The evil empire of the NRA.

[Glassunion]

*Sources at the bottom

Let me start off with a few things.

I am a member of the NRA and I do not regret my decision to join. Above all I consider myself to be a progressive. I have progressive views and I vote for those who share my views. Above all else, I believe in civil rights and that ALL are created equal. That ALL deserve equal protection under the law. Period.

My parents did not have as easy of a life as I do growing up and starting a family. A mixed-race couple trying to start a family in the deep-south was not so very easy at all. But I never really experienced their burden, I did and do however understand their troubles. Sure I have experienced racism, but nothing on the level they went through. They worked hard to insure that I was raised in a nurturing area, tolerant of those who may be a bit different. They also worked hard to insure that I never felt animosity, hate or fear of others that were different from me. Sure this or that white guy is a racist, but that does not mean that all white people are racists.

Clip from an earlier post…

In the wake of hurricane Katrina, local law enforcement literally went door to door confiscating people's firearms. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons. We're going to take all the weapons."-P. Edwin Compass III, Supt. of Police. Not so they would prevent people from having firearms on the street, but in their own homes as well, so that NO ONE could protect themselves, their families and their homes in the wake of one of the worst natural disasters in our country's history with a firearm. A disaster, as we all know where local and federal aid was almost nonexistent especially in the first week.

The response to the disaster was shameful. I believe that we can all agree that the majority of the citizens impacted by the disaster were minorities. So there you have a bunch of black people that the government seemingly did not give two shits about. Literally stuck in their homes with no 911 or aid that was coming in the near future. Instead of sending help, instead of letting people know what they needed to do, or where they needed to go, we had law enforcement going door to door, not to bring food or aid, but to take away one of the few means people had to protect themselves and families.

So we (our government) stripped (illegally in my mind) a minority of their constitutionally protected right in the wake of a disaster. You also have to realize that there are quite a few people who still to this day to receive their confiscated firearms back. How do you think this made me feel? I could very well be next, yes? In the wake of a disaster in my area, would law enforcement take away my firearms from my own home?

My NAACP did not stand up to this. My ACLU did not stand up for this. No, it was the NRA along with other similar groups who stood to protect the right of others like myself in the wake of a future disaster. Not only did they fight it, they fought it hard. The NRA did more for me and those like me in the coming months than all the other civil rights groups that I am a member of. So I did what I saw was right, and I joined. Thanks goodness in the wake of the Katrina debacle my state (on its own) took legislative steps to ensure that something like that cannot happen in my state.

And with that I have all of the benefits that come along with it. Discounts, rebates, meets, training, etc. I am glad I am a member, and I am glad that more and more of the leaders of my party are shifting to a pro 2nd stance.

So that is why I am a member. If you don’t like it, then that is your problem. However, in the past few weeks there have been others around here that have challenged other DU members, myself included that we cannot possibly be “progressives” or “democrats” because we back the NRA’s stance on a civil right. This does bother me a bit as I know that there are others around here who are like me and support their stance and there are others who don’t. But generally we do not question that person’s conviction in our party and progressive viewpoint. To me this is equivalent to an attack on one’s character and belief system. On top of that it has been suggested (almost to the point of demand) that if you support the NRA and cannot possibly be a “progressive” minded individual, you should leave the DU.

Some facts…
The NRA supports Republicans.
The NRA supports Democrats.
Above all, the NRA supports the 2nd Amendment. No red line, no blue line, they support those who support the 2nd Amendment.
1998: NRA PAC contributions to federal candidates (17% to Democrats, 83% to Republicans)
2000: NRA PAC contributions to federal candidates (15% to Democrats, 84% to Republicans)
2002: NRA PAC contributions to federal candidates (12% to Democrats, 88% to Republicans)
2004: NRA PAC contributions to federal candidates (15% to Democrats, 85% to Republicans)
2006: NRA PAC contributions to federal candidates (16% to Democrats, 84% to Republicans)
2008: NRA PAC contributions to federal candidates (22% to Democrats, 78% to Republicans)
2010: NRA PAC contributions to federal candidates (29% to Democrats, 71% to Republicans)

Looks to me like something happened after the 06 elections (the year I joined). I wonder what that was? I'm also pleased with the trend as well. Been steadily creeping up since the '04 elections.

It has been stated by others that the NRA’s platform is to usurp the Democratic party and all that we stand for. That the NRA’s ultimate goal is to insure that any candidate who is Pro-Life, Anti-Gay Marriage, Anti-Health Care is not elected. This is not true.

I give you the Honorable Tim Walz.
Walz was first inspired to run for office in part by an occurrence at a 2004 rally for George W. Bush at a Mankato quarry, "where he and two students were removed due to a John Kerry sticker on one of the students' wallets". Walz had no opponent in the race for the DFL nomination for the seat in the September 12, 2006 primary election. He beat incumbent Republican Gil Gutknecht in the general election on November 7, and took office on January 3, 2007. In his victory speech, Walz said "they should've let us into the quarry."
Upon his swearing in, Walz became the highest-ranking retired enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress, as well as only the fourth non-Republican to represent Minnesota's First Congressional District.

Views and voting history:

Walz opposed President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.
In his first week as a legislator, Walz cosponsored a bill to raise the minimum wage.
Voted for stem cell research
Voted to allow Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical prices
Voted no on the act to Prohibit Federally Funded Abortion Services
Voted yes to advance the current Health Care bill out of the house
He receives a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
He scores a 93 from the AFL-CIO
Walz receives high ratings from the National Farmers Union and the National Association of Wheat Growers.
Also an "A+" from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of War
In May of 2007 the House unanimously passed his “Traumatic Brain Injuries Center Act” to set up 5 centers around the nation to study traumatic brain injuries and develop improved models for caring for veterans suffering from such injuries.
During 2008, Walz repeatedly spoke out against using taxpayer money to bailout financial institutions; in late September he voted against the $700 billion TARP bill
Walz did vote with his Democratic colleagues to support the 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
Walz is a strong supporter of Public Schools and opposes using merit pay for teachers in low-income schools as punishment
He has received strong backing from the National Education Association, the American Association of University Women and the National Association of Elementary School Principals
When asked his position on universal national health care, Walz noted that women are penalized more severely and unfairly under our current system and supported movements for reducing the costs of healthcare and extending care to more families
Walz is a strong supporter of equal rights for all, including women and the LGBT community
Walz voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work
In a 2009 speech in Washington DC, Walz called for an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, saying that sexual discrimination has no place in the military and that sexual orientation of individuals does not affect the “professionalism” of units
Walz voted in favor of the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Act, making sure federal law mirrored Minnesota law when it comes to hate crimes against the LGBT community
Walz received a 90% grade from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT organization

I don’t know about you guys, but I love this man. A lot! To me, this is the kind of person that I would want to represent me. Damn you Minnesota! I want to vote for the guy. We all know about MoveOn.org. They love the guy too. They contributed $1,000 to his campaign. Hell, I don’t live there and I want to give the guy some money. Funny thing though. The NRA gave him $5,000. But I thought that they hate everything that he and we stand for? I thought their only reason for existence is to bring down the Democratic Party. Why the hell would they give the guy so much money?

Here is the way I look at it. The NRA is a one issue organization. So what? So are many other organizations. NAACP, NOW, Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, NAWG, NFU, etc… Those are just a handful of one issue organizations. They also support candidates, both Republican and Democrat. So what? Could I possibly be for an organization such as the NAACP even though they support a white Republican? Yes, yes I can. Will I vote for them? In all probability I would not. Why is that do you suppose?

Perhaps I take a look at the whole. Let’s just take a hypothetical candidate. Bob Bobinson (D). Let’s say that the AFL and NAWG gave him a good rating. He was not endorsed by the NAACP or Planned Parenthood. But NOW gave him A+ rating and he received an F from the NRA. How would I vote? Would I vote for the Republican candidate with the A+ rating from the NRA? No I would not.

I look at every election the exact same way. I do not vote right up the party line. I look at every candidate’s character, viewpoints, voting history, tax returns (kidding), etc…

Let’s look at a real world example.

My Congressman Patrick Murphy (D).

Murphy has a 100 percent rating from NARAL
Murphy voted for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Patrick Murphy is a leader of the opposition to the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of removing service members from the American military for their sexual orientation
Murphy voted for the Affordable Health Care for America Act on November 7, 2009
Murphy has a D+ rating from the NRA
In 2007, Murphy co-sponsored legislation that would re-authorize a Federal ban on semi-automatic firearms
In 2008, he was an original co-sponsor of legislation that would repeal the District of Columbia's ban on semi-automatic weapons and mandatory handgun registration
The NRA endorsed his opponent.

But, I did vote for Mr. Murphy. Why is that do you suppose? Yep, the very group I am a member of gave him a D+ AND they endorsed his opponent. Yet, I still went out of my way, picked up my wife at home, drove all the way across town to the school, walked into the voting booth and voted for him. How could I possibly do a thing like that?

Here is the thing… I give money to the NAACP, NOW and ACLU as well as MoveOn and the NRA among a few. Now the NAACP has backed and supported candidates I would rather not see elected as well as NOW. I have been hard pressed to find someone on MoveOn that I could not support. Ask yourself this question. How could I give any money or be a member of an organization (ACLU, NOW, NAACP and NRA) that supports candidates that I do not want to see elected? Simple. Their root beliefs and convictions are the same as mine. They believe in civil rights. They fight for those civil rights. I believe in those civil rights and would sooner die than to give up those civil rights. Those groups work and fight hard to protect them. Therefore, they have my support.
Would you question my “Progressive” views if the NAACP supports a Republican who stood up more for racial equality than their Democratic opponent?
Would you question my “Progressive” views if NOW supports a Republican who stood up more for women’s equality than their Democratic opponent (it will never happen)?
Would you question my “Progressive” views if NARAL supports a Republican who stood up more for abortion rights than their Democratic opponent?

It is zero skin off of my back if you disagree with any of our civil rights and do not wish to support any one them. In fact, even if you wish to suppress any one of those rights I would still NEVER question your progressive convictions. It is INDEED your right, but we just disagree.

We are a party of many people, with just as many varying viewpoints. But as a collective, we are strong, we have solid goals and we know that together we can continue to frame the nation towards the greater good. Others may question my dedication to the Democratic party, others may demand I punch out and leave. But I'm sorry, I believe in all of it. I believe in our direction and our dream, I will continue to support any group who believes the same as I do and supports the foundation of all of our rights. A truly Progressive nation would indeed be mighty to behold.

(sources)
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2010&nid=1854
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000022122&cycle=2010&nid=1781
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2010&strID=C00053553
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00341396&cycle=2010
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2009/02/roll_call_vote_on_economic_sti.html
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4229
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?category=2&go.x=11&go.y=12&can_id=60031&type=category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Murphy_(politician)
http://www.bluestemprairie.com/a_bluestem_prairie/2006/11/rochester_post__4.html
http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/news/features/2006/11/08_extra_walzspeech
http://walz.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=56057
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/923881.html
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/local_story_007001204.html
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=28173&can_id=65443
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=19238&can_id=65443
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=28171&can_id=65443
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=22467&can_id=65443
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=65443
http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=289133&keyword=veterans&phrase=&contain=
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=22428&can_id=65443
http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=478873&keyword=economy+and+jobs&phrase=&contain=
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=65443
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=28175&can_id=65443
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz again... This guy is awesome!

[Oregone]

1. Oy, this will go over well here

[SteveM]

3. It may go over better than you think. Not many fans of the NRA, here,

but that doesn't keep people from realizing what makes them tick, and what kind of opposition they can throw up to progressive causes if one continues to engage the spittle-flying culture war which accompanies "gun-control" debate.

If gun-control is a "wedge" issue, why not flatten its damnable edge.

[rrneck]

2. Standard fare from you.

Common sense, well supported and readable. Well said.

As I've said before, the entire country didn't become Berkeley the day Obama got elected. A lot of independents switched sides to get him in there, and a lot of them are gun owners and members of the NRA.

The first rule of politics is to find a group of people who are headed somewhere and get out in front of them. Democratic politicians are starting to figure out that being anti self defense can cost you your job. And the NRA will follow right along with them.

[wtmusic]

4. Re: the myth that the NRA supports the Second Amendment.

The NRA supports their interpretation of the Second Amendment, one which many regard as twisted and wholly at odds with what the founders intended.

[cowman]

10. No, it's your twisted

interpertation of the 2nd Amend.. Face it, your side lost and lost big time. The NRA is interperting it the same way as the SCOTUS. Your just pissed off because your side lost and all your snarky comments won't change that. Have a good life

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Keep beating that dead horse, it still won't rise to carry your freight.

Your side lost. Learn to live with it.

There are many quotes from the founders that show that they did indeed intent for people to have the right to own guns and keep those guns at their homes and to carry those guns around.

[Glassunion]

19. Sincere questions.

From your point of view.
What exactly is the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
What exactly were the founders intentions with the 2nd Amendment?

[Statistical]

23. The whole totally debunked "collective rights" canard.

Get with the times ALL NINE justices thoroughly rejected the "collective rights" BS and affirm the 2nd protects and individual right to keep and bear arms. They only differ in what level of restriction is Constitutional.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

- Justice Stevens Minority Opinion - DC v. Heller (2008)

[wtmusic]

49. Are you referring to a French duck?

Please show me where I told a story, or made a reference to the issue of collective/individual rights. Or are you just spouting? :shrug:

[Callisto32]

31. blah blah blah

[wtmusic]

35. You've summed up the NRA argument nicely.

:thumbsup:

[Glassunion]

39. Sincere questions:

From your point of view.
What exactly is the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
What exactly were the founders intentions with the 2nd Amendment?

[wtmusic]

47. I agree with this gentleman.

"Does The NRA Really Defend The Second Amendment?

According to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The word "Arms" was deliberately capitalized, a common practice at the time used for emphasis. Since Thomas Jefferson later owned a private cannon, the largest weapon in his day, the term "Arms" to the original framers clearly meant more than small arms one can easily "bear"; note, to "keep" and bear Arms.

The word "gun" is found nowhere in the Constitution, a very carefully worded document. It should also be noted that in the Consitution's preamble, one of the main purposes listed is to "insure domestic Tranquility" (also capitalized). To honestly and correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything that follows the Preamble, including all ten original amendments soon added, must be viewed in light of the Constitution's stated purpose.

For many years, the NRA has been guilty of drawing a non-existent, artificial line down the center of the Second Amendment, limiting the debate to guns, knives, grenades and similar small arms. To contend that the Second Amendment permits unlimited unregulated private ownership of modern assault weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to pretend that the Second Amendment allows unlimited private ownership of chemical weapons, nuclear bombs and space-ray weapons, which are also modern "Arms" unknown to the framers.

In order to engage in an honest Constitutional debate, the NRA must admit that, according to their interpretation of the Second Amendment, we have just as much right to own private nuclear bombs and Anthrax as we do to own a multi-round handgun, none of which existed when the Second Amendment was drafted. If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st Century question is not "if" we are going to restrict the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict it..."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-The-NRA-Really-Defend-The-Second-Amendment?&id=3074244

[Statistical]

48. Please show me a cite where the NRA promotes "unlimited unregulated" weapons.

I won't throw in "assault weapons" because that is just a made up word for "scary looking but functionality no more dangerous than any other gun" weapons.

[wtmusic]

50. The NRA supports individual ownership of nuclear weapons?

I never knew.

[Glassunion]

51. You posted it. You must believe it. Please show us where the NRA promotes it.

Did you even read what you posted.

[one-eyed fat man]

5. Agreed!!! Plus, you could have also pointed out

That like Gaul, the NRA is divided into three parts. The NRA that sanctions competitive shooting events, provides training, runs ranges, teaches safety, staffs the museum, and does the technical research doesn't upset too many folks.

The NRA-ILA is the lobbying arm and they try to persuade lawmakers to adopt or reshape legislation that is favorable to lawful gun owners and the legal use of firearms.

The NRA-PVF is the arm that endorses and donates money to candidates. They are a pretty pragmatic bunch. They have a strong bent towards incumbents and to supporting those that have stood with them in the past. In that light, despite the shrill denials that the NRA never supports "real Democrats" the endorsement of Harry Reid over his challenger is a no-brainer. As Majority leader he has a strong say as to what legislation gets to the floor for a vote and when.

Which chance would they rather take seeing Harry Reid back in that job or Charles Schumer? You can hate them, you can scream, whine or snivel, but the more pro gun Democrats there are, particularly incumbent pro gun Democrats the more Democrats the NRA will endorse.

The other alternative is to abandon the position to the opposition, put those rank and file deer hunting blue collar Union guys in the position of having to make a Hobson's choice between a "gun-grabbing pro-Labor Democrat" or a "free market, pro-gun Republican." If you don't like that example, pick the competing issues of your choice.

I believe repeating the debacle of 1994 is lunacy. Electing more pro gun Democrats would result in more Democrats. Why abandon the issue to the opposition?

[onehandle]

6. The NRA has pledged $20 million as part of the GOP 'avalanche' this Fall.

So please, prop up that right-wing organization all you want.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/democrats-fear-they-cant_n_639202.html

[Glassunion]

8. What! Wow! I've dropped my membership.

Oh. Nevermind.

I read the article you linked. It did not say what you said.

Did you link the right one?

[cowman]

11. From Huffpo

are you fucking serious?

[Glassunion]

13. Some good some bad...

The NRA's Political Victory Fund is credited, by some, with having helped the GOP take back the majority in '94, and the group looks poised to play a big role again this year. Gun issues have yet to make an appearance on the Dem legislative agenda, but many on the right have used the threat of new gun control measures as a rallying cry this year.

Still, thanks to Dem efforts to broaden their tent, the group is likely to back a significant number of Dems -- especially younger members whose seats are top GOP targets. In '08, the NRA endorsed Reps. Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Baron Hill (D-IN), Ike Skelton (D-MO), Travis Childers (D-MS), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Charlie Wilson (D-OH), Zack Space (D-OH), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Chris Carney (D-PA), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), Chet Edwards (D-TX) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) -- all of whom are top NRCC targets.

If the NRA gets involved in many of the same races this year, their signature election guides -- distributed to their more than 4M members shortly before election day -- could save some members who might otherwise be on the chopping block.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/06/nras_first_endo.php

[KansasVoter]

28. Wow, you also do not get it.......

The NRA spends millions to defeat great progressives based on one issue. Name one other organization that does that that progressives would donate money to.

They gave Obama an F and donated millions against him.

How can that be justified by people who say they are progressive?

Long post and a waste of words.

[cowman]

30. I get it now

your the ONLY ONE who gets it, the rest of us are wrong. I gotch, glad you could clear that up for us.:rofl: :sarcasm:

[KansasVoter]

36. The rest in this place. Not normal progressives.

[Glassunion]

38. Do me a favor...

Could you tell me your definition of a "Normal Progressive"?

I'm a progressive and I feel normal? But am I, accoring to your standards?

[KansasVoter]

40. Do you donate money to the NRA?

[Glassunion]

42. I am a card-carrying member of the NRA.

[KansasVoter]

43. You sound funny saying that.

[Glassunion]

44. I answered your question, why do you refuse to answer mine?

Could you tell me your definition of a "Normal Progressive"?

I'm a progressive and I feel normal? But am I, accoring to your standards?

[Travis Coates]

46. I'm an NRA member as well

but you knew that

[cowman]

41. Like I said before

you don't get to decide who is progressive and who is not. You can label us all you want but in the end, it just doesn't matter what you think because quite frankly, I really don't give a rats ass what you think. I know that I am a progressive and I do support the NRA and if you don't like it, well tough shit, thats your problem not mine.
BTW, the NRA doesn't defeat candidates, the voters do.

[Travis Coates]

34. You're the one who doesn't get it

Whether you agree or not, the majority of Americans believe they have a right to own a weapon for self defense (more accurately, they believe they have a right to own a weapon because they want to.) when they see progressives supporting more and more gun restrictions they vote them out.

The tide has turned, 37 states allow shall issue carry, 3 require no permit what so ever (and a 4th is considering it) only 8 states are may (will infringe) issue and 2 don’t allow carry at all.

The only thing progressives will get out of pushing this issue is another ’94

I’ve said it before but screaming antis like you have done more to elect GOP candidates than the NRA ever will.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. How very true. The NRA needs enemies for it to be strong.

If the antis went away, the NRA would wither back to being a marksmanship and gun safety organization, and would once again be respected by all.

[Glassunion]

37. The truth is a simple thing. Why do you choose to ignore it?

Your little sound bytes of information rarely tell the the truth, or are full of half truths. From what I can see from your posts, you seem to have this huge tower built up of what you "think" the NRA is and what it is about. Then you make false statements about what you think the organization is about all the while trying to get other people on your side. The issue with that is that it is hate based on misconception and ignorance.

I'll give you some examples:
You said: "The NRA spends millions to defeat great progressives based on one issue."
That statement is only a half truth. To get the whole truth it should be stated like this... "The NRA spends millions on both Progressives and Conservatives who have a track record of protecting the 2nd Amendment" or, just the opposite could be stated, but again it would only be the half truth. "The NRA spends millions to defeat great conservatives based on one issue. Name one organization that does that the conservatives would donate money to?" But that would not be the whole truth.

Your next statement: "They gave Obama an F and donated millions against him." Is one true statement and one false.
True: They gave Obama and F.
False: and donated millions against him.

You know the Brady Campaign. They hate the NRA more than you do. They fight each other at every possible avenue from every possible angle. They gave Obama an F as well, for not standing up to his campaign promises.
So do you hate the Brady Campaign as well? Or is the enemy of your enemy of your delusion your friend?

In the 2008 election year, Obama was up against John McCain, yes? The NRA and all of its power and all of its might donated a whopping $1,250 to John McCain. That's it, just over twelve hundred bucks. Sort of far off the mark of your "millions".

Then your statement: "How can that be justified by people who say they are progressive?" Well, when you take all of the false statements out, it does not seem so bad. Also, are you the gatekeeper for the Progressive movement. Do you decide who gets in? No? Ok good.

[msongs]

7. hmmm first black president -> gun and ammo sales go up? who'da thought it

[Glassunion]

9. Did you have a point about the OP?

If you did, I'm sorry, it went over my head.

[PavePusher]

20. S/he is playing the race card again... poorly.

Not the best partner to pick in a game of Spades, I'm guessing.

:evilgrin: :hide:

[GreenStormCloud]

17. It had nothing to do with his color. Obama had a strong anti-gun record. N/T

[proteus_lives]

24. How does it feel to keep falling on your face?

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

29. It probably had more to do with him being a Democrat

after Clinton and the 1994 AWB.

[Callisto32]

32. When losing, cry racist?

Really?

That is a fallacy, see if you can figure out which one.

[katandmoon]

12. Fuck the fucking NRA.

[Glassunion]

14. Thank you for your honesty and not doubting my convictions as a progressive.

[cowman]

15. Wow

that's brilliant and deep thinking.

[oneshooter]

27. Thats as good as it gets with K&M!!! n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

18. You do have difficulty expressing yourself without sexual insults, don't you? N/T

[PavePusher]

21. Can you please recommend another organisation...

to get firearms safety training from? Thanks in advance....

[proteus_lives]

25. That's about the level of discourse we expect from you.

And it's one of the many reasons your side continues to lose badly.

[Callisto32]

33. "Fuck you, you fucking fucks!"

It's way funnier, and at least is a popular culture reference.

[spin]

22. K&R Excellent post. (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

26. Thanks for the info!

Once again you school our unworthy opponents with their kryptonite, facts, logic and common sense.

:applause: