Have you heard the latest NRA joke?

[kpete]

FRI APR 20, 2012 AT 02:49 AM PDT
Have you heard the latest NRA joke?
byroseeriter

"What do Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama have in common?"

Think about it. Did you get it?? The answer's below:

Guns, Paranoia and Obama Assassination Jokes: Inside the NRA's Annual Convention

Burke is a loud and boastful retired lance corporal who displays a photo of himself with NRA Executive Vice President & CEO Wayne LaPierre on his professional website. The only thing he abhors more than gun control is silence.

When a conversation about former New York Governor George Pataki's pro-gun record entered a lull, he asked the group what sounded like an American history riddle or piece of trivia: "What do Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama have in common?"

The collective intelligence of the minibus was stumped. After a few beats, he delivered the answer:

"Nothing. Yet."

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/155043/guns%2C_paranoia_and_obama_assassination_jokes%3A_inside_the_nra%27s_annual_convention/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/20/1084909/-Have-you-heard-the-latest-NRA-joke-

[trotsky]

1. Holy shit. n/t

[tosh]

2. Indeed.

[Liberal_in_LA]

65. +1000

[Swede]

3. More from the article.

"There's a lot of panic buying when Democrats are in power, and a lot of it is driven by the NRA and the gun press," said convention exhibitor Steve Johnston, a manager at Graf's Reloading, a gun and ammo shop in St. Charles, Missouri. "But then after a while [following] the election, people start to get depressed and think, 'Oh wait, I don't really need three AR-15's. I need to pay for food.'"

And so maybe a couple of those AR-15s end up on the newly saturated secondary gun market, where prices come down and tracking the guns get harder, thanks to the NRA's efforts to lower the bar for federal gun licenses, which has proliferated the number of "kitchen table" gun dealers. But soon there's another election cycle to hype, and more gun-confiscation bogeyman to invent. The process begins anew, just in time for the new models. "Having a Democrat in office is sort of like a double-edged sword," said a representative with a major handgun manufacturer who asked not to be identified. "You want your guy to win, but it's not as good for business. There will be a sales dip if the Republican wins."

[jpak]

4. Gun nuts from the Ted Nugent wing of the Douchebaggers

yup

[abelenkpe]

5. NRA n fox news

Loves to suggest assenting the president to their audiences. It's sick. But call them on it and them cry like a fucking baby saying the left does it as well.

[xtraxritical]

33. did you mean "assending"?

[Paladin]

6. Looking Forward To The Standard DU Gun Enthusiast Response.....

...that the NRA's far-right political stance (this sick "joke" included) is all the fault of liberals, for not being sufficiently swoon-prone over Antonin Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If Burke's "joke" and Nugent's threats aren't enough to cause those of you who are in the NRA to renounce your memberships, you have no business posting on Democratic Underground.....

[leftyohiolib]

12. why do members of the nra. ignore the part of the well regulated militia

[Paladin]

18. Scalia's Ignoring It Made It A Lot Easier For Them..... (n/t)

[Atypical Liberal]

20. I dunno. Why does President Obama ignore the part of the well regulated militia?

[Paladin]

22. And How Many Guns Have You Relinquished On Account Of Obama?

If you're like way too many Gun Enthusiasts, your firearms collection has GROWN as a direct result of Obama's tenure.

And more importantly, what do you think of that NRA guy's really swell "joke"?

[Atypical Liberal]

24. None, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

And How Many Guns Have You Relinquished On Account Of Obama?

None, but what does this have to do with the question I replied to about ignoring the well regulated militia?

View profile

If you're like way too many Gun Enthusiasts, your firearms collection has GROWN as a direct result of Obama's tenure.

Since President Obama was elected (who I voted for, by the way), I have purchased one firearm - an 1853 Enfield. No legislation or policy change enabled for hindered my purchase. President Obama has been very firearm-friendly so far, and endorses the individual right to keep and bear arms.

And more importantly, what do you think of that NRA guy's really swell "joke"?

It was terrible.

[leftyohiolib]

36. not sure what you mean. potus CANNOT write law. so what's he s'posed to do?

take them away all by himself?

[Atypical Liberal]

39. Well you'd think he would at least condemn it instead of support it if he believed in the militia...

Well you'd think he would at least condemn it instead of support it if he believed in the militia requirement.

"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms." - President Obama

[leftyohiolib]

42. agreed . what's up with that

probably pandering for votes, if he said anything less the rightwing noise machine would never let it go

[veganlush]

29. that's a very good question

especially since it is the qualifier that explains the absence of a list of infringements. The militia piece explains why the founders don't list the infringements that everybody that I know of agree on, even people who think that they "back" the second amendment.

[xtraxritical]

34. They say "that's us".

[leftyohiolib]

37. that;'s fine but a well reg militia is not neccessary now. so ... that's not them

[Atypical Liberal]

40. The reason why the well-regulated militia doesn't matter.

For practical and legal purposes, the first clause of the second amendment doesn't exist.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Firstly, all nine Supreme Court justices and the President of the United States agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right regardless of membership in any organization like a militia.

Secondly, even if you wanted to join said militias, the militias that existed in the founders' day no longer exist. There are no state-controlled military organizations that serve to replace or at least counter federal military power, and there have not been since 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act.

Thirdly, we know that while the people were to keep and bear arms to serve in militias, that was not their only reason for doing so. Initial drafts of the second amendment included the phrase "keep and bear arms for the common defense" and this was struck down. Clearly the founders did not think that the right to keep and bear arms was to be construed as something only to be exercised as a collective effort.

[Paladin]

44. That's A Total Refutation Of Decades Of Gun Militancy Arguments.

All that sweaty time and effort by multitudes of Gun Enthusiasts over all those years, trying desperately to put a modern and relevant spin on what a well-regulated militia consists of, these days. All those arguments about what the term "regulated" meant in the 1780's, as opposed to now. All that screaming about that 1950's Cold War-era law that coerces everybody between the ages of 17 and 65 (more or less) into today's modern and oh-so-important militia. All those defenses of assault-style weapons, because God knows, the Founding Fathers would want today's well-regulated militia members to have just that sort of weaponry at their disposal.

Don't have to trouble yourself with that bullshit anymore, do you? Say a little prayer to Fat Tony Scalia and his cohorts for that labor-saving favor......

[Atypical Liberal]

47. No, all of that is true.

That's A Total Refutation Of Decades Of Gun Militancy Arguments. All that sweaty time and effort by multitudes of Gun Enthusiasts over all those years, trying desperately to put a modern and relevant spin on what a well-regulated militia consists of, these days. All those arguments about what the term "regulated" meant in the 1780's, as opposed to now. All that screaming about that 1950's Cold War-era law that coerces everybody between the ages of 17 and 65 (more or less) into today's modern and oh-so-important militia. All those defenses of assault-style weapons, because God knows, the Founding Fathers would want today's well-regulated militia members to have just that sort of weaponry at their disposal.

No, all of that was quite true.

Well-regulated in 18th century vernacular meant much the same thing as when you talk about your colon being regular today. It just meant well-functioning.

And the Dick Act of 1903 did, in fact, create the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia, all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia.

And the intent of the founders most certainly was to have the people keep and bear arms appropriate for militia duty - that is, small arms appropriate for infantry use.

All of that is quite true. We've always known that the second amendment did not enumerate the right to keep and bear arms only for militia use, but the above statements about militias are true nonetheless.

Don't have to trouble yourself with that bullshit anymore, do you?

That's right.

Say a little prayer to Fat Tony Scalia and his cohorts for that labor-saving favor......

And the other 8 justices who also agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

[leftyohiolib]

45. 1st scotus choosing to ignore the constitution doesnt change the constitution

2nd if militias are gone then so is the "right"to keep and bear arms. 3rd they struck down common defense but decided instead to add the militia clause so they must have felt that important enough to add other wise they would have said something like the govermnt shall write no laws restricting gun ownership.
if the gun proponents want to change the constitution then lobby the states to do so untill then there's no right to keep and bear without a militia being neccessary.

i appreciate you taking the time to write all that though

[Atypical Liberal]

49. Excellent, excellent point, though I think you are wrong. :)

2nd if militias are gone then so is the "right"to keep and bear arms.

This is an excellent, excellent point, and I'm glad you brought it up, because it is the heart of the issue. I'm being serious here, not sarcastic.

The intent of the second amendment was to enumerate the right to keep and bear arms, and to keep that right from being infringed, so that the people could form independent state militias, that could eliminate the need for, or at least counter, federal military power.

This is the whole reason why they perpetuated the decentralized state-controlled military system of the militias. They said that standing armies were dangerous to liberty, and they feared the politicization of the army or the militias and feared that they would be used as a tool of oppression.

But just because the militias were usurped by the federal government does not negate the driving principle of the second amendment - to be sure that the people always had access to the tools of ultimate recourse for defending their liberty!

And I'm convinced the wording of the Constitution is very deliberate in that regard - it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Not the right of the militias, nor the right of the free states. The people. This was done no doubt because they feared that the institution of the militias or the states may themselves be corrupted. The ultimate recourse lies with the people.

So no - if the militias are gone, then the right of the people to keep and bear arms stays intact.

3rd they struck down common defense but decided instead to add the militia clause so they must have felt that important enough to add other wise they would have said something like the govermnt shall write no laws restricting gun ownership.

They added the militia clause to indicate that 1) militias are necessary to the security of free states, and 2) that that is one reason why the people may own them. They struck the collective defense wording specifically because there are individual reasons to keep and bear arms also. In other words, collective action is not the sole reason to keep and bear arms.

And in fact they did say that the (federal) government shall write no laws restricting gun ownership. They said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's pretty clear to me. The federal government is not supposed to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Writing laws to restrict firearm owning and keeping is an infringement.

if the gun proponents want to change the constitution then lobby the states to do so untill then there's no right to keep and bear without a militia being neccessary.

The amendment needs no amending as far as I'm concerned. The second amendment merely indicates that militias are a fundamental reason for the keeping and bearing of arms. But they are not the only reason. And even if the militias are gone (and they are), all the other reasons for firearm ownership still exist.

i appreciate you taking the time to write all that though

Likewise.

[NoGOPZone]

46. So you interpret the dissent in Heller v DC

as supporting an individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of membershp in a militia?


"The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption."

on edit, I'll specify that I'm referring to your statement about "all nine judges". Two currently sitting judges joined in the above dissent.

[Atypical Liberal]

48. That is correct.

Even the dissenters agreed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. The justices were unanimous on that point.

[NoGOPZone]

50. But they were NOT unanimous on whether that

individual right is independent of service in a militia, as your OP states.

on edit. Here is further text from the dissent

"it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms."

[Atypical Liberal]

51. Nothing in that passage about militia.

"it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms."

There is nothing in this passage about membership in a militia, only that the second amendment does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes.

Weapons can be used for military purposes other than in a militia.

[NoGOPZone]

52. Use in a militia

IS a military purpose. Therefore, it is covered by that phrase. This expands the right understood by the dissenters to cover CERTAIN military use beyond a milita, but it certainly does not exclude the militia from that definition. The dissent directly quotes Miller.

"Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178.

The dissent also states "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.

It also states "It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

[Atypical Liberal]

53. Us in a militia is a military purpose. A military purpose is not only use in a militia.

Use in a militia IS a military purpose. Therefore, it is covered by that phrase.

No, because there are other military purposes than just for use in a militia. Since the phrase only said, "it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes.", this does not indicate that these military purposes include militia use.

The dissent also states "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.

The founders specifically rejected the phrase "keep and bear arms for the collective defense". So the second amendment is clearly not just for collective use in a militia.

It also states "It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

This is true, but service in state militias was not the the only use for such firearms.

Moreover, those militias no longer exist.

[NoGOPZone]

55. The issue under debate

is not whether the second amendment refers to a collective right, as you attempt to argue in paragraph four. It the statement made in your OP about the concurrence of the nine justices. It's already been acknowledged that both the dissent and the majority recognize some degree of individual right, so the question is how much do they concur. Your OP mentioned that all justices support the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right regardless of membership in any organization LIKE a militia. The dissent makes obvious that their view of extent of that right is limited to certain military purposes. You know, LIKE a militia, not necessarily one. So how should we interpret that phrase of yours, like a militia? The dissent also makes obvious that they do not feel the Second Amendment restricts in any way a legislatures ability to regulate civilian use of firearms.

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Exactly.

It's already been acknowledged that both the dissent and the majority recognize some degree of individual right,

Which was exactly my point all along.

The justices were unanimous that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected under the second amendment.

[NoGOPZone]

59. OK but I've find that

incomplete at best without mentioning that the minority felt the individual right was more limited than the majority felt.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. That is true.

Yup, they admitted it was an individual right, but obviously believe it is subject to more restrictions than the majority.

Of course I have disagreed on their idea of restrictions, also, but my main point I have said is that the supreme court was unanimous in its opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

This is an important point of refutation for those who blame the individual rights interpretation as an action of the conservative justices of the court. In fact all the justices held that the second amendment protects an individual right.

And thus it is also important because it shows that the collective right concept was rejected by the entirety of the court.

[4th law of robotics]

54. Pro-2nd amendment =/= pro-assasination

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. What you hate guns?

This is why democrats lose...


(Close enough?)


For those who on't get it, this is parody of a real life crazee stance.

[Paladin]

62. A Few Points:

1. Get back to me with something coherent, OK?

2. Actually, I'm a long-time gun owner, not a gun hater. I'm not very fond of the gun militancy movement, and I particularly do not like the long-time infiltration of DU by Gun Enthusiasts pimping a right-wing agenda on guns and other issues.

3. It's "Democrats" with a large-case "D," not "democrats." You're welcome......

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. One answer

Did you miss the

[Paladin]

64. Yeah, I Missed The Sarcasm. And I Bet I Have A Lot Of Company. (n/t)

[DiverDave]

7. Just astounding, my question is

Where are all the gun nuts now?
Lets see them spin THAT

[nobodyspecial]

8. As much as I disliked Bush and his disastrous policies

I would NEVER laugh at or tell a joke that advocated the assassination of a sitting U.S. president. For people who often brag what proud patriots they are, it's amazing that they would not take issue with this.

Left out a crucial word there. Need more caffeine...

[RevStPatrick]

10. You might want to edit your post...

"I would laugh at or tell a joke that advocated the assassination of a sitting U.S. president..."

Did you forget the word "not"?

[nobodyspecial]

11. Whoops!

Thank you.

I better fully wake up before I continue posting.

[leftyohiolib]

14. your fruedian slip is showing

[nobodyspecial]

16. Yes, you're right. I really wish someone shot Bush and think these jokes are funny

You don't know me at all and not a single person who does would actually think I would advocate gun violence or assassination of a president. So, go ahead and accuse me some more. I don't care. I know what is in my heart.

On edit: What is my deep-seated motive for typing whops instead of whoops in the follow up? I would love more expert analysis.

[Bladian]

30. I'm pretty sure they were just pulling your leg...

[leftyohiolib]

38. wow .. lighten up francis i was just joking ...

and besides freud would say your heart spoke when you made the mistake and you conscience had you change it. but like i said it was a chance to throw in a freudian slip joke.

[CBHagman]

60. That's Freudian, bubbleh.

Here be Germanophones.

[saras]

9. It's a good reason for Obama to choose a real progressive and not a Republicrat for VP

[Spazito]

15. All I can say is...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. And they wonder --

Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2012, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

why we think many of the "gun enthusiasts" are freaks.

[RZM]

17. So, two guns walk into a bar . . .

One of the guns says to the other:

'I've got a question for you.'

So the other says:

'Shoot.'

The end

That's where I thought this OP was going.

[progressoid]

19. Ho ho, that's fucking hilarious.

ring ring..."Hello? Secret Service?"

[noamnety]

21. I was sure I'd open this thread

and just see a pic of romney with no commentary.

[vkkv]

23. Sick ...the lawful killing of wild animals isn't enough for the uncivilized.

Sick ...just SICK.

[Cheap_Trick]

25. The NRA IS the joke. nt

[KamaAina]

26. Agent Mike, check your PMs.

[Release The Hounds]

27. He retired as an E-3?

[Kingofalldems]

28. Ban NRA material or links from DU

[Dawson Leery]

31. There is a reason why they are called "gun nuts".

[krispos42]

32. Jesus Christ. And of course, it's not RW terrorism

Or a presidential death threat.

[xtraxritical]

35. I hate it when the post appears on top

instead of under the Topic line.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WilliamPitt]

41. Heard that one the day Obama was elected.

Bleh.

[polly7]

43. What a horrible, ugly, dangerous thing to say. These people are warped. nt.

[BiggJawn]

56. I LUVS me the "Trash this Thread" button

BUH-Bye!
(flush!)

[aikoaiko]

66. This is no more an NRA joke than "Obama is doing a fine job" is an NRA slogan.

As an NRA member, people hear me say "Obama is doing a fine job", but its not owned by the NRA.

The joke is repugnant.

Having said that, however, the NRA is allowing a lot of horrific language to go unchecked and the NRA leadership has got to go.

[Morning Dew]

67. "What do Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama have in common?"

They each steered the nation through crisis?