NRA may back Dem against DeWine in '06 (would endorse Tim Ryan!)

[geek tragedy]

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/081005/nra.html

Are they talking about endorsing a DINO in the mold of Zell Miller?

Hell no!

<snip>
Gun activists angry with Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and the state GOP are welcoming talk of Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) challenging the second-term senator next year.
<snip>

Most of us remember Tim Ryan from this speech from the floor of the House:



******************************
I rise in opposition of this bill, but I would like to clarify something.

We're not trying to scare kids, this president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country.

And if people had said today, why are people believing this? Why are people believing this 'big Internet hoax'?

Well, told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11,

same people that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,

same people that told us we were going to be able to use the oil for reconstruction money,

same people that told us that we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers,

same people, same president that told us the Taliban is gone,

same president that told us that Poland is our ally two days before they pull out,

same president that tells us Iraq is going just great,

same president that tells us the economy is going just great,

same people that told us the tax cut was going to create millions of jobs.

Same people that told us that the Medicare program only cost $400 billion, when it really cost $540 billion.

So please forgive us for not believing what you're saying!

Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you're saying.

Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people, that's been told to these college students has been true.

Not one thing.

Bremer says we need more troops, the Pentagon says we need more troops, and this president can't get them from the international community. There's only one option left . Let's be honest with the American people.
<snip>

I think this is GREAT news and a huge opportunity to pick up a Senate seat in a Red state without putting a mealy-mouthed DINO in there.

[belle]

1. RYAN!!! aw YEAH. hope this happens!

[NewJeffCT]

2. good speech

I think he can even update the Medicare amount now - it went from $400 billion to $540 and then to over $1 trillion, I think.

[Greeby]

3. Video of the speech

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/timryanlow.html

Edit: If you were wondering, this was a speech he gave during a floor debate last year on Charlie Rangel's Draft bill, which was voted down 400-2

[zorro349]

4. yay timmy

Timmy is my rep here in good old Youngstown, OH. I've met him before and he's a good guy. I hope he runs against DeWine.

Zorro

[Kber]

5. welcome to DU Zorro!

[Township75]

6. GOOD!

DeWine is a complete anti-gun rights republican asshole. He also voted to renew the assualt weapons ban. I would love to see him replaced with Ryan!

[Deep13]

7. cool

Heard him speak at a Kerry rally last year. Pretty good.

[MrBenchley]

8. And then monkeys will fly out of Wayne LaPierre's ass....

Yeah, that's why the NRA has Grover Norquist on their board...they're so darn liberal.

[iverglas]

9. nooooo

Surely you don't think the NRA is just making noise in an effort to bring its pet Republicans to heel!

[MrBenchley]

12. A sincere bunch of racist fuckwits like that?

(snicker)

How you been?

[mosin]

88. DeWine is hardly a pet Republican...

He opposes the NRA on everything. He's far and away the most anti-gun rights Republican senator. The NRA trashes him constantly in their magazines.

Also, a lot of the Republican base is unhappy with DeWine over the Gang of 14 compromise on the judicial nominees.

His son--an early favorite--ultimately got trounced (4th out of 4 major candidates) in the Republican primary in July for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District. The DeWine name doesn't mean much positive in Ohio right now.

So, in short, DeWine is very vulnerable, and the NRA-ILA--like most PACs--tries to back winners. So it's hardly surprising the NRA would support a pro-gun rights Democrat over DeWine.

[iverglas]

89. read it again now

moi: Surely you don't think the NRA is just making noise in an effort to bring its pet Republicans to heel!

you: DeWine is hardly a pet Republican...

See mine? Plural? Know how "Republicans" is sometimes used as an equivalent of "the Republican Party"?

The NRA is making noise about not supporting *a* Republican in order to bring *the* Republican*s* to heel?

So, in short, DeWine is very vulnerable, and the NRA-ILA--like most PACs--tries to back winners. So it's hardly surprising the NRA would support a pro-gun rights Democrat over DeWine.

Aha. And if that isn't exactly what I have said several times re: the NRA-backed Democrats in, e.g., North Carolina: NGOs whose (members') interests are affected by public policy decisions like to back winners so as to enhance their influence in public policy-making. (This only holds, and works for them, of course, if there is a real possibility of such influence. One would hardly expect to see NARAL funding an anti-choice candidate in order to influence reproductive rights policy.)

I would, however, suspect that the NRA would quite happily, in fact more happily, support a Republican of a breed more to its taste than DeWine, rather than his/her Democratic opponent. Wooden chew?

[Zorra]

10. Democrats should adopt philosophy similar to "laissez faire" economics

with regard to gun control. No gun control. Nada.

I mean, with the insane dangerous fascists that are in control of our government, wouldn't you feel more secure with a sawed off shotgun, some .45 automatics, a reliable sniper rifle, and a few bazookas hanging over the fireplace?
;-)

[geek tragedy]

11. Dems should be unabashedly in favor of personal freedom. eom

[MrBenchley]

14. And who but the trigger happy think unregulated gun sales

amounts to "personal freedom?"

[geek tragedy]

15. Should be a state issue. Alaska and Rhode Island will probably

want to have different policies.

[MrBenchley]

16. What a silly comment...

You don't think guns can be taken across state borders?

Most crime guns recovered in New York City, for example, are sold down in Dixie, in the benighted states that allow reckless practices by gun sellers.

[geek tragedy]

19. Do you think that Rhode Island should be allowed to forbid ownership

of any gun?

If so, what about states that want to permit hunting?

[MrBenchley]

21. Hell, I think the Federal government ought to ban

assault weapons...and you could talk me into a ban on handguns most days.

"what about states that want to permit hunting?"
So who needs to deregulate gun sales to permit hunting? Is there anything about hunting that requires unlicensed gun owners and unregistered guns sold recklessly and without regard for public safety?

By the way, hunting is a dying sport and rightly so. And every state I've ever heard of ends up spending much more administering its hunting programs than it takes in on permits...not counting the cost in damaged property and accidentally shot livestock and people...

[geek tragedy]

24. My point is that if you want to go to a "one size fits all" approach,

who gets to decide the size?

[MrBenchley]

27. I'm quite happy to let people decide for themselves...

since Americans overwhelmingly support gun control...but the legislation will only be effective on the Federal level.

--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking, just like Charles Schumer proposes
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

No other industrialized country suffers the level of bloodshed that America does. Lack of gun control has been an utter failure.

[IA_Seth]

38. Well let me enlighten ya bud...

Iowa's hunting licenses and its tax on hunting equipment not only pay for our Dept of Natural Resources, but also pay to keep up our parks across the state...parks that EVERYONE, hunter and non-hunter alike enjoy.

Maybe if you would expand your worldview beyond Metropolitan NJ you would see that...but then again I know your MO and that ain't happenin.

[MrBenchley]

58. Gee, look what happens when we check the facts...

Iowa licenses bring in a paltry $19.3 million, while the state's Department of Wildlife costs taxpayers $30 million.

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Iowa/Hunting_and_Fishing_License_Fees_Increased_05150112.html

Nothing wrong with my world view...but then I'm not trying to pimp for the gun industry...some of the scummiest folks on earth.

[IA_Seth]

91. Another quote from that article....

"Hunters and anglers provide a significant economic benefit to communities across Iowa," Farris said.....Hunters spent more than $400 million in 1996. Pheasant hunters alone pump an estimated $60 million annually into the Iowa economy in form of food, services, and other necessities.


From the same article... which you may mention is from 2001.

My sincerest apologies for mis-characterizing the benefits of hunting revenues for our state. I should have said that the hunting industry brought 400 million to our state in 1996...which I guess is just peanuts right?

[iverglas]

95. interestingly

(and not that anyone ever bothers to ask, or consider the possibility), I have little problem with your point.

Although Canada is at least as urbanized as the US ... let me digress, and offer it straight from the horse's mouth ;) --
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/special/royalvisit/speech-02.htm

NOTES FOR A SPEECH BY
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF WALES
Saskatchewan Legislative Chamber

April 26, 2001

... While much of Canada is urbanized - far more than people in Europe realize - we must not lose sight of the contribution of rural life to the national psyche. I compare rural and agricultural areas, like forests and parks, to lungs which enable our urban civilization to breathe. The philosopher John Ralston Saul, husband of your Governor General, says that Canadians should not see their country "purely in population terms" but should "respond to the imaginative, mythological and real shape of the whole country". While Mr. Saul was referring primarily to the North, I think his words apply very much to all of Canada.

That was just on a quick google, actually looking for something a little more facts-and-figures-ish on urbanization, but it kind of sums things up. "Rural" life is important to any country in a variety of ways.

In a market economy, it can be difficult to have funds allocated for public goods such as the preservation of species, habitat, and green space in general. It can also be difficult for people without access to capital or to employment in the production of the goods and services traded in that economy -- e.g. people in remote/rural areas -- to generate or earn income.

Some people in that situation in urban areas sell drugs, or obtain public assistance, to meet their basic human needs. Some people in that situation in rural areas engage in subsistence hunting for the same purpose. Whether one approves of any of those activities is irrelevant to the fact that all of those people are entitled to meet those needs.

In urban areas, those with ambitions may become drug trafficking kingpins. In rural areas, they may become outfitters. By expanding their economic activities to more than subsistence level, they usually generate employment for others -- and other economic (and social) impacts for their communities.

The economic and social impacts of large-scale drug dealing in cities are not *all* bad; people do earn money to pay the rent and put food on the table. The economic and social impacts of large-scale hunting and fishing activities in rural areas are generally rather more positive. (I suppose I shouldn't engage in dry understatement in these circumstances, but forgive me.)

There *are* potential social negatives, some of which depend on personal points of view: some will see commercial hunting operations (i.e. non-resident hunting, and the businesses that provide services to non-resident hunters) as encouraging a culture of disrespect for animals; that point of view may spread, but it is not the current consensus -- and even if it were, it would be hard to argue that it could be imposed on people who may have no other real options for earning their livelihood.

There are also potential negatives for the environment: commercial hunting/fishing operations *may* cause environmental deterioration, and in fact have done so in the past (extinction of species, etc.).

But on balance, I agree that commercial hunting operations -- the businesses that provide services to non-resident hunters, like outfitters, suppliers of the other goods and services the visitors use, etc. -- likely have a net positive effect on the environment these days, because of the economic interest of the communities and the broader society in preserving it for this economic activity if for no other reason, which prompts the broader society to make preservation efforts.

While the individuals who engage in subsistence hunting (and also hunting to protect other economic activities, like farming and livestock raising) have an *individual* right to do so, there is also a question of collective rights.

Rural communities have a "way of life" that they are entitled to carry on and protect, as a group. Aboriginal peoples, in particular, have an ancestral way of life that they have a collective right to perpetuate. Canada's constitution recognizes the latter fact:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including ...

-- and firearms legislation and regulations must be (and are) adapted so as not to interfere in the exercise of those rights, for instance.

So, while I will never engage in hunting myself, it's like a lot of other things that I will never do but have no desire (or entitlement) to prevent someone else from doing. And more than that, I would defend those who do it and who operate businesses, or are employed, to provide goods and services to those who do it.

I would not even insist that the activities in question result in a net profit to the public, since the infrastructure that those activities require (e.g. environmental protection measures) is no different from the pothole repairs that I require in order to live my urban life, and I don't expect to be charged user fees for pothole repairs -- or object to paying more than my "fair share" for them, based on my higher income. I would insist that the activities in question not *cause* an excess of problems that then require public contribution to remedy or result in irremediable losses to the public, what is "excessive" being a matter of opinion to some extent. Leaving lead shot in watercourses would be an example, exceeding limits another, and so on.

So ... since individuals are entitled to engage in subsistence activities or in employment to meet their own needs, or in profit-making activities, and communities are entitled to carry on their traditional way of life where it is consistent with the values of the broader society ... I don't object to hunting and hunting-related businesses at all, or to contributing to the infrastructure that they require.

And I recognize that the people involved in them are entitled to have and use firearms for those purposes.

Society, of course, is entitled to insist that they be properly trained and licensed in order to acquire and use those firearms, and that they register their ownership of them and not transfer them to anyone without the transfer also being registered, and that they use them in accordance with the appropriate rules, and store them safely and securely when they are not in use.

There *are* people around who would like to have those firearms for purposes that I, and society, do *not* have to recognize as a purpose they have a right to have them for. And a society *is* entitled to insist that the people who own and use firearms do so in a way that does not create a risk of harm to other members of the society. Much as society does for the cars that I and my fellow urban dwellers use in the exercise of our right to earn a living and so on.

One of my long-ago amours was a hunter, in a small town in Ontario. We had parted ways (and I had left the community) before the season began ... and I wouldn't have been invited anyhow; it was apparently more about male bonding than food acquisition. The weekend I was leaving town, I encountered one of my fellow members of the local bar staggering down main street with many brown bags full of liquids in bottles, and enquired whether he was planning a big weekend. "Goin huntin", he said. Well heck; the Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlet made some money, and employed somebody with it. None of which would have quite offset any death that might have resulted from their drunken shooting, however.

Sadly, my amour's depressed, disabled 13-year-old son had killed himself with one of his dad's hunting weapons the year before I arrived in town.

Hunting and hunting-related activities, for subsistence or as a business or employment, do produce economic and social benefits. They also carry inherent risks. Hunters, and the people who service them, are as subject to rules to reduce those risks as any of the rest of us are.

[IA_Seth]

103. A response...

First let me note that to compare hunting and drug-dealing is a stretch..sure, you can say that there are SOME people from both 'professions' that can be related for your purposes, but to me a much more accurate, and less inflammatory, analogy would be to compare sustenance hunters with people who sell their crafts at farmers markets or swap meets...

That aside, I am glad to see that you agree that hunting and hunting-related products and services benefit the outdoors and everyone that enjoys them. I don't see that we disagree.

I am NOT in favor of lax gun control laws, I am not in favor of allowing any tom, joe, or bob to buy any type of gun they want and store it however they want. I am in favor of smart, enforceable, and fair gun control laws that are the least obstrusive as possible while still yielding the same result - less gun deaths. I personally do not think that the 'style' of the gun, or how its dressed up, should be the deciding factor in creating an "assault weapons" ban. Instead, functionality should be the main factor. For example, a hand-grip on a rifle stock shouldn't make something illegal that would otherwise be legal... It's certainly not the handle that is going to be used in a crime.

There are others on this thread that would immediately dismiss any thoughts I have on gun control because I am not for getting rid of all guns, which I think is flat out ridiculous. What we need are enforceable regulations that will help get guns away from CRIMINALS and not law-abiding, safety-concious citizens.

In this regard I can't imagine we disagree?

[iverglas]

111. well, there we go

First let me note that to compare hunting and drug-dealing is a stretch ...

I *did* say:

The economic and social impacts of large-scale hunting and fishing activities in rural areas are generally rather more positive <than the economic and social impacts of drug dealing>. (I suppose I shouldn't engage in dry understatement in these circumstances, but forgive me.)

Perhaps it wasn't so much a case of forgiving me, as of not hearing what I was saying.

I "compared" hunting and drug dealing only in so far as both are examples of activities that individuals engage in to meet their basic needs. And I think I made that rather plain.

The *reason* for "comparing" hunting with an economic activity that is widely frowned on was to point out that whether someone else frowns on an activity really is not important.

You can compare subsistence hunters with swap-meeters if you like ... or with absolutely anyone else who engages in absolutely any other economic activity to meet their basic needs. That was pretty much my point. We start from the principle that individuals have a right to engage in such activities -- as an exercise of the right to life, for starters -- and then, if we wish to limit the exercise of those rights, we need to come up with some justification for doing so.

There may or may not be justification for prohibiting individuals from selling drugs in order to meet their needs. There does *not* appear to be justification for prohibiting individuals from hunting (or engaging in hunting-related economic activity) in order to meet their needs -- so long as they comply with rules for the protection of other people's interests -- regardless of what I or anyone else might think about what they do, and even if it produces no benefits for society at large at all.

There would have been little point in "comparing" hunting to some activity that has no adverse social or economic impact and that no one is likely to object to ... like swap-meeting or artisanry.

That aside, I am glad to see that you agree that hunting and hunting-related products and services benefit the outdoors and everyone that enjoys them. I don't see that we disagree.

That was pretty much my point, although I wouldn't make it quite as categorically. There may well be social and economic costs as well as, and above and beyond, the benefits. And where there are, there is a real issue as to who should bear them.

There are others on this thread that would immediately dismiss any thoughts I have on gun control because I am not for getting rid of all guns, which I think is flat out ridiculous.

Actually, I am not aware of anyone in this thread, or anywhere at DU generally, or in the world at large -- at least anyone serious whose ideas need to be paid attention -- who *is* "for getting rid of all guns", at least not in any sense other than the wishful thought that it would be nice if nobody had any guns. Not that this stops a lot of people in all those places from pretending there are, and busily hunting their straw quarry down and blowing it to smithereens.

What we need are enforceable regulations that will help get guns away from CRIMINALS and not law-abiding, safety-concious citizens.

And so, the laws most likely to be successful in achieving that end are plainly laws directed to the "law-abiding". After all, they're the ones who, kinda by definition, are most likely to obey them.

And that's why

- mandatory registration of firearms (which would be available legally only to those qualified for licences to own them), and
- mandatory standards for the safe/secure storage of firearms

-- both of which put the onus on the law-abiding to reduce the risks inherent in their own possession of firearms and transactions involving those firearms -- are the two linchpins of any successful effort to keep firearms out of the hands of those at most risk of using them to cause harm.

Funny how many "responsible" firearms owners don't seem to be willing to acknowledge their own role in creating that risk, or responsibility for reducing it, by agreeing to those simple, obviously crucial elements of any risk-reduction strategy.

[IA_Seth]

115. Simply put....

- mandatory registration of firearms (which would be available legally only to those qualified for licences to own them), and
- mandatory standards for the safe/secure storage of firearms



I agree with both.

[iverglas]

116. well there we DO go!

Ain't it amazing??

Of course I'm sure there are not a few related things we don't agree at all on, but two out of "x" isn't bad for a start.

I sure wish (for your own sakes, and for the sake of the people of Toronto currently being terrorized by gang-related firearms violence some of which involves firearms smuggled from the US, where they are relatively readily available as compared to Canada where they are hardly available at all) that the gun control movement in the US would put a little more focus on measures like these.

But then, they're hardly likely to get the NRA on board on either one ...

[iverglas]

118. oh, and btw

- mandatory registration of firearms (which would be available legally only to those qualified for licences to own them), and
- mandatory standards for the safe/secure storage of firearms

(assuming reasonable compliance levels) would actually go a fair distance to alleviating some of the social/economic costs that *are* associated with hunting activities, and that prompt some of the objections to those activities.

My former amour's son's suicide was one such cost. Harm to the associates of his drunken hunting buddies, and to the public at large (whether from "accidental" shootings or environmentally unsound harvesting practices or wilderness fires caused by incompetent hunters, etc.), is another.

[MrBenchley]

102. So in other words...

The gun industry and some allied companies make out like bandits and Iowa taxpayers get soaked...

Wow, that IS great!

[IA_Seth]

106. Where the hell do you get that?

And how, pray tell, do the Iowa taxpayers get soaked?

Iowa hunters pay tax on hunting supplies and fees...these extra taxes go to the Fed, who them re-disburses them to the states to fund a huge host of environmental and public-use initiatives.

When does the hosing begin...or are you just pullin that out of your ass?

[MrBenchley]

109. Didn't you read the link?

It costs Iowa taxpayers $30 million to run the DNR, and they get back less than $20 million in fees.

And that's BEFORE we start looking at home much Iowa taxpayers had to pony up to shuttle the hunters who got shot out of the woods to hospitals...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:gB-4U0IDLpIJ:www.iowadnr.com/law/files/04hunt.pdf+Iowa+hunter+shot&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And the same is true of other states.

In California, a numbnutz who got lost while hunting set the biggest fire in the state's history and killed 15 people...how many licenses will Califronia have to sell to make up for that, do you suppose?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/fires/20050311-9999-1n11hunter.html

[IA_Seth]

92. And some additional facts....

http://www.iowadnr.com/wildlife/files/huntcons.html

From a 'hunter propaganda site'...the Iowa DNR.

------

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
On September 2, 1937, at the urging of organized outdoor enthusiasts, state wildlife agencies, and the firearms and ammunition industries, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, known as the Pittman-Robertson or "P-R" Act, was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The bill was passed to extend an already existing 10% firearms and ammunition tax, but this time the money was earmarked for distribution to the states for wildlife restoration. Funds returned are based on a state's total hunting license sales and geographic size. The tax is now generally 11% of the manufacturer/importer price and includes handguns and archery equipment as well.

Over 60% of the funds available are used to buy, develop, operate and maintain wildlife management areas. Some estimates indicate that about 70% of the people using these areas are not hunting, and may be as high as 95% in some areas.

Half of the Iowa Wildlife Bureau's four million dollar budget is derived from "P-R" funding, and the remainder comes from hunting license and habitat stamp sales. Virtually all citizens in Iowa benefit from these funds--every angler, bird watcher, hiker, target shooter--any outdoor enthusiast who uses any of the 354 public wildlife management areas, public fishing lakes or river access sites. With few exceptions, these hiking trails, roads, parking lots, viewing areas, boat ramps, fishing jetties, restrooms, wildlife food plots, signs, native grass seedings and waterfowl nesting structures are managed and maintained y the wildlife bureau using "P-R" funds and license fees.

Wildlife management areas encompass over a quarter million acres for outdoor recreation, including river access to 10,400 miles of Iowa streams. In the last several years, more wetlands have been restored in Iowa than have been drained. Since 1987, over 900 wetland basins (4,100 acres) have been restored.

Wildlife reintroduction projects in Iowa are another big success story made possible through this program. Thirty years ago nesting Canada geese, wild turkeys, prairie chickens and river otters were a distant memory and deer hunting opportunities were limited at best. Today, Canada geese and wild turkeys nest across the state, providing some of the best recreational opportunities in the nation.

A very conservative number of professional wildlife personnel are quietly at work all year managing Iowa's wildlife resources carefully, and with sound scientific information, to ensure a bright future for Iowa's sportsmen and women. Without the fees paid through license and equipment purchases by the hunters, such wildlife programs would not be possible.

[MrBenchley]

104. And so hunting IS a drain on Iowa taxpayers...

and most of those who enjoy the land do NOT hunt...

[IA_Seth]

108. What part of this confuses you?

How is this a drain on Iowa taxpayers? Hunters and Anglers pay for services used by everyone... Hikers, bird-watchers, nature-lovers, etc do not pay a fee for use of our parks, they do not pay an extra tax on their products...

Hunters do. Fisherman do. The tax paid on hunting services and products pays for things that everyone can use...where the hell are you getting lost?

[MrBenchley]

110. No part of it confuses me...

The program costs more than it takes in, just as it does in every state I've ever looked at...

[sendero]

51. Fortunately...

... you aren't running the country. People who think they can stop law-abiding citizens from having what criminals are going to have anyway are just amusing.

[MrBenchley]

59. Yeah, so why not let the gun industry cash in...

"People who think they can stop law-abiding citizens from having what criminals are going to have"
Violent fantasy? A selfish, childish attitude? Total disregard for public safety?

So few people I know are daydreaming about being just like the average thug....

[sendero]

67. Your attempts to characterize..

.... those of us who believe in FREEDOM, in not letting YOUR LITTLE FEARS dictate what we CAN AND CANNOT OWN as some kind of gun nuts on a thug trip is downright freepish.

You can't fucking legislate the utopian world you wish to live in, so get used to the one we have.

It is downright hypocritical of folks who would bitch and moan about the PATRIOT ACT infringing on our freedoms to turn around and support draconian gun laws. As soon as you tell me how giving up my freedom to own a weapon for self defense is going to help me, you can have a gold star.

In the meantime, don't bitch about the Patriot Act.

[iverglas]

69. sir, yes sir!

As soon as you tell me how giving up my freedom to own a weapon for self defense is going to help me, you can have a gold star. In the meantime, don't bitch about the Patriot Act.

Someone obviously stepped waaaay out of line, here.

It must have been a foolish mistake, and I'm sure it won't happen again. I'm sure you can rest assured that your effort to dictate what other people may and may not say will be duly taken to heart.

Snork.

Your attempts to characterize.. .... those of us who believe in FREEDOM, in not letting YOUR LITTLE FEARS dictate what we CAN AND CANNOT OWN as some kind of gun nuts on a thug trip is downright freepish.

Hmm. I wonder what that total misrepresentation of what someone else said/thinks/is might be.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[sendero]

71. You folks...

.. cannot really make any argument other than "I don't like guns, there should be less guns".

There should be less of a lot of things, stupid people for example, but passing a law isn't going to hack it.

[iverglas]

76. in your dreams, chum

You folks... .. cannot really make any argument other than "I don't like guns, there should be less guns".

Or in your unsubstantiated allegations. Whatever.

I would note that you have no clue how I "feel" about firearms ... and might just mention that I don't actually "feel" anything about -- i.e., either "like" or dislike -- firearms.

Why on earth would anyone dislike -- or like -- an inanimate object??

I wonder whether I smell projection ... I have an emotional response to this inanimate object, ergo everybody else does too ... no, I have no evidentiary basis for such an assertion, and so *I* would never make it.

As to that other unsubstantiated allegation:

There should be less of a lot of things, ... but passing a law isn't going to hack it.

Got anything resembling fact or argument to back up that "because I sez so" thing there?

None having been presented, I'll be saying "is too!", as is the appropriate response to "is not!", and heading off for my din.

[sendero]

77. I don't get emotional..

.... about inanimate objects either, but at folks who want to tell me what I can and cannot own, yes, I take umbrage.

The FACT that you cannot control "contraband" (guns, drugs, you fucking name it) with laws is self evident to anyone who cares to look with the slightest bit of objectivity.

Gun laws dont' affect me, but the Dem's stance on guns has, it has put Republicans in office and I'm tired of this particular wedge issue - which has no value to the country but has served the Reps well.

And I'm tired of folks who are mired in the 70's thinking that brought us the backlash of Reagan and the subsequent slide rightward.

Reevaluate your positions, if only once a fucking decade.

[MrBenchley]

73. Speaking of those who are freepish...

Worth noting the the deranged specimens actually infesting Free Republic ALL peddle this ignorant "gun rights" crap...as does the KKK, the Aryan Nation and every bigoted or racist humhole that can be found.

[MrBenchley]

70. They're right on the money...

"hose of us who believe in FREEDOM"
Yeah, you and Crisco John....

"You can't fucking legislate the utopian world you wish to live in, so get used to the one we have. "
Surrender Dorothy!

Give me a fucking break. If gun ownership was freedom, Somalia would be paradise on earth.

[MrBenchley]

13. Yeah, deregulate the Reverend Moon and neoNazi Gaston glock....

and let the gun industry run wild and free like a rabid hyena...

By the way, it's no coincidence the lousiest administration in American history is pushing this "gotta getta gun" rubbish.

[Zorra]

18. Why do you say it is "no coincidence

the lousiest administration in American history is pushing this "gotta getta gun" rubbish."

What exactly do you mean by that?

[MrBenchley]

23. Don't you follow this issue?

"Kayne Robinson, former chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa, took over the duties of president on Saturday, including presenting Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with a flintlock rifle during a banquet. Heston was supposed to present Bush with the firearm.
Bush, the keynote speaker, credited the NRA with helping his brother, President Bush, win the 2000 presidential election.
"Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother may not have been president of the United States," Bush said. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/politics/main551275.shtml

"During the presidential election, the National Rifle Association's Kayne Robinson said, "If we win, we'll have a Supreme Court that will back us to the hilt. . . . If we win, we'll have a president where we work out of their office -- unbelievably friendly relations."
It appears that Robinson was right. At the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, George Bush's Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton gave an obstructionist speech, arguing the United States will not, "join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms." The speech could have been written by the NRA.
In addition, The Boston Globe reported this week that Attorney General John Ashcroft has changed the Justice Department's long-held stance on gun control; the Department's new position is that the Second Amendment protects an individual's -- not just militias' -- right to bear arms. Ashcroft, who is a member of the NRA, has changed the Justice Department's stance to match the gun lobby's. "

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=406

And Crisco John was so beholden to the gun lobby that he wouldn't let the FBI check to see if terrorists had bought guns, even after 9/11....

[Zorra]

42. So what you are saying is that republicans are for gun control because

it is an issue which gets them a lot of votes?

I was not clear on what "coincidence" you were referring to.

Actually, I fully agree with the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. A study of Constitutional signatories' personal opinions, taken from sources such as personal letters and statements regarding the ownership of firearms, makes it perfectly clear that they believed it was critical for the citizenry to remain personally armed in case the government ever got out of their control, and they had to revolt again.

I know this is a pet issue for some Democrats that grew up in cities and are scared to death of guns.

But, IMO, the gun issue is a major loser for Democrats. I grew up in a rural area and know a lot of single issue voters whose single issue is gun control. As far as I am concerned, Democrats should trump republicans here and call for suspension of almost all gun laws.

That is never going to happen, but it might win us some elections. Personally, I am a thousnd times more concerned about being enslaved or imprisoned by this extreme radical fascist government than I am about getting shot by some petty criminal.

[iverglas]

47. idle curiosity

"I know this is a pet issue for some Democrats
that grew up in cities and are scared to death of guns."

Are these identical sets?

Are all Democrats who grew up in cities scared to death of guns?

Are some Democrats who grew up on farms scared to death of guns?

Are no Democrats who grew up on farms scared to death of guns?

Are some Democrats who grew up in cities not scared to death of guns?

Are only Democrats who grew up in cities scared to death of guns?

Are some Republicans who grew up in cities scared to death of guns?

Is it being a Democrat or growing up in a city that makes someone scared to death of guns?

Are some Republicans who grew up on farms scared to death of guns?

I could go on and on, as I'm sure you notice, with questions that I am eager to know the answers to.

But I'll skip a few dozen, and get to the big one.

What the fuck would any of the answers, including the one you gave (which has to be an answer to some question or other, eh?), have to do with anything?

Unless, that is, you *are* asserting that, at least, that we have one set that falls entirely within another: Democrats who grew up in cities and advocate firearms control are all scared to death of guns.

That would be a strange and offensive thing to be saying, indeed, and yet I can think of no other reason for you to have said what you did say, which would otherwise have been of the utmost irrelevance ... and I sure wouldn't want to assume that anyone here was simply spewing irrelevancies into the discussion ...

By the way, can you point me to where you've advocated outlawing abortion and reinstating prayer in the public schools? Damn big vote-getters, they'd be. If you run out of ideas for that purpose, I'd be happy to suggest some more. There's really no shortage of things that could be proposed that somebody, no matter how vicious or stupid the proposal, will vote for.

[Zorra]

55. No, I don't advocate outlawing abortion, or forcing prayer in schools.

I don't like the drug war, and I am not a big fan of the fact that we are having our rights and civil liberties taken away faster than Bu*h can fill coffins in Baghdad.

I just don't believe that the gun issue is one that is worth losing elections over. We have way bigger fish to fry.

But to answer your question: From my personal experience, it appears to me that many people that have little or no experience/contact with firearms, are afraid of guns, and advocate banning firearms, are generally from urban areas.

OTOH, most folks that I know that grew up in rural areas, where almost everyone has guns, are not afraid of guns, and don't generally advocate banning firearms.

The point is, IMO, and in general, the people that have the least experience/contact with fireams are the people that want to ban them.

So you really didn't need to go into a dialectical fit over my (apparent) lack of logic. It was just a comment based on personal observation, and I don't really want to go hunting for a credible scientific study to back up my observations, because I don't know if anyone has cared enough to dxo a study on it.

If you want to take people's guns away from them, you have a right to your opinion. I just don't happen to like the idea.

[iverglas]

56. "lack of logic"?

Gee, and I'd thought it rather obvious that it wasn't any "lack of logic" that had prompted my query ...

I don't really want to go hunting for a credible scientific study to back up my observations, because I don't know if anyone has cared enough to dxo a study on it.

Hahaha. Well, "credible" you won't find, given that the theory you allegedly derive from your alleged observations is crap and nonsense. But you can always ask the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for some more crap and nonsense on the subject, should you feel the need.

If you want to take people's guns away from them, you have a right to your opinion. I just don't happen to like the idea.

Given that the "idea" in question is no one's but your own, one might suggest that you stop terrorizing yourself with it. Seems kinda pointless to me, but then maybe there's a delicious thrill in it for others ... or some other reason why someone would haul it out and thrust it into a discussion for no detectable reason ...

[MrBenchley]

66. Why not?

By the way, I love this peculair fixation so many of the trigger happy have that if only the rest of us played with guns, we'd become unable to resist their siren call and forget what the Consitution and the Courts have actually said about the Second Amendment.

[MrBenchley]

64. You will notice

the peculiar notion that the 85% of Americans who live in urbanized area are somehow less worthy than rural yokels with a gun fetish and a disregard for public safety and responsibiltiy.

[iverglas]

65. funny how that goes ...

Didn't I understand it to be votes that were being gone after?

And isn't it a matter of, like, the more of 'em, the better?

I dunno, maybe we just do things funny up here in the (even more heavily urbanized) great white north.

[MrBenchley]

68. It is a weird and disgraceful notion

that we ought to pitch out a core principle of the Democratic party in order to appeal to the unwashed lunatic fringe. We're supposed to believe that there are voters who
--don't care that we're in a war started by lies
--don't care that we're torturing people
--don't care that they don't have affordable health care
--don't care that the economy's in the dumper and their jobs are going overseas
--don't care that somebody's trying to steal their Social Security
--don't care that poison is being dumped in their air and water
--don't care that gay Americans are being deprived of basic civil rights
--don't care that the church/state wall is being torn down and the Constitution shredded
--don't care that Osama's still on the loose and that his influence is growing
--don't care that the GOP have alienated nearly every ally we've ever had
but DO care that somebody's going to "grab" their penis, er, gun?


What makes it especially preposterous is that if you want to throw out one of the Democratic party's principles, gun control would be about the worst choice, since even the GOP pays it empty lip service.

It's also wonderful to see how happily some people would piss all over the great mass of Democratic voters who DO support gun control just for the sake of a cheesy hobby.

[iverglas]

72. to complete your thought ;)

We're supposed to believe that there are voters who don't care that ... but DO care that somebody's going to "grab" their ... gun

... AND will suddenly decide to vote Democrat if only the Democratic Party sounds a little bit more like the Republican Party when it talks about guns ... even though said voters have absolutely no reason to stop voting for the Republican Party.

There being no credible explanation in the universe for anyone who actually gave a shit about the litany of problems you cite voting anything but Democrat in the first place.

[MrBenchley]

74. Exactly so...

[MrBenchley]

62. What a crock...

"Actually, I fully agree with the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment."
Too bad it's utterly dishonest. And the only time individual ownership of guns came up during the Constitutional debates was in Massachusetts during the ratification discussions there, and it was specifically rejected by the delegates.

By the way, if the NRA really believed the pantload it shovels to its inbred ignorant members, it would be in court trying to overthrow every gun control law in the country. But in fact, the NRA has never sued on Second amendment grounds--although it's quick to sue on other grounds. That's never as in not ever, anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

"I grew up in a rural area and know a lot of single issue voters whose single issue is gun control. "
Good job explaining the issues to them....NOT.

"Personally, I am a thousnd times more concerned about being enslaved or imprisoned by this extreme radical fascist government"
Now why would they bother you when you're industriously carrying water for one of their crackpot notions?

[iverglas]

17. now that's fascinating

Democrats should adopt philosophy similar to "laissez faire" economics with regard to gun control. No gun control. Nada.

And when did laissez-faire economics become Democratic policy ... or in any way consistent with the Democratic Party's principles?

Laissez-faire economics leaves vulnerable individuals and groups in positions of exclusion and exploitation, i.e. without any equitable share of the economic benefits of membership in society or equitable opportunity to increase their share.

Many laissez-faire other things can also have mutatis mutandis kind of effects on correspondingly vulnerable individuals and groups, I'd think was obvious.

Laissez-faire drinking water supply ... laissez-faire meat packing arrangements ... laissez-faire residential construction ...

If ya don't drink tap water or eat meat or buy a house to live in, you'll be all right, Jack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_All_Right_Jack
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm+all+right+Jack!
(the dang links won't work like this or as clickables; copy and remove the extraneous backslashes if yer interested)

1. I'm all right Jack!

(originally: "Fuck you, Jack, I'm all right!!" - described the bitter dismay of sailors ("jacks") returning home after wartime in the Navy to find themselves not treated as patriots or heroes, but ignored / sneered at by a selfish, complacent, get-ahead society - phrase was subsequently toned down for acceptable general use.)

Attitude of "every man for himself, survival of the fittest, devil take the hindmost", ... but also, that all the possible advantages (however gained), success (however won) and satisfaction (whatever the cost to others) belong to me first!" Narrow-focus, narrow-gauge pseudo-Darwinian selfishness glorified as a sensible philosophy of society and life.

Laissez-faire is a fine approach to many things that people do that are no one else's business and that affect no one else in a way that anyone can legitimately claim protection from (e.g. not just as an affront to anyone's delicate sensibilities).

It is indeed the classical "liberal" approach to things in general. However, I'm all right, Jack is not the modern-day USAmerican "liberal" approach to the protection of vulnerable members of society: laissez-faire economics is best and commonly called "neo-liberal" rather than "liberal" in that context.

Firearms ownership really is not something that is no one else's business and affects no one else, and there really are vulnerable members of society in need of protection in the scenario.

So me, I'm failing to see how a "laissez-faire" approach to firearms ownership would be any more consistent with Democratic Party principles than a laissez-faire approach to the safety of the food supply.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

52. Well, it's like this:

Our country has been taken over by dangerous RW extremists that are deliberately destroying America. They have taken over the inner mechanisms of government, including creating a highly centralized police agency. Not to mention controlling the electoral process, and in particular, the vote counting process. They are never going to relinquish control of the government through genuine democratic means, because those means no longer effectively exist.

Unfortunately, throughout history, dangerous, violent, irrational people have often gained control of governments. In fact, right at this very moment, our very own government is involved in a horrible, violent, illegal occupation of a sovereign country.

I abhor violence. But at the same time, I wish to retain some possible means of regaining my rights and defending my family and my country from tyranny if it should become necessary. Because it really can happen here.

It really is happening here. Everyone knows it except for a bunch of stupid republicans.

(BTW, I never said that "laissez faire" economics was a good thing at all, or consistent with Democratic Party principles in any way. It is not. In fact, I am for extreme regulation of large businesses and the breakup of all monopolies. It is, in fact, the possibility of powerful business interests becoming tyrants and someday taking over government that partly prompted the founders of this country to adopt the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution).

As far as Democratic Party principles go, I suggest that you read the Thomas Jefferson, widely considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party, and his thoughts on citizen ownership of firearms. You may be very surprised at how consistent citizen firearm possession actually is with genuine Democratic Party principles.

[iverglas]

60. hahahahaha

I suggest that you read the Thomas Jefferson ...

And there it is.

... widely considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party, ...

Yass. And widely known to have "owned" human beings as slaves, and sexually exploited at least one of them.

You may be very surprised at how consistent citizen firearm possession actually is with genuine Democratic Party principles.

As I'm sure "citizen slave possession" must be too then.

Surely you're as aware as I am that the "liberalism" of Thomas Jefferson bears not even passing resemblance to what is meant by "liberalism" in the modern USofA.

(The term basically retains its 18th century / "Jeffersonian" meaning in the rest of the world, so we progressives out here tend to get less confused, and are able to sneer at "liberals", as we do, without having to worry whether they're actually kinda social democrats dressing themselves up in funny names ... whereas folks where you're at sometimes have to consider the possibility that the person calling him/herself a "liberal" has his/her fingers crossed behind his/her back and is taking the secret oath to Jefferson.)

Speaking of I'm all right, Jack ...

Love Me, I'm A Liberal
by Phil Ochs

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 colored 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 A.F.L. C.I.O. 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


Sound a bit like a chorus old Tom might have joined in for?

Snort. Thomas Jefferson. An appeal to authority bites the dust.


Oh, by the way ...

"It really is happening here. Everyone knows it except for a bunch of stupid republicans."

... when shall I expect to see you on CNN taking on the brownshirts and jackbooted thugs of fascism, then?

In my (or your) dreams, maybe?

[Romulus]

94. umm, might want to reconsider the argument

A couple of dated views doesn't necessarily spoil the person's other important messages.

For example:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml

Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored

*incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions

*the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.

*placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct

Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for over 30 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves.

Otherwise, the anti-choice crowd's attack on Sanger is just as valid (as a matter of principle) as your attack on Jefferson.

[iverglas]

96. oh, what fun

Some of Sanger's views (which SHE rejected as time went on, by the way) --

*incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions

*the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.

*placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct

-- were, and were plainly, based on imperfect knowledge. "Science" wasn't then quite what it is now. And btw, it wasn't Sanger who made the laws that actually permitted coerced -- not voluntary -- sterilization of the "unfit". That was governments, both yours and mine. Sanger's views were actually moderate for their day. And given that their real motivation was the alleviation of human suffering -- e.g. by preventing the passing on of what was then the horrible and untreatable disease of epilepsy to another suffering generation -- she was actually quite "liberal" in all this.

I dunno; was slave ownership based on some imperfect understanding of something?

Seems to me it was based on greed. Sanger, conversely, didn't make much of a profit from her activities.

Planned Parenthood is a wuss. If someone expressed Sanger's views *today*, they would be objectionable -- very largely because they *are* outmoded. If we saw what Sanger saw, and knew only what Sanger knew, we might not think so at all.

"However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves."

I've no idea why you emphasized that so boldly. Did *I* disown *anything*?

Nope. I rebutted the assertion that something was good *because* Jefferson said it was. Appealing to the virtue of someone who expressed an idea as evidence of the idea's worth is no different from appealing to the vice of someone who expressed an idea as evidence of the idea's lack of worth. *I* am the one rejecting the notion that an idea should be judged according to the person who expressed it.

Otherwise, the anti-choice crowd's attack on Sanger is just as valid (as a matter of principle) as your attack on Jefferson.

You seem to have completely misunderstood what you so carefully copied and pasted.

The anti-choice brigade attacks Sanger in order to discredit the idea of reproductive rights.

I did no such thing. I attacked the effort to justify an idea by appealing to someone who expressed it. My attack on the idea is ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF the virtue or vice of anyone who expressed it ... and I suggest that anyone who wishes to support an idea should attempt to do so without appealing to the virtue of anyone who expressed it ... given how that can backfire so easily.

But now ... Sanger's ideas may be termed "objectionable and outmoded" ... but Jefferson's may not ... because ...???

[Romulus]

98. not how I saw it

I attacked the effort to justify an idea by appealing to someone who expressed it. My attack on the idea is ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF the virtue or vice of anyone who expressed it ... and I suggest that anyone who wishes to support an idea should attempt to do so without appealing to the virtue of anyone who expressed it ... given how that can backfire so easily.


I read the exchange as the other poster referring you to Jefferson's writings on the issue, and not saying that Jefferson's authorship made said writings or ideas untouchable.

If someone was referring me to a Jeffersonian writing on the social benefit of slavery, then I would consider said idea to be objectionable and outmoded.

But that's just my take on things . . .

[iverglas]

100. takes on things

If someone was referring me to a Jeffersonian writing on the social benefit of slavery, then I would consider said idea to be objectionable and outmoded.

There ya go, eh?

So the point of the other poster's referrence to Jefferson as "widely considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party" was ... what ... non-existent?

If someone referred you to a Jeffersonian writing on the social benefit of slavery while advocating slavery as a core Democratic principle and advancing Jefferson as an authority on the nature of core Democratic principles, what might you think then?

'Cause, like, that's what actually happened:

As far as Democratic Party principles go, I suggest that you read Thomas Jefferson, widely considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party, and his thoughts on citizen ownership of firearms. You may be very surprised at how consistent citizen firearm possession actually is with genuine Democratic Party principles.

As far as Democratic Party principles go, I suggest that you read the Thomas Jefferson, widely considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party, and his thoughts on citizen ownership of slaves. You may be very surprised at how consistent citizen slave possession actually is with genuine Democratic Party principles.

Yes, I would indeed. And I'd be about as persuaded by Jefferson on that point as I am on firearms issues.

See?

[MrBenchley]

105. By the way....

Funny how the "freedom loving" gun argument now wants us to bow down and obey long-dead authority instead of allowing us to use our freedom to think for ourselves.

[meow2u3]

22. I'd feel secure with a couple of Uzis under my pillow

Plus a few AK-47s stashed away in my closet. You never can tell when the Secret Police will come a-knockin' :hide:

[Renew Deal]

26. And you're going to go Ruby Ridge on their asses?

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

28. And with this post, the gungeon doors fly open

:hide:

:hi:

[Zorra]

53. Heh, yuh.

---:hide:---

[LittleWoman]

25. After the great NRA convention debacle

when they cancelled their supposed national convention after Columbus passed an assault weapon ban, I think this is more of a power play on the part of the NRA. They have been making some serious noise that leads me to think this is all about the NRA seeking to gain more political power. They want to extend their control well beyond the gun issue and own as many politicians as they can. I do not know about Ryan, but I think this is more about the NRA than Dewine or Ryan. Whenever I see Lapierre on tv I get the impression he is thinking about bigger and better things for himself. At the very least I think he wants to solidify his position as the power behind the throne. At the most I think he would like to be the power. This guy needs to be carefully watched!

[tk2kewl]

29. there's Hackett too

[Romulus]

30. great news

While the NRA generally supports Republicans, it is not averse to backing Democrats or staying out of races where there are no discernible differences between the Republican and Democratic candidates when it comes to the Second Amendment.

The gun-rights group last year supported Reps. Max Sandlin and Nicholas Lampson, both Texas Democrats, as well as Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.). Also, it stayed out of Senate races in Oklahoma and Louisiana, where both the Republicans and Democrats backed gun rights.

According to another DU'er, the NRA also backed the slate of NC Democractic lawmakers that swept into power during last year's elections . . . .

[Frances]

31. And the NRA did not campaign

against Mark Warner when he won the race for governor in Virginia (Mark Warner is a Democrat).

I joined groups for sensible gun control after Columbine, but I think it's important that white males once again see Democrats as strong men, not as wimps.

[MrBenchley]

33. Wow! Guess the letter they sent plugging Warner's opponent

doesn't count....or something...

"The National Rifle Association dubbed Republican Mark L. Earley "clearly a better candidate" for governor in a letter to its Virginia members yesterday, but it stopped short of endorsing Earley because of his vote in 1993 for the state law limiting gun purchases to one a month.
The strongly worded letter gave Earley a grade of A-minus and praised his support for a major new exemption to the one-gun-a-month law that would allow unlimited gun purchases for the 104,000 Virginians with concealed weapons permits. It gave Democrat Mark R. Warner a grade of C and noted the several changes in his gun positions over the years."

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/washpost10_26_01.cfm

Of course it's worth mentioning that on this issue, Virginia is a national disgrace....

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:EzUBqDHD_wcJ:www.csgv.org/document.cfm%3FdocumentID%3D296+Virginia+crime+guns&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53084-2004Jul15.html

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/9_29/commentary/30198-1.html

http://www.adl.org/mwd/huntclub.asp

[geek tragedy]

34. Guns is almost never going to be a good issue for us--just like

social security is never going to be a good issue for the Republicans.

If we can neutralize it, let alone have it work to our advantage, that is a giant advantage.

[MrBenchley]

36. Rubbish...

Voters overwhelmingly want gun control...

"If we can neutralize it"
How...by knuckling under to one of the most corrupt special interest groups around?

[geek tragedy]

37. The only voters who base their votes on the gun issue oppose gun

control.

[MrBenchley]

57. So they're okay with corruption, war and bigotry

as long as they get to play with their popguns...

What a swell bunch of fetishists...

And bear in mind, most of them hate Jews, blacks, gays and uppity women as much as they love them guns...

[geek tragedy]

61. Do you know any gun owners, or do you just like to demonize

entire segments of the population sight unseen?

Single-issue voters exist. They exist on both sides of the abortion issue, for instance. They exist on the issue of national defense.

Pissing all over them isn't going to help win any elections.

[iverglas]

63. So who was talking about "gun owners"??

Not YOU; you were talking about:

voters who base their votes on the gun issue

Is there some reason that you would pretend that someone who responded to what YOU said was talking about SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER??

Sometimes, I just despair for a world in which attention spans are so ... where am I? attention spans? what was that about attention spans?... short, that it was it.


Do you know any gun owners, or do you just like to demonize entire segments of the population sight unseen?

Having exploited this thread to indulge in my Phil Ochs obsession, I shall take the liberty of dragging Firesign Theatre into it:

Which would you rather do: hit that little old Jew over the head with this bag of shit, or beat out that rhythm on a drum?

Oh look! It's a false dichotomy!

Got any other real questions for us today?


Single-issue voters exist. They exist on both sides of the abortion issue, for instance. They exist on the issue of national defense. Pissing all over them isn't going to help win any elections.

Why am I failing to get a point here?

[MrBenchley]

75. But you're quite happy to piss all over

the Democratic base of support for the sake of your cheesy hobby.

"Single-issue voters exist."
So does the clap...that doesn't mean you need to snuggle up to every bunch.

[geek tragedy]

83. People dont' vote Democratic because of the gun issue, and they certainly

won't leave it in significant numbers if the party shrugs its shoulders at the issue.

[MrBenchley]

85. Sez you...

Meanwhile, those who do beat their meat over some imaginary threat to their guns ain't voting Democratic unless Strom arises from the grave and brings the Dixiecrats back with him. And that IS a fact, as a glance at any gun forum on-line will show.

[IA_Seth]

39. Oh yes, overwhelmingly....

And that is why its been such a winner for us.

[MrBenchley]

78. By the way...

What position did pResident Fuckwit PRETEND to hold during the election? Oh, yeah...he was pretending to be for gun control.

[iverglas]

41. well now *there's* a ringing endorsement!

A mailing assigning him a grade of "C" versus the "A-" given to his opponent ... now who would ever interpret *that* as campaigning against anybody?!

With neutral parties like that ... who needs Switzerland?

[geek tragedy]

43. One mailing isn't anything compared with what the NRA usually does.

Keeping the NRA's impact down to a minimum is just fine.

[MrBenchley]

80. They ARE the scum of the earth

During the last election, nobody did more to spread the Swift Boat slime more than the gun lobby...

"Keeping the NRA's impact down to a minimum is just fine."
Hell, why not oppose them?

[MrBenchley]

79. Another gun "fact"

that turns out to be total horseshit...try to contain your surprise.

[Frances]

84. The NRA stopped short of endorsing Earley

according to your post.

That's all I meant and it was enough to get some NRA members to vote for Warner according to news reports in the Post, if I remember correctly. Warner ran much better in the part of Virginia with lots of NRA members than anyone expected, as I recall.

[MrBenchley]

86. And it didn't fool anyone....

For that matter, at this time last year the NRA was pretneding it wasn't going to enbdorse pResident Turd....but at the same time they were peddling the Swift Boat slander to their inbred member every day. They even started their own internet radio station with a Limbaugh wantabe to get around campaign finance laws...

"Warner ran much better in the part of Virginia with lots of NRA members than anyone expected"
Feel free to back that up....

[iverglas]

40. yeah, funny thing about them

According to another DU'er, the NRA also backed the slate of NC Democractic lawmakers that swept into power during last year's elections . . . .

The slate of NC candidates in question was opposed by progressive organizations like trade unions.

As this particular DUer explained in some detail down in that gun dungeon you know so well. But in case you missed it (everybody does seem to, despite the number of people, yourself included, who posted in the thread), here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=107628&mesg_id=107959

I recommend reading it all, and of course the material linked to in the post. But for anyone with attention-span deficit, here are the highlights:

- the NRA endorsed Democratic candidates (like the sitting Governor) who were shoe-ins for election; what NGO with any sense wouldn't be able to figure out which side of its bread the butter is on, and butter it up a bit?

- the SEIU (which focuses heavily on health care issues) and the state employees' union targeted certain sitting Democrats because of their anti-labour records in relation to things like state employees' health benefits; why would the Bush-hugging NRA not support politicians like that?

As I said in that post:

In North Carolina, the NRA seems to have endorsed Democrats who were

- obvious winners and held positions not antithetical to the NRA's
AND/OR
- pretty strange Democrats who were opposed by progressive labour organizations

and all I can say is: quelle surprise.

... The Democratic endorsements issued by the NRA seem to have been determined by two factors:

- the Democrats were the likely winners
AND/OR
- the Democrats were opposed to various progressive policies

But hey, we can all go on pretending that the NRA was standing up for "liberal" principles if you like.

[geek tragedy]

44. I don't think anyone is saying that the NRA endorsement is a sign of

merit.

Rather, it's an extremely helpful thing for a Democrat to have going for him.

[iverglas]

46. that's nice

I don't think anyone is saying that the NRA endorsement is a sign of merit.
Rather, it's an extremely helpful thing for a Democrat to have going for him.

Or for her. Hahahaha.

It's just an unfortunate fact of life that there are some Democrats who don't have much else going for them, like the endorsements of organizations that actually speak in the public interest on issues like health care. Eh?

(While I speak as a foreigner and might be seen as speaking out of turn on such internal party matters, and do hesitate to do it, I'm not saying anything I wouldn't say at home, or being as the pot calling the kettle black. I advocated expulsion of a Member of Parliament in my own party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, from the party caucus earlier this summer, when she voted against the bill formally recognizing the right to same-sex marriage. Using a party's label to get one's self elected by a handful of one's cronies in one's own little bailiwick does not always make one a standard-bearer for the party's values.)

[geek tragedy]

48. Parties are less cohesive here than they are in Parliamentary

systems. Parties here depend on candidates, not vice versa.

[iverglas]

49. indeed

So we're agreeing that the fact that some politician is a "Democrat" does not necessarily make him/her a paragon of progressive virtue?

And so, the fact that the NRA has endorsed a particular "Democrat" is not necessarily something that would improve the NRA's standing in a Democrat's eyes ... or not cause said Democrat to look askance at said particular other Democrat?

Then I have to wonder why the fact that the NRA endorses the occasional "Democrat" is hauled out for our edification -- without any further critical analysis -- with quite such tedious regularity.

[geek tragedy]

54. What is significant here is that Tim Ryan IS a true Democrat who

is a paragon of progressive virtue.

The gun issue is a relatively unimportant issue for Democrats when compared to issues like abortion, Iraq, privacy, social security, etc etc

[Romulus]

93. nice conspiracy theory

"The Democratic endorsements issued by the NRA seem to have been determined by two factors:

- the Democrats were the likely winners
AND/OR
- the Democrats were opposed to various progressive policies"

But it falls flat (as Fox Mulder would say, "I WANT to believe . . .")

Occam's Razor brought to bear on this discussion would point to this explaination as being the most likely: the NRA seems to have endorsed Democrats who . . . held positions not antithetical to the NRA's.

Well, that's the simplest (and therefore, most likely, IMO) explaination of why those candidates were endorsed . . . I am sure that every candidate has some group, somewhere, that opposes the candidate because of a difference in policy positions. Did incumbency play a role? Probably. But incumbency isn't enough to hang your hat here.

The NRA seems to endorse a lot of candidates that do indeed lose, and whose endorsement goes completely against the predominant political establishment. For example, in the last MD race for US Senate, the NRA endorsed EJ Pipkin, who was challenging incumbent Barbara Mikulski. Mikulski won the election something like 60/30 in her favor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/md/

Barbara A. Mikulski * (D) 1,385,009 65%
E.J. Pipkin (R) 725,898 34%
Maria Allwine (Green) 21,974 1%

The NRA also made a big deal about the PA governor's race, but their candidate lost there, too.

We should be happy that the "D" candidate gets elected, whether or not they fit into someone's personal definition of "progressive." For example, we (you and I) disagree on whether laws against self-defense with firearms are "progressive." Would that make me vote against national health insurance, or state-level pre-K programs? The answer is no.

The principle that determines an NRA endorsement is the candidate's stance on private firearms ownership (and, to a lesser extent, hunting rights), not the candidate's view of eminent domain, NAFTA, reproductive choice, or gay marriage.

However, from a quick perusal of the NRA Political Victory Fund's "news" links, (http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Default.aspx) it is true that the NRA political donation wing often seems to be little more than a regurgitprop outlet for the Republican Party. Exhibit 1: link to a Weekly Standard article about John Kerry not releasing his military records; Exhibit #2: link to a Wash Times article on Rick Santorum's new book; and Exhibit #3: a link to National Review article on the book "The Truth About Hillary" (Clinton). None of these stories have anything to do with private firearms ownerhip or hunting.

Anyway, Dave Kopel has a good summary of the various 2004 races and the endorsements:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Key-Second-Amendment-Races-2004.htm

Or you could go to the source:

http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/Archive_2004.aspx

[MrBenchley]

112. Wow...the Nazional Review's Dave Kopel?

Well, now I'm convinced that this is a bipartisan issue....NOT.

"The NRA seems to endorse a lot of candidates that do indeed lose"
Hell, in a lot of states, an NRA endorsement is the kiss of death...

And a lot of those they DO endorse are spectacular fuckwits...you might recall Tom Alciere, who publicly called for cops to be shot....

[David__77]

32. Progressives should favor gun rights, unreservedly.

I oppose the ban on assault rifles, for instance. The right to bear arms is not for "sporting," but for self-defense and sovereignty.

[MrBenchley]

35. Rubbish...

There's nothing at all progressive about "gun rights"...it's the childish desire to shoot somebody and get away with it.

Take a look at the Second Amendment Caucus in Congress..not just Republicans, but shi'ite Republicans.

"One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.
And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater.
Within two years, the Gun Owners of America organization appeared with its leadership roots in the John Birch Society. Thirty years later, the group remains true to its mission, a watchdog group making sure the gun rights movement stays on course, fulfilling its reactionary conservative mandate."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

[iverglas]

45. well shite, man!

"One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to 'reverse the flow in the pipes' of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun."

And of course there are always some Democrats eager to embrace it too ...

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/AndrewGlass/041905.html

In 1966, Maryland Democrats nominated George Mahoney, a paving contractor, as their candidate for governor. It was his fourth try for that office, atop two earlier failed bids for the U.S. Senate.

Mahoney targeted the good-ol’-boys vote. His campaign slogan — “Your home is your castle” — left no doubt against whom he wanted to flood the moats. In November, Baltimore County Executive Spiro Agnew beat Mahoney, with plenty of help from disaffected Democrats. Two years later, Richard Nixon chose Agnew as his running mate.

So many lessons in such a short tale.

Mahoney got the nomination in the first place because of a vote split -- but one of the leading contenders against him, a sitting elected Democratic representative, was a strong supporter of 60s gun control efforts.

Liberal Democrats DID vote Republican when the Democratic Party/candidate betrayed their values.

... And the country ended up with ... Richard Nixon.

Those who do not remember the past, and all that. Of course, one does have to wonder who might be remembering what sometimes ...

[Jack_DeLeon]

50. Thats great news, we need more elected pro-gun democrats...

down in my neck of the woods, our long time representative is pro-gun.

[Lefty48197]

81. Don't bet on the NRA endorsing any Democrats

the best they can do is to offer a "neutral" opinion on this possible election. They just can't bring themselves to support a Democrat in a contested election.

[hollowdweller]

82. I beg to differ my friend!

TOP RECIPIENTS OF NRA PAC MONEY
1/1/89 through 12/31/98

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska/At Large) $45,350
Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif./51) $44,600
Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif./4) $43,750
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va./1) $43,100
Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va./3) $42,350
Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind./6) $40,850
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va./9) $40,150
Rep. Earl Hilliard (D-Ala./7) $40,150
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C./11) $40,150
Rep. Pat Danner (D-Mo./6) $36,650


The republicans get more support because they are for gun rights. However the Dems who are pro gun get support too. Rahall, who is my rep is #5 on this list and he is pro environment, pro labor, wasn't really for the war has gone to the mid east numerous times to meet with various arab leaders to try to work things out.

Rahall shows what we Dems need to win. He is very strong on individual liberties and international cooperation, with a stong social safety net, and he gets elected every time.

[MrBenchley]

87. Wow, there's an ace to draw to...

Mollohan is anti-choice AND anti-environment...

But its hilarious to hear that Kerry, Schumer, Dean, Clark, etc. aren't the mainstream of the Democratic party, but two obscure goobers from West Virginia ARE.

[OzarkDem]

90. Temper the enthusiasm, please

Dems have few enough seats in the House as it is. Ohio Dems need to look very carefully at vacating any seats in Congress to allow a member to run for the Senate.

Don't get me wrong, Tim Ryan is the greatest. But the added cost of funding a campaign for a Dem to fill 'sRyan seat on top of the cost of the Senate race (and you know R's will put a lot of money into keeping DeWine) has to be looked at carefully, not to mention the risk of losing Ryan's seat to an R.

[zorro349]

97. You won't have to worry

about Ryan's seat going to a Republican. His district is Warren/Youngstown area of Northeast Ohio. Its 3:1 Dem to republican.

Zorro

[OzarkDem]

99. Its also a strange area

where anything can happen. Don't forget it was also redistricted a few years ago and isn't as safe as it used to be.

I LOVE Tim Ryan, though.

[davidinalameda]

101. this is good news

let the NRA put its money where it's mouth is and endorse a Democrat in an important Senate race

I do believe that the heads of the freepers who make up its membership would implode, and to quote Martha, that's a good thing

[MrBenchley]

107. Let's not forget, though...

that last year at this time the NRA was publicly claiming it had not decided to support pResident Turd (even while it was spending a fortune to peddle the Swift Boat crap far and wide)...

[davidinalameda]

113. I know

but I rather have a pro-gun Democrat rather than an anti-gun Repuke

[MrBenchley]

114. Me too...

I just doubt the NRA....

[davidinalameda]

117. I do as well

but it will be fun holding their feet to the fire over this one though