzman, (D) Joe Micon, (D) Sheila Klinker, (D) Ron Herrell, (D) Ron Liggett, (D) Tiny Adams, (D) Terri Jo Austin, (D) Scott Reske, (D) Dale Grubb, (D) Clyde Kersey, (D) Alan Chowning, (D) Phil Pflum, (D) Peggy Welch, (D) Jerry Denbo, (D) Dave Crooks, (D) John Gregory Frenz A, (D) Terry Goodin, (D) Robert Bischoff, (D) Markt Lytle, (D) Paul Robertson, (D) James Bottorff, (D) William Cochran, (D) Dennie Oxley, (D) Russ Stilwell, (D) Dennis Avery, (D) Trent VanHaaften, (D) Win Moses Jr., (D) Ted Strickland, (D) Kimberly Zurz, (D) Charlie Wilson (D) Marc Dann, (D) Kenneth Carano, (D) John Boccieri, (D) William Hartnett, (D) Derrick Seaver, (D) Todd Book, (D) John Domenick, (D) L. George Distel, (D) John Dingell, (D) John J. Gleason, (D) Doug Bennett, (D) Jennifer Elkins, (D) Matt Gillard, (D) Stephen Adamini, (D) Rich Brown, (D) John W. Drummond, (D) Glenn Reese, (D) Linda H. Short, (D) Thomas L. Moore, (D) NikkiI Setzler, (D) Gerald Molloy, (D) Kent Williams, (D) John Yancey Mcgill, (D) John C. Land III, (D) *E. Dewitt Mccraw,
(D) *Olin R. Phillips, (D) Walt Mcleod, (D) Mike Anthony, (D) Herb Kirsh, (D) Douglas Jennings, JR., (D) Denny W. Neilson, (D) James A. "JIM" Battle, JR., (D) C. Alex Harvin III, (D) Jimmy C. Bales, (D) Thomas N. Rhoad, (D) Harry L. Ott, JR., (D) Bill Bowers, (D) Mike Easley, (D) Beverly Perdue, (D) Roy Cooper,(D) Mike Mcintyre, (D) Marc Basnight, (D) Scott Thomas, (D) Clark Jenkins, (D) Robert Holloman, (D) Cecil Hargett, JR., (D) R. C. Soles, JR., (D) Charles Albertson, (D) A. B. Swindell, (D) Tony Rand, (D) Daniel Clodfelter,
(D) David Hoyle, (D) Walter Dalton, (D) Joe Queen, (D) Martin Nesbitt, (D) Bill Owens, JR, (D) Bill Culpepper, III, (D)Alice Underhill, (D) Russell Tucker, (D) Arthur Williams, III, (D) Edith Warren, (D) Marian Mclawhorn, (D) William Wainwright, (D) Dewey Hill, (D) Edd Nye, (D) Joe Tolson, (D) Jim Crawford, (D) Marvin W Lucas,
(D) Douglas Yongue, (D) Ronnie Sutton, (D) Lucy Allen, (D) Earl Jones, (D) Alice Bordsen, (D) Pryor Gibson,(D) Lorene Coates, (D) Hugh Holliman, (D) Walt Church, (D) Jim Harrell, (D) James Black, (D) Bob England,(D)D. Bruce Goforth, (D) Rick Boucher, (D ) Joe Manchin, III, (D ) Darrell McGraw, (D) Alan Mollohan, (D) Nick Rahall, (D) Jeffrey V. Kessler, (D) Robert H. "Bob" Plymale, (D) John Pat Fanning , (D) Earl Ray Tomblin, (D ) Billy Wayne Bailey, Jr., (D) Anita Skeens Caldwell, (D) Shirley Love, (D) Bill Sharpe, (D) Roman W. Prezioso, Jr. (D)Jon Blair Hunter, (D) Mike Ross , (D ) Joe DeLong, (D) Randy Swartzmiller, (D) Tim Ennis, (D) Kenneth D. Tucker, (D) Scott G. Varner, (D) Dave Pethtel, (D) J.D. Beane, (D) Brady R. Paxton, (D ) Kevin J. Craig, (D) Jim Morgan, (D) Don Perdue, (D ) Joe C. Ferrell , (D ) K. Steven Kominar, (D ) Harry Keith White, (D) Richard Browning, (D) W. Richard "Rick" Staton, (D) Eustace Frederick , (D) Marshall Long, (D) Gerald L. Crosier,
(D) *Virginia Mann, (D) *Robert S. Kiss, (D) Ron Thompson, (D) Thomas W. Campbell, (D ) Tom Louisos, (D) David G. Perry, (D) John Pino , (D) Sharon Spencer, (D)Jon Amores , (D) Mark Hunt, (D ) William F. "Bill" Stemple, (D) Brent Boggs, (D) Sam Argento, (D) Joe Talbott, (D ) Bill Hartman, (D) Bill Proudfoot, (D) Doug Stalnaker, (D) Mary M. Poling, (D) Samuel J. "Sam" Cann, (D) Robert "Bob" Beach, (D) Larry A. Williams, (D)Stan Shaver, (D) Harold Michael, (D) Jerry L. Mezzatesta, (D) Bob Tabb, (D) Paul Kanjorski, (D) John Murtha,(D)Tim Holden, (D) Vincent Fumo, (D) Michael O'Pake, (D) Tom Scrimenti, (D) Joseph Markosek, (D) Frank Dermody, (D) Victor Lescovitz, (D) Timothy Solobay, (D) Peter Daley, (D) Lawrence Roberts, (D) James Shaner,(D) Joseph Petrarca, (D) James Casorio, (D) Thomas Tangretti, (D) Edward Wojnaroski, (D) Thomas Yewcic,
(D) Camille "Bud" George, (D) Michael Hanna, (D) Robert Belfanti, (D) James Wansacz, (D) Todd Eachus,(D)Kevin Blaum, (D) Neal Goodman, (D) Richard Grucela, (D) William T. Stachowski, (D) Ginny A. Fields,
(D) Robert K. Sweeney, (D) Aileen M. Gunther, (D) Bill Magee, (D) Darrel J. Aubertine, (D) Francine DelMonte,(D)Robin Schimminger, (D) William L. Parment, (D) Michael Michaud, (D) Bruce Bryant, (D) Christopher Hall,(D) John Martin, (D) Troy Jackson, (D) Rosaire Paradis, (D) Jeremy Fischer, (D) Raymond Wotton, (D) George Bunker, (D) John Wakin, (D) Edward Dugay, (D) Thomas Watson, (D) John Richardson, (D) Sonya Sampson, (D) Rodney Jennings, (D) Susanne Ketterer, (D) Janet Mills, (D) John Patrick, (D) Robert Duplessie, (D) Timothy Driscoll, (D) Elizabeth Ready, (D) Jeb Spaulding, (D) Dick Sears, (D) James Leddy, (D) Virginia Lyons, (D) Robert Starr, (D) Sara Kittell, (D) Richard Mazza, (D) Susan Bartlett, (D) Mark Macdonald, (D) Ann Cummings,(D) John Campbell, (D) Matt Dunne, (D) Peter Welch, (D) Alice Miller, (D) Jim Mccullough, (D) Mark Larson,
(D) John Patrick Tracy, (D) Albert Audette, (D) George Allard, (D) Richard Howrigan, (D) Avis Gervais,(D) Kathleen Keenan, (D) Albert Perry, (D) Floyd Nease, (D) Shap Smith, (D) John Rodgers, (D) Maxine Grad,(D) Harry Monti, (D) Tony Klein, (D) Michael Obuchowski, (D) Carolyn Partridge, (D) Steve Darrow, (D) Alice Emmons, (D) Jim Masland, (D) Alice Nitka, (D) Daniel Adams Eaton, (D) Roland J. Lefebvre, (D) Claire D. Clarke, (D) Robert E. Martel, (D) Dominick J. Ruggerio, (D) Frank A. Ciccone III, (D) Walter S. Felag Jr.,
(D) John F. McBurney III, (D) Joseph A. Montalbano, (D) Michael J. Damiani, (D) Roger Badeau, (D) Marc A. Cote, (D) John J. Tassoni Jr., (D) Joseph M. Polisena, (D) Beatrice A. Lanzi, (D) Michael J. McCaffrey,(D) Stephen D. Alves, (D) Leonidas P. Raptakis, (D) Peter G. Palumbo, (D) Robert B. Jacquard, (D) Matthew J. McHugh, (D) Brian Patrick Kennedy, (D) Stephen R. Ucci, (D) Joseph J. Voccola, (D) Peter J. Petrarca,(D) Roger A. Picard, (D) Arthur J. Corvese, (D) William San Bento Jr., (D) Jan Malik, (D) Michael B. Forte Jr.,
(D) Robert O'Leary, (D) Marc Pacheco, (D) Stephen Brewer, (D) Richard Moore, (D) William "Smitty" Pignatelli,(D)Stephen Kulik, (D) Daniel Keenan, (D) Peter Kocot, (D) Geoffrey Hall, (D) Patricia Walrath, (D) Stephen LeDuc, (D) William Greene, Jr., (D) Bruce Ayers, (D) William Galvin, (D) Garrett Bradley, (D) Christine Canavan,(D) Thomas O'Brien, (D) Brian Knuuttila, (D) Anne Gobi, (D) Harold Naughton, Jr., (D) John Fresolo, (D) Biagio "Billy" Ciotto, (D) Joan V. Hartley, (D) Tom Colapietro, (D) Antonio "Tony" Guerrera, (D) Brian J. O'Connor,(D)Edward E. Moukawsher, (D) Steven T. Mikutel, (D) Jack Malone, (D) Linda A. Orange, (D) Michael J. Cardin,(D)Stephen M. Jarmoc, (D) Peggy Sayers, (D) George M. Wilber, (D) Reginald G. Beamon, (D)Jeffrey J. Berger,(D) Roger Michele, (D) Kosta Diamantis, (D) John "Corky" Mazurek, (D) Emil "Buddy" Altobello, (D) Peter J. Panaroni Jr., (D) Stephen Dargan, (D) Louis Esposito Jr., (D) James Amann, (D) Richard Roy, (D) Terry Backer,(D) Kevin Ryan, (D) Ruth Ann Minner, (D) Anthony Deluca, (D) Robert Venables, SR , (D) Bethany Hall-Long,(D)John Vansant, (D) Michael Mulrooney, (D) John Viola,(D) Bruce Ennis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x103881#103970


