What others think of the Obama/NRA battle

[Tejas]

I don't claim to know Obama's every last stance on the 2nd, but the list in this article surely can't be accurate either.



-----------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.ickypeople.com/2008/06/nra-smears-obamas-stance-on-gun.html


Sunday, June 8, 2008
NRA Smears Obama's Stance on Gun Ownership
Barack Obama is trying to walk a fine line between protecting the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment and clamping down on more than 30,000 deaths from firearms that happen every year in the United States.

However, the National Rifle Association is against any limitations on gun rights, including banning or controlling any kinds of ammunition, even armor piercing bullets that hunters "desperately" need to kill deer. So in their "fair and balanced" imitation of Faux News, the NRA today created a webpage to cry wolf about Obama.

Don't fall for the nonsense.

The only thing one needs to understand about this NRA campaign is that they are not protecting the gun rights of the average hunter or law abiding gun owner, they are protecting gun companies sales to gang bangers and criminals who account for a large percentage of their revenue.


*emphasis in bold added*


-----------------------------------------------------------------


"high kill rate ammo" <------- :spray:


The comments that follow, such as the comparison of the NRA to the KKK are astounding.
Where do they find these people?

[pipoman]

1. Just another baseless ignorant opinion piece

veiled as news.

[Tejas]

37. Probably hoping to win a grant from the Joyce Foundation. n/t

[bossy22]

2. everyone is entitled to their oppinion

though i get troubled that the author states it as if it were fact.

its a typical piece by an author who's knowledge on the subject is only sound-bite deep

[Tejas]

7. Seems antis are addicted to those "opinions"

The "30,000 deaths from firearms" bit has been repeated here until some of the antis swear by it. No secret as to where they come up with it, and needless to say, why the antis so conveniently leave out the fact that LEO shoots are in the actual number is not exactly a mystery either.

[krispos42]

16. The biggest chunk of that is suicides

18,000 via firearms a year.

I refuted the entire thing when somebody posted it in GD a couple of days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3406680&mesg_id=3407646

[bossy22]

3. i think obama's stance

is the new "gun control stance of the future" which is leave it up to the states

he may want all of those things but he knows hes not going to get them and they are very touchy politically

[jody]

4. “leave it up to the states” is what Justices Scalia and Thomas say but then the 14th Amendment must

be applied. :shrug:

[iverglas]

23. "leave it up to the states"

Such a proud and honourable tradition that one has ...

[iverglas]

5. "wedge issue"

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

Political parties are usually fairly diverse groups though they will always try to project a united front. A wedge issue may often be a point of internal dissent within the opposing party, which that party tries to suppress or ignore talking about because it divides "the base." Such issues are typically a cultural or populist issue, relating to matters such as crime, national security, sexuality (e.g. gay marriage), or race. Another party may exploit this dissent by publicly supporting the issue, and in effect align itself with the dissenting faction of the opposing party. A wedge issue, when wielded against another party, is intended to bring about such things as:

* A debate, often vitriolic, within the opposing party, giving the public a perception of disarray.
* The defection of supporters of the opposing party's minority faction to the other party (or independent parties) if they lose the debate.
* The legitimising of sentiment which, while perhaps popularly held, is usually considered inappropriate or politically incorrect; criticisms from the opposition then make it appear beholden to special interests or fringe ideology.
* In an extreme case, a wedge issue might contribute to the actual fracture of the opposing party as another party spins off, taking voters with it.

To prevent these three consequences from occurring, the opposing party may attempt to take a "pragmatic" stand and officially endorse the views of its minority faction. However, this can lead to the defection of supporters of the opposing party's majority faction to a third party, should they lose the debate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh.

I wonder who might be playing that game ... and who might be helping them ...

[iverglas]

6. 2008 Backup 'Wedge Issue': Guns

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/11/2008_backup_wed.html

The prospect of a Giuliani nomination has led some on the Religious Right to threaten to bolt the GOP over his supposed ideological unfaithfulness on the longstanding wedge issues of abortion and gays. Now that the Supreme Court has announced it will decide the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun control laws, some on the Right think they may have a backup. Human Events editor Jed Babbin writes:

The Heller appeal will be argued next spring and unless something very odd happens, it will be decided before the election. … If the Republicans seize this opportunity, they can make a “kitchen table” issue into a “wedge issue” in 2008: one that will decide the minds of voters. …

Clinton never did anything about gun control as a senator. What would she do as president? Does she believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, or does she favor confiscative laws such as the District of Columbia law the Supreme Court will rule on in the Heller case?

We know the answer. But it’s up to the Republican candidates to flush her out of the tall weeds. This is an important issue to a great majority of Americans across the map, in Blue States, not just Red ones. It could be the wedge issue that decides the 2008 election.

Right Wing Watch. The original source:

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=542

"Alphecca is an occasional blog of opinions by a politically independent, libertarian gun nut in Vermont."

Translation: right wing.

Help them drive that wedge home, folks.

[benEzra]

25. Those who would push the party to fight for new gun bans...

are the ones who would resurrect the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme. It's off the table, otherwise.

[bossy22]

8. and whats so bad about playing that game

it has helped the dems win elections in many places they couldnt have before hand

this fear of a "3rd party revolution" is not going to happen anytime soon...the 2 party system in the united states is so strong its almost impossible for a 3rd party to actually make a credible impact in the federal elections (though Ross Perot did it to some extent in the 90's)

i never understood the logic in pandering to the party base- they will almost always support you- the ones you should be pandering to are the independents- the LARGEST single voting block

minimizing wedge issues is a very politically smart thing to do.

you run conservative democrats in conservative districts, and liberal ones in liberal districts

[iverglas]

9. uhhhh

It's the Republicans and their fellow travellers playing the game.


minimizing wedge issues is a very politically smart thing to do.

Nope. It's the loser thing to do. Everybody whose well-being depends on the wedge failing loses. Women, GLBT people, anybody else who's inconvient: under the bus. That's all "minimizing wedge issues" means.

No different when dealing with gun militants.

They, just like the anti-choice brigade and the homophobes and all the rest of them, have no interest in compromise or common ground. The ground is theirs, and every time you give them an inch, they'll take it. And go for the next one.

"Conservative Democrats" are right-wing scum, if they pander to racists, misogynists, homophobes, gun militants or any of the rest of the mob. Let alone if they belong to the mob.

Pander to the "independents" if you like. Just don't pretend to be standing up for the interests of the people you're throwing under the bus.

[bossy22]

10. wow- its not even worth having a discussion with you

this statement tells me truly who you are

"Conservative Democrats" are right-wing scum, if they pander to racists, misogynists, homophobes, gun militants or any of the rest of the mob. Let alone if they belong to the mob.
yes anyone with a different viewpoint is a scum- thank you lord iverglas- ruler of the universe

Conservative democrats may be conservative because *gasp* the people they represent may be conservative

not everyone wants a Massachusetts's liberal as their representative...sorry to break that to you, your brand of progressivism is not on everyones favorites menu- but it doesnt stop you from trying to shove it down their throats- hell its the progressive thing to do

or also maybe they are truly conservative themselves when it certain issues....whether its right or wrong is not up to me to decide.

"Nope. It's the loser thing to do. Everybody whose well-being depends on the wedge failing loses. Women, GLBT people, anybody else who's inconvient: under the bus. That's all "minimizing wedge issues" means."

sorry...wrong....go ahead- play the guns, god, and gays game- and see no democrat in office in those areas. IF THE LOCALS VOTERS DON'T WANT IT, WHY TRY TO RUN CANDIDATES THAT WANT IT. I'm sorry to say the economy is a bit more important right now to Americans as a whole then if gays can get married.

luckily you arent the DNC chair- sometimes you have to settle for 50% of what you want, cause if you push for more- you get zip

Texans want texas democrats, they dont want NYC democrats-

BTW..i hardly doubt that there are many peoples well being that are seriously endanger because of those issues you mentioned...they may be inconvenient, but there are more pressing things...which is why i have numerously stated in many posts i will support a democrat even if his position is anti-gun cause i believe their are more pressing issues

Currently with me struggling to pay for gasoline just to get to and from school and the firehouse. Not to mention the limited job opportunities for new college grads and the rising price of just...everyhting....i can't really give a flying f*ck if homosexuals can get married or if a woman can abortion whenever she wants it....sorry hun...doesnt concern me at the moment...and it doesnt concern most americans

as selfish as this may sound it really is not when you think about the millions upon millions of americans that are suffering the same thing. Right now their are important issues and their non-important issues- and ill be the first one to say that in reality, the gun issue isnt on the top of that list...neither is abortion rights, or gay marriage. So it makes sense to shut up about those things and deal with the more important issues

thank god you don't work in a triage center- prioritization doesn't seem to be your best quality

...and ITS CALLED A REPRESENTITIVE REPUBLIC FOR A REASON...THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THEIR LOCAL CONSTITUENTS AND NOT EVERY LOCAL CONSTITUENCY BELIEVES IN YOUR BRAND OF "PROGRESSIVISM".

[bossy22]

11. this is part of the beauty of a decentralized system

you dont have new york shoving their interests down the throats of Nebraskans

ill be honest- i believe very much in states rights- i think it gives the voter more influence and say in their government. The Federal Government couldn't care less about how i feel, but my local mayor does

[bossy22]

12. here is a good line that you should keep in mind

"you can't always get what you want But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need"
-The Rolling Stones

[iverglas]

15. who needs me to say it

when you've got you??

Currently with me struggling to pay for gasoline just to get to and from school and the firehouse. Not to mention the limited job opportunities for new college grads and the rising price of just...everyhting....i can't really give a flying f*ck if homosexuals can get married or if a woman can abortion whenever she wants it....sorry hun...doesnt concern me at the moment...and it doesnt concern most americans

[bossy22]

18. man your spin don't stop

just because i dont care at the moment about an issue- or believe there are more pressing issues- doesnt mean im not for them- if you asked me if i would support allowing gays to get married- id say sure, and you asked me how my feelings on abortion are- id say im pro-choice....but that doesnt mean i put those issues high up on the list of priorities. I think the economic crisis, home forclosures, rising energy prices, healthcare, the war in iraq- are a bit more important. And if to address these issues i have to give up my push for gay marraige or abortion rights- well i will

thats the reason i don't harp the gun issue that much- i talk about it alot on this board but i dont base my choice soley on that- nor is it the top priority.

again i will say this- not everyone wants a NY or Massachussets liberal representing them

but it doesnt matter- cause we've got Howard Dean who uses his head and doesnt try to ram your style of representitive down everyones throat- and that is why we will have a democratic house, a democratic senate, and a democratic president

[bossy22]

13. ooo

forgot about this one- healthcare

yeah i think healthcare is a little more important that making sure two gay individuals can make out without fear of prejudice

""Conservative Democrats" are right-wing scum, if they pander to racists, misogynists, homophobes, gun militants or any of the rest of the mob. Let alone if they belong to the mob."

conservative democrats are the reason we now control congress.

"you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity"

[bossy22]

14. ooo another one

i got an idea i got an idea.....how about we run Gov. Patterson in Montana after Gov. Schwietzer steps down....cause that will definetly go over well- ya know, those Montanans have been itchin for a new yorker to tell them how to live

and Alaskan's sure want John Kerry to tell them that they can't drill in their own state

[beevul]

17. Any evidence that this is generally true?

"They (so called "gun militants"), just like the anti-choice brigade and the homophobes and all the rest of them, have no interest in compromise or common ground. The ground is theirs, and every time you give them an inch, they'll take it. And go for the next one."


Is this just your ugly opinion, or do you actually have evidence to back up such a claim?

If I didn't know it was you that had made that statement, I'd say someone was talking about the anti-gun brigade and typo'd. And what a fitting typo it would have been...

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. I don't get it either

If I "have no interest in compromise or common ground", why on Earth would I be a Democrat
in Massachusetts? The likelyhood of gun laws in MA becoming less strict range from slim to
none under any conceiveable Dem state government. A broad decision in Heller might
force a change in this, however.

And yet I am not a Republican, Libertarian, or unenrolled (MA-speak for independent).
I think the Dem's approach to governance is generally the best (aside from the fucked-up
view of the Second Amendment).

That statement isn't just bad politics, it's bad set theory:
Some A are B, therfore *all* A are B

[jody]

20. But that excludes "A or B" but of course that was your point. n/t

[iverglas]

22. does somebody have a clue?

What's jody muttering about now?

[iverglas]

21. "that statement" was

No different when dealing with gun militants.
They, just like the anti-choice brigade and the homophobes and all the rest of them, have no interest in compromise or common ground. The ground is theirs, and every time you give them an inch, they'll take it. And go for the next one.

Description doesn't match you? Then I guess you aren't a GUN MILITANT. Sheesh.

I mean, it's possible to be a fellow traveller / dupe of gun militants and not be totally immersed in the poop up to the eyeballs, too. Not all "abortion is murder" fools vote Republican, either.

[benEzra]

26. No willingness to compromise?

They...have no interest in compromise or common ground. The ground is theirs, and every time you give them an inch, they'll take it. And go for the next one.

No willingness to compromise?

How about the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the NICS point-of-sale background check, the 1986 armor-piercing bullet ban, the ban on firearms undetectable by X-ray, or the recent upgrade to NICS re: mental health records? Compromises, all. So is acquiescing to the requirement of a license in order to carry a firearm.

To me, it seems that most of the compromising in the last 75 years in this country has been done by gun owners, not those on the other side of the issue. Canadian gun owners compromised even more, and UK gun owners compromised away practically everything, yet the anti-gun groups there never compromised an iota. "Give us 3/4 of what we want now, and we'll take the rest next year" isn't compromise by any reasonable definition.

There is indeed common ground to be found on fighting gun crime. Clue: it doesn't involve new restrictions on the styles of civilian guns that NON-criminals can own.

[iverglas]

27. what an impressive list

Not.

It consists of two things:

- instances where gun militants have caved (if in fact they did; many still oppose some measures you cite), having no other option if they wished to retain a shred of credibility

- instances where gun militants don't give a crap because it doesn't affect them, as is the case with the gross violation of medical privacy involved in disclosure of medical records for storage in an unrelated database


So is acquiescing to the requirement of a license in order to carry a firearm.

Incrementalism, anyone? Where there was no entitlement to tote firearms around in public places, now there is entitlement subject to licence, with constant pressure to expand the entitlement and reject restrictions on the places where it may be exercised.

Exactly whom might this be a compromise with? People who oppose allowing members of the public to promenade around in public with firearms? When all it does is weed out some of the individuals who are unsuitable candidates to be doing that, it's hardly compromise on anything.


Canadian gun owners compromised even more

There was no compromise involved. There has been legislation, upheld by the courts when challenged. Those who don't like it are stuck lumping it, and agitating constantly against it, as they constantly do.

No gun militant in Canada, or the UK or Australia, has compromised on anything. They have simply been forced to comply with the rules or suffer the consequences if caught breaking them.


Public policy really isn't always or even usually a matter of compromise. It is a matter of decisions made in the public interest, within the parameters allowed by constitutions, and subject to public approval in the next election.

Myself, I'm not remotely interested in compromising with gun militants. What they want is in their interests, not the public interest, and not my interests; it is directly contrary to both of them. I would no more consider compromising on their demands than I would consider compromising with insurance companies to let them take over part of the health insurance market.

My point was, and is, that the words "compromise" and "common ground" in the mouths of gun militants, just like in the mouths of anti-choice militants, should always fall on deaf ears, because they're false advertising.


There is indeed common ground to be found on fighting gun crime.

Yeah. And there's always spinning to be done on defining the problems to be solved. I don't believe I was talking about "gun crime", myself.


Clue: it doesn't involve new restrictions on the styles of civilian guns that NON-criminals can own.

Answer: yes it does. The only way to keep certain "styles" of firearms out of criminal hands (whatever that might be, eh?) -- the "style" of firearm that is of most concern here, and would be of most concern in any rational society, being handguns -- is to adopt and enforce policies that actually have that effect.

[benEzra]

31. Fine. Be as extreme as you wish in *your* country.

But in this country, we have a long tradition of responsible gun ownership that crosses political, ethnic, and gender lines, not to mention explicit guarantees of an individual right to own and carry guns for personal protection in many state constitutions, and a constitutional amendment protecting RKBA at the Federal level. We will keep our guns in this country, whether busybodies from elsewhere like it or not.

Were it not for Dems who are pro-choice on gun ownership, our Senate would still be red, as would my own state government. Dems are NOT currently after people's guns, and anyone trying to turn the clock back to 1994 helps no one but the repubs.

[iverglas]

34. well blah de blah blah blah!

My points seem to be still standing. Lousy aim, I guess. Or no bullets.

[Tejas]

36. the sky is blue and

Generalissimo Franco is still dead.

Watching you backpeddle so badly in your subsequent posts of damage control in this tangent of yours is hilarious. Throw insulting labels out and then babble on about how you meant none of it towards whoever asked, classic.

Off to seek "gun militants" on Google images...........


ah, found one!





gun militants......ha ha!

[derby378]

24. Funniest thing I've read all day

:rofl: Hilarious.

[solinvictus]

28. The quoted Obama plan...

"The laws Barack Obama supports that the NRA are vehemently against include sensible acts like:


* Mandatory waiting periods to purchase a gun

* Requiring citizens to actually register their firearms

* Mandatory micro stamping of guns to aid tracing weapons

* Banning inexpensive handguns that make it easier for criminals to acquire

* Limit gun purchases to one gun a month

* Require training for gun owners

* Restrict gun ownership to citizens 21 and older

* Eliminate right to carry concealed weapons

* Ban gun shops from operating within 5 miles of a school

* Ban resale of police firearms which include high powered assault weapons

* Ban high capacity ammunition magazines that are often used by gang members in drive by shootings and not needed to kill a deer"


Sounds pretty restrictive to me. I guess poor people aren't supposed to buy inexpensive handguns for their protection. I suppose they may be bitter and might go to church to cling to God and guns.

[jody]

29. The most egregious is "* Eliminate right to carry concealed weapons".

:puke:

[SteveM]

32. Above all, the anti-gun interest groups want national control of the issue...

So they can ban the right to carry concealed weapons, ban certain types of ammo, ban certain types of weapons, etc. Yet, when they lose at this level and in the vast majority of states, they cry like a bunch of Dixiecrats for "states' rights" in the few states sympathetic to their cause. Truth is, they face the same dilemma as the Supreme Court's conservatives: how to reconcile the role of limited government (esp. at the national level), yet protect citizens from state action... and somehow not use the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause. Should be interesting gymnastics; I hope they do their stretches.

[benEzra]

30. Aside from the astonishing ignorance displayed by the writer....

I am not convinced that Obama actually wants to do those things. If I were, I wouldn't have voted for him.

[Tejas]

33. Sort've reminds me of the "5 year plan"

That urban legend thing, the one blamed on the VPC....




...not that they'd ever come up with such a travesty :sarcasm:

[adolphson]

40. Laws for the Lawful

Mandatory waiting periods:
I think this is good, why does anyone need a firearm NOW! Unless of course they are worried about intruders, or any apparent/immediate threat. I think these people will be the lesser amount compared to lets say some civillian pissed off that may otherwise cool off a little with a waiting period. I still think this says that we dont have the responsibility to control ourselves though.

Firearms Registration:
Putting a name with a serial number. I believe this is just going to set people up as targets that arent using their guns for anything felonious, and if in the future we vote away the 2nd amendment gives the government a pathway to retrieving weapons. Realistically, if this was to only for a background check I think thats fine, though you cannot have any "mental illness" or "drug history". So if you got caught smoking pot or had to see a psychologist, good luck. Their may be waivers.

Micro Stamping:
Making guns even more expensive. A Stamp can be filed and polished away, is that hard to do? No, very easy, you just have to pay more for the gun in the first place. This is another technology like thumbprint locks that looks cool but fails to deliver in the real world. Currently gun distributers are looking to leave California. Next im sure they will require the gun to be inoperable if the stamp is somehow taken out or polished down. The result being a very touchy gun that you'd better hope doesnt get dirty or the stamp getting worn down. I wonder how many people will use this to commit murder with even less red tape, just take someones gun shoot them, err... whatever happened to ballistics?

Inexpensive Handguns:
Yea, its just criminals who are broke, what about us who are working our ass off just to pay for rent/food/gas? Screw us with the criminals right? I mean, since you cant just go after them punish everyone right? Im ex-military and I remember this theme, the result: Disgruntled Civilians. (BTW Civillian doesnt mean your supposed to be Civil)?

One Gun per Month:
What if our government turns into the Iraqi government!?? Ok, probably never going to happen. All I can say about this one is it will never affect me, I just see all these limiting factors leading to the ultimate conclusion, one thing at a time over time equals all aspects lost. Please look into history reguarding how rights are lost, they are lost by taking just a little at a time, until people's views change, and they will with every passing generation. Once its gone, its pretty hard to get back.

Require Training:
Unresponsible citizens, how about ask the person purchasing the firearm to field strip it or answer a series of random fair questions that would determine wheather they already are proficent, and demonstrate proper handling. Thus, eliminating those of us who have used guns our whole lives from paying a fee to the state for un-needed training?

Gun Ownership:
You can own the most lethal weapon in history (a car) at 18, join the US Marines and die in foreign countries, etc... But, a gun, that just might jump out of your hand and shoot you. If you cant make decisions at 18 you most certainly wont be making them any better when you start to go out and drink. Interpretation: +3 years = more responsibility? I guess it will be 25 next time around.

Right to Carry Concealed:
Blatant slap to anyone who wants to protect themselves. If your carrying a weapon openly, first people get nervous around you, second someone has more of a chance of taking it, third this kills your right to hide what is legally yours. Would a potential attacker really go after someone with a weapon on their hip? Probably not, but I wouldnt want someone to take my wife's weapon and use it against her, or discriminate against her because she chooses to protect herself with deadly force (if necissary). Police arent going to come and keep someone from doing a variety of things to you WHERE YOUR AT, this leaves me with the impression that I have the right to get stabbed, raped, robbed and murdered but not the right to have a "chance" to protect myself.

Gun Shops around Schools:
Uh, you have to be 18 to even get a rifle. What are we worried about here? Evil felons being around kids and purchasing guns? Kids robbing gun shops? I guess Wal-Mart better pack their sh*t if there anywhere around.

Ban Police Issue Resale:
Yea, dont cut the police and citizens an economical break with barely used firearms. Lets use more of our taxes to cut the difference.

Ban High Capacity weapons:
Jesus, high capacity is 15 bullets? you may as well take everything off the shelf. Once again everyone seems to assume gang members would even pay the retail price for a gun, let alone qualify for the purchase. No one, ever, will stop the illegal trade of weapons, EVER. You take away a legal market, you create an illegal market. Just like all the cocaine coming into this country, you will never stop what makes money. Guess gang members will have to buy extra clips.... next: not legal to have more than one clip with your gun. Can you see where this is headed?

People must be responsible for their actions, and I think we have to emphasize that you will pay for your actions. Is that going to stop a psycho? No, but if its not a gun, than they can get in their car and drive over pedestrians, or stab, or bludgen, or whatever. Guns were designed to protect each and every one of us BY us, and to protect our military and police. If the military and police's interest is in public saftey, why isnt the government?

[villager]

35. Well, when it comes to trusting Obama vs. a lobbying group for gun manufacturers

I know which side I'm on.

[benEzra]

38. I couldn't really care less about what the NRA thinks.

I *voted* for Obama in the primary, and will likely do so in the general election, assuming that (as his 50-state strategy seems to indicate) he will leave the gun issue to the states. I believe the party has learned from the 1994 idiocy and moved on.

I am also working to elect Democratic legislators at the Federal and state level who are pro-choice on lawful gun ownership.

BTW, the gun-manufacturer lobby is the NSSF, not the NRA. The NRA represents its membership, not the manufacturers, which is why opposing the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was more important than lawsuit protection, and why they support the importation of inexpensive SKS's and Mosin-Nagants, and inexpensive eastern-bloc ammunition, that undercut industry profits.

I don't care about the issue because of anything the NRA says; I care about the issue because my wife and I own guns that people like you wish to ban--and we wish to keep them, and for our children to enjoy them (and own their own) when they are of age.

Don't like guns? Fine, you live in the most gun-restrictive state in the entire nation. Enjoy your legal-gun-hating utopia, but allow us here in NC to choose differently, please.

[villager]

41. Great! So then some states can restrict gun proliferation more than others?

And you won't let the NRA spur into splenetic action to try and overturn laws in other localities?

Just read about the upsurge in violent crime in NC! Enjoy your shooting sprees!

[benEzra]

42. States already do...

and crime here is quite low except for Charlotte (and to a lesser degree Durham), which has good police but a dysfunctional court system. And at least here, I don't have to worry about going to prison because some busybody doesn't like the way the stock on my rifle is shaped, I can go kayaking three miles from my home, and you don't have to be wealthy to own a decent house.

I've been to California a few times (Benecia and San Francisco). Beautiful weather, nice terrain, but you could not pay me enough to live there.

[villager]

43. Two fatally shot at work in the Carolinas:

http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/667989.html

Well done!

[beevul]

44. What is your boggle?

"Two fatally shot at work in the Carolinas...Well done!"

What exactly is your problem, and why are you blaming anyone here for things that clearly they no involvement in?

Some scumbag shot a couple people, and the first thing that comes to mind is to blame someone on a messageboard, and utter not so much as a peep about the person that actually did the shooting?


How can people like you so much as utter the words "reasonable" and "common sense" where gun laws are concerned and expect anyone to buy it, when you can't show the slightest example of being reasonable or using common sense yourself?

[maxidivine]

39. Please try to check your propaganda at the door

The NRA is not and has never been a group for manufacturers, they are now and have always been a safety organization first and foremost, and their safety programs are still where the bulk of their budget goes. The only reason they have formed branches that are involved in politics is because over the last twenty-thirty years we have seen tons of legislation that has no benefit and negatively impacts their membership. I understand that people who don't know any better often think of the NRA as a massive right-wing horror group, but please, stop trying to make others out to be subhuman just because they feel differently than you. This is politics in our own nation, not impending invasion by the soviets.

Plus the NRA does endorse Democratic candidates quite regularly, they are not interested in a candidates stance on anything but firearms, and will never mention a candidates stance on anything but firearms. The reason they have been mostly endorsing republicans lately is because they have been driven in that direction by waves of silly legislation, regrettably championed by Democrats in office.

Think about what would happen if someone proposed to eliminate all social security benefits for people over 55. The AARP would go NUTS. They are also a group for the well-being of their members.