LaPierre is now back on my poop-list.

NRA has officially endorsed Bush. Damn, Wayne had me for what? A good 12 hours?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9907895.htm?1c

as some big fucking surprise to you?

It was pretty obvious who'd they endorse.

missed the sarcasm.

It was during and after The Gun Debate. He did a great job of explaining American freedom and showing their superiority to the gun-banning mindset of some other countries.

the NRA will endorse any Republican. I worry that at the rate that this administration is going through the Bill of Rights that it will only be a matter of time before the idea of an "armed populace" will be problematic to the cause of "homeland security".

the NRA will endorse any Republican.

Sorry, but this is untrue.

I give you http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?State=TN as an example. NRA made endorsements in eight of the nine TN House seats. Four were for democrats, and two of those four were endorsements against republicans with an equal NRA rating as the democrat. Four were republicans, all with A ratings, three of whom had challengers with no rating and the fourth running unopposed. The race that didn't get any endorsement was a C rated democrat against a Republican with no NRA rating.

16 State senate seats are up for grabs this year. Six endorsements went to Democrats, five to republicans.

All 99 seats in the State legislature are up for grabs. 21 endorsements for democrats, 46 for republicans. In one race, the NRA endorsed both candidates.

As for the presidential race, personally, I would've been happier if the NRA didn't endorse anyone at all this year. Neither candidate has a good 2nd amendment record.

They really base their endorsements on the "grade" they have received in upholding gun owner's rights-- it just so happens that most of the people who oppose gun owner's rights are democrats.

I've seen republicans with a "F" rating from the NRA, though I don't recall their names at the moment.

"He did a great job of explaining American freedom and showing their superiority to the gun-banning mindset of some other countries."

This kind of statement really is a source of never-ending amusement to us in those other countries.

(I mean, if we could decipher it: "their superiority"? Who is this they?? Maybe that was supposed to be "American freedomS" ... who knows? It just looks, to me, more like a statement of the superiority of "Americans". And an expression of ignorance about anything but "American" freedom, whatever that might be. Bacon may be different in different parts of the world, but freedom is really freedom the world over.)

Most of the world (even the world inside the US, methinks) really does know that s/he who goes about trumpeting his/her "superiority" is neither superior nor worth listening to. But it's always fun to point and laugh at those who do it.

Of course, when the self-pronounced "superior" ones take their self-pronounced "superiority" as licence to make the rest of the world into their own image, things are often a little less funny. Not, of course, that this is ever what they are really doing. Unless we open our eyes and acknowledge that the reality behind the image has virtually nothing to do with "freedom", and pretty much everything to do with getting their own way, in their own interests and for their own benefit.

Which is all very primitive and inferior, when you actually think about it.

Funny how "American freedom" just doesn't seem to stop where other people's noses begin ...

I don't hate America.

I don't hate Americans.

I don't hate Americans for their freedoms.

What I can take an extreme dislike to is people who blindly reassert their superiority based solely on their own pre-conceived and ignorant definitions of freedom, and who are unwilling to even sensibly debate the notions of "freedom", "justice" or "rights".

Freedom, it seems, consists solely in being able to own a gun without the government knowing about it.

But what the fuck do I know - my Marxist brainwashing doesn't even permit me to accept that American small-arms supplied to the British Home Guard is the only reason I'm not typing in German right now......

Big up yourself, Iverglas, I'll raise a glass of Cabernet Sauvignon to you tonight......

:-)

... but English seems to have its variations.

"Big up yourself?" I ask google, I find that it seems to mean something like "pat yourself on the back".

Now, I suspect that the linguistic divide here may be generational rather than geographic ...

When it comes to Cabarnet Sauvignon, you could do worse than an Ontario vintage. (Dare I say that Ontario wine is superior to California wine??) But it's ice wine season, you know.



I dunno. From the title, it might be an ice-wine truffle. Best picture of a blob I've seen lately.

(Edit: it could be the melanoma my brother just had removed from his leg, although it's a little big for that. Went to the doc three weeks ago, had a biopsy that confirmed melanoma, had surgery last week to remove it, sees the melanoma specialist in a couple of weeks when those results are known, will then have a CAT scan ... . Hell, because of the Cdn health care system, my brother is free to stay alive without having to sell his house to pay for the privilege!)

They seem to like the ice wine in Japan; for you:



Same-sex couples are free to get married in most (and soon all) of Canada.

Inmates of correctional institutions and penitentiaries are free to vote in elections in Canada.

Women are free to obtain abortions in Canada whenever and wherever they want.

People in Canada are free to express their political opinions in public, not just in corrals set aside for them to do so.

Now me, I call all of those things "rights", but heck, if somebody wants to call owning firearms "freedom", I'll play.

And mine's just bigger than his, doncha think?

:evilgrin:

I blame Ali G.....

Just FYI, my Cabernet Sauvignon wasn't particularly nice - it was a South African Kumala and just a bit too sweet for my tastes. Good job I had some calvados to wash my mouth out with!

Two more non-americans talking about american gun control...

I don't care what you're nations gun laws are.... why do you car what my nation's are?

"Two more non-americans talking about american gun control..."

Yet another navel-gazing bore saying something that has nothing to do with the current conversation ...

Maybe you could quote something that some non-USAmerican said about firearms control in the US in this thread?

I mean, you must have been talking about something ... I suppose ...

I guess it's just invisible to aliens.

Rebecca Peters owned Wayne throughout that debate. She did an excellent job of explaining how well the gun control laws work in other countries and how Amercia needs to get with the program.

No American needs a deadly assault weapon. No American needs a semiautomatic anything. They are machines that serve one purpose - death.

On Nov 2, America will change forever. President Kerry has one of the strongest pro gun control records out there. He will pass registration and yes confiscation laws, just like they already have in California.

I thank God for a common sense man like John Kerry. A new day is apporaching.

My name is Wayne, and I'm definitely NOT a moron.

:-)

"President Kerry has one of the strongest pro gun control records out there. He will pass registration and yes confiscation laws, just like they already have in California."

I seem to remember somebody else saying something really similar to that just the other day. But I forget what evidence s/he offered to substantiate it.

Can you offer some, maybe? You never know who might get on board, if you can show that Sen. Kerry (I don't think it's quite accurate to call him "President Kerry" on today's date) will pass firearms confiscation laws if elected president!

it's only a matter of time anyway.

As far as sources, honestly I don't remember. But I saw his record and he solidly voted FOR gun control.

Wish I had a link, but it's all from memory.

"As far as sources, honestly I don't remember. But I saw his record and he solidly voted FOR gun control."

That's nice. But I was asking about the rather more specific statement you made:

"He will pass registration and yes confiscation laws, just like they already have in California."

You're saying something quite specific (and saying it quite definitely): Kerry WILL pass CONFISCATION laws, like they ALREADY HAVE in California.

You must have had SOMETHING in mind when you wrote it. Won't you think back (or google around) and see whether you can remember (or discover) what it was?

You wouldn't want to be getting people's votes under false pretences, would you?!

http://www.mcsm.org/sksconfisc.html

http://www.afn.org/~govern/ramble/getguns.html



Yes, I firmly believe that Kerry will continue this progressive gun control. No one in a civilized word needs these instruments of death. I agree with Senator Feinstein when she said, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in."

This is a reality. :kick:

Can you tell me what you were googling for??

First, http://www.mcsm.org/sksconfisc.html

John Kerry's name doesn't appear on that page, so you must be offering this in relation to the business about California already having passed laws to confiscate things.

Funny. That site says (emphasis added):

Certain firearms are now under a confiscation order. This, also posted on a state-run web site. California residents must turn in their SKS rifles by 1/1/2000 -- precisely the Y2K rollover date -- or face criminal prosecution.

but doesn't give a link to that site. Weren't you at all curious? And that seems a little old --

Copyright © 1999 MCSM
Most recent revision October 1999

-- wouldn't you rather give us something showing what *has* happened, not what these folks say *was supposed to* happen?

We spoke with Nathan Barankin, Director of Communications for the California Attorney General office, who informed us that this recent SKS gun ban issue arises from an unresolved legal definition. California was one of the first states to pass a ban on so-called "assault weapons," which included the SKS rifle -- but only if the rifle had a detachable magazine. Rifles with fixed, non-removable magazines were exempt from this confiscation order, but those with removable magazine had to be recorded ("registered") and turned over to government authorities.

"This confiscation order"? I'm not getting it. Which confiscation order?

Recently-enacted legislation mandates this confiscation, calling it a "buyback" program and offering to reimburse gun owners $230 per "relinquished" rifle.

I mean, they can put all the quotation marks they want around "buyback" and "relinquished" -- it's still not showing me whether/how they were going to be CONFISCATED, is it?

Y2KNEWSWIRE then asked about the confiscation deadline: 1/1/2000. Just in time for Y2K. Barankin answered, "It is a coincidence. This was a law that was enacted in late Fall, last year, and generally laws that are passed in California become effective the next January 1, so they just wanted to give people a year to comply with the law."

According to Barankin, then, this gun confiscation order has nothing to do with Y2K and everything to do with correcting a legal snafu.

Darn. Don't you get just the slightest whiff of ... insanity?

Boy, check out the great links here! -- http://www.mcsm.org/source.html (like we need directions to the NRA)

And don't forget to click on through to "Visit the Future of Freedom Foundation"! -- http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/index.asp

Mission

The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.

... Thus, for well over a century, the American people said "No" to such anti-free-market government policies as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, immigration controls, economic regulations, drug laws, gun control, public schooling, and foreign wars.

Ah -- Democrats !!


Now ... http://www.afn.org/~govern/ramble/getguns.html

Hmm, no "Kerry" there, either. (Tell me the search terms you used, and maybe I can help you refine them a little ... so that maybe you could substantiate that claim of yours about Kerry, for the folks whose votes it would capture.)

Aha, we seem to be talking about the same thing here -- the provisions relating to that particular kind of firearm thing in California, several years ago:

In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.

Well, if it all happened as they said it happened / was going to happen, and if one can characterize making it illegal to possess a particular narrow category and small proportion of "X" as "'X' confiscation" -- i.e. characterize the banning of whatever tiny proportion of firearms in California fell within the category affected by this legislation as "gun confiscation", as in your "<gun> confiscation laws", assuming that we can read the "gun" as if it were there -- well, then, maybe you're right.


Now, how 'bout this

"I agree with Senator Feinstein when she said, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in'."

of yours? You agree with her when she said, referring to ASSAULT WEAPONS,

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."

(If you ask google, you'll find all the sources for that one you need.)

You see, even the NRA fills in the blanks thus:

http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=59&a=Articles

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

So would you maybe agree that someone who writes the quotation in question thus:

On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright <firearms> ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

is, oh, a lying sack of shit?

And yet that's exactly what your source, http://www.afn.org/~govern, did.

When you said that you "agreed" with Diane Feinstein, I do hope you weren't accidentally claiming that Diane Feinstein would have banned all firearms in the US if she could have. You weren't claiming that, were you??


"This is a reality."

Can you identify the referent for that "this" of yours? What is a reality, please?

I can think of a number of things that are, but I'm not sure which of them you might have been referring to.

I googled for "california gun confiscation"

"This confiscation order"? I'm not getting it. Which confiscation order?

All the SKS assualt weapons that were not registered were confiscated, or subject to confiscation and criminal penalty if not turned in. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

I wasn't there, but I pretty sure she didn't say <on "assault weapons">. How do you pronounce < and > anyway? :)

Yes, I believe Senator Feinstein would ban all guns in the US if she could. I think she has made that clear.

"This is a reality."

Can you identify the referent for that "this" of yours? What is a reality, please?

I believe it is a reality. I strongly believe in gun control, as do most Americans (as shown by the polls regarding the assault weapons ban.) I believe John Kerry will make gun control a top priority and pave the way to a nation free of guns and guns violence. :loveya:

Did I miss anything?

Was the it the lie about Feinstein? the lie about Kerry?

"Did I miss anything?"

Well, if you did, I'm sure you'll let us know.

Talkin' to the ether.

But I figgered the ether was still reading. ;)

And I figgered it was the lie about Feinstein, and the lie about Kerry, and perhaps any number of other things ...

Just kidding, carry on...darn Wayne/CoLib...you beat me to the punch. How've you been?

I can't see the NRA endorsing someone like Kerry, who tried to ban a long list of ammunition, including even 30-30, which is primarily used in 125 year old lever action style guns.

I'm no Bush fan, but I'm not fooled by Kerry holding a shotgun up either.

Alan Boyd (D) So dont think they will not endorse a democrat. Exactly the opposite. The NRA as well as Goa will endorse and help any candidate that is pro-gun reguardless of political affiliation.

Hope this helps.

Despite endorsing some Dems.