More recently Bill Richardson is one example.


"the nra has always been a republican stronghold"

No, they became such a thing when the idiots that pushed for things like the "assault weapons" bait and switch made the Democratic party an unfriendly entity to be voting for. What did you expect them to do? Sulk while feeling like thier way of life was being attacked and gun bans were put into place? They moved to the republican party. If abortion rights came under attack by the Democrats, but wasn't to begin with by republicans, the exact same thing would happen...just to a different group of people.

"they hate anyone who would dare regulate who should have guns and who shouldn`t"

Bullcrackers. They support background checks, they support felons and those guilty of domestic violence being prohibited persons. What they don't support is arbitrary bans, and feel-good legislation which burdens the law abiding gun owners and does nothing remotely effective in reducing gun violence.

Theres are reasons to crack on the nra, but untrue things just aren't it. Cracking them for anything less than something true just reinforces the "dems are after my guns" meme for any that are on the fence.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. I wish I could nominate that post for t he greatest page.

I really do. excellent post.

[beevul]

24. Thank you, I appreciate that.

Unfortunately, the people that need to understand what I said the most and take it to heart, are also the people least likely to be receptive to it.

Progress is slow, but it is being made.

Again, thank you for the kind words. They encourage me, and I appreciate that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Bullshit.

"No, they became such a thing when the idiots that pushed for things like the "assault weapons" bait and switch made the Democratic party an unfriendly entity to be voting for."

The NRA has been a RW organization ever since its inception. It was originated by the weapons manufacturers, not by any citizens' group, in order to promote the arming of the populace (to the profit of the gun makers). It was NOT created to protect the 'citizen soldier'. It was NOT created to preserve the right to hunt or target shoot.

They ONLY supported background checks when it became obvious there was no way to stop them. And even then, they oppose really stringent checks, going for a very flawed 'instant background check' system that only keeps gun out of the hands of the most egregious criminals. I remember in the 60s when they were fighting tooth and nail to prevent ANY restrictions on 'Saturday Night Specials' - the extremely cheap, unreliable palm-sized pocket pistols, usually .25 to .32 cal., that are really good for only two things - gas station holdups and bar fights. They were coming into the country en masse from Italy (originally from the Eastern bloc and Yugoslavia, transshipped through Italy) and were transforming street gang violence from knives and bats to guns. They were worthless for personal protection, as they were as likely to blow up in the hand as to fire - particularly in the hands of someone who knew nothing about the weapons (and anybody who DID know anything about them wouldn't buy them in the first place).

Now, those weren't made by US gun makers. They were worthless as weapons. They couldn't be used in hunting, or home defense, and NOBODY would use them to overthrow a repressive government. So WHY did the NRA fight for them?

Because an armed populace is a scared populace. As long as the hoods have guns, the police will need bigger guns, and when the police have REALLY big guns they can do whatever they want. A right wing wet dream.

BTW - if the NRA is so opposed to gun registration and all, because it would help the government come and take their toys away, what do you think NRA membership lists are? After all, guns don't kill people. Their owners kill people. So isn't a list of gun owners just as dangerous as a list of guns?

[gorfle]

44. Questions.

The NRA has been a RW organization ever since its inception. It was originated by the weapons manufacturers, not by any citizens' group, in order to promote the arming of the populace (to the profit of the gun makers). It was NOT created to protect the 'citizen soldier'. It was NOT created to preserve the right to hunt or target shoot.

I'd like to see some citations for those statements.

the extremely cheap, unreliable palm-sized pocket pistols, usually .25 to .32 cal., that are really good for only two things - gas station holdups and bar fights.

Coincidentally, they are also good for defending oneself during a holdup or a fight.

They were worthless for personal protection, as they were as likely to blow up in the hand as to fire - particularly in the hands of someone who knew nothing about the weapons (and anybody who DID know anything about them wouldn't buy them in the first place).

I'd like to see some citations for this statement also.

I'm all for cheap weapons. It's a shame that most quality firearms these days start at around $300, and most are $350+. There are a few low-cost, reasonable quality pistols out there, like the Hi-Point C9 that retails for around $140, but by and large, most pistols out there today are going to cost you around $400. That's a shame because that price put out protection out of reach for a lot of people who might benefit from it.

Now, those weren't made by US gun makers. They were worthless as weapons. They couldn't be used in hunting, or home defense, and NOBODY would use them to overthrow a repressive government. So WHY did the NRA fight for them?

To avoid hopping on the slippery slope of picking which firearms are and are not suitable for civilian ownership based on price or quality.

Because an armed populace is a scared populace. As long as the hoods have guns, the police will need bigger guns, and when the police have REALLY big guns they can do whatever they want. A right wing wet dream.

The police can only do whatever they want if the populace is disarmed.

BTW - if the NRA is so opposed to gun registration and all, because it would help the government come and take their toys away, what do you think NRA membership lists are? After all, guns don't kill people. Their owners kill people. So isn't a list of gun owners just as dangerous as a list of guns?

Two words: Plausible Deniability.

1) I could belong to the NRA without owning firearms. Unlikely, but possible.
2) There is no indication how many or which firearms NRA members own. This would make confiscation difficult were it attempted based on a membership list.

[beevul]

60. Cites please. N/T

[iverglas]

47. hahahaha

Oh, we've been over this so many times before. Like the NRA isn't smart enough to know which side the bread is buttered on, and would make the mistake of endorsing obviously losing candidates when there's no advantage to be gained and no reason not to endorse the front-runner ...



http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=127

Chris Cox`s Political Report, February 2004

... It has become fashionable in recent elections for
politicians to camouflage their anti-gun views.

Howard Dean proudly claims to have been endorsed by the National Rifle Association, and indeed it is true that the NRA`s Political Victory Fund (PVF) endorsed Dean in his re-election bid for governor of Vermont in 2000. But NRA members know that an endorsement by NRA-PVF in one election is not an endorsement forever. Endorsements are made based on several criteria specific to individual elections, including candidates` statements, voting records and other pertinent information. Dean was endorsed based on his position on issues specific to Vermont that were current at that time.

Looking back to the race for Democratic presidential nominee, let`s see how Dean stacks up on national issues of current concern. Next year in the nation`s capital, we`ll be pushing hard to pass S. 659 through the Senate. We know we`re facing a big battle over the fate of the Clinton gun ban, and we also expect more debate over the future of gun shows and the operations of the National Instant Check System (NICS), among other things.

Here`s what Dean had to say on these issues, in an interview with National Public Radio: "Here`s what my position is and what it would be as president. Keep the assault weapons ban. I favor that and it ought to be renewed. Keep the Brady Bill, close the gun-show loophole, and then let every state decide for themselves what additional gun control they need." A few months later, Dean told the Children`s Defense Fund his opinion of S. 659:

"I would vote no, and I`d veto the bill as president . . . I do not believe we ought to exempt gun dealers, who may be breaking the law, from liability. That doesn`t make any sense whatsoever."

Of course, S. 659 wouldn`t exempt any lawbreaker from liability, but Dean`s ignorance of the bill is no excuse for a reflexively anti-gun answer to a question of pressing national importance. Mr. Dean, you can`t have it both ways when it comes to our firearms freedoms.

Hahaha. The NRA, friend of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party. Snork.

One down. Anybody want to tackle the rest?

[Ian David]

31. I prefer The American Hunters and Shooters Association.

16. The American Hunters and Shooters Association Supports Obama: He "Gets It"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3312768#3312847

[pipoman]

35. AHSA has a hard (if not impossible) sale

to convince shooters, particularly sport shooters, that they are not a thinly veiled gun control group as long as they support reinstatement of the failed AWB or 1022 which would attempt to ban the most popular sporting rifles in America.

[benEzra]

37. They'd be taken more seriously if they weren't fighting to ban half our guns.

How are they supposed to represent responsible American shooters if they want to outlaw the guns American shooters prefer?

[pipoman]

34. I am not a member

Is there an organization which has done more to promote safe firearms usage than NRA? Answer: No

NRA has more than one part. NRA-ILA is the political/lobbying branch. The NRA proper is an educational organization which instructs more people on firearms/hunting safety than any other organization in the world....a mission I fully support and commend them on.

[jody]

36. Are you are a proud member of the gun-grabber group who would destroy inalienable rights? n/t

[benEzra]

38. No.

I am pissed that they had a partisan lightning rod like Huckabee speak, and am letting them know it.

They are being played by the repubs at the moment, IMO.

[gorfle]

45. Precisely.

They are being played by the repubs at the moment, IMO.

The Republicans have long pandered to the "God, Guns and Guts" crowd. They have used those issues, very effectively, as wedge issues.

[benEzra]

49. Yup. With some Dems only too glad to help them out. (n/t)

[gorfle]

43. Why I am a member

The NRA is the biggest, most influential organization able to influence legislation concerning my right to keep and bear arms.

Some of the company they keep stinks, but this does not detract from their effectiveness at their primary mission.

I would much rather prefer to see a slew of Democratic speakers at NRA meetings, and moreover, if there were more pro-Gun Democrats, I have no doubt the NRA would hold them up on a pedestal as well.

Is the RKBA crowd mostly right-of-center? I have no doubt. Do I wish more left-of-center folks were pro-RKBA? Absolutely. Am I going to abandon the most powerful RKBA organization because of its right-wing affiliations? No.

Just like I won't abandon the Democratic Party because of it's poor RKBA record, I won't abandon the NRA for it's poor speaker choices. Why? Because taken as a whole, in both cases I currently believe in the organizations and their ability to represent my interests.

It truly makes me sad to receive my NRA newsletter and see it be full of anti-gun rhetoric concerning Obama. I wish the NRA had no cause for publishing such things.

[iverglas]

48. cognitive dissonance much?

Probably not, I'd guess.

[gorfle]

50. Actually, yes.

And it distresses me a lot. Remember, I'm a disaffected Republican. Though I've grown disillusioned with the "war on terror", infringements on civil liberties, and corporate and religious pandering, I'm largely "conservative" on many issues, and I'm grappling hard with my conversion to the Democratic party and trying to give traditional Democratic ideals a fair shake. I don't know if I will ever be all the way there. But right now, the Republicans have pushed the pendulum way to far in the wrong direction, and it's time to balance that out.

[iverglas]

52. "remember"?

Remember, I'm a disaffected Republican.

Didn't know it, haven't bothered uncovering it.

I'm largely "conservative" on many issues

"Conservative" isn't what we call some of the things you've said, where I'm at. We're not even happy about calling the right-wing party currently in power "Conservative". "Conservative" actually some long and honourable tradition.

Just have to notice that your conversion doesn't seem to have necessitated much change, if you're still lending your name and giving your money to the NRA.



typo ...

[WWFZD]

62. You read that too huh?

With every page turned I expected to see devils horns and fire breathing in the next unflattering caricature.
Doesn't change the fact that he's terrible on the 2A, but who among the candidates this election isn't?.

[iiibbb]

57. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Hot-button issues makes for a lot of strange bedfellows.

Most of those individuals you list are obnoxious jerks and even traitors... but that doesn't negate my gun rights as I see them. It also doesn't negate the 30 years of history that turned the NRA from a predominantly unaffiliated gun safety and education organization to the rabid entity it has become.

At the end of the day the NRA is the only organization who's large enough and strong enough to fight for my rights. There is no moderate organization on either side of the issue... everything has been reduced to this all or nothing mentality. And recent history has consistently shown that our rights will be eroded.

Since none of the main players can be counted on to be "reasonable" I guess the NRA is what we have for now.

If the Dems would make a firm stand on where they stand on our rights... perhaps earn some credibility back for fiascoes of legislation like the AWB... then maybe the NRA will lose it's power and influence.

Hopefully this Heller case will draw the line. Once I feel like my rights are safe it will be a hell of a lot easier for me to vote Democrat (I am currently represented by 2 very pro-gun Democrats and happily vote for them every election).

[iverglas]

58. the enemies ...

There sure are a lot of 'em.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

AARP
AFL-CIO
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Civil Liberties Union
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Medical Women`s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Association
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Trauma Society
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Counseling Association
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for World Health
American Ethical Union
American Nurses Association
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Firearms Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Jewish Committee
American Trauma Society
American Psychological Association
American Jewish Congress
American Public Health Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Association of American Medical Colleges
Black Mental Health Alliance
B`nai B`rith
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Children`s Defense Fund
Church of the Brethren
Coalition for Peace Action
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
College Democrats of America
Committee for the Study of Handgun Misuse & World Peace
Common Cause
Congress of National Black Churches, Inc.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Consumer Federation of America
Council of the Great City Schools
Council of Chief State School Officers
Dehere Foundation
Disarm Educational Fund
Environmental Action Foundation
Episcopal Church-Washington Office
Florence and John Shumann Foundation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Federation of Women`s Clubs
George Gund Fun
Gray Panthers
H.M. Strong Foundation
Hadassah
Harris Foundation
Hechinger Foundation
Interfaith Neighbors
Int`l Ladies` Garment Workers` Union
Int`l Association of Educators for World Peace
Jewish Labor Committee
Joyce Foundation
Lauder Foundation
Lawrence Foundation
League of Women Voters of the United States*
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Manhattan Project II
Mennonite Central Committee-Washington Office
National Safe Kids Campaign
National Association of Police Organizations
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Black Nurses` Association
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Network for Youth
National Assembly of National Voluntary Health & Social Welfare Organizations
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Counties*
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers
National Education Association
National Association of Elementary School Principals*
National Association of Public Hospitals
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Children`s Hospitals and Related Institutions
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council of La Raza
National Center to Rehabilitate Violent Youth
National Commission for Economic Conversion & Disarmament
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Negro Women
National Association of Community Health Centers
National People`s Action
National Education Association*
National League of Cities
National Council on Family Relations
National Council of Jewish Women
National Organization for Women
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Peace Foundation
National Urban League, Inc.
National Parent, Teachers Association*
National Urban Coalition
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Organization on Disability
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Ortenberg Foundation
Peace Action
People for the American Way
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Police Foundation
Project on Demilitarization and Democracy
Public Citizen
SaferWorld
Society of Critical Care Medicine
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
The Council of the Great City Schools
The Synergetic Society
20/20 Vision
U.S. Catholic Conference, Dept. of Social Development
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United States Catholic Conference
United Methodist Church, General Board & Church Society
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society*
United States Conference of Mayors
War and Peace Foundation
Women Strike for Peace
Women`s National Democratic Club
Women`s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Women`s Int`l League for Peace and Freedom
World Spiritual Assembly, Inc.
YWCA of the U.S.A.

*The national organization only endorses federal legislation.


And then there are the individuals. Dozens and dozens of people for you to fear ...

[beevul]

76. Most lawyerly types make the print extra fine...

Most lawyerly types make the print extra fine, but you...you don't even leave the fine print there for anyone to see. Care to explain why that is to the viewing audience?

For those interested, heres the part she left out, which actually appears ABOVE the list she quoted:

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

One can only speculate why that was omitted, but dog surely knows.


Oh my, I almost forgot...Iverglas, is there something inherantly wrong with the creation and the making public of such a list?

[iverglas]

77. here ya go

I, er, left this out too.

Printer Friendly Email to a friend Take Action

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

Perhaps more to the point, I "left out" a very, very, very, very long list of individuals, and a not too shabby list of media organizations, that are also on the enemies list.

How come you left them out???



Oh my, I almost forgot...Iverglas, is there something inherantly wrong with the creation and the making public of such a list?

I can certainly understand why you would have forgotten.

Why, you forgot to ask me my shoe size, too. And about sixteen hundred brazillion other things we could probably remember if we tried.

Some of which would undoubtedly be as devoid of factual foundation as that one.

[beevul]

79. A perfect example of the typical non-answer you give when your pinned.

Color me shocked.

Not.

[iverglas]

81. WHY DO YOU ASK

is there something inherantly wrong with the creation and the making public of such a list?

???

What did I say that suggested to you that I thought there was something inherEntly wrong with the creation and the making public of such a list?

WHAT?

Here's the answer: NOTHING.

And here's the reason why I didn't say anything that suggested this to you: BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK IT.

If I did not say anything that suggested this to you, WHY DO YOU ASK?

Did you have some shred of a reason to think that I thought it, even? If you do, what is it? If you don't, WHY DO YOU ASK?

Is there something inherently wrong with your moral compass?

[beevul]

84. Well, gee...

"WHY DO YOU ASK?"

Well, gee, because the words you wrote gave no indication in any direction, pro or con, and I WANTED TO KNOW YOUR STANCE on such a thing. You could have just said "no, not at all" and avoided the song and dance. Was there some other reason in your mind, why someone would ask such a thing?


I had no idea my morale compass was the subject of this discussion, as the list in question is, but since you asked:

"Is there something inherently wrong with your moral compass?"

Nope. See how easy that is? No song and dance there. You should try it some time.

[class2068]

63. Yes.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[solinvictus]

74. So?

Obama associates with Weather Underground terrorists who were responsible for killing Americans.

[iverglas]

75. phew

Thinking of saying goodbye, are you?

I'm having a hard time getting google to offer me anything that doesn't involve me having to look at freerepublic, newsmax, nysun or michellemalkin ...

Maybe you can tell me what the facts your statement is based on are.

[maxidivine]

102. So you just don't like the sources?

But the information IS there? Because I found something right away on the Chicago Tribune site, and that is certainly not a right wing news organization. I'll post some of it here, so other posters can see it and make up their own minds.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-apr23,1,4967065.column
"This story involves two Chicagoans, former Weather Underground terrorist leaders Bernardine Dohrn and her husband, William Ayers, both Obama supporters who blessed his initial foray into politics. Last week, the unrepentant Ayers became a flash point in Obama's debate with Hillary Clinton.

"And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died," said Clinton, sweetly playing the white terrorist card. "I know Sen. Obama is a good man and I respect him greatly, but I think this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising."'
And why shouldn't they?

As president, Hillary's husband commuted the prison sentences of two other Weather Underground members and of Puerto Rican terrorists, so her scolding was quite unconvincing.

Obama insists such gotcha politics is beneath our dignity. But no association is above question for a candidate, whether Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Illinois political fixer Tony Rezko, or Ayers and Dohrn.

Clinton and Republican John McCain have suffered scrutiny. The only one treated as an infant in swaddling clothes by the national media—until quite recently—is Sen. Change.

So let's wait until Labor Day, when Broadway Baby may become a catchphrase. Here's why: According to a 1982 New York Times report, Broadway Baby was implicated in an investigation of a series of violent armed robberies in New York—netting more than $2 million over a two-year span—committed by former Black Panthers and Weather Underground members in the early '80s."


Really interesting story.

[iverglas]

108. no, Mr. Wouldn't Speak Straight to Save His Life

I don't JUST not like the sources.

Why would you say that I JUST don't like the sources?

In fact, why would you say I don't like the sources at all? What does whether I like the sources have to do with anything I said?

What I said was:

Maybe you can tell me what the facts your statement is based on are.

I said that because I want to know what facts the statement Obama associates with Weather Underground terrorists who were responsible for killing Americans is based on.

The post to which I replied contained an allegation of fact. I didn't happen to be familiar with that allegation, or with any facts on which it might be based. And I did look around, and I didn't find any facts to support the allegation, even as mealy-mouthed as it was in its phrasing.

So I'm sure it was very good of you to step in and offer to help the poster in question answer my question. Unfortunately, you haven't done anything useful. There is nothing in the material you have reproduced that supports the allegation.

I guess I'll just have to wait for our solinvictus friend to do his own job.

[Malidictus Maximus]

78. Yes I am

And of the ACLU, too.

And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table. If I can carry it, it's none of anybody's fucking business if I own it. Anyone who says or believes otherwise is not even worth arguing with, exactly like a creationist or a racist; the do not deserve discourse but only watching so to be able to fight them.

just like with the ACLU: as long as there is one fuckwit who wants to ban a book, as long as there is one nazi asshole who wants to take a book out of a library, as long as there is one wannabe brownshirt who finds ANY speech so offensive that it should be limited, I'll support the ACLU. As long as there any attempt to restrict what law abiding citizen can possess or carry on their person I'll support the NRA. Have they supported some true assholes? Yes. so has the ACLU, but it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of too much freedom than too little.

[iiibbb]

80. +1

[tucsonlib]

83. To All of You...

...who have replied "yes" to the OP without explaining "why", can we all assume then that you are indeed (if I may quote from the OP) "supporters of the George Bush/John McCain policies of the past seven years"? If so, admit it! C'mon, be proud!

And as for the rationalization that goes like this, "Sure, the NRA might support a few assholes, but as long as they fight for my right to bear arms they have my support."....Uh, no, I'm sorry, but that's exactly like saying, "Sure, the Nazi Party has a few assholes in their leadership, but no one builds roads, or keeps the trains running on time like they do! I'd never vote for an anti-Autobahn, slow-train-lovin' Social Democrat! I shall remain a proud, dues-paying member of "my" Nazi Party!"

[beevul]

85. Perhaps...

Perhaps you can direct the people whom your addressing, to an alternative 800 pound gorilla that will stand up to the gun banners.

[tucsonlib]

90. Hokay!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x172164

[beevul]

94. As many have pointed out...

As many have pointed out, the AHSA is a front for gun grabbers, meant to splinter the gun rights and second amendment community.


And they're no 800 pound gorilla.


But I'll be open minded about it:


What gun bans or gun banners have they stood up to successfully or unsuccessfully?

[maxidivine]

105. hahahahahahahahaha!

I can't believe you just pointed to the AHSA as a group for protecting the second amendment!

They are about as pro-gun as the nazis were pro-russian!

hahahahahahaha!

[maxidivine]

104. Looks like you're no fan of the ACLU then

And is every single democrat ever a great person? are they all free from corruption and poor judgement?


Didn't think so. It's politics guy, nobody is talking about slaughtering kittens to paint congress red, things are a little more subtle than that.

[iverglas]

82. in other words

as long as there is one person in the world who thinks that the public is entitled to the smallest shred of oversight of the things that you do, you will behave like a very large, very loud, very spoiled child who is going to get his own way by screeching and hollering and calling everybody who disagrees with him ugly names. Or so he hopes, anyhow.

NOBODY'S THE BOSS OF YOU, no sirreeee bob.

And there are those who say that advocates of firearms control have, er, issues.

[beevul]

86. "Your're not the boss of me"...

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,

Here once the embattled farmers stood

And fired the shot heard round the world."





"Your're not the boss of me". Copyright, April 19, 1775.

[tucsonlib]

87. "More Than Two Decades Later"

"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way."



--George W. Bush, Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

[beevul]

88. Yep, hes a tool.

Did you have some other point you intended to make by quoting his chimp ass?

[tucsonlib]

89. Y'know, Beeve...

For someone who's such a defender of the NRA, you still haven't explained why you're not a member.

[beevul]

92. I guessed you missed me saying...

I guessed you missed me saying this:

"Theres are reasons to crack on the nra, but untrue things just aren't it. Cracking them for anything less than something true just reinforces the "dems are after my guns" meme for any that are on the fence."


If that makes me a defender of the nra in your mind, in spite of several other things I have said to the contrary, I'll live with it.

[tucsonlib]

93. RE: "untrue things just aren't it."

Which "untrue things" are we talking about?
Also, "in spite of several other things I have said to the contrary"? Musta missed 'em. Like what? And still, you haven't answered: Why aren't you a member?

[beevul]

96. Why aren't I a member?

"Which "untrue things" are we talking about?"

Untrue things like the one in the post I originally replied to, for starters:

"they hate anyone who would dare regulate who should have guns and who should`t"

Thats one.


Its been said that the nra is for "cop-killer" bullets. Thats another.


The nra is against legislation that would ban ceramic handguns that can pass through metal detectors. Thats another.

Theres more, but at the moment my mind is mostly occupied by a sore leg, the end result of a 5 minute cramp in my right calf muscle. Worst cramp ever.


"Also, "in spite of several other things I have said to the contrary"?"


Somewhere hereabouts is a poll authored by yours truly, in which I say "The nra is led by republicans. Its said here all the time. And its basically true" or something like that. Around these parts, thats an insult.

That would be one example.

I'll give you another here and now:

The nra was stupid, foolish, and short sighted to allow hucksterbee to speak at thier meeting. They deserve how it reflects on them, and whatever comes to pass because of it. Thats a particularly GOOD reason to crack on them.



"Why aren't you a member?"


When I was a newbie here, there was a heated discussion about the nra, its effect on elections, its stances on various legislation, voting, and and I'm sure a few other things that my memory is betraying me on. What I do remember, what I said in that thead, which is that nobody owns my vote. My vote is earned.

Similarly, my support is earned rather than assumed. The nra hasn't earned my support.





On edit:

Where it says "Armorypk" in your posts, what does that mean?

An alternet handle perhaps?

[tucsonlib]

97. Re: Where it says "Armorypk" in your posts, what does that mean?

Nothing really. When I signed up, I used it as my "signature" - thinking it was the same as a "user name" I guess. I live in an historic district of Tucson called Armory Park.

[beevul]

100. Tucson...OT, but...

I visited Tucson a couple times when we lived in AZ. Beautiful and quite historic town.

I so regret not visiting The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum when I had the chance.

The whole 3 years I lives in AZ, I never saw one rattlesnake, nor one scorpion, nor one tarantula...saw a few black widows though.

Oddly enough, since moving to Nebraska we have seen tons of rattlesnakes and bullsnakes.

I keep a stick in the car and the truck, in case I run across one on the road. I do hate to interrupt them sunning themselves, but better to be interrupted than squashed, I figure.

