Hee Hee Hee! RedState is having a meltdown over the NRA endorsing Democrats.

[friendly_iconoclast]

PM me for the link, or look it up yourself:

The NRA is Helping Preserve the Anti Gun Democrat Majority

Posted by dhorowitz3 (Profile)

Tuesday, October 5th at 8:07AM EDT

172 Comments
Believe it or not, the only ones who might help Nancy Pelosi save her House majority are those who run legislative affairs at the NRA. So called Blue Dog Democrats across the nation are campaigning as red meat conservatives in their home districts, while running deceptive ads about their Republican opponents. They campaign as if they have nothing to do with the Democrat Party that they propelled to power and which passed all of the nefarious legislation that they purport to oppose. The sick irony is that the more successful these liars are in distancing themselves from Pelosi, the more likely it will be that Pelosi will remain Speaker. Here is my previous report on the need to expose the blue dogs. Also, check out the Club for Growth’s excellent report on the lie of the conservative Democrat.

Fortunately, as long as the conservative rhetoric is coming from the Democrat candidates themselves, the voters aren’t buying it. However, when the NRA parachutes in and endorses that Democrat for reelection over their 2nd amendment champion Republican opponents, people might give credence to their claims of being born again conservatives. The sad thing is that the NRA is endorsing Democrats in the very districts that we must win in order to obtain 39 seats. Here is a list of some of the Democrats who the NRA is endorsing that could cost us the majority:


AL-2: Bobby Bright
AR-4: Mike Ross
Ca-18: Dennis Cardoza
CO-3: John Salazar
CO-4: Betsy Markey
FL-2: Allen Boyd
Ga-2: Sanford Bishop
Ga-8: Jim Marshall
Ga-12: John Barrow
IA-3: Leonard Boswell
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
IL-12: Jerry Costello
IN-Senate-Brad Ellsworth
IN-2: Joe Donnely
IN-8: Trent Van Haaften
IN-9: Baron Hill
KY-6: Ben Chandler
MD-1: Frank Kratovil
MI-1: Gary McDowell
MN-1: Tim Walz
MS-1: Travis Childers
MS-4: Gene Taylor
MO-4: Ike Skelton
NC-7: Mike McIntyre
NC-8: Larry Kissell
NC-11: Heath Shuler
ND-At Large: Earl Pomeroy
NM-1: Martin Heinrich
NM-2: Harry Teague
NM-3: Ben Lujan
NY-20: Scott Murphy
NY-23: Bill Owens
NY-24: Mike Acruri
OH-Gov. Ted Strickland
OH-6: Charlie Wilson
OH-16: John Boccieri
OH-18: Zack Space
OK-2: Dan Boren
OR-5: Kurt Schrader
PA-4: Jason Altmire
PA-10: Chris Carney
PA-11: Paul Kanjorski
PA-12: Mark Critz
PA-17: Tim Holden
SD-At Large: Stephanie Sandlin
TN-4: Lincoln Davis
TN-8: Roy Herron
TX-17: Chet Edwards
UT-2: Jim Matheson
VA-2: Glenn Nye
VA-5: Tom Perriello
VA-9: Rick Boucher
WI-3: Ron Kind
WI-8: Steve Kagen
WV-Senate: Joe Manchin
WV-3: Nick Rahall

There are a total of 53 Democrats in competitive/semi competitive districts that the NRA has endorsed. There is simply no pathway to the majority without winning most of these seats. Let me pose the following question. What would be a more effective advertisement in these districts, an endorsement from the Sierra Club or from the NRA? I think that it is quite clear that the NRA is one of the most effective organizations that are helping to preserve the Democrats majority.

[JDPriestly]

1. Attitudes toward guns probably have more to do with where you live,

whether in an urban area or in a rural area, not what political party you belong to.

If you live in an area with a lot of deer, you probably think guns are great and gun ownership does not need to be regulated. If you live in a city with lots of drug dealers and violent crime, you probably want gun regulations. Generally, more Democrats come from urban areas.

That doesn't mean that Democrats favor gun regulation. Democrats in more rural areas of the country probably don't see much need for gun regulation.

[spin]

6. Your attitude toward guns probably depends on how draconian the gun laws are ...

in your area.

I lived in the Tampa Florida 37 years. The Tampa Bay area has lots of drug dealers and violent crime.

The majority of my neighbors, friends and co-workers owned firearms. A significant number had concealed weapon permits.

The residents of the Tampa Bay area are familiar with both the good and bad that comes with firearm ownership. Residents of cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago are only familiar with the bad that criminals and drug gangs do with their illegal weapons.

[JDPriestly]

7. A few years after we moved to our current neighborhood,

a young man a few houses down was shot by members of a rival gang. Our neighborhood has changed. Gang violence has decreased. The families whose kids were in the gangs have, in many cases, moved to other neighborhoods. We don't worry one way or the other.

It is very nice to say that if good people have guns, they can defend themselves against criminals. But the fact is that many good people really cannot handle guns or should not have or handle guns. Those of us who have poor vision probably should not have guns. Are we to be the only people without guns in a world of gun fanatics?

Should young children need to carry guns in order to walk to local schools safely? If ownership of guns is acceptable for everyone except the mentally ill, does that mean that the mentally ill are fair game?

These questions are complex in an urban society.

I have elderly friends who live alone and can manage on their own but are no longer able to drive or get a license due to problems with their vision or other physical problems. They probably should not be handling guns either. Are they to be left unarmed in an armed society? What is your solution to the problems I am suggesting. I'm not opposed to guns, but neither am I an advocate for guns. I just have a lot of questions.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[spin]

9. Maybe that's why most gun enthusiasts HERE actually do favor reasonable ...

gun restrictions.

In case you haven't noticed we favor restrictions such as having to pass an NICS background check before you can purchase a firearm from a dealer and many would like to see that extended to private sales as well.

Despite the constant chant, none of us recommend that everybody should own a firearm or children should be allow to carry them to school.

Florida has numerous gun laws and restrictions and I find these regulations extremely reasonable. I often hold up Florida' gun laws as an example for other states to follow.

Much, of course, depends on the meaning of the word "reasonable". Some of those who desire more gun control feel that some ideas such as firearm microstamping are great and very reasonable ideas. The idea is controversial at the least.

Claims made by proponents of the technology include:

* Microstamping enables law enforcement to match fired cartridge cases from a crime scene to at least the last registered owner of the firearm.
* Microstamping would allow law enforcement to track illegal trade in guns.
* Low cost of implementation; the technology owner claims as low as US$0.50 per firearm or as high as US $8.50, depending on the volume of the manufacturer.
* High reliability; the "nearly as hard as a diamond" firing pin provides long service life.

Claims made by the opponents of the technology include:

* Stamped casing can only be traced to the last registered owner, not to the person who used the gun when the casings were stamped. In the case of a stolen gun, as is the case for most firearms used in crime, the stamped case would not lead to the criminal.
* Unscrupulous individuals could collect discarded brass from a firing range and salt crime scenes with microstamped cases, thereby providing false evidence against innocent people and increasing the workload for investigators.<4>
* High costs for testing the efficacy of the technique must be passed on to customers, increasing the cost of firearms for those who obtain them legally.<4>
* Microstamping is easily defeated. Diamond coated files are inexpensive and will remove microstamping. Firing pins are normally replaceable and can be changed with simple tools or without tools. Firing a large number of rounds will wear down the microstamp.<4> Marked components such as slides, barrels, firing pins and ejectors are all easily and commonly replaced items.<5>
* Microstamping is an immature, sole source technology, and has not been subjected to sufficient independent testing. Transfer of microstamped marks to the cases is less reliable than proponents claim.<4>
* Microstamping would be irrelevant/non-applicable for implementation of revolvers as these types of weapons do not eject shell cases necessarily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping

Many gun control advocates also favor ideas such as mandatory gun registration. Those who study history will quickly point out that gun registration often leads to gun confiscation even in the United States.

I don't speak for the "freeper type" pro-RKBA people and have no idea what they currently advocate as I don't haunt their site. I and many others who post on DU in favor of RKBA speak for many Democrats who own and enjoy the sport of shooting and in many cases own firearms for self defense.

[spin]

10. I have never recommended that everybody should own firearms ...

Obviously some people suffer from physical and mental problems that would make owning a firearm problematical and might easily lead to tragedy. People who have an anger management problem or are addicted to, and abuse a substance such as alcohol should not own firearms. Those who live in a volatile relationship with a significant other or are unwilling to take the responsibility of securing their firearms from curious children should also avoid owning guns.

But your argument:

It is very nice to say that if good people have guns, they can defend themselves against criminals. But the fact is that many good people really cannot handle guns or should not have or handle guns. Those of us who have poor vision probably should not have guns. Are we to be the only people without guns in a world of gun fanatics?

is interesting and deserves some consideration.

Obviously because you suffer from a handicap such as poor vision, a handgun may not be a good choice for your self defense. You have to be able to identify your target in a low light condition and be certain that the person is not your drunken next door neighbor stumbling into your house by mistake or your wife or one of your children. Note that 20/20 vision is not a requirement for shooting although many really good shooters I have known have better vision than that. I'm not sure where you might draw the limit, but I would guess that if you can't legally drive a car, shooting might be challenging.

Rather than own a firearm, I would suggest that you fortify your home to resist an invader. You can probably deter a burglar with fairly simple and relatively inexpensive improvements. Make your bedroom a safe room. If a intrusion occurs, call the police from a cell phone and stay online. This is also a good idea for gun owners. It's far better to discourage an intruder than to shoot him.

You do mention that currently you have no worries. Perhaps you don't have to do anything. Chances are fair to good that you will never have a situation occur where a firearm would be beneficial. I personally am not a risk taker. As a final option, I like to have a firearm.

Would you deny me the right to own a handgun and even carry one because of your poor vision? Note that I cam also handicapped as I have a hip that needs replaced and severe disk degeneration in my back. In a confrontation with a younger man in good physical condition, I would be at a disadvantage, although I hate to admit it. I have, however, 40 years experience in shooting firearms and handguns in particular.

I personally have never had to use a firearm for self defense and I hope I never will have to. However my daughter did stop an individual trying to break into our home in Tampa. He was forcing the sliding glass door to the kitchen open and half way in when she confronted him. I had taken measure to secure my home which was why he was having problems with the door. The burglar alarm was also sounding and we had a 60 pound female Black Lab in the house. (A sweet dog but useless for defense.)

She drew down on him with a large caliber revolver and he ran. No shots were fired. She had been to the pistol range with me numerous times and was, and still is, a damn good shot.

You mention elderly people. I remember taking my mother out to the range to practice shooting a Colt .45 auto that my step dad had bought for self defense. She was in her eighties and while she was no tack diver with the big pistol, she could hit a target a 25 yards. Much depends on the person. I have known excellent shooters who were in their 70s. I have helped train people in their late 60s to shoot. One such lady I was working with noticed a shooter on the range firing a .357 magnum revolver with extremely hot reloads. She walked up to him and asked him if she could try. She fired a cylinder full and returned with an enormous smile on her face. She fired a nice group on his target.

I was disappointed with your comment:

"Should young children need to carry guns in order to walk to local schools safely? If ownership of guns is acceptable for everyone except the mentally ill, does that mean that the mentally ill are fair game?"

At a minimum that was a snarky comment. The only reason I will bother to reply to it is that often here in the Gungeon, the pro-RKBA supporters get accused of wanting children to own firearms. I don't want a 14 year old carrying a firearm for the same reason that I don't want a 14 year old driving. Also note that I have never advocated euthanasia, so of course the mentally ill are not fair game.

I would like to see future gun control efforts focus on taking firearms from criminals and gang members and people who are legally not allowed to own them. All too often a criminal with a LONG rap sheet is found carrying a illegal handgun and gets to plea bargain the charge away. We can probably never stop all firearms from ending in criminal hands but we can punish those caught illegally carrying one in a manner that discourages such activity. If the gang members stop carrying firearms on the street, we could avoid a lot of senseless violence. It's hard to shoot someone for "disrespecting" you if you don't have a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. How does disarming me help them? N/T

[TheWraith]

11. You are right on target.

I live in a very rural area. Almost all the Democrats I know out here--most of whom are members of the activist base--own guns, even the ones who seethe with disgust at the NRA.

[azurnoir]

2. Kinda cheers me up as someone who has

both a DU sticker and an NRA sticker on her front door

[Recursion]

3. The NRA PAC's policy has been public for years

If two candidates differ in their positions on the right to keep and bear arms, they will endorse the candidate who promises fewer restrictions. If the two candidates do not appreciably differ, they will support the incumbent.

No sense crying about it now, Republicans.

[Euromutt]

4. I'll admit to being pleased about this, in more ways than one

Most of all, as a nose-holding member of the NRA who is attempting to "fight from within the belly of the beast," I am very happy the NRA-PVF has consistently applied its stated principles in a non-partisan fashion, endorsing Democratic candidates where those candidates meet the objective requirements. But I am even more pleased that the NRA-PVF has, in so doing, pissed off the Republican party machine, and thereby demonstrated that it is (a) not an organ of the Republican party, and (b) that the Republican party reacts rather ungraciously to the realization that it can't take the votes of the membership of the foremost pro-RKBA organization for granted.

Honestly, given the amount of fawning the national leadership has done over the Teabagger types, I came very close to mailing back my membership card and telling Wayne and Chris they'd done a great job of alienating pro-RKBA lefties like myself, so sayonara, assholes. This acknowledgement that the organization (as opposed to the dickheads who present the PR face) is not as partisan as both Republicans or gun control advocates would like to believe it is is a great encouragement.

[one-eyed fat man]

5. They are not the only ones!

There are a few around here who can't utter, "NRA" without spittle flying; vicious, vindictive, vehement vituperance; and a hatred so palpable it's downright funny.

[AwakeAtLast]

12. Yeah, Hoosier Repuke heads are exploding over Ellsworth's endorsement

but as a former Sheriff, he was pretty much the only choice.

[one-eyed fat man]

13. It will be interesting in a couple weeks.

This morning on NPR it was pretty simple.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130557192

While Democrats face stiff political headwinds this election season, they've received support from one group not often associated with Democratic candidates: the National Rifle Association. The pro-gun group has endorsed 58 Democrats running for the House, as well as some Senate and Gubernatorial candidates. For Democrats in conservative rural districts, the NRA's support could be crucial.

Republican candidates used to garner more NRA endorsements because the Democratic party and its candidates were historically anti-gun. As more and more Democratic incumbents jump the Democratic Party's historical anti-gun bandwagon, the NRA endorses them. Many here in the gungeon have advocated that the 1994 debacle was a direct result of the Party's suicidal push for what most of the country felt was overarching and over-reaching anti-gun legislation.

So if the 58 NRA endorsed candidates keep their seats results in a continued Democratic majority in Congress will the loudmouth, anti-gun, NRA hating bunch down here be whining about the Party "selling out to the gun nuts" or celebrating hanging on to Congress?

[DWC]

14. Common Sense

I am a conservative who believes in common sense. There are left leaning Republicans and right leaning Democrats. It does my heart good to know that there are as many as 58 Democrats with enough proven common sense to earn the NRA PAC's endorsement.

Semper Fi,

[cleanhippie]

16. +1!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. Yay!!

:bounce: