I will admit I was wrong when I said the NRA tried to defeat 90% of the democrats!

[KansasVoter]

They only tried to defeat 78% of the Democratic House and Senate candidates in the 2008 election.

I got by data from the NRA web site, located here, http://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/Archive.aspx?y=2008

So, any money donated from "progressive" NRA members here was used to defeat 78% of the democrats in 2008.

This includes trying to defeat democrats who want equal rights for gays, universal health care, pro-choice, etc. You SHOULD know these causes already.

And it means they tried to elect GOP candidates who want to ban gay marriage, want to outlaw abortions, want to privatize social security, etc.

All over one issue.

And they gave Obama, your candidate, your president, a grade of F which means

"True enemy of gun owners’ rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation."

And even the gun "enthusiasts" here know they were lying about Obama and just trying to scare people, which works with most of the NRA members because they let the NRA tell them how to vote. Just like pastors do in churches.

What laws has Obama tried to pass to ban guns since he was elected?

So you "progressives" who support the NRA realize the NRA wanted Sarah Palin as your vice president? God Bless America!!!

I will collect money numbers next which I think will really be revealing. I will be curious how much money the NRA spent trying to put right wing GOP idiots into office.

How many more senate and house members could the dems have gotten if the NRA did not spend millions against them on ONE issue? Wow, it is sad just wondering what 1 or 2 more senate members could have done for us!

[slackmaster]

1. Automatic Unrec for "NRA" in the subject

:nuke:

[KansasVoter]

2. LOL, now that is a quote worth keeping.

[cowman]

3. As for giving Obama an F

well gee, why don't you check out his record as an IL sen? Of course the NRA gave him an F, as an IL sen there was not a gun control law that he didn't like or vote for and I have no doubt that if he could, he would try to enact more gun laws like a permanent ban on so called assault weapons, a federal ban on CCW. The NRA is a one issue org. and they do a pretty good job.

[KansasVoter]

4. And your ass supports them. Thanks for being such a great progressive!

[cowman]

6. Why,

your welcome. Try being honest about his record on the 2nd Amend. I cited some examples of his record as an IL sen and thats all you got, no wonder noone here takes you seriously. As I said before, you don't get to decide who is or who is not a progressive.

[caboose]

85. Are you saying a 'real' progressive should pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights

he should support? Isn't that the same sort of arbitrary mischief we condemn when fundamentalists pluck a few obscure verses from one or another 'holy' book to justify persecution, hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy?

[oneshooter]

103. Once again "Lockstep or out!!!"

What civil right, besides the RKBA, would you be willing to give up if it meant that the Democrats would win all.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[shadowrider]

107. "Lockstep or out" is why I don't post in political forums n/t

[KansasVoter]

165. First off sorry.........

As you might know.....I miss some of these posts. A lot to respond to. I saw your other one and found this.

I don't know if this will meet your level of an answer but......

I believe someone should be able to have guns in their houses and property all they want. I would march on DC if the democrats or anyone wanted to ban all long guns from being held in homes or private property. Or for hunting. I am not in favor of carrying handguns open or concealed. Long guns are fine. I know you disagree so we do not need to discuss the details.

So for you to assume I am anti 2nd is wrong. I just interpret it very different than you do. I would receive an F from the NRA for my feelings. I am not waiting to take your guns away, except carrying handguns.

So your question is not fair. I might be against the limits on the 1st amendment, for example the current "free speech zones" that are popular now at big meetings. These are violations of the 1st in my opinion. But I would not vote against a good democrat who did everything I liked but did not agree with my 'free speech zone' opposition would still vote for them. And if the ACLU started rating the senators an F for the opposition to that issue and spending millions against the dems on that issue I would not support the ACLU.

Does this make sense?

[Glassunion]

168. Makes no sense.

You say that you would not support the ACLU if they started supporting Republicans. I would have to think that this would go for any group, yes?

So if the NAACP, NOW, etc. Started endorsing more Republicans would you refuse to support the group, yes?

[KansasVoter]

183. LOL.....did you read anything......

If any group started grading good dems an F over one issue and spending millions against them I would not support them.

Makes perfect sense Einstein.

[Glassunion]

193. I was clarifying because I did not wish to speculate.

But thanks for the insult none the less. A true waste of time.

I wanted to understand you more.

The (D) in front of the candidates name is more important to you than what they actually stand for.

If (D) David Duke was running for office again you would vote for him and would hate the ACLU for giving him a failing grade. How could any self respecting progressive support someone who gave the great (D) a failing grade? (the ACLU has given an F to many democrats so I would assume they are on your shit list as well.

Your problem in my eyes is that the candidate is more important than the issue. That Obama is more important than the civil rights he does and does not stand for. As long as he has the (D) in front of his name. If to blindly follow the letter (D) regardless of the value and character of the individual is your idea of progressive, than I want no part of being what you call a progressive.

I half assume you are here to stir the pot on purpose.

[oneshooter]

184. So you are not willing to give up any rights to assure a Democratic victory?

Yet you say that anyone on DU that does not surrender the right to Keep and Bear Arms is not a "true" Democrat and should leave the DU?

I believe that my question is fair. You ask those who believe in the full meaning of the Second Amendment to give up that right and Toe the Party Line, aka keep in lockstep with the Party Line. Yet you are unwilling to give up anything that you hold dear to assure a Democratic Party victory?

I will leave it to you to explain the difference in me and thee.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[KansasVoter]

185. I said I would give up my right to..........

Parts of the 1st amendment. I would not let parts of the 1st stop me from voting for a good dem. Same damn thing.

The NRA is against any Dem who does not follow their interpretation of the 2nd. And spends millions against them.

Damn, let me simplify it for you......If I was against capital punishment because of the 8th I would still vote for a dem who was in favor if he was a great dem everywhere else. If a group that was anti death penalty spent millions against dems I would not support them.

Or if I was a real nut job who hated the 16th, would I vote against a dem who favored the 16th but was a great dem in every other area? NO. And I would not support a group that spent millions against the Dems ofer the 16th.

See a trend here?

[Glassunion]

194. I do see the trend.

You feel that civil rights are not worth defending and would sacrifice them in order to have all elected officials have a (D) by their name.

Eventually you could get your wish, but by all of your rights could be stripped bare to get you there. You would have what you want, but would not have the freedom and liberty to enjoy it.

1984

[Abq_Sarah]

198. So, let me see if we're on the same page....

You would give up "parts" of your first amendment rights and vote for someone who wanted to strip every single person in this country of "parts" of their first amendment rights as long as they have a (D) after their name?

Seriously?

You and I certainly differ in the definition of a "good dem". In my universe, a good Democrat defends constitutional rights.

[Iktomiwicasa]

106. Better yet...

...why don't you get on the case of Democratic politicians who oppose a civil liberty instead of harping on the NRA? If those politicians would get with the program and start supporting ALL of our constitutional rights, they'd get the support of the NRA.

[proteus_lives]

135. Such a compliment!

Supporting ALL rights does make you a progressive.

Maybe one day, you'll be able to call yourself one.

[KansasVoter]

7. And for your lame argument......

The "if he could" can also be applied to your NRA buddies.

The NRA would allow open/closed carry in every city/state and person in the country with no bad on any gun "if they could". Stupid!!!

You don't know shit about what anyone would do it they could.

[cowman]

9. Starting to sound shrill

getting defensive? Closed carry? what the hell is closed carry?

[PavePusher]

70. Civil Rights?

Oh, teh horrerresss!!1!1!!

[oneshooter]

115. Why won't you answer the question on #103? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

172. You keep saying that, even though the NRA is responsible for things like the NFA registry

and subsequent ban of new NFA weapons.

Funny thing for them to do, if they want everyone to have one.

[Statistical]

5. The numbers are already "collected"

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

In 2008:
NRA gave $236,580 (20%) to Democrats who support RKBA.
NRA gave $925,032 (80%) to Republicans who support RKBA.

Support for Democrats has slowly increased:
2000 8%
2002 8%
2004 14%
2006 15%
2008 20%
2010 26%

This has been a results of two things
a) more moderates & progressives joining NRA
b) more Democratic candidates supporting RKBA

"How many more senate and house members could the dems have gotten if the NRA did not spend millions against them on ONE issue? "
How many more senate & house members could the Democrats have gotten if more of them supported ALL Constitutional rights.

The qualifier for gaining NRA support is supporting RKBA. If more Democrats supports RKBA they will gain more support, if less do then they will gain less support.

[rrneck]

8. EOT

End of thread.

[KansasVoter]

11. LOL...my buddy is back!

[KansasVoter]

10. Bullshit.......

A little selective in your search I see.

I'll post the real numbers soon and expect your retraction!

Are you dumb enough to believe the NRA spent ONLY 1.2 million in 2008???

Wow, wow, wow.

[X_Digger]

88. Oooh, now you've got supah sekrit sources of informaaation..

PACs are required to report the money they take in and spend. Opensecrets is one site that uses FOIA requests to make public that data.

Psst, they're funded by Carnegie, Joyce, Pew, etc.

[KansasVoter]

105. Do you have any idea what independent expenditures means? I didn't think so!

You should know, your SCOTUS that you LOVE made them even easier.

I gave you a little clue. Keep looking!

[X_Digger]

113. But somehow you have this supah sekrit information?!? LOL..

pull the other one, it plays 'yankee doodle'.

[KansasVoter]

114. You are slow, I like that in an opponent!

[X_Digger]

123. Went right over your head, didn't it?

The NRA PAC (aka NRA-PVF) spent $1.2M.

