NRA focused on ousting Obama

[jpak]

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/NRA-focused-on-ousting-Obama-1360875.php

Liberals are frustrated with Barack Obama for not aggressively pushing gun control, but you wouldn't know it from the National Rifle Association's annual meeting.

With no clearly preferred Republican candidate among the 70,000 people who descended on the convention center here this weekend, Obama's name came up more than any other.

Leaders of the powerful gun lobby talked as if the president had declared an all-out war on the Second Amendment. The dire rhetoric is intended to galvanize activists going into the 2012 election season, despite huge legislative gains last November and significant progress advancing their agenda at the state level.

"In Barack Obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history and who still believes he'll prevail," said conservative activist David Keene, the NRA's incoming president. "Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could and they will if they can."

<more>

Fuck the NRA

yup

[RandomThoughts]

1. Although I think it is more of a problem with Private sector areas.

There is plenty of spending on military or subsidy programs above need, that could be used to correct the beer and travel money issue.

And that has not arrived yet, although I am not worried about such things as said in such an article, why would I need a gun.

[Drale]

2. I haven't heard Obama even talk about guns at all

This fake anger seems to be coming from the same place as the birther crap.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. The anger is real.

The source of that anger is what they are lying about.

[The Wielding Truth]

3. What do you need to do to sell weapons? Lie and create fear and hatred.

It's creating a need for your product. If they had an antidote they would unleash the disease.

[ThatPoetGuy]

4. Well said. nt

[Liberal Veteran]

5. But I have it on the best authority that the NRA is a nonpartisan organization.

And in my own personal opinion, anyone giving money to the NRA ought to cut out the middleman and give directly to RNC.

[Upton]

7. Give money directly to the RNC?

the Democrats who receive NRA donations probably wouldn't like your idea....

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00053553&cycle=2010

Oh, and here's a list of NRA endorsed Democrats in 2010:

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

[provis99]

14. well, that about covers every Blue Dog in Congress.

I don't see any Democrats on the list, though.

[PavePusher]

19. "No true Scotsman", eh? Good luck with that... n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Were there any Dems invited as speakers at the convention?

or was it another GOP/NRA love-in?

[beevul]

12. Jason Altmire, D-Pa.

Now go ahead and move those goalposts.


Or throw out a "no true scottsman" fallacy.



Or something...

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. What are you talking about?

....if you even know.

[beevul]

17. The applicable word is premptive.

Look it up if you don't know what it means.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. Paranoid much?

Sheesh........

[beevul]

20. Not at all.

Those things are SOP for energetic gun control pushers.

If you really need examples, they're here, in so many posts...


But you really don't need them, do you?


Oh look...you dont even have to leave the thread to see one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x409626#409729

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. I asked one simple question

Evidently you weren't able to answer without hearing things in the bushes.

[beevul]

22. If you say so. N/T

[iverglas]

29. so I applied my quickie litmus test

"jason altmire" abortion

http://www.issues2000.org/PA/Jason_Altmire.htm

Legal abortion only for incest, rape, or life of woman. (Nov 2006)
Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

Now I know that if I say no progressive individual, not to mention no decent human being, holds views like that, I'll have somebody dribbling "no true Scotsman" at me.

But y'know, there really are things that no decent human being does. And words do have meaning, and "progressive" (or "liberal", if you prefer) doesn't mean "seeks to oppress and harm women".

I've never really been able to figure out what "Democrat/ic" means, unfortunately. If I thought about it too long, I think my head might explode.

I know what my party name means. And as of last night, it means the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, although sadly the election results mean that with 40% of the popular vote, the Conservative Party now holds a majority of seats in the House -- 60% of the voting electorate voted against Harper and all his filthy right-wing agenda, including on firearms policy, but he now has four years to impose it on us. A moment of silence for Canada, please.

[RSillsbee]

30. there really are things that no decent human being does

Didn't you just tell me I was wrong to make essentially the same statement? "Certain things are wrong whether a law banning them exists or not" ?

If I understood the essence of what you said to me, W/out a law to back you up your moral values are just that your moral values.

ETA Here is the statement I am referring to. I actually agree w/ it and It certainly made your point when you posted it the first time. I just happen to think it's just as valid here

We can all try to exercise moral suasion by telling people what we think their moral responsibilities are, and what our opinion of them is if they don't live up to them.

But if they don't live up to them, that's an end of it.

That's actually why we have laws. So that if someone acts in a way that we can show is sufficiently contrary to a public interest that it calls for positive action, we can prosecute and punish them.

You can't prosecute or punish someone for failing to live up to a moral responsibility. So you have no deterrent with which to back up your moral responsibility lectures.

So if the person whose behaviour you're trying to alter doesn't give a shit about you and your moral responsibilities, you have no recourse, and they may simply become a serial harm-doer.

This is why it is as meaningless as meaningless can be to talk about the responsibilities of firearms owners, or about responsible firearms owners. Society has no way of enforcing those responsibilities unless it has laws. And it has no way of minimizing the risks presented by irresponsible firearms owners unless it has oversight, the kind that comes with licensing and registration.

[iverglas]

31. No! You keep not understanding ...

"Certain things are wrong whether a law banning them exists or not"

I couldn't agree more -- but what those things are, and what things are wrong, are always matters of opinion.

The thing in the case I cited is that the opinion held by whoever that guy was is one not held by people I regard as decent human beings. Since my definition of a decent human being excludes anyone who seeks to oppress and harm other people -- which is what forcing women to continue pregnancies against their will is about the poster child for -- I expect that a lot of people would agree with me, since I don't think many people think it is good to seek to oppress and harm other people.


If I understood the essence of what you said to me, W/out a law to back you up your moral values are just that your moral values.

Yes. Which may be more or less consistent with the moral values reflected in things like constitutions on which there is a consensus.


The person I was referring to tries to use the law to compel others to act according to his "moral" values. Certainly laws do reflect many people's moral values, but the values that laws must reflect are those set out in the constitution (in your society and my society and most others these days).

That person's "values" on the issue of abortion are not consistent with the right to life and liberty and security of the person, which are all in my constitution (and international instruments), or the right to life and liberty and privacy, in your case.

He's the one who should be trying to get a constitutional amendment if he wants to oppress women in that way. ;)


I'm not sure whether I'm addressing what you were saying, but you can let me know.

[RSillsbee]

32. Yes, you are addressing what I said, very clearly too

What threw me was the statement "there are certain things no decent human being does" that seemed like an absolute statement to me and that's why I questioned it.

[iverglas]

33. you may always feel free

to steal a line from Harry's Law (or is it The Good Wife?) and add ... in my opinion to anything I say. ;)

[RSillsbee]

35. You are a fucking genius

Now we just need to turn you to the dark side and make you a gunny.

[Ship of Fools]

10. fear, hatred, bigotry -- all groups using it to advance their causes ...

whatever they are.

[beevul]

11. When you're chummy with the batty bunch...

this is to be expected.

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.




“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_1.html

[Starboard Tack]

37. Why would you demean a man who was shot in the head

by a gun toting nut job? Because he doesn't want the same to happen to others? Because he worked for Reagan? Because he is a proponent of safe and responsible gun ownership?
Do you think you serve your cause by insulting those who disagree with you? Does reducing the size of your clip really mean so much that you resort to trashing the victims of gun violence who speak out?

[Logical]

13. Well I agree, the NRA it a bunch of right wing idiots. They need a scared....

membership to keep the money rolling in.

[gejohnston]

16. the only liberals I know frustrated about it are on talk radio

the rest own guns.

[spin]

23. So if Obama has already angered the very liberal anti-RKBA ...

segment of the Democratic Party that opposes gun ownership and concealed carry, why doesn't he just promise that he will veto any bills that land on his desk that propose registration, banning or confiscation of firearms?

He would gain far more votes than he would lose and take the wind out of the sails of the NRA.

[beevul]

24. That IS the question.

Of course...that hes angered the anti-gunners, is questionable in itself:


On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_1.html


If it makes sara brady happy and it has to do with guns, chances are we should be concerned.

[krispos42]

25. Obama's views on guns are commonly known...

...even if, as president, he has not acted on them.


Ergo, pretty much all the gun-rights organizations will pick somebody other than Obama for president.

[rl6214]

26. Why can't you debate the issue:

"In Barack Obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history and who still believes he'll prevail," said conservative activist David Keene, the NRA's incoming president. "Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could and they will if they can."

Instead of your usual crap, the shtick you normally post?

[iverglas]

28. issue?

Where's the issue?

You've quoted some loudmouth right-winger's allegations. That's no "issue".

Anybody who wants somebody to debate the merits of those allegations needs to start out by doing something to substantiate them.

Over to you.

You could start out by stating whether you agree with those allegations, and then offer your evidence.

[jpak]

34. OK - NRA douchebaggers suck up to the GOP right wing, shamelessly lie about Obama

and exploit The Fear of a Black President that is rampant in ignorant GOP dumbass clown squad.

Schtick!

yup

:rofl:

[Logical]

38. You really think Obama is one of the worst gun presidents in history?? Really??

The damn NRA is lying to get money.

[iverglas]

27. they tell us the NRA is a single-issue organization

It certainly is!

All right-wing government, all the time.

:rofl:

[Flyboy_451]

36. Just curious...

I don't think there are very many people out there that would claim that Obama has been friendly towards the idea of the average citizen owning guns. At best, I would call his support of the second amendment, "lukewarm". I am not aware of any anti-gun legislation that he has not supported in his political career. Prior to his political rise, he was a board member for the Joyce Foundation, a group that has never been friendly towards gun ownership. The people that he has surrounded himself with also seem to share this same animosity towards private ownership of firearms, as do his Attorney General and his Supreme Court appointments.

In his defense on this issue, he did sign into law a bill that allows for the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks, but...That was a rider attached to a credit card bill that he very much wanted signed into law. I would say that this was a case of paying for what you want in the political arena. Not exactly a show of support for the second amendment. Try as I might, I cannot find any situation in which he has acted as a supporter of the second amendment, rather than simply tolerating that it is indeed an individual right and a political hot topic that he has carefully tried to avoid.

The NRA is being called paranoid for putting forward the idea that Obama will come out strongly in opposition to their views if he is re-elected. Based on his history, and what I believe his personal views to be, I cannot argue that a second term would not be time to do exactly as the NRA has predicted. A president in his second term can afford a lot more political dissent than one seeking re-election. The only downside to Obama is the possible results to the remainder of the Democratic party. To be clear, I am not saying that he will do this, I am only saying that I would not be surprised.

All of this leads me to a question for the ones casting insults at the NRA for their views. If Obama does push for tighter controls on firearms that would be viewed as an infringement of the right to keep an bear arms, will any of the naysayers have the integrity to come back to this thread and admit the NRA was right?

To be fair, I will give some examples of what I would consider infringements. This is not an inclusive list, simply a few examples, as I cannot predict ALL possibilities.

-Any attempt at registration of firearms or owners.

-any attempt to force all guns sales to be conducted through a licensed dealer.

-any form of ban This would include "assault weapons", large capacity magazines, configuration or accessory item bans (flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, ect.)

-Any support of or attempt to expand geographic bans or onerous and expensive licensing schemes, such as those seen in New York, DC, Chicago, ect.

-Any attempt to repeal the Tiahrt amendment.

Here are a few examples of what I would view as acceptable measures that do not infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

-Open up NICS to individuals to provide a mechanism to check the eligibility of prospective sales between individuals

-Enforce minimum sentencing and eliminate plea bargaining in gun related crimes.

-compel states to submit information that is relevant to NICS.

once again, these are only a few examples, to provide a base line. These lists are not intended to be inclusive, only representative, as I cannot predict all possibilities.

So, are any of the NRA naysayers ON THIS ISSUE, willing to reverse their castigation if they are proven wrong?

JW

[jpak]

39. kick

n/t