Memo from the DLC on getting gun owners' votes

[Superfly]

This is in .pdf format, so you will have to read it for yourself:

The second paragraph starting with "Jim Kessler's presentation..." outlines what we pro-RKBA DUers have been saying for some time, much to the chagrin of a couple notable J/PS posters.

The link is at keepandbeararms.com, a self-funded website dedicated to bringing all current news items and issues surrounding the gun issue to light.

Whereas I do not agree with the owner of KABA's political views, I do visit here often for discussion material to post on DU.

[DonP]

1. Can't possibly be true

I'm sure that this will be immediately labeled a right wing steaming pantload. I just thought I'd jump in first and get the obvious out of the way for you.

Interesting paper with what are some obvious points to most folks that want to have a reasonable point of view and actually win elections rather than scream about how unfair everything is.

What a concept.

The fact that they state that only 8% of the population feels that the RKBA is a collective right proves how silly the idea of appealing to gun owners to win elections is.

Fly, you have been told time and time again that everyone believes it is only a collective right and only a small handful of vicious far right wing racists think otherwise.

I hope some people actually listen to this kind of thinking and make some real changes in th eparty's approach to the 2nd amendment.

With 5 senate seats up for grabs in Southern states so far, it might be nicer to win those elections then lecture the silly voters on how wrong headed they all are.

[Superfly]

2. Thanks...I think.

The only point I don't really agree with, is step #3. It seems just like a shift in semantics...what you once called "gun control" is now called "gun safety." The end results and goals are still the same, but I think they can do away with the spin.

[MrBenchley]

3. What's this

the FOURTH time the DLC's rubbish has been posted? Or the fifth?

[Superfly]

4. What's the name of this place again?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

6. The name of the place is Democratic Underground

Not Redundancy Repeated Redundantly

[Superfly]

7. And who wrote the memo?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

11. And how many times do we have to see it?

[Superfly]

14. This is the first time

as far as I can tell. Memo came out on Nov 4. I searched the DU archives all the way back to the beginning. This is the first time this memo has been discussed on DU, unless I am mistaken.

Correction: the memo came out Nov 4, but the "Guns and Values" thing came out on Jul 27th

[MrBenchley]

17. Uh-huh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22777

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22775

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18116

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=17033

[Superfly]

19. OK, then, my mistake.

Mods, please lock if you feel it's appropriate.

[Wickerman]

22. I'm inclined to leave it open

because if ya'll stick to the facts in the article we should see some good debate. Its an interesting strategy that would seem to appeal to the legendary Southern vote, yet, nationally the poll numbers are very compelling.

If this turns into off the facts tit-for-tat I am locking on the basis of the dupe.

edited for tpyos

[Superfly]

23. Thank you, kindly

NT

[demsrule4life]

26. Not Redundancy Repeated Redundantly

Is that the same as Michael Moore being brought up all the time?

[slackmaster]

8. Genetic fallacy in action

Let's not even bother to discuss the content. All that matters is the source.

:eyes:

[Superfly]

9. And the source is a Democratic PAC

so I really don't understand Benchley's beef.

[slackmaster]

12. But it must not a be a "real" Democratic PAC

Because it's willing to keep its mind open on gun issues.

Must be a front group for the Corrupt Gun Industry or Bush/Rove/Pratt/Nugent/NRA/Racists/GuysInNaziUniforms.

[Superfly]

13. Yeah, and its run by asswipe lunatics

....

[MrBenchley]

15. Ahem....

"Superfly  (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-18-03 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks...I think.
The only point I don't really agree with, is step #3. It seems just like a shift in semantics...what you once called "gun control" is now called "gun safety." The end results and goals are still the same"

So, fly, are you now telling us you AGREE with gun control?

[Superfly]

16. You might want to reread that...

I never said, nor implied, that I agree with gun control in that post.

[MrBenchley]

20. So tell us, fly

Did you post this entire load of DLC crap again because you oppose it?

Or is it that you just cherry-picked the second paragraph, but all the rest you disagree vehemently with?

[Superfly]

21. You are very good at putting words in peoples' mouths.

Unfortunately for you, I did not indicate agreement or disagreement in any way.

[MrBenchley]

29. So it's here for the fifth time because....

[Superfly]

30. Because despite your insistent

gnashing of teeth, some people here, including the moderators, believe that this is a good conversation piece and it should be discussed. If anything, this should be discussed more and more as the elections draw nearer. This issue, if not addressed now, is going to bite us in the ass.

[MrBenchley]

34. Five discussions now

one STARTED by you, but you don't know whether you disagree or agree....or else you don't want to commit in public....

"This issue, if not addressed now, is going to bite us in the ass."

Just look at these figures on the issue from page eight of your own source...
--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

Seems like SOME of us are discussing it every day already in a non-redundant fashion.

[alwynsw]

37. Why is it that any RKBA thread and contents are "rubbish"?

There are too many items in your posts on this topic for me to expend the energy countering in order for you to either automatically gainsay my thoughts or insult my opinions.

RKBA items are consistently labeled rubbish whilst any steaming pantload from the gun grabbers is Divine Writ IYO.

This lunatic asswipe wants to know why.

[MrBenchley]

38. This is why....

"There are too many items in your posts on this topic for me to expend the energy countering"
Here are the "items" I've brought up so far:

--this is the fifth time this propaganda has been posted (true...post # 17 gives the addresses; no need for you to spend any energy countering it)

--Superfly will not tell us whether he agrees or disagrees with the whole piece or just agrees with the second paragraph (only Superfly can answer this one; no need for you to spend any energy countering this one either)

--page eight of this wowser (that was presumably posted to show people like me how wrong it is to push for gun control) show that voters overwhelmingly WANT gun control, INCLUDING registration for ALL guns (true, you can download it in .pdf and see for yourself).

Jump in anytime.

[alwynsw]

39. You didn't answer my rubbish question.

The usual dodging, obfuscating, etc.

I'm finished with this thread for now.

[MrBenchley]

41. On the contrary

I answered it quite clearly with an apt demonstration.

[Superfly]

40. OK, is it propaganda or not?

"this is the fifth time this propaganda has been posted" (BTW, so what? It's worth discussing each and every time)

then...

"voters overwhelmingly WANT gun control, INCLUDING registration for ALL guns (true, you can download it in .pdf and see for yourself"

So, is it propaganda or not?

[MrBenchley]

42. Too funny fly....

Of course it's propaganda. That's what the DLC meant it to be.

"1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/79/p0597900.html

The only chagrin I have is that it wasn't until the fifth time this got posted that I realized the RKBA crowd waving it around like a bloody flag hadn't actually read it...or were hoping nobody else would.

[Superfly]

43. By RKBA crowd, you mean me.

And I had not commented in the other 4 instances. This was the first time I had seen this memo and pamphlet, so I thought it was worthy of discussion...it is.

[MrBenchley]

44. No, by RKBA crowd I meant RKBA crowd

There have been four other threads on the subject...and plenty of other "pro-gun" people posting.....

And in those four when the content of the piece came up (and guess which side brought it up), the sum total of the responsefrom the RKBA crowd was a sprited round of Democrat-bashing and wails such as "Why aren't kitchen knives treated like guns by so-called libs? "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18116

All the rest was the usual RKBA crap....straight out of Wayne LaPierre's fantasy land.

[ruralpro]

46. So sorry, the overwelming wants of the voters have NO

bearing here The overwhelming amount of voters thought slavery to be just peachy

[MrBenchley]

47. Too TOO Funny...

The whole rationale for this DLC/AGS crap being posted for the FIFTH time was that it was supposed to instruct the wayward and errant into learning what voters REALLY want...but since it turns out gun control is what they really want...now it doesn't matter?