Hey Genius.. the NRA has an annual budget of $200M. NRA-PVF? Not so much.

God, if you weren't so full of yourself, you'd realize that people other than yourself actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

It would be illegal for the actual NRA as a 503(c) not-for-profit to lobby. That's why the NRA-PVF exists.

Christ, you can be dense yet smug in your stupidity.

eta: -pvf not -ila

[KansasVoter]

133. So how much did the NRA spend to defeat Dems in 2008? I know!!!

[Glassunion]

139. $822,480.36 (nt)

[KansasVoter]

140. No, and NRA means all of their little PAC also.....Guess again.....

I am sure you can do it.

[X_Digger]

141. How does yellow taste?

What color is happy?

The link is right up there, you can see how much the PAC spent, and what percentage went to democrats and repugs. Those are quantitative questions that can be answered.

Also in the category of questions that can be answered is how much did NRA-PVF spend total, how much did NRA-ILA spend to lobby, how much did the NRA proper spend on issues advertising.

If by your vague question, you're asking how much money was given to democrats versus their opponents, it's already been answered.

Here's more information for you to misinterpret and then polish as though you just invented sliced bread- http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=Q13

[KansasVoter]

142. You are getting closer.......just a few clicks away....

How much did the NRA directed PACs spend to defeat Obama and the other Democrats in direct or indirect by running ads not affiliated to any candidate?
2008 election cycle.

[X_Digger]

143. If not affiliated to any candidate, then it's not 'to defeat Obama and other Democrats', now is it?

Thick, I tell ya.

[KansasVoter]

144. You are thick.....but I am giving you as much hint as I can......

Open secrets, which you worship, can tie it to a candidate. Why can't you?

I am growing annoyed with you now. You are wasting a lot of my time. It is not your fault, I just do not have time to educate you any more.

I will just have the post ready later this week.

Until then read a little about election funding and the different codes and regulation related to that.

[X_Digger]

145. Riiiiiiiiiight.

You be sure to have that post ready to go. I'm sure it'll have the same level of *ahem* reality as the original claim that led to this 'mea culpa' thread.

[KansasVoter]

146. So you are saying my 78% is a wrong number?? You contend that number is wrong?

[X_Digger]

147. No, your 90% that you bandied about. n/t

[KansasVoter]

149. Yes, but I admitted that was wrong......

and corrected it.

Unlike you will do if I prove the NRA spent millions to defeat democrats.

It's called being honest. Read about it.

[X_Digger]

153. Meelions and meelions of doh-larz!

If you have some magic link handy, feel free to cough it up.

[KansasVoter]

154. Interesting reading your other posts in the DU.......

ONE original post in GD or GDP this year. And that some lame one about "annoying words".

All responses were fairly boring. No real pro progressive posts.

No posts about loving the democratic party. None promoting democratic candidates.

Hmmm......interesting.

I think maybe you are only here to defend the gun issue. Nothing else.

No need to respond to you any longer. But you are welcome to learn from my posts!

[X_Digger]

155. *snort* nothing of substance? ad hominems.

Cough up the link man, don't be bogarting.

[KansasVoter]

156. I know you are excited to see the real amount because you can't find it.....

But wait young one.

Spend some time on other DU forums until then. There are some really great progressive posts you could read. About what our party believes on all the other issues.

[X_Digger]

157. Funny, I didn't know that your profile shows what sub-fora you _read_.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

You get back to me when you've served as many hot meals in the winter to the homeless, or driven as many people to the polls, or donated bone marrow and as much blood, or been a 'big brother', or been a planned parenthood volunteer escort, or caucused for a candidate, or picketed with the UMWA for 91 days straight, as I have.


Then you just _might_ be worthy of calling yourself a 'progressive'.

[KansasVoter]

158. Most of the people I know who really donate time and money.....

Like me, never brag about it.

Keep that in mind!

[X_Digger]

159. You're the one questioning my bona fides.

The only reason I mention it is your implication assertion that one must participate in some certain forum, or not support some organization to be 'progressive' (not just this thread, but others in the past week'ish).

How asinine.

True, I don't donate a lot of money, I donate time. Time, I got. Money? Not so much.

Your faux modesty doesn't suit you. Nor does your bullshit ego trip.

[KansasVoter]

160. No need to talk to you any longer. I have figured you out 100%.

[X_Digger]

162. And I you.. I thought 'progressives' were pro-labor? funny that. n/t

[oneshooter]

163. Are you afraid to answer

The question I posted to you in post#103?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[KansasVoter]

166. I finally did. Sorry, missed it.

[pipoman]

170. I followed this sub- threrad to the bottom

why don't you tell us this big secret you claim to be sitting on. Really, are you 16 or what? Who doesn't simply post proof verifying their position? Someone who has nothing, that's who. But most people who have nothing aren't nearly as anxious to argue against published links to valid information until/unless they have valid information of their own to counter...combined with someone who claims support for liberal interpretation of ANY civil right, as opposed to an extremely conservative interpretation of a civil right, makes that person not liberal or progressive is..astounding..this thread and your position strikes me as Bizarro World incarnate..

