Obama attempts to reach out to the NRA, gets snubbed and then slapped in the face

[Cali_Democrat]

Does Obama actually think it's possible to reach out to these people? They aren't interested in substantive policy discussions when it comes to gun control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html

N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: March 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — More than two months after the Tucson shootings, the administration is calling together both the gun lobby and gun safety groups to find common ground. But President Obama has no plans to take the lead in proposing further gun control legislation, aides say, and the nation’s major gun rights group is snubbing the invitation.

The effort follows Mr. Obama’s call, in a column on Sunday in a Tucson newspaper, to put aside “stale policy debates” and begin “a new discussion” on ways to better enforce and strengthen existing laws to keep mentally unstable, violent and criminal people from getting guns.

But the National Rifle Association, for decades the most formidable force against proposals to limit gun sales or ownership, is refusing to join the discussion — possibly dooming it from the start, given the lobby’s clout with both parties in Congress. Administration officials had indicated they expected that the group would be represented at a meeting, perhaps on Friday.

“Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” said Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of the National Rifle Association.

Read more...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html

So not only do they reject Obama's request, but they also accuse folks in the Administration of trying to destroy the second amendment. They specifically name Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton. The NRA doesn't give a shit about the thousands of Americans that die from gun deaths each year.

[CanonRay]

1. Sensible gun law revision

would take the teeth out of the NRA's endless pitch for money and membership, so they want a continual fight, not a common sense solution.

[oneshooter]

93. " Sensible gun law revision" please tell me what that is. n/t

[VoteProgressive]

2. I have my carry concealed license and HATE and DESPISE the NRA....

Many liberal gun owners hate them. They are right wing nuts.

[Pullo]

23. The NRA did have a lot to do with the spread of "shall issue" state gun laws ....

Still, a lot of their rhetoric and other things are cringe-worthy, I agree.

[VoteProgressive]

42. Th pro-gun stuffl I am ok with. The pro-right wing I am not.

[rl6214]

64. I can agree with you there

that has no place in a gun organization.

[cleanhippie]

29. Perhaps, but you can thank them for that CCW license.

They are THE driving force behind you being able to have that.

[VoteProgressive]

40. Not worth the $200 million they spent to defeat Obama.

[cleanhippie]

47. Look at it as wasted money. With Obama's recent Op-Ed on Gun Control, they may become allies.

:shrug:

[rl6214]

65. And where did all that money get them?

Right.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Not mine. The NRA did not bring shall-issue CPL program to my state.

Totally unrelated.

This was just brazenly stupid of the NRA. No further olive branches will be offered.

[hack89]

31. So they fight for your civil rights

which you then proceed to exercise daily, yet have nothing but contempt for them? Ok.

[VoteProgressive]

41. They could do the same thing without having Mike Huckabee as their keynote speaker.

[rl6214]

63. You have your concealed carry thanks to the efforts of the NRA

They support quite a few democrats, they just happen to support more repubs because of their traditional pro gun platforms.

[Autumn]

3. Rattlesnakes will strike out and bite you

that's why you don't try to pet them.

[ProSense]

4. Here's a much better headline

Think Progress: NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Doesn’t Want You To Know He Agrees With Obama On Guns

[bluestateguy]

5. This is typical Obama

Try to make nicey nice with people who hate you, and then get slapped in the face anyway.

And yet if the NRA would take 5 minutes to look at the facts, they'd find that this Administration is more pro-gun than the Clinton White House and maybe even the Bush White House too.

[X_Digger]

22. Now that Biden (author of the '94 AWB) is involved.. look for it to go downhill. n/t

[hack89]

25. All Obama has to say is that the AWB or any other gun ban is off the table

and then your point would be true. Lets not forget that renewing the AWB is still part of the Democratic Party's platform.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Bush was extremely pro-gun.

He pushed for and got the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. Obama voted against it.

[Ter]

108. In 2004 he supported an extension of the AWB

He also did nothing about illegal draconian gun laws. Hardly "extremely pro-gun" if you ask me.

[Atypical Liberal]

84. Really?

Go check out www.change.gov under urban policy.

President Obama campaigned on re-instating the Assault Weapons Ban.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

13. Okay, but then you also need to turn in your computer.

And go back to hand-set printing presses for your free speech. :eyes:

Seriously, ideas and logic this bad give Dems a bad name.

[Evolve_Already]

18. Please enlighten us.

Give us your version of logic.

Explain in a coherent manner why everyone should be packing.

Psssssst. Computers don't have the potential to kill.

Let me rephrase. Computers are not manufactured to kill.

[hack89]

26. Sure

1. The RKBA is an enumerated civil right

2, There are several requirement before the government is allowed to restrict a civil right. One is to demonstrate a real public hazard. The second is to demonstrate that the restriction will actually fix the problem.

3. Gun violence is at historic lows with steady and dramatic annual declines since the early 1990's. You have never been safer.

4. In the same time gun ownership has skyrocketed and gun laws relaxed to permit more people to carry in public.


So if population is up, number of guns is up and gun laws are laxer YET gun violence is steadily declining and by every indication will continue to decline it is impossible to argue that more guns poses a threat to the public. You can't even argue that the present number of guns represent a problem that needs to be fixed since there does not appear to be a logical connection between the number of guns and violent crime.


Show us your logic - prove to me that more guns represents a threat.

[Evolve_Already]

58. Oh wow

There obviously is a canyon size impass between folks like you and me. In lieu of me rattling off all the stats to state my case, when you get a chance, check out The Gun Guys.

[gejohnston]

78. I have

Read them. Propaganda front for Brady et al with the same canards and bogus statistics. So I will see your intellectually dishonest Carrie Nation like moral crusade and raise you peer reviewed studies by professionals.

One book, articles, and something interesting about Mexican Drug Cartels:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QXeGX67ezSYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=gary+kleck&ots=nUxSBocsNy&sig=VlnGKH6bJDnl-h0MWNmJK-RMiJk#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959104576081910062180664.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/mediaplayer/2009winter_kleck.html

http://hnn.us/articles/871.html
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/encyclopedia/CanadianGunControl.pdf
http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp

Yeah, they site they are on is advocacy but read it anyway

http://www.saf.org/TribeUSA.html
http://www.foac-pac.org/law-reviews/151-kates-gun-control-separating-reality-from-symbolism-
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/53-2nd.pdf
http://www.saf.org/journal/other/kessler-id.pdf

Because it does not change it was written by these guys and their studies.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/vitae/GKleck.pdf
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
http://faculty.sulross.edu/rkessler/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates

[hack89]

79. No - if you can't rationally support your point of view

why should I care what you think? Be honest - besides emotional outrage you have no actual facts. There are no stats to support your case.

The Gun Guys are exactly the same - they ignore the inconvenient fact that gun violence is dropping and more guns have not made America more dangerous. They also ignore the fact that CCW carries are demonstrably more law abiding than the general public, including cops. Instead they flame emotions by cherry picking data and posting inflammatory stories.

[Evolve_Already]

81. Oh Jesus you guys are so right

I was at the park the other day and saw a little dood bullying a little girl. I was thinking "only if she has a gun to protect herself".

Guns for all and all for guns! This will be my new motto. Thanks doods, for shedding light on this topic for me.

[hack89]

88. No - we just have hard fact behind us

we also know that Americans can be trusted to exercise their civil rights responsibly. You have surrounded yourself with irrational fear that appears to be clouding your judgment - if you have to resort to hyperbolic strawmen then perhaps your argument is not as solid as you think. No one has ever argued for guns for everyone - don't forget that the NRA help craft the NICS system.

[cleanhippie]

96. Quite possibly the most absurd post of the day.

When you can check you emotions at the door and are ready to have a rational conversation, let us know.

[X_Digger]

60. Many rights have inherent dangers.

The exercise of rights protected by the fourth and fifth amendments means that a large number of guilty criminals will go free.

Yet no court has ever held that such dangers are prima fascie justification for infringing on a right.

[rl6214]

67. I don't "tote" or "pack"

I carry concealed. Your stupid attempt at an insult is just...Stupid!

And to say computers don't have the potential to kill is just, well, stupid.

The pen is mightier than the sword and used incorrectly can be just as dangerous. It makes absolutely no difference what it is manufactured to do, it is the intent in how it is used.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. All my guns are broken then.

Also, computers can be used to kill. They can be used to control mechanical systems that cause injury or death, or they can be a medium to exhort others to kill for you.

[cleanhippie]

30. Your language...seems so familiar....could it be?

SOCK PUPPET????????

[Evolve_Already]

57. simmer down with the caps ok?

I have no effin idea what you are yelling about.

[cleanhippie]

89. Hahahahaha! yes you do.

OMG, SOCK PUPPET!!!!!111!!

[X_Digger]

44. They certainly knew about a rifle with a 20 round magazine..

.. that fired at velocities similar to 45acp.

google girandoni rifle.

[gejohnston]

48. Ummmm

Actually they did. That was the point. The original intent was two fold. 1)individual natural right of self defense, a new concept like much of the enlightenment. 2)no standing army in peacetime (but have standing navy and air force, if it existed) and have a military system kind of like Switzerland's. As you know, Switzerland has the most house holds with assault rifles capable of fully automatic fire, while being fourth in guns in household rate (the order is according to the latest UN study: Finland, US, Norway, Canada, Switzerland). Now the number of privately owned firearms per capita is a matter up for debate. It could be US, Canada, or New Zealand depending on the study.

[rl6214]

66. Stupid post of the thread #1

You lose points for "Muskets for all" and you lose points for "toters".

[Evolve_Already]

80. So?

Not very concerned about losing points with you. We do not know each other. But I betcha if we were to sit down and have a drink together, or play a round of golf or whatever.... we could find common ground on this issue.

[oneshooter]

94. How about a round of skeet? Or a 80rd Garand match? n/t

[Glassunion]

97. I'm not disagreeing with anyone, but can I come?

Sounds fun.

[Duende azul]

7. By now he should know, how this attempts to reach out to crazies end.

But you have to acknowledge his tough. He does it again and again.

[rl6214]

68. Hey, can I ask you a question?

You have impeach Bush on your post, you have been a member since 2008, he has been gone since 2008, WHY?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Obama's getting all Obama on them. He's addressing common sense gun control.

He went after DADT with the same measured, systematic, knock out the opposing argument one leg at a time way. In spite of people bitching and moaning every step of the way, how'd that work out? Oh that's right, DADT was repealed.

[gejohnston]

27. define reasonable?

We have five federal gun laws on the books now. Then there are many local and state laws, many of which are stricter than most of Europe. Before you start the "reduce crime, because I think it should be" nonsense, let me point out that no gun control laws do not have not ever reduce crime. Anti gun groups know this as well. In fact every Brady and HCI rant is contrary to history, objective criminology research, and basic scholarship. What is the price of giving in to intellectually dishonest astro turf band of moral crusaders who believe (if you read their propaganda closely) that defending yourself from a violent attack is morally reprehensible? The destruction of the FDR coalition because some holier than thou suburbanite got on the TV decried these same people were blood thirsty rednecks that needed to be civilized. Yes, snobbery and cultural imperialism is your motive, not public safety. Most of those farmers and union workers are hunters and gun owners are being expected to pay for the excesses of Wall Street by the right while you expect us to pay for crimes we do not commit and your irrational fears.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Here's three:

#1. Close the gun show loophole.
#2. Bar the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
#3. Semi-automatic weapons ban.

[Hoopla Phil]

51. And there in lies the rub. None of those are reasonable.

1. Congress has no ability to regulate non-commercial sales of firearms.
2. Congress has no ability to regulate arms that are of common use nor readily usable to the militia.
3. See number 2.

This is why anti's have lost the battle over "common sense" or "reasonable" gun control. When it comes to specifics there is nothing "common sense" nor "reasonable" about it.

[gejohnston]

53. but

1) "gun show loophole" is just another propaganda buzz word created by Josh Sugarmann like "assault weapon". A dealer must follow all of the laws at a show. The reference is really one time individual sales. According to professional criminologists, this is not a source for the black market.

2) Other than an emotional knee jerk reaction to a tragedy, what is the point? If a target shooter wants to use one at the range, why not? They are not good for police or civilian self defense because the they malfunction a lot (Before you come up with "civilians have no need..." please read more Locke and Paine, or you are just another authoritarian pretending to be a liberal.) Define high capacity? Do you get to pick some arbitrary number or just to what the gun was designed for? If you get to pick the number 10 for pistols, does grandpa go to prison for his WW2 Browning P-35 that he carried on Juno Beach? If you think criminals are running wild with them, no.

3) Do you know what semi automatic means? a Ruger 10/22? Your grandpa's WW2 M-1 carbine? Your neighbor's SKS, which is popular with American and Canadian deer hunters? Scary looking Kalashnikov knock-offs? To quote Mr. Sugarmann: Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. — Josh Sugarmann.
From everyone's favorite right winger: "In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

A true compromise includes my side getting something in return. Don't worry, nothing over the top like repealing the Pistol's Act of 1927.
1)You get to explain why wreck the FDR coalition again. Those farmers and union members in Wisconsin, they are gun owners and pro gun folks too.
2)How about removing silencers from National Firearms Act of 1934, and regulate them the same way they are in France, New Zealand, Norway, and Finland.
3)The NRA replaces Eddie Eagle with New Zealand Mountain Safety Council's "Billy Hook".
4)The Anti gun lobby has to become start using peer reviewed research with citations with with any of their propaganda. If intellectual dishonesty is required to push your cause, the cause is not worth fighting
5)families of crime victims can bring a wrongful death suit against Brady et al if the victim followed their advice of submitting to their attacker rather than resist.
6)Any politician that votes for safe storage laws can be prosecuted for depraved indifference when ever a home invasion that ends in murder that could have been prevented if a gun were accessible. Google "Jessica Carpenter Merced Califorinia 2000"
7)Anti gun celebrities who are hypocrites need to surrender their CCWs, sell their guns, and fire their armed body guards. This includes Mike Moore, Dianne Feinstein,Carl Rowan, and Rosie O'Donnell.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Not even close to reasonable or appropriate

All are also illegal at some level

[X_Digger]

56. LAWL!

You do realize that..

#1 isn't in the purview of the federal government (intra-state as opposed to inter-state commerce)

#2 didn't do shit from 1994-2004. Einstein had something to say about doing the same stupid shit again, expecting a different result

#3 Dear, that's guns over 100 years old. In your wildest wet dream, maybe.

[rl6214]

69. How about no

#1 There is no gunshow loophole. Dealers have to run checks, private sellers don't. Name it the "Every private sale needs a background check" law. But that won't work because that would mean you have to give every private citizen access to the NICS. That would be an unlawful invasion of privacy giving that much information to everyone.

#2 Loughner is the only one that has used a hi cap mag in a mass shooting and his malfunctioned when trying to reload. If he had standard 10 round mags like the Va Tech shooter, Cho, he would have been able to get off 170 shots, reloading 17 times killing 32. Those hi cap mags suck because they are unreliable, that's why cops don't carry them.

#3 Semi-auto ban? Why? Who is going to confiscate them and when that is done the government will definately go bankrupt because they must be paid for at the going rate. That's the law, you knew that, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Obama suggested none of those.

Nor are they 'reasonable'.

[Abq_Sarah]

98. Semi-Automatic weapons ban is "reasonable"?

Uh-huh.

Before we can have a discussion on what's "reasonable" we all need to be knowledgeable about the subject under discussion.

Semi-autos aren't machine guns. They don't spray bullets. One trigger pull = one round fired.

[AtomicKitten]

90. nana nana boo boo

:P

(I'm a latte drinking, Birkenstock wearing, medicinal marijuana imbibing San Franciscan who couldn't care less about guns (oh, other than thinking some Americans have an almost infantile obsession with them that precludes common sense and safety).

Knock yourself out gun-toters.

[gejohnston]

91. That's nice

I am a beer and fine wine drinking, tree hugging, country boy from Wyoming trapped behind the Cornbread Curtain in the south. I drink Turkish coffee, although when I was in Oman, I developed a taste for their coffee with cardamom and clove flavor. Tell Fisherman's Wharf hi for me.

[AtomicKitten]

102. Will do.

Interesting story on the sea lions on the wharf:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/disappearing-sea-lions/
http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/sea-lions-believed-to-be-south-or-maybe-north-in-oregon/

[rl6214]

100. No such thing as a gun-toter, jackwagon

Open carry or concealed carry, toter is for someone that wants to sound assinine.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[oneshooter]

95. Please define" common sense gun control". n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. That Silly Charlie Brown. Will he never learn? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Yep

Exactly like Charlie Brown.

[Pirate Smile]

11. "Obama’s decision to invite the NRA for talks was exactly the right one."

The ‘bully pulpit’ fallacy

By Adam Serwer

-snip-
I think liberals too often call for “top-down” leadership when what’s really required is an effort to create the political conditions where such leadership can be effective. As Brendan Nyhan notes, the legend of Ronald Reagan has given a number of people — including the president — the mistaken impression that the “bully pulpit” is often an effective tool for moving public opinion. Nyhan notes that Reagan’s pollster actually told him that his high-profile speeches were “likely to lower his approval and generate more public and congressional opposition than support.” In other words, “muscular White House leadership,” in the sense of using the bully pulpit to rail against gun violence, is likely to be more counterproductive than helpful, even in service to the very timid reforms Obama was suggesting.

Obama’s decision to invite the NRA for talks was exactly the right one. Extending an invitation to the NRA sends the message to gun owners that their carefully-stoked panic about Obama “taking your guns” is unwarranted.

The problem, as Greg and I have both pointed out , is that the NRA has a political incentive not to tamp down the panic at all. Paranoia about “sweeping gun control legislation” is part of how they’ve become so powerful. Meeting with the NRA might have created the conditions for reinforcing the background check system, but it also would have diminished their influence. So NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre snubbed him publicly, despite their substantive agreement on the core gun control question — whether to focus on people or on guns.

But none of this really suggests that what is needed here is for Obama to get as belligerent as the NRA. Escalation from the White House would only play into the NRA’s hands — the organization would seize on Obama’s aggressiveness to feed the false impression that he’s some sort of gun control hardliner. What really needs to happen is that groups advocating for gun control need to step up their game and create political conditions that will make it politically harder for the NRA to snub Obama the next time he extends a hand of compromise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-bully-pulpit-fallacy/2011/03/04/ABpVRVk_blog.html

[JoePhilly]

12. So when Obama uses the "Bully Pulpit" and the right rejects him ...

parts of the left STILL bitches.

Big surprise.

[TheWraith]

14. Yep. They'll whine and moan no matter what.

If he tries to negotiate, they'll call him weak. If he tries to push something through, they'll complain that he wasn't "using the bully pulpit." If he just does nothing but feed the base and attack Republicans' policies, attitudes, families, and table manners, they'll attack him for getting nothing done.

[JoePhilly]

15. I call it the "Outrage Machine" ... its runs 24/7.

Does not matter what Obama does or what he says, or doesn't say ...

If a WSJ OP-ED says Obama should do something, that's a reason to scream.

An unnamed official might have said something, scream ...

Each week a new outrage. And if there is not something specific, we get endless, OPs declatring that "Obama disappoints me".

If DU was larger, one could get rich manufacturing "fainting couches".

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Attempting to reach out to the NRA is not using the bully pulpit

If he truly used the bully pulpit, he would be explaining to Americans that thousands of our citizens die needlessly from gun deaths and it's time we take a stand by introducing new laws. Bully pulpit? Not at all.

[Katya Mullethov]

28. It's time to close the GunWalking loophole

Cops are dying .

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Ban the BATFE

;)

[cleanhippie]

32. He should use the bully pulpit to inform Amercian like you that despite the highest level of gun

ownership in this country, gun crime is at it LOWEST is 40 years and continues to decline.

Then, perhaps, we would not have fine citizens like yourself spouting their ignorance for all to see.

[vaberella]

16. You're title for this post is a joke.

Everyone knows that if any sort of gun passes, it's by NRA involvement. They have way too much and too much clout not to engage them. They are the ones that stopped and shut down any sort of gun control before. And you get up there on your pulpit and bitch. My God! Anyway, obviously he's making moves to look over the 2nd amendment and see where changes might work.

[ClarkUSA]

17. What a ridiculously overblown OP title. The NY Post couldn't have done worse.

Here's a better one because it reflects the FACTS of the situation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=631593&mesg_id=631598

[polichick]

19. Big surprise - any 5 year-old could've guessed that outcome.

[amandabeech]

21. The NRA will never give any support to any initiative of any Dem President.

So why waste time on them?

There is far too much else to do that is much more important, like jobs and the economy, and it's not happening in Rio, BTW.

[rl6214]

75. If a dem president were to

denounce the AWB, repeal the machine gun ban, enact a nationwide concealed carry law I guarantee that he would get an A rating and solid support of the NRA.

[Factoid]

82. I don't think so,

Were that to happen, the NRA would lose a lot of funding money as there wouldn't be much reason for people to donate to them.

The NRA loves to have people in high places clammoring for bans and ridiculous laws, that way they can send out a ton of mail to it's members and reap the fear-dollars.

I like what the NRA does for safety classes and training, but despise the NRA-ILA for it's constant fearmongering.

[hack89]

24. I see the NRA's point.

Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants a big pow-wow so he can say he is doing something yet refuses to propose actual legislation because he knows that gun legislation seen as restricting existing gun rights would be a political disaster. Why should the NRA give Obama political top cover without something in return? If he would to say that gun bans or the AWB were off the table and the focus was on tightening the NICS process and ensuring states were complying with their legal responsibilities to provide accurate and timely information to the NICS then I suspect they would have no issues participating - the NRA played a big role in improving NICS after the Virginia Tech shooting.

[VoteProgressive]

33. The NRAs only point is not meeting wit a dem.

[hack89]

34. And Obama's is to throw a bone to a loyal constituency

without actually having to do something that would get him into political hot water. From his perspective the NRA's answer was perfect.

[Upton]

35. Did you know the NRA endorsed Strickland over Kasich in Ohio?

The NRA is friendly with any Democrat who expresses full support for the 2nd Amendment and isn't a water carrier for gun control groups..

[VoteProgressive]

37. I disagree, no group that wants to reach Dems on any level has Mike Huckabee.....

as their keynote speaker.

No real dem I know of would attend the NRA national meeting with that asswipe speaking.

Palin spoke last year. Sound like they are reaching out to you?

Don't try to pull that crap. The NRA HAS to keep the extreme right wing happy.

[Upton]

38. The NRA endorsed 63 Democrats for Congress last year..

I guess in your opinion, none of those 63 are "real" Dems...huh?

http://volokh.com/2010/10/08/nra-supports-democrats-and-democrats-support-the-second-amendment/

[VoteProgressive]

39. You can repeat that all you want.......Do me a favor and look at the last 5 NRA...

keynote speakers and tell me ANY of them were moderate Dems or non right-wing republicans. I know the last 5. All OFFENSIVE to dems. And if not offensive to you then I would not consider you a progressive DU member.

Don't feel bad, the NRA fools a lot of people with their bones thrown to dems.

They are a extreme RIGHT WING organization as are MOST of their supporters. If they had a pro-gun dem as their keynote speaker it would cause a revolt in the organization.

And if there are 63 Dems who they supported then it should be easy to find a democratic keynote speaker.

[Upton]

43. The only one throwing bones

is, as another poster has pointed out, Obama tossing them to the authoritarians that inhabit the party. Obama knows gun control is a loser. Talk about getting fooled.

You want a Democratic keynote speaker at the NRA, then get the party to dump the gun control lobby, any and all talk about resurrecting the AWB or any other further restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights..

Btw, I could give a damn what you consider me...

[VoteProgressive]

45. Since I hurt your feelings we can stop discussing it. Sorry!

[PavePusher]

50. The implication is that you are not the arbiter of what makes a Democrat or Progressive. n/t

[PavePusher]

49. Can you recommend a nationally known Dem.....

who has a strong record of working for improved rights under the Second Amendment?

Let's agree on the name and work to get that person selected as a speaker.

Until then, all else is mere hand-wringing and crying.

[VoteProgressive]

52. The NRA endorsed 63 of them.......

Why not start with one and have them be a secondary speaker???

I am pro gun but pro logic. Too many on this forum are in denial that the NRA is a non political group.

No need to discuss this with anyone who thinks the NRA picking Palin (last year) and Huckabee this year, both OFFENSIVE to liberals, is OK.

The NRA support is from the extreme right of the GOP party. They do not give a crap about any dem support.

[gejohnston]

54. More about Wayne lining his pockets

They drum up money, to pocket, while other groups carry on the cause while Wayne and company do more harm than good. You don't fight shrill extremism with shrill exremism. Sane people need to infiltrate the organization and take it back from Ted Nugent. What was even more offensive is that before Palin, it was Karl Rove and Grover Norquest.

[VoteProgressive]

74. So true!

[Atypical Liberal]

87. All they want is SUPPORT.

The NRA support is from the extreme right of the GOP party. They do not give a crap about any dem support.

In fact, they don't care about WHO is giving the support or what party that support comes from. They just want support.

[Atypical Liberal]

86. The ONLY reason they are right wing.

They are a extreme RIGHT WING organization as are MOST of their supporters.

The ONLY reason this is true is because there are far more right wing politicians that support the right to keep and bear arms than there are left wing ones.

There are Democratic members of the NRA (I am one) and the NRA does support Democratic candidates.

The left could TOTALLY co-op the NRA and turn it into a LEFT-WING organization overnight - if they simply embraced the right to keep and bear arms.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

99. +1

[rl6214]

77. Which dem is pro gun enough

that the NRA would invite them?

Who, prominent, Dem, solidly pro gun?

[rl6214]

76. Bullshit

If a dem president were to
denounce the AWB, repeal the machine gun ban, enact a nationwide concealed carry law I guarantee that he would get an A rating and solid support of the NRA.

[Atypical Liberal]

85. They supported all of my Democratic candidates but one

The NRA does not care what party you are from. They care about your position of the second amendment.

Three of my Democratic candidates in the last election were the NRA-endorsed candidate.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

61. Pres Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder ALL support

outright gun bans. Why would anyone in the gun industry want to meet with "these people". The NRA has been a leader when it comes to NICS checks and done nothing for years but make concessions. You can only give so much till there isn't anything left to give.

We need democrats leading any negotiations that are pro 2nd amendment, not fall back to the old school democrats that want to do nothing but take gun rights away. That I could get behind.

[AtomicKitten]

103. "Pres Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder ALL support outright gun bans." BULLSHIT!!!

Ha! I knew you were full of it.

[X_Digger]

104. Want proof?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-03-26/news/17917812_1_assault-weapon-ban-mexican-drug-gangs-national-rifle-association-spokesman

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Clinton called for a new assault weapon ban in the U.S. on Thursday in hopes of cutting off arms flowing to Mexican drug gangs - and was immediately blasted by the gun lobby.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[AtomicKitten]

105. This is where reasonable people part company with gunophiles.

They do not seek to ban ALL GUNS (which is how I read the preceding comments).

Joe Biden: "If you want to fire semi automatic weapons, join the military."

The key word is 'reasonable.'

[hack89]

106. But semi-automatics are the most common and popular guns

so it is not like you are attempting to ban rare and esoteric weapons - they are in widespread use for a variety of purposes. Secondly, "assault rifles" are so rarely used to commit crimes that banning them would have no appreciable impact on public safety. We are talking at best 2% of all murders for example.

So no - banning semi-automatic weapons is not a reasonable restriction.

[X_Digger]

107. So you read it wrong..

"Pres Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder ALL support outright gun bans."

They all support gun bans.

Nobody said they support banning all guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. It doesn't matter. Each side already knows what the other side will say.

This is just Obama looking for a photo-op.

[Atypical Liberal]

83. There is nothing to gain from participating.

It's quite obvious that the whole point of the meeting is to figure out ways to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms, right? They certainly aren't getting together to figure out how to increase them, right?

So why would the NRA choose to be a party to that? All it will do is get their hands dirty and they will have to take some of the blame for whatever restrictions are cooked up.

I believe their assessment of the legislative history of President Obama and his advisers is fairly accurate.

You can read the NRA's response here:

http://home.nra.org/classic.aspx

"We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington, D.C.'s and Chicago's handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely. More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action."

[Francis Marion]

92. It's never too late to admit you're wrong.

It's never too late to stop trying to destroy the Bill of Rights, either.

The Obama administration:
1) Began the destruction of fired military cartridge brass, rather than sell still-useful fired casings to the American People. Serious mistrust of The American People.

2) Killed the South Korean deal to sell M1 rifles to the American People. Wrong decision: Obama administration, again, does not trust The American People.

This administration's actions do not value, understand or respect the right of The People to keep and bear arms.

I love the biased terminology: "... the (evil NRA) gun lobby," and "... gun safety (not disarmament prohibition, and confiscation) groups".

Why does the President need to get a round-table consensus to enforce the laws on the books?????!!

Does he really need consensus or permission to see that laws are enforced? What does that have to do with the NRA? Does this man have a will of his own, leadership qualities?

Does the ACLU really have to attend a Klan national focus group to brainstorm ideas toward an abiding respect for People's rights? If you're on the wrong side of Freedom, a right-minded person may be kind enough to try to sort you out- then again, they just may not want to waste time.

There's nothing to debate or iron out. The Bill of Rights ended the debate centuries ago- Freedom won.

Elitist, authoritarian, classist dopes want us- The People- disarmed and hindered at every turn, just as they have since 1775. Why would Obama choose the elites' agenda against The People's? His actions confirm this. In sum, a disappointment.