[tucsonlib]

109. Re: Tucson O/T

Been here 35 years and outside of the Desert Museum I've seen exactly zero rattlers, zero scorpions and one tarantula. (It was sunning itself beside the road as I drove by. I didn't stop to say Hi - Looked to be about the size of a Buick.) Seen lots of coyotes, though. By far the wildest thing I've encountered was this lady I met skinny-dipping in Sabino Canyon back in the 80s. But that's another story......

[spoony]

91. iverglas, heal thyself

"calling everybody who disagrees with him ugly names"

like... "very large, very loud, very spoiled child"?

[beevul]

99. Ouch LOL.

[iverglas]

106. oh my yes, that hurt

very large, very loud, very spoiled child


vs.


And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table. If I can carry it, it's none of anybody's fucking business if I own it. Anyone who says or believes otherwise is not even worth arguing with, exactly like a creationist or a racist; the do not deserve discourse but only watching so to be able to fight them.

just like with the ACLU: as long as there is one fuckwit who wants to ban a book, as long as there is one nazi asshole who wants to take a book out of a library, as long as there is one wannabe brownshirt who finds ANY speech so offensive that it should be limited, I'll support the ACLU. As long as there any attempt to restrict what law abiding citizen can possess or carry on their person I'll support the NRA. Have they supported some true assholes? Yes. so has the ACLU, but it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of too much freedom than too little.


Yes indeed. A post pretending that calling a large, loud, spoiled child stamping its feet and saying that nobody is the boss of it by its name is equivalent to calling people who disagree with said child fuckwits, nazi assholes, the equivalent of racists, etc., that's the kinda post that wounds me deeply.

Shork. Lame. Dumb. Dumber.



html fixed

[beevul]

111. What does "on the table" mean? versus "on the books"?

Your premise is flawed.

"saying that nobody is the boss of it by its name"

Except he never actually said that, or anything close to is, as you well know.


Fighting against "whats on the table" is quite a different thing than fighting against or disregarding "whats on the books".


One simply can not say "your not the boss of me" without it applying to whats "on the books" I.E. CURRENT LAW.


As was already said:

Heal thy self.

Ta.

[iverglas]

112. uh ...

One simply can not say "your not the boss of me" without it applying to whats "on the books" I.E. CURRENT LAW.

Well ... um ... okay, I would sure never say "your not the boss of me". I'm not that illiterate.

Other than that, I'm sure you were intending to say something here, but for the life of me ...

I dunno. "Current law". Is that the stuff that's writ on stone tablets and found in burning bushes?

Me, I'd say that one can't say "you're not the boss of me" unless one is also making some sort of rational argument against the limitations on one's actions that either exist in "current law" or are what someone is proposing. (It really makes no difference which it is, I would hope you do understand. Given as how "current law", or the absence thereof, isn't actually engraved on anything and all.)

Calling people who propose such limitations fuckwits, Nazis, equivalent to racists, and wannabe brownshirts doesn't actually qualify as rational argument, you see.

[beevul]

116. Distilling it down...

This is the sentence in question:

"And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table."

To everyone, except apparently you, that means that poster will be an nra member as long as gun control keeps being proposed. I.E "On the table". That does not mean "As long as there are any gun laws on the books".

"Me, I'd say that one can't say "you're not the boss of me" unless one is also making some sort of rational argument against the limitations on one's actions that either exist in "current law" or are what someone is proposing. (It really makes no difference which it is, I would hope you do understand. Given as how "current law", or the absence thereof, isn't actually engraved on anything and all.)"

Bullcrackers. Your claiming that theres no difference between someone arguing against what is, versus what is proposed, and that one is saying "your not the boss of me" in either case, even as you know full well there is.

The poster in question argued against one, but not the other, therefore your little "you're not the boss of me" tirade is based on a flawed premise, and you know it.

[iverglas]

118. I have a scathingly brilliant idea

Why don't you ask the poster in question what he meant?

You've taken it upon yourself to speak for him; maybe he doesn't need or appreciate your assistance, eh?

Me, I'll be waiting for his own reply. Your spinning of what he said is really of the utmost irrelevance.

[beevul]

120. I have a more scathingly brilliant idea.

"Why don't you ask the poster in question what he meant?"

"You've taken it upon yourself to speak for him; maybe he doesn't need or appreciate your assistance, eh?"


Why don't YOU ask the poster what he meant, since YOU were first in line to speak for him; maybe he doesn't need or appreciate YOUR assistance, eh?


Me, I'll be waiting for your own reply. Your spinning of what he said, and inserting words into his mouth, and mischaracterizing what he said is really of the utmost irrelevance.


I suppose you'd actually have to be interested in what he said to do so, though, as opposed in only being interested in seeing what meaning you might torture out of his words.

[beevul]

110. Thats an interesting, yet inaccurate characterization of what that poster said.

He/she said:

"And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table. If I can carry it, it's none of anybody's fucking business if I own it. Anyone who says or believes otherwise is not even worth arguing with, exactly like a creationist or a racist; the do not deserve discourse but only watching so to be able to fight them."

The above quote addresses gun control which is on the TABLE, not that which is on the books. So your description of his objection to "the smallest shred of oversight" of the things he does where it concerns firearms, is as wrong as it is dishonest.

He then goes on to talk about the first amendment:


"just like with the ACLU: as long as there is one fuckwit who wants to ban a book, as long as there is one nazi asshole who wants to take a book out of a library, as long as there is one wannabe brownshirt who finds ANY speech so offensive that it should be limited, I'll support the ACLU. As long as there any attempt to restrict what law abiding citizen can possess or carry on their person I'll support the NRA. Have they supported some true assholes? Yes. so has the ACLU, but it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of too much freedom than too little."


I think most people hereabouts would agree with that paragraph, nra support notwithstanding.

[iverglas]

113. er ... eh?

What the charming poster said:

If I can carry it, it's none of anybody's fucking business if I own it.

And you have somehow managed to, er, "interpret" that thus:

The above quote addresses gun control which is on the TABLE, not that which is on the books.

And you have done that by way of ... what rule of interpretation would that be?

Hmm, perhaps necessary inference. That is, we infer it from the context, which in this case would be the text of whatever it was in response to ... which would be this:

Karl Rove and Mike Huckabee were featured speakers at the 137th Annual National Rifle Association Leadership Forum Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky (along with Glenn Beck (aka The Racist Nutcake), certifiably insane Nazi rocker Ted Nugent and convicted perjurer Oliver North). Predictably, Karl and Mike stuck it to Obama, Clinton and Dems in general with a string of infantile jokes and thinly veiled racist/chauvinist/right-wing remarks. The appreciative audience (One of only 3 or 4 such audiences still available to Mike and Karl) ate it up.

Now, you DU gun enthusiasts out there who consistently defend the NRA as being non-partisan, single-issue-driven advocates for the "rank and file" little guy should do yourselves a favor and reassess just where you stand these days. If you are, in fact, supporters of the George Bush/John McCain policies of the past seven years, then fine, the NRA is your kind of club. But if, as I suspect, most of you despise the current Republican Party and everything it stands for, then I have to ask just why the hell are you still sending membership dues to the fascist, treasonous, hypocritical gang of neo-con assholes who comprise the leadership of "your" NRA?

Hmm, hmm, hmm. Which part of that are you suggesting that we must infer

The above quote addresses gun control which is on the TABLE, not that which is on the books.

from, now? I'm in need of some assistance here, I willingly admit.

Of course, then I'd be still needing some assistance to understand why the fuck I would care if that were the case.

Which I see no reason to think it was. But whatever.


I think most people hereabouts would agree with that paragraph, nra support notwithstanding.

-- "that paragraph" being:

just like with the ACLU: as long as there is one fuckwit who wants to ban a book, as long as there is one nazi asshole who wants to take a book out of a library, as long as there is one wannabe brownshirt who finds ANY speech so offensive that it should be limited, I'll support the ACLU. As long as there any attempt to restrict what law abiding citizen can possess or carry on their person I'll support the NRA. Have they supported some true assholes? Yes. so has the ACLU, but it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of too much freedom than too little.

Of course, I would never be surprised at what most people hereabouts would agree with ... unless, of course, it amounted to them considering the interests of someone besides themselves ... and I seldom give a shit what most people hereabouts agree with.

So once again, I'm sure you must have had a point there ...

[beevul]

115. Of course, then I'd be still needing some assistance..."

"Of course, then I'd be still needing some assistance to understand why the fuck I would care if that were the case."


As would we all.

"And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table."


That means proposed, hereabouts, and no amount of pretending it isn't is going to change that.

I refuse to believe that someone so versed in the written word, and so accustomed to the terminology used hereabouts would be dense enough to get that wrong.


Everyone reading, however, is free to speculate.

[iverglas]

117. ahhhhh

"And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table."

That means proposed, hereabouts, and no amount of pretending it isn't is going to change that.

No it doesn't.

Nice try, though.


I mean, seriously. Really. You actually expected to get away with that??

"On the table" means "under discussion".

Like I said: the laws really are not writ in stone. They are ALWAYS "on the table".

You people are so funny.

And it's especially cute of you to revert to your British roots in this case. I happen to be well aware that when something is "tabled", in US parlance, it has been "shelved". Where I'm at, when something is "tabled" it is introduced for discussion.

(Mind you, I once lost points at a job interview for smugly announcing that "jurisprudence" in English meant case law while "jurisprudence" meant the philosophy of law in French ... although I still got points for being the only person who had a clue what the question meant, even though I went temporarily mad and said it backwards ... so I shouldn't trust myself here maybe ...)

Laws may be "tabled" from time to time, but I'll remind you again: they are ALWAYS "on the table".

[beevul]

119. Trickery of thw written word.

"On the table" means "under discussion"."

No shit sherlock. Proposed regulations, regulations under discussion in the legislative sense. Same shit, different letters, for purposes of THIS discussion.

"And it's especially cute of you to revert to your British roots in this case. I happen to be well aware that when something is "tabled", in US parlance, it has been "shelved". Where I'm at, when something is "tabled" it is introduced for discussion."

And it's especially cute of assume I have "British roots. I am full blooded Norwegian fyi. In any case, something "tabled" and something "on the table" are 2 different things, at least here in America. And thats the context of this discussion, so hands off the rudder, thanks.

So the poster essentially said he be an nra member as long as there was gun control "on the table" rather than tabled.

The poster said nothing about that which already exists.

So again, "you're not the boss of me" does not apply.

[iverglas]

122. ah, if only English had a plural second person pronoun

your British roots -- the British roots of your language; your collective British roots when it comes to the language you speak. You do speak English, notwithstanding your non-English DNA, I gather?


Let's look one more time at what was said here; I add emphasis:

And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table. If I can carry it, it's none of anybody's fucking business if I own it. Anyone who says or believes otherwise is not even worth arguing with, exactly like a creationist or a racist; the do not deserve discourse but only watching so to be able to fight them.

just like with the ACLU: as long as there is one fuckwit who wants to ban a book], as long as there is one nazi asshole who wants to take a book out of a library, as long as there is one wannabe brownshirt who finds ANY speech so offensive that it should be limited, I'll support the ACLU. As long as there any attempt to restrict what law abiding citizen can possess or carry on their person I'll support the NRA. Have they supported some true assholes? Yes. so has the ACLU, but it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of too much freedom than too little.

And you're seriously asserting that you interpret that as meaning that the author has no problem with existing firearms control measures -- which very definitely and completely indisputably RESTRICT WHAT LAW ABIDING CITIZEN <sic> CAN POSSESS OR CARRY ON THEIR PERSON.

Well, I guess you might believe yourself. I wouldn't know why, but there we are.

[beevul]

125. Context is everyones friend, except yours apparently.

"And you're seriously asserting that you interpret that as meaning that the author has no problem with existing firearms control measures -- which very definitely and completely indisputably RESTRICT WHAT LAW ABIDING CITIZEN <sic> CAN POSSESS OR CARRY ON THEIR PERSON."

Whether the author "has no problem" with existing firearms laws is not relivant to this discussion. Its not about whether or not the author "has no problem" with existing firearms laws. He/she never said one bloody word about them, words in his mouth inserted by you and his/her statements taken out of context by you notwithstanding.

What the author said:

"And I will be an NRA member as long as any sort of gun control is on the table. If I can carry it, it's none of anybody's fucking business if I own it."

The context of that second sentence is set by the first sentence, which CLEARLY is about proposed regulations, regulations under discussion in the legislative sense, and CLEARLY NOT about existing law.


But you want to talk about whether the author has problems with existing law in spite of the context, not because of it.

Piss and moan about it when its done to you, but deny deny deny when you do it to others.

That about says it all.

[maxidivine]

103. +1!

[tucsonlib]

95. A Tiny Bit Off-Topic

I've noticed that Gun Forum members tend to have an aversion to "recommending" posts. (Only a couple of OPs have more than one or two.) If we could get boosted to the "Greatest Threads" list, maybe we'd see some fresh perspectives. I'm growing a bit tired of the "Usual Gang of Idiots" (myself included).

[SteveM]

123. You may wish to try a different approach...

Your description of the NRA as "fascist," etc., and making a thinly-veiled attempt to lump in members of "DU Forums: Guns" with YOUR take on the NRA's ideology has been tried before and has grown "a bit tired;" your OP will not make "Greatest Threads" for that reason alone.

BTW, fascism (in my opinion) requires the systematic confiscation of guns. The NRA doesn't support this.
Racism requires suppression of a race's right (in this case) to bear arms. The NRA doesn't support this.

[tucsonlib]

128. Way O/P

I wasn't "trying" an "approach". I was merely pointing out that hardly any O/Ps in the Gun forum receive more than one or two recs. Why is that?
Oh, and if you believe that fascism requires gun confiscation, you've been had. The Repugs, in case you haven't noticed, have trashed the Bill of Rights while leaving the 2nd Amendment (just the 2nd Amendment) alone. They know that gun-ownership poses no threat to their agenda.
And I didn't describe the NRA as fascist. Only their leadership.

[SteveM]

130. Let's not go overboard...

The Bush administration, despite its trashing of much of our constitutional protections, has not achieved fascism. You should be on notice that they have TRIED to weaken the Second Amendment through Alberto Gonzalez' request for authority to place all people on the "No Fly" list on a "No Buy" list, preventing them from purchasing firearms. This would deny not only one's 2A rights, but due-process rights. Whatever you think Bush "knows" or does not know about gun-ownership posing a threat, this action speaks for itself.

Bush HAS successfully pushed for Black Water to become a virtual private army. Perhaps he knows such a force would be much more pliable to his ideology than duly-constituted military and police forces. My contention still stands: fascism cannot be achieved unless civilian firearms are confiscated and access to them is virtually eliminated.

Fascism is a violent and extreme ideology, not the stuff of barroom banter.

[tucsonlib]

131. From the American Heritage Dictionary

Fascism

n.

A. A system of government marked by centralization of authority, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


Note: Nothing about confiscating firearms. Why? Because fascists today have nothing to fear from civilian firearms. This isn't the 18th century. And, obviously, their strategy is working. You, SteveM, are living proof - They've convinced you that gun ownership equals "Freedom". You admit that Bush has trashed the Constitution. But you claim he hasn't "achieved" Fascism 'cause you've still got your guns? Does this actually make sense to you? And if he does finally get around to revoking 2A (A low priority, obviously) what are your plans? You didn't protest when they took away your 4th Amendment rights, so you'll have no legal leg to stand on. Gonna shoot it out with the Blackwater Boys? They must be quaking in their boots.

[SteveM]

132. Definition is OK, far as it goes. You really think we are there?...

While Bush has centralized authority (notably by "inter-nationalizing" the various guards and by having posse comitatus repealed), his authority is no where near that of, say, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, or even Vargas.

No where near.

Concerning suppression of opposition through terror and censorship, do you feel censored? No? Why is that?

Stringent socioeconomic controls, those that we have, stem more from cabals of corporate power (enhanced by little or no state regulation); comparatively little derives from structural collusion with the state -- an essential ingredient of fascism. Whatever can be said of our policies in Iraq, they do not so much come from "nationalism" as from a desire to get a piece of the pie (oil) from the mid-East when others (China, India, etc.) are making bids for a piece of their own; in fact, Bush & Co. would love to have the assistance of other Western European powers in some kind of coalition. Nationalism shows up much more among unstable, weaker countries, often as a result of trying to throw off the yokes of imperialism. (Who do you think is most motivated by nationalism, U.S. foreign policy-makers or Iraq or Iran or Syria for that matter?)

The definition doesn't mention firearms, like it doesn't mention the structural necessity of formally melding state and corporate power (and for that matter, labor). Nor did it mention the varieties of fascism. Italy, for example, as expressed by Mussolini, was not nearly as harsh with Jews. (Mussolini thought Hitler's obsession with Jews somewhat comical.)

Who said gun ownership equals "freedom?" Not I. Yes, Bush has trashed the Constitution, but his effect overall is limited. Believe me, if the Far Right really wants to make a "fascist shift," as Naomi Wolf puts it, they will have to go after the Second. They won't now because the GOP depends on a large group of gun activists to vote for them. But any fascist shift will move WAY beyond the temporal needs of the Republican Party and will move in the direction of Alberto Gonzalez.

It makes complete sense to me. We are closer to fascism than at any time in modern history, but we are not ANYWHERE near close enough that the final shift to take place. The Far Right is not that strong hence, they can neither seize guns nor take over.

Who are you to say I didn't protest the diminution of the 4th Amendment? Speculation or wild attack on your part?

As for Black Water, don't you think the "boys" have their hands full in Iraq?

Mull this: You cannot scream the alarm of fascism and simultaneously advocate gun control. "Does this actually make sent to you?"

[tucsonlib]

133. Thank You....

...for your reply. Nice to read an intelligent, reasoned rebuttal for a change. I hope we can continue to maintain this level of discourse.
I agree with much of what you say, but still take issue with your central thesis. That is, that "if the Far Right really wants to make a "fascist shift," they will have to go after the Second". Why, exactly? What do they have to fear from your guns, my guns or any citizen's guns? Do you really think private ownership is a deterrent to a fascist takeover? In what way?
And as for: "Who said gun ownership equals "freedom?" Not I." Maybe not, but you come mighty close when you assert, "..fascism (in my opinion) requires the systematic confiscation of guns." Again, why? That may have been true in 1775, but today, (as you yourself have pointed out), Bush has succeeded in trashing the Constitution. And he did it without firing a shot.
Finally, do I feel censored? Personally, no. Why would they bother censoring little ol' me when they control the corporate media?

[SteveM]

135. Thanks in return...

Last first, whatever or whoever controls the "corporate media" is secondary to the "product" MSM puts out: pablum. But we all recognize that. Besides, I pick 'n' choose the news, now. (In the '60s it was Cronkite; now, it's "Frontline," the Internet and select stories in the newspapers.) Frankly, I think MSM is in a virtual free-fall in terms of relevancy and is in search for anything which will gain readership/viewership and quarterly profits.

The central question here is: "Does fascism require the confiscation of civilian-owned guns?" I contend that it does. Though not definitively a totalitarian ideology (Germany certainly was, Italy & Spain somewhat), fascism seeks control in all society's affairs. The rhetorical question: "Would fascism, which seeks to control all society's affairs, leave guns in civilian hands?" I say no. It is estimated some 290 million firearms are in the hands of perhaps 80 million American civilians. (The U.S. civilian population is considered to be the largest armed force in the world.) This is too much for any fascist or even authoritarian government to tolerate as it pursues its mythical "monopoly on force."

You will note the "Brown Shirts," "Black Shirts," and others which constitute the irregular gangs of fascist take-over. These para-military forces circulated about the population intimidating, injuring, killing and destroying centers of resistance. What our founders saw in 1775 has precise clarity for the 20th century phenomenon of fascism: how can these roaming gangs (Black Water?) operate with a free hand if they must face millions of armed civilians; after all, they both got their arms the same way: in an open market, sans registration. Modern fascist movements encountered little civilian opposition since the arms, if any, possessed by civilians were few in number. Also, frankly, because apparent majorities agreed with "fascism" as presented.

Still, the "shirts" had to be loosed on the population. If this were to happen here, I think you would have millions of people drawn into networks of self-defense which would spread thin any attempt by gangs to intimidate a population. Social critic Naomi Wolf in her THE END OF AMERICA (Chelsea Green Publishing Co., Vermont, 2007) recognized the need for the Second Amendment because of the danger of Hessians and other "unaccountable" armed forces. "...the founders gave (sic) the states the rights to establish militias accountable only to the people. In contrast, a would-be dictator never bypasses the step (of establishing a militia)..."

(Wolf is incorrect in stating that the founders "gave" the states this right, and I have an essay scheduled for publication later this summer which critiques her book vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.)

There is no doubt that the Far Right is contemptuous of democracy and due process, and they would have their way with our society if they could. But they don't have the juice yet. I leave you with the example of "Crisis Capitalism," Katrina. While New Orleans & environs were in ruins, many "police forces" -- most notably Black Water -- descended on New Orleans even as aid was being blockaded by FEMA. As they roamed the streets, Police Chief Compass issued his now-infamous fiat ordering the confiscation of all firearms. A perfect laboratory for the Bushites: devastating crisis, usurpation of authority, sending in a private army, confiscating firearms. 'Dem boys do like to practice.

[iverglas]

129. snigger

When fingrpik "tries" an "approach", you'll know.

Trust me.

:rofl:

I'm pretty sure y'all aren't fingrpik's type ...



And now, just because it's time:


Love Me, I'm a Liberal

By Phil Ochs
(Born 1940, died 1976)

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every coloured boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the AFL-CIO board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic Party.
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal