If John Kerry can't satisfy the NRA, who the hell can?

I mean, aren't they risking whatever vestige of credibility they might have by criticizing John Kerry.

John Kerry has killed a man with a gun. He has been responsible for the upkeep and safe use of an automatic machine gun. He's a gun sportsman who is a pretty good shot.

He covers all the bases. If John Kerry doesn't have the authority to talk about guns, and if they can't trust him to protect the interests of gun sportsmen, then what the hell are they looking for????

...it's all about loony-tune right wing extremism...

"Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun....
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater.
Within two years, the Gun Owners of America organization appeared with its leadership roots in the John Birch Society. Thirty years later, the group remains true to its mission, a watchdog group making sure the gun rights movement stays on course, fulfilling its reactionary conservative mandate. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

It has very little to do with 2nd Amendment rights. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you stacked a Republican against a Democrat with the exact same positions on firearms they'd demonize the Democrat every time.

the NRA cares about guns are so mislead.

as is Ted Nugent, a couple criminals, and a bunch of racist militia nuts...

guns, it's about fascism. The NRA was long ago taken over by right-wing wackos, and they have been using their members' money to finance ideology. Bastards.

Isn't that how they got started?

John Kerry has killed a man with a gun. He has been responsible for the upkeep and safe use of an automatic machine gun. He's a gun sportsman who is a pretty good shot.

Does Kerry advocate removing some of the current restrictions on machine guns?

...every aspect of their use.

He has actually done with a gun what most NRA members only fantasize.

Regardless of what his position is on guns, it seems like one should probably consider it as coming from someone who knows what he's talking about.

Do you think the NRA should support Kerry regardless of his position on guns? Do you think they should just leave him alone even if he disagrees with them?

in a debate over their issues rather than jerk their million dollar ad-buy knees against him.

What is it that the NRA doesn't like about him?

That he's a Democrat?

I mean, I'm generally more than happy to criticize the NRA for any number of issues, but they're supposedly a gun rights organization. To expect them to not run ads against candidates that oppose what they support seems a bit of a stretch to me.


What is it that the NRA doesn't like about him?

That he's a Democrat?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say it probably has something to do with all of the gun control he's voted for over the years.

killed with a gun.

If thinks the best way to keep guns in the hands of sportsmen is to keep asault weapons out of the hands of criminals, don't you think it might be worth the effort to hear him out on that debate rather than jerk your knee and run millions of dollars of ads against him?

Sit Kerry down with a group of 10 NRA members, and I bet he could get their votes because they'll appreciate that he knows what he's talking about.

But run commercials ordered by Grover Norquist against Kerry on this issue because you really care about driving a wedge through the economic heart of America...welll...that's fucked up.

What does that have to do with anything?

"If thinks the best way to keep guns in the hands of sportsmen is to keep asault weapons out of the hands of criminals, don't you think it might be worth the effort to hear him out on that debate rather than jerk your knee and run millions of dollars of ads against him?"

He's supported more gun control than the current AWB.


"Sit Kerry down with a group of 10 NRA members, and I bet he could get their votes because they'll appreciate that he knows what he's talking about."

That's entirely possible, but it won't be because of Kerry's positions on gun control.


But run commercials ordered by Grover Norquist against Kerry on this issue because you really care about driving a wedge through the economic heart of America...welll...that's fucked up.

Like I said, more likely it's based on Kerry's positions on gun control.

about the insane and the criminal and the criminally insance shooting up people by the dozens, it's not going to help people who care about legal, safe gun use.

If we had no rules of the road, and if there was an NRA-style group getting in the way of every sane restriction and limitaion on the use of automobiles, do you think there's be two cars in every garage? Do you think there'd be millions of people using cars daily, and that the most popular sport in America would be auto racing?

Uhh uh.

Bush is doing more to HURT gun onwers then help. If he got his way, there'd be such an overboard reaction to guns that the NRA wouldn't even be able to stop it.

hasn't bothered to read it.


"When the assualt weapons ban goes by the by, and we start hearing stories about the insane and the criminal and the criminally insance shooting up people by the dozens, it's not going to help people who care about legal, safe gun use."

No need to worry. When the AWB sunsets you won't hear any more stories about the insane and the criminal and the criminally insane shooting up people by the dozens than you have while the AWB was in effect. At least not because of the AWB sunsetting. If you'd ever bothered to read it, you'd see that it only bans the manufacture of assault weapons which it them defines. Assault weapons manufactured before the ban are legal and have been since before the ban. Weapons manufactured after the ban have enough assault weapon features removed, usually bayonet lugs and flash suppressors, to make them not considered assault weapons. So when the AWB does sunset, there isn't going to be a flood of new guns dumped into the streets. So there's no need to worry.


If we had no rules of the road, and if there was an NRA-style group getting in the way of every sane restriction and limitaion on the use of automobiles, do you think there's be two cars in every garage? Do you think there'd be millions of people using cars daily, and that the most popular sport in America would be auto racing?

Uhh uh.

And to think when pro-RKBA folks bring up car analogies we get accused of comparing apples with oranges. I'm not sure what the point of this little jaunt down the road of car regulation was all about, unless you think the AWB is the only law currently regulating firearms in this country.


"Bush is doing more to HURT gun onwers then help. If he got his way, there'd be such an overboard reaction to guns that the NRA wouldn't even be able to stop it."

Yes. Bush is a pro-gun dynamo. He's almost as pro-gun as his father and Ronald Reagan.

No reasonable restrictions on guns with safety in mind = cars can drive on either side of the road, and anyone who wants can drive a car.

It's the surest route to making sure that somewhere down the road someone is going to go overboard and take away all rights to gun ownership -- which is clearly not something Kerry wants.

I'd be happy to have this discussion with you.

No reasonable restrictions on guns with safety in mind = cars can drive on either side of the road, and anyone who wants can drive a car.

Not even close. How did we end up talking about no restrictions on guns anyway? Anyway, no reasonable restrictions on the use of guns = cars can drive on either side of the road would be a bit more accurate. No one is arguing that we should make it legal to just shoot guns at anything you want or murder people if that's your fancy. The arguments are generally around what you are allowed to buy.

Who but a loony like Alan Keyes wants machine guns sold without restrictions?

That has pretty much nothing to do with anything. I am shocked.

He's a sportsmen and he wants to protect people's rights to engage in their sport. What more does the NRA want from him?

Or do you think that just because he's been photographed hunting and shooting trap that he must have voted to protect people's rights when it comes to guns in the Senate?

You think he wasn't in the Navy? You think he didn't shoot a man in Vietnam.

The guy has used a gun just about every way possible.

What does his being a sportsman or being in the Navy have to do with anything?

The guy has used a gun just about every way possible.

So? What does that have to do with how he's voted on gun control?

But that doesn't mean I'd trust him over Senator Kerry to protect the 1st Ammendment.

...for the kinds of weapons criminals use then maybe that might be something that sportsmen who want to use guns legally should be thinking might make sense.

Is the NRA like the AAA, or is it the kind of organization that would have said 100 years ago "no we don't want laws making people drive to the right"?

If it's the kind of organization that wants guns to create so much danger so that nobody can use them, then they're doing the right thing. If they actually care about guns the way people who regulated cars and driving cared about cars, then they're doing the wrong thing.

I think if your average NRA member sat down with Kerry, they'd realize that their interests lie in an AAA-style NRA, and not some Norquist-style wedge-issue creating self-anhilating NRA.

"He knows what he's talking about. If he's voting for gun control...
...for the kinds of weapons criminals use then maybe that might be something that sportsmen who want to use guns legally should be thinking might make sense."

So you're saying Kerry knows best and the NRA and other sportsmen out there who are upset about how he's voted on gun control should just shut up and vote for him because he knows more about the issue than they do?

Also, we've been over the kinds of weapons criminals use in the dungeon lots of times. They aren't assault weapons.


Is the NRA like the AAA, or is it the kind of organization that would have said 100 years ago "no we don't want laws making people drive to the right"?


If it's the kind of organization that wants guns to create so much danger so that nobody can use them, then they're doing the right thing. If they actually care about guns the way people who regulated cars and driving cared about cars, then they're doing the wrong thing.


I don't know what you mean, but the NRA has certainly supported and continues to support all kinds of gun control, just not as much as Kerry.


I think if your average NRA member sat down with Kerry, they'd realize that their interests lie in an AAA-style NRA, and not some Norquist-style wedge-issue creating self-anhilating NRA.

Like I said, the average NRA member might very well agree with Kerry and decide to vote for him if they sat down with him, but they wouldn't vote for him based on the gun issue.

Kerry and NRA mmbrshp probably are -- and I mean just on the gun issue alone.

Maybe the NRA membership agrees with Kerry on a lot of issues, but guns are certainly not one of them.

the types of guns sold, and they aren't willing to consider any reasonable limitations, then maybe they'll never agree with Kerry. But if that's all they care about then it's amazing that another sportsman group hasn't come along to take all the members, because there's a much more sensible way to address gun issues than just objecting to everything.

and incorrect assumption that just because pro-RKBA folks, in this case NRA members, don't support every single gun control law that has been proposed or voted for by Kerry that they must automatically want no restrictions on guns.

because there's a much more sensible way to address gun issues than just objecting to everything.

As I said before, the NRA and it's members don't object to everything regarding gun control. They just object to some of the gun control Kerry has voted for.

To lose the election obviously, since he doesn't support a number of their positions on guns.

It's a privledge, unless you only drive it on private property.

as the courts have ruled again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

And yes, I'm aware of the sentence that comes before the one I listed. But, it does not imply that ONLY Militia members can keep a firearm.

The Founding Fathers were very clear. The people need to be able to combat the government. Personally, I like that idea. Especially nowadays!! :)

Check with the ACLU...or any court.

"The Founding Fathers were very clear."
They sure were.....and that's why it says "well-regulated militia" and not "each fuckwit who can afford or steal a gun."

it takes a while to process.

it doesn't take them any time to run over here with John AshKKKroft's dishonest talking points, does it?

but don't talk about that. they get huffy pretty quick as of late.

I am no fan of Asscroft. And to tell you the truth, I don't believe I could repeat anything he's ever said.

I'm just a lifelong resident of Nowhere, Indiana. And I've been around firearms all my life.

If you'd like to discuss the subject, I find that interesting. But I don't see any reason to say such things.

"I don't believe I could repeat anything he's ever said.
And yet you've done so....

"If you'd like to discuss the subject"
the subject is a right wing extremist lobby which is trying to convince paranoid loonies that they are about to have their guns confiscated...

So we can repell an oppressive government if need be. The Founders were very clear. They distrusted government, and rightfully so. (Look at the state of it today!!)

Unfortunately, there are too many Fuckwits out there, though...I'll admit that...But personally, I won't condone forfeiting my own Second Ammendment Rights just because of their irresponsible actions.

Sean Hannity and Fatso are Fuckwits too...But I'm not about to recommend subverting the First Ammendment just because their words to real harm in the real world.

...But yet...We still have the 2nd Ammendment.

Where are these courts? And if they do exist, why should we trust them and not the People, our Founders and the Constitution of the United States of America?

is the absolute most idiotic line that gun-rights advocates use. Look, if you have even the most advanced machine-gun, it doesn't matter, the government will always have bigger, stronger, and more effective weapons than you'll ever have. It's not even arguable. And I don't think that it makes any damn sense whatsoever to arm citizens to the same extent that our government (i.e. armed forces) is. 2nd amendment is the most loosely interpreted of the bill of rights...

itching to shoot their fellow Americans...but utterly unwilling to take any less drastic step....such as say something pro-Democrat on any gun loony forum like highroad.org, or put the good of their fellow citizens ahead of their popgun fetish....

you have that right! it gets old hearing the same old tired "protect ourselves against the government" and "any gun control is a slippery slope" lines; it's absurd that we even have to have this discussion on a board that purports to be even mildly progressive.

Inbstead we have these "enthusiasts" trying desperately to pretend that an idiotic and completely bogus doctrine pushed by specimens such as John AshKKKroft, Bill Frist and Tom DeLay is "progressive."

I don't understand the hostility. I guess this subject is better left un-discussed.

You win. Bash away. I'll just go away and enjoy my constitutional rights and hold them dear.

And how many of them? Not many...Not many at all. And just in case you've missed it, those VERY few that are "Them" are "Us" anyway...Our military.

If it every came down to it, you'd better believe that those in the military would be on our side. They protect America, not the government.

Call me an idiot all you like, but personally, I like living in a country where I know my government CAN'T oppress me. Not "Would" oppress me, "CAN'T oppress me.

sorry, I'd like to believe that, but it's sheer fantasy. they may not have more people, but they sure as hell have nukes, tanks, bunker-busters, stealth fighters, etc... Numbers mean sh*t my friend, technology is what counts:) you can't fight the government, it simply isn't realistic IMHO...

...Those in the military are "Us".

It's very realistic.

that the only objection the NRA has about this government is that it's not oppressive and crazy enough to suit...

Evidently some people won't be happy until Milwaukee and Kansas City are just like Fallujah....

uh oh, need a definition here.

go look it up.

More than one round fired per trigger pull, basically.

No brainer.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

check out Kerry's Senate record. He has voted for gun control every time it has been before him. He is on the record of a wide range of restrictions on guns not just AWB.

On the issue of guns I doubt that we have ever fielded a person who has a more restrictive record. That will appeal to some people and it will turn off others like me. I support him because of the economy, and resentment of Bush 1 and 2 only.

It's a winning issue, and a necessity in a country with this much gun violence every year.

It is a lose-lose issue.

2nd Amendment rights voters will come out & vote their interests, more than the other side.

In 2000, people believe Gore lost several states on this issue.

"2nd Amendment rights voters will come out & vote their interests"
Which are bigotry, stupidity and corruption....

"In 2000, people believe Gore lost several states on this issue"
Yeah? Funny how the folks saying that are always either NRA officials or "unnamed Democratic sources." Meanwhile, Democratic gun owners are useless as tits on a bull....Alan Colmes is a blazing firebrand compared to Democratic gun owners.

If you don't accept the fact that Al Gore would be President if it weren't for the gun control issue, then you are simply not in touch with reality.

...who are at least a 15 minute wait (ie: Dead) for a county sheriff appearance.

Like me.

what's in any gun control proposal anywhere that keeps you from owning a gun?

1) It's my constitutional right. Do you think you should have to get a license in order to express your right to free speech? Of course not. I feel the same way about my small collection of personal firearms that I have for two reasons: To protect my property and family. To hunt. The second doesn't have anything to do with my rights, but first one is why my right is protected by the constitution.

2) I don't need to tell anyone what firearms I keep. Especially not the government. The less the government knows about me, the better. Especially THIS government!!

It's not your constitutional right....the courts have affirmed that again and again and again.

"Do you think you should have to get a license in order to express your right to free speech?"
Next time four are killed in a drive-by chatting, ask me again. In the meantime, society certainly has the right to keep track of who has what dangerous items, just as we have the right to keep track of polluters and monitor them.

"I don't need to tell anyone what firearms I keep."
So what? You need to get a license and register your car....don't see why gun ownership should be any different.

"Especially THIS government!!"
Now THAT is a laugh and a half.

It is most certainly my constitutional right. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since we've both said the same thing twice, now. :)


On Free Speech...

Yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre can harm others. And besides, I don't chose which constitutional rights are good and which are bad. I see the government infringing on my 2nd Ammendment in the same light as them infringing on my 1st Ammendment.

And besides...MY firearms have never killed anyone. I am responsible with them. My firearms are no more a threat than you words. And I do mean that literally.


On registering/licensing a car...

I've said this before in this thread, but there is no right to drive a car. It's a privledge.



(Those who haven't lived in rural areas all their lives don't understand how passionate those of us who have are about this issue, I think. No offense intended, just expressing my assumption on the subject.)

"MY firearms have never killed anyone"
Yeah, and I've never swindled investors...but that doesn't mean the Securities and Exchange Commission isn't needed.

You might notice that he is seen with a gun in hand more often than he mentions gun control. What does that tell you.

Gun control is a lose-lose issue. Nothing else to ponder on that.

a helluva lot more weight than a few photo opps done during the campaign season.

I have already resigned myself to the fact that he will fuck us gun owners. But Bush 1 fucked me when the Ford plant closed under his watch and Bush 2 fucks me every day as I struggle to survive as night janitor at the local college. So for me it will be Kerry all the way. I have a beautiful pistol grip shot gun that he will make illegal, but hell at least I will get the damn bushes out of the office.

Let me put it this way. Had Kerry opposed the Patriot Act and had he opposed some of the Supreme Court nominations during the 90s on civil rights grounds then the Pro Gun vote would be overwhelmingly in favor of Kerry.


The talk radio crowd is so pro civil libertys and anti elitist that it is just unreal.

I personnaly hate guns because there are red neck areas where it isnt safe to even take your dog in BOTH Maryland and West Virginia (and its sad because there is lots of open space too in these areas). In just the last few months I have had peaceful relatives get intimindated from walking their dog in woods within 1000 feet of a neighbors house for no reason at all. Gunfire came their way and it is known that dogs get shot commonly. A friend of mine lost a dog to a nextdoor neighbor just months ago in West Virginia for NO REASON. I was talking to some people lately and I have known of several others who recently got their dogs shot for no reason. Cant take a dog walking during hunting season without it getting shot. Too many pigs.

I work as a guard on weekends (by myself so I handle all the truckers) at truck terminals and you would not believe the amount of people that start conversations about Bush knowing about 9/11 before the event. I have had to make so many VHS copys of my DVDs it is unreal. They actualy bring it up more than me and always say something like "I just need to prove it to my inlaws" and I end up promising to have tapes for them the next week. I try to reccomend websites and radio programs on the net to them as well. Beyond Art Bell , they cant think of anybody who even remotly represents their views.

My view on guns is evolving from total opposition to small support. I think hunting and the such should be outlawed and in general it should be illegal to SHOOT a gun but in case a viscious cop or jack booted federal thug breaks into your house I think people should have the right to at least OWN a gun for when it is needed for self defence against the state.Im now undecided if people should have the right to shoot an individual criminal.

Anyway Kerry has none existant support among mainstream people (ie those who dont vote) from rednecks areas and then about 30%-35% support among voters (the more wealthy , greedy , and or arogant the more likly they are to vote) in these areas.Those that dont vote in redneck areas are among the finest and worst people you will ever meet.

All I can speak for is the former. They just dont like much anything about Kerry as he is in their opinion just like Bush on all of Bush's worst issues. (the war is another issue they disagree with both canidates on)

They are almost like a cult too. My husband has had a lifetime membership for about 35+ years. I finally convinced him they were a bunch of paranoid nuts, but it took me all this time to do it! They believe the guy who speaks for THEIR ORGANIZATION! It doesn't matter what Kerry says or does. He's a Dem. and Dems want to take away your guns!!!!

Im now speaking of card carrying NRA members (above I was talking about average people) that you brought up.The NRA crowd trusts the "War On Terror" and supports the Patriot Act.

They arent paranoid enough where it counts , at our OWN government.

They're in bed deep with the bushies. Congress won't bring the AWB to bush* for him to sign and he can say 'I would have signed it'. It will expire I'm afraid.

"I'm the NRA. And I vote."

b]------------------------------
Beltway and Texas Republicans
Against Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc.
------------------------------
"Insider’s News”, Vol 1 - Kerry-Edwards Campaign Doing Well
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x748458
“Insider’s News” Vol 1.1 - Great Anti-Bush Sites
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x756409

Because that's all the NRA is about anyway, the gun industry. This is just a big scam that's been played on the American people. Nobody was ever going to take away guns. We've always had gun laws to get guns used mostly in crimes off the streets. It's just another wedge issue and I'm amazed at how many good Democrats don't get it. Nobody is in arms pulling Georgie out of the White House and if there was ever a President who needed the people to rise up, he's it.

take guns used mostly in crime off the streets?

and the NRA is owned and operated by repubs.

that I can find regarding politics. The good news is that my dad no longer pays any attention to it.

suitably impress the gun-crowd, I'm not sure that killing a man cuts any ice with them. Nobody is suggesting that the US Armed Forces not be allowed to carry weapons in combat. The catch is that the NRA wants to have them as civilians. Also, they don't want them just for 'sports', but as a, as they see it, hedge against governmental tyranny.

And hunters are a large part of their membership. It proves that the NRA is a fringe group of radical wackos.

most Americans know that they have their own militant pro-gun agenda, and are against any kind of sane community-based gun control measures. The gun safety/hunting facade fell away years ago. Their resistance to the Assault Weapons Ban just shows how far out in right field they really are.

BTW, what's the graphic in your sigline? The guy on the left looks like he's got a big grey penis on his forehead. If he's got affordable health coverage, he may want to have that looked at by a doctor...

is a sane community-based gun control measure?

If the NRA doesn't bag a lefty from time to time, they don't think they are doing their jobs.

NRA manuals and membership guides were found in Osama Bin Laden's terrorist training camps, mind you. In two days Osamas friends can walk into any gun store in the USA. buy a gun that can unload 30 cop-killing rounds in five seconds into a school building full of children, and I'm supposed to feel safer against terrorism?

As a hunter, life-long gun owner and expert marksman, the NRA does not represent my views, nor the views of the mainstream gun owner. They are nothing more than a marketing mechanism intent on making sure every inner-city 13-year old is armed and dangerous.

If sensble gun control was good enough for Wyatt Earp and the citizens of Dodge, then it's good enough for me.

I still can't see why 3,000 dead on 9/11 means we have to give up all our rights, except for the second amendment; but 30,000 gun deaths a year doesn't justify a reasonable discussion on gun ownership.

Some people have no right to own a gun. The list of those people starts with folks who can't properly identify a target before they pull the trigger. Of course that would include George WMD Bush. Just look what he did when he failed to properly identify a target.

Geroge WMD Bush. What good is it if you're quick on the draw when you can't shoot straight?

Harvey Briggs

In two days Osamas friends can walk into any gun store in the USA. buy a gun that can unload 30 cop-killing rounds in five seconds into a school building full of children, and I'm supposed to feel safer against terrorism?

What's going to change in two days that would make that any more likely?


They are nothing more than a marketing mechanism intent on making sure every inner-city 13-year old is armed and dangerous.

I'm no fan of the NRA myself, but I've never heard them argue for arming 13-year olds in the inner-city or not. The NRA supports quite a bit of gun control when you think about it.


If sensble gun control was good enough for Wyatt Earp and the citizens of Dodge, then it's good enough for me.

Yeah they had a load of gun control probably more than we have today.


I still can't see why 3,000 dead on 9/11 means we have to give up all our rights, except for the second amendment;

Oddly enough, I don't see the Republicans rushing to repeal any gun control. You'd think they would since they're so pro-gun and they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.


but 30,000 gun deaths a year doesn't justify a reasonable discussion on gun ownership.

I'll discuss it. The majority of those 30,000 deaths are suicides, of course. I don't know about you, but I support a person's right to die.

for the gop.
They don't give a shit about gun rights