"The overwhelming amount of voters thought slavery to be just peachy"
Sez who? Most Americans didn't hold slaves, and the only time it became an issue in a national election, anti-slavery won. It led to a Civil War, in which the pro-slavery side was outnumbered and lost. You might of read about it somewhere in the history books.

[ruralpro]

48. Gee I dont know

I have seen thousand of articles written that make a very strong point that in fact the civil war had nothing to do with slaves. I know that the writers are full of it, but I could, if it mattered fill the board with those links. Point. The majority of the voters are unable to overturn any, all, or a portion of the Bill Of Rights

[MrBenchley]

49. Too TOO frigging funny...

"I have seen thousand of articles written that make a very strong point that in fact the civil war had nothing to do with slaves. "
Yeah, neoConfederate horseshit is very strong these days in the Republican party. How many prominent GOPers gave fawning interviews to the racist Southern Partisan magazine until finally the press noticed? (Tim McVeigh was wearing a T-shirt sold by Southern Partisan the day he blew up the Murrah office building.)

"I know that the writers are full of it, but I could, if it mattered fill the board with those links."
Gee, and what would that have shown about you?

"The majority of the voters are unable to overturn any, all, or a portion of the Bill Of Rights"
Sure they are. The Constitution itself tells us how in Article Five...

But even more to the point, what the hell does the Bill of Rights have to do with this? There's nothing unconstitutional about gun control, and that has been affirmed again and again and again by the courts.

[ruralpro]

50. Yee Haa

neo confederate horse shit
I know by thier biogrophys a lot of these people are educated in public funded institutions. That would mean, that according to your logic it is ok to jerk their funding and make them toe the line

You are adverse to a second point of view? BTW I am off subject with my post,but the attire of a convicted criminal is relevent?

Just my opinion, (well along with some notables) The Bill of Rights are mine, and you nor anyone messwith them. Oops I guess I can no longer support the candidate of my choice with ad with in 60/30 days of an election, you may have won this one, I am starting to flounder.

And so you mean that given your opinion it is possible to regulate free speech (to late). regulate the issuances of warrants, regulate double jeopardy, regulate speedy trial, maybe we can regulate a jury by our peers

Or how about'theenumeration of rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people? But wait is that a collective right? or does people mean the masses?

[MrBenchley]

51. Now what the hell...

"I know by thier biogrophys a lot of these people are educated in public funded institutions. That would mean, that according to your logic it is ok to jerk their funding and make them toe the line"
Clear as mud...what the hell ARE you rambling about here? When did I say anything about where anyone got his education? Whose biographies? How are they being funded and by who?

"You are adverse to a second point of view? "
What second point of view...the one you YOURSELF said was crap? YOU said in post #48, "I know that the writers are full of it, but I could, if it mattered fill the board with those links." I can imagine somebody posting lies if he knows no better, but I cannot for the life of me why anyone would post lies that he knows ARE lies.

"BTW I am off subject with my post,but the attire of a convicted criminal is relevent?"
Sure IS relevant...shows the sentiment really being expressed at Southern Partisan.

"Just my opinion, (well along with some notables) The Bill of Rights are mine, and you nor anyone messwith them."
Not even close to true.Tell me, just for a laugh, what "notable" says the Bill of Rights belongs only to YOU? It was damn considerate of the Founding Fathers to argue out the Bill of Rights and get the ten amendments passed200 years before you were born, just for you.

"Oops I guess I can no longer support the candidate of my choice with ad with in 60/30 days of an election"
Sure you can. You just can't pretend your ad comes from some horseshit non-existent group like "Citizens for Arming Lunatic Asswipes." That's one reason why the National Rifle Association was pissing and moaning...now their ads are going to have to say "NRA" on them. For some reason, many people (well, most, actually) think of Wayne LaPierre's merry band as a bunch of wild-eyed extremist crackpots...and rightly so.

By the way, hope your ad is going to be written as clearly as your post was.

"And so you mean that given your opinion it is possible to regulate free speech (to late). regulate the issuances of warrants, regulate double jeopardy, regulate speedy trial, maybe we can regulate a jury by our peers"
Hey, read Article V......the Constitution can be amended any time enough people think it can. It's called democracy. If you don't like it, perhaps you ought to move to a country where the system of government cannot be altered in any way.

"does people mean the masses?"
You mean like in "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"? Yup....it's all of us.

[ruralpro]

57. Very first thing, Happy Holidays to All

I do so very much enjoy the discourse and never take anything personal, I hope everyone feels the same.

Now, Let the blood letting begin!

Everybody look quick, MrB just changed us from a Constitutional Republic to a Democracy. And I might add without a single drop of blood being spilled and no one late for supper. It is True what they say, the pen is mightier than the sword

[MrBenchley]

58. Happy Holidays

Are you trying to tell us there Is no Article V in the Constitution? Or that it doesn't say:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."?

Sure does in the copies most people have...

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_transcript.html



By the way, are you ever going to tell us what "notable" says the Bill of Rights belongs only to YOU?

[ruralpro]

59. ammending the constitution

Is vary plainly laid out as you so eloquently point out. IMO that does not mean that given enough votes we can ammend away the 4th ammendment. The most sticky points of all this seems to be the right to arms and how religion and the federal govt interact. I happen to belive that the Bill of Rights, at some level needs to be taken as a whole of its parts, and also understood what the individual ammendments mean to the people. Your opinion is, if I may be so bold to assume, is that for example, the 2cnd ammendment is a collective right. I dissagree and hold that each of the 1st 10 ammendments are an individual right. The Bill of Rights are in the constitution to protect me from the natural instict of man to attain and wield power in able to control me and further 'his' goals.

PLEASE do not tell me that you beleived that my 'The Bill of Rights belongs to me' statement you took literally? You are way smarter that that

[MrBenchley]

60. Well, I suggest

you start a campaign to amend the Constitution to get rid of Article V....because we do have the power to amend any part of it we want currently.

"I dissagree and hold that each of the 1st 10 ammendments are an individual right. "
It's funny to think that the original source of the statement "the Bill of Rights covers only individual rights" is the NRA...and that 30 years of spouting that distortion at the top of their lungs didn't deter them for a moment from rushing into court to complain that campaign finance reform threatened their COLLECTIVE First Amendment rights.

Amusingly, when their case was tossed out of court, it WAS NOT because the Bill of Rights covers only individual rights. It was because CFR didn't violate any rights.

"PLEASE do not tell me that you beleived that my 'The Bill of Rights belongs to me' statement you took literally?"
It seemed on a par with all your other claims.

[ruralpro]

61. The 1st ammendment no longer

applies to me? Please explain. I had the silly notion that I, me personally, could start a pamphlet, or newspaper or web site and I had a RIGHT to do so. This right has always been 'collective'? In this one issue, give and example of other 'collective' free speech rights

[MrBenchley]

63. Coudl you spin any more frantically?

Here's the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And you've yet to explain how any of this civics lesson has anything to do with the DLC's memo.

[ruralpro]

66. The DLC memo

states that in order for democrats to get elected they may want to consider which hill they want to die on. The intent of the memo is 'while you may detest guns this whole 2cnd ammendment thing that actually gives people the right to keep and carry a gun may not be the best place to invest our political capital'. From that I got the attire of a convicted felon is relevant, which comes several notches below the Bill of Rights. You made the corrolation from 2cnd ammendment collective rights argument to 1st ammendment collective rights argument. Now that we are all up to speed you might be able to clarify this whole collective/personal rights thing, I can stay with you on the collective rights to keep and bear arms and totally disagree with you, but the collective right to free speech is not anywhere on my radar

[MrBenchley]

67. In other words

The DLC memo tells us that to appeal to voters we should ignore the wishes of the vast majority of voters on this issue..which is typical DLC thinking.

[papau]

5. Reads like motherhood and apple pie - Dems have same values as you!

Why should that not be the message?

Dean says gun laws shouild conform to need - and urban need may be different than rural. So no new Federal gun laws - and let locals deside local issues.

This memo just says get out front in the war of "values" sound bites.

The Dems have a good gun policy position - IMHO.

And getting the Dem party position understood - rather than letting the GOP/NRA paint the Dem party as a bunch of take their guns away now folks - is a good idea.

[ruralpro]

24. Are you implying that this is a states rights issue

so if I am in the minority I lose my 2cnd ammendment rights?
I thought that the constitution, in part was to protect minority rights. So to take this concept and reapply it to the state I live in, the state could use state generated tax $ to start fund and run a church. I live in a state that is in the midst of a terrible Meth problem, I am sure that everyone has read about this terrible addiction and how it is close to 100% addictive, there are no functioning addicts as with booze, coke,pot,etc. So our local needs may need to tweak the 4th ammendment and allow certain search and seizure requirements to address this local needs problem.

[Superfly]

25. Correction

The constitution protects everybody's rights, regardless of race or creed.

[ruralpro]

45. clarification

My meaning was the people that are on the losing side of a vote (old meaning of minority)I refere back to my last post. Is Howard Dean implying that the 2cnd ammendment is a local issue?

[MrBenchley]

10. By the way...

Just look at those figures on page eight...

--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

Guess that must just be more of that gun-grabber propaganda...

[Withergyld]

27. Sensible gun laws???

"--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole"

This will have little effect on crime, less then 1% of criminals get firearms at gun shows

"--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking, just like Charles Schumer proposes"

It is already a felony with an up to ten year penalty to deal in firearms without a license.

"----79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions"

This would also close the "gunshow loophole"

"--77% want an assault weapons ban...."

Which is Unconstitutional

"--67% want ALL firearms registered"

Registration in California has already led to some confiscations of firearms.

Edited for cut/paste error

[MrBenchley]

31. Gee, maybe you better take it up with the DLC

or spoon...

I already know how far out of step the RKBA crowd is with mainstream America...and spoon is after all, the one who posted these numbers "much to the chagrin of a couple notable J/PS posters."

I think at least one of the ones he thought would be chagrined are laughing pretty heartily.

[Superfly]

32. Spoonman hasn't responded once to this thread....

Are you sure you're in the right place?

[MrBenchley]

35. You're right of course...

I mistook YOU for spoon...

[Withergyld]

33. The DLC did not write it

Americans for gun safety did, see the last page

[MrBenchley]

36. Ahem...

Superfly  (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-18-03 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. And the source is a Democratic PAC

Too funny....it was being dredged up here (for the fifth time) because it is supposedly carrying an official Democratic imprimatur....and now you're telling us that claim is so much hooey?

[DoNotRefill]

65. Nope...it was WRITTEN by AGS...

and distributed under the DLC banner. That implies approval.

[RoeBear]

28. Poll question #1- If they are calling it the 'gun show loophole"...

...it's obviously a slanted poll. You would think everyone would be honest enough, by now, to call it what it is; the 'private sale' loophole.

Poll question #2- Show me Chuck's defintion of gun trafficking and I would be likely to agree with the poll numbers.

Poll question #3- Ok, here's the honest question.

Poll question #4- Proves most people have no idea what was banned in 1994 and what wasn't.

Poll question #5- Any politician or party that trys to push this through Congress might as well fall on their sword. You'd also see the NRA's membership and warchest swell.

[MrSandman]

52. Why do they want more gun laws?

"Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced."

http://www.neahin.org/news/

Unfortunately, I could not follow the links through AGS to the original cite.

[Withergyld]

53. I found the report

Here it is in PDF format
http://w3.agsfoundation.com/media/AGS-enf.pdf

[MrSandman]

54. As for assault weapons and the gun show

"2% of inmates carried a military-style semiautomatic or machine gun"

"fewer than 2% purchased their gun at a flea market or gun show"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

It's in PDF so check the quotes and context.

It may have been cited before.

Let's focus on source of crime.

[DoNotRefill]

18. Actually, it was prepared by AGS....

a "moderate" gun gontrol group. Several rabidly anti-gunners here have quoted from them and linked to them in the past.

All they're doing is trying to put a thick layer of makeup on the old syphilitic whore that is gun control.

[Redneck Socialist]

55. Interesting analysis, but...

simply calling gun control, gun "saftey" is not going to win us many votes. The perception out there among many gun owners is that AGS is just another gun grabber group dressed up in kinder, gentler clothing.

[MrBenchley]

56. Yeah, and since the overwhelming majority

WANT gun control....let's concentrate on them.

[enfield collector]

62. obviously they don't

which is why we get handed our lunch everytime we campaign on that platform.

[MrBenchley]

64. Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

[slackmaster]

68. Mocking and slurs and guilt by association don't alter the truth

[CO Liberal]

69. So??

Many states also allowed slavery at one time - doesn't make it right.

[slackmaster]

70. Most people and most states never favored slavery

My point is that the people of nearly all of the states apparently favor the right to keep and bear arms, so any statement that an overwhelming majority of people want more gun control than we have in place now is dubious.

I could use a little dubiousness myself.

:hippie:

[MrBenchley]

71. Been a bad couple of days for the RKBA crowd

The Missouri judge they wanted to hail for "common sense in the flyover states" turned out to be the one who bounced the concealed carry law in the first place because it was unconstitutional...

The GOP program they wanted to hail for cutting crime turns out not to cut crime and is about to be cut by the GOP...

And the DLC memo they thought was big medicine says that voters want gun control in overwhelming numbers, with a solid majroity wanting gun registration.

[demsrule4life]

74. program they wanted to hail for cutting crime turns out not to cut

Another one bites the dust. This one close to home.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/031219/arms.shtml

[MrBenchley]

75. Congratulations

They caught one shitbird that the corrupt gun industry armed when it shouldn't have. Now show us where anybody says this has cut crime.

[demsrule4life]

76. He aint breaking no more laws

so crime has been cut.

[MrBenchley]

79. For 46 months....big fucking whooop

Now show us how he wouldn't have been caught if not for AshKKKroft's idiotic publicity stunt.

Even better, tell us how the Albuquerque program cut crime in any way (which not even the GOP gump holding the press cconference claimed), since that's the thread from which you wrenched my quote.

[demsrule4life]

80. He would of been caught but

I doubt he would of received as much time.

[MrBenchley]

81. Hahahahahahaha....

So besides the fact that there's no way to know one way or the other how much time he would have got normally, the entire boondoggle exists to pad NRA life member AshKKKroft's statistics and make it seem to the uninformed he is doing something about gun crime...when in fact all the diseased nutcase is doing is helping the gun industry arm criminals.


Great job, dems...you must be mighty proud.

[Hammie]

72. The take away is

Democratic candidates should lie better. Say that they believe that the second amendment protects individual rights but go on proposing and voting for laws that infringe those rights just like before.

Makes sense to me. Politicians lie their asses off all the time, why not lie about RKBA too.

[MrBenchley]

77. Jeepers!

You mean unlike those ruthlessly honest Republicans?

"Politicians lie their asses off all the time, why not lie about RKBA"
Jeeze, it sure isn't limited to politicians here. We get the RKBA crowd decorating the board with flagrant dishonesty ranging from bogus Tom Jefferson quotes to fake crime-cutting programs.

[souphound]

73. Maybe where you are MrBenchley

but around here folks don't take kindly to anyone threatning to take their guns. Coming out in favor of gun control is not the way to win an election here.

[MrBenchley]

78. Take it up with the DLC

"around here folks don't take kindly to anyone threatning to take their guns"
Laramie? Dodge City?