[Glassunion]

200. It's been two weeks... I'll save you the trouble...

The '08 election cycle as you mentioned with everything included like independent expenditures...
Total Spending against Democrats in '08: $13,620,549
Total Spending against Democrats in '06: $ 169,682
Total Spending against Democrats in '04: $ 1,917,140
Total Spending against Democrats in '02: $ 14,242

Administrative Postage/Shipping $845,375
Supplies, Equipment & Furniture $230,747
Miscellaneous Administrative $208,962
Salaries & Benefits $14,606
Rent/Utilities $6,274
Travel $2,742
Administrative Consultants $1,713
Campaign Expenses Campaign Direct Mail $366,008
Materials $58,808
Campaign Events $397
Polling/Surveys/Research $62
Contributions Candidates (Fed & Non-federal) $1,564,211
Parties (Fed & Non-federal) $375,400
Committees (Fed & Non-Federal) $67,550
Contrib Refunds $3,508
Fundraising Fundr Direct Mail/Telemarketing $1,269,341
Fundraising Consultants $481,480
Media Broadcast Media $239,209
Internet Media $36,324
Print Media $8,402
Miscellaneous Media $900


So, what does this mean? Does that mean that the NRA is a Republican organization? I don't think so. It is a single issue organization as you have stated. You seem to have problems with single issue organizations. I get it. So, don't donate to any of them.

The reason, I feel that so much money was spent against Democrats was for one reason only. As you said, they are a single issue organization, and the Democrats for the past decade and a half have all but abandond a civil right(that single issue). Perhaps you should ask yourself why our party has overwhelmingly abandoned that civil right.

The vast majority of that 13.6mil was spent specifically against Obama. Why is that do you think? Because he is a Democrat? Or is it because of his voting record and public opinion against a civil right? Do you think if we had put up a Democrat that supported the 2nd that the spending would have been so high against the Dems? Or do you think that it may have swung the other way?

I'm happy to see that our party is taking up the 2nd again. That we are supporting it more often.
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '02: 8.31%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '04: .31%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '06: .60%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '08: 1.05%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '10: 12.49%

Direct Contributions Percentages to Dems:
2010 30%
2008 20%
2006 15%
2004 14%
2002 8%
2000 8%
1998 14%
1996 16%
1994 20%
1992 37%
1990 36%

One thing above all else you should know. That $15 you spent on the Junior Membership to the NRA. Not one penny goes to any of the above. Nor does the $35 a year that I spend. The money comes from donations to their PAC the NRA-PVF. Yes donations can come from the parent organization, however they are limited to $5000, but if you go through their donors page, you note the absence of an NRA donation. You know who did spend some money? Hillary Clinton. I do recall a mailer from the NRA that was paid for by Hillary. http://www.gunbanobama.com/Templates/c63367a2-996a-422c-9afd-0d6f49a0ca86/Documents/NRA_obamausatoday1009.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

173. For Labor Unions? Yes, yes they did make it easier.

Oops, oh you were talking about Corporations, and IGNORING Labor Unions.

Ok then.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[cowman]

14. Wow

more deep and thoughtful comments from K&M. Thats why your side is losing the 2nd Amend battle. As a staunch proponent of gun rights I say, keep it up.

[onehandle]

19. How many more Senate and House members could the Dems had gotten...

...if they supported English as the official language, put Muslims into concentration camps, quit the United Nations, and abolished the IRS?

Oh what the Hell... Let's support putting Jesus on the flag.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. None. They would've gotten less because those issues are unpopular.

RKBA, however, has become VERY popular in the last decade. Politicians are finding, whether they personally support it or not, that they must recognize at least some level of RKBA to gain the votes. RKBA, by popular demand, is here to stay for quite some time.

The gun control types really should invest in some astroglide for the next decade or so because about all they can now is bend over and take it from the RKBA supporters. :P

[KansasVoter]

104. You also made sure not to list years before 2000 when the NRA donated more % to Dems.

[GreenStormCloud]

117. 2000 is Ancient history. Much progress has been made since then.

Many more Democrats have abandoned gun control and are endorsing RKBA.

[Statistical]

124. That just further illustrates the point.

I think a decade is long enough to show a trend.

In 2000 8% of funding went to Democrats, a decade later it is 29%. If more and more Democrats start accepting/supporting RKBA hell we might get than number in 30%-40% range in another decade.

[X_Digger]

126. Did someone drop you on your head as a child?

1998 - 14% (to dems) 86% (to pugs)
1996 - 16% 84%
1994 - 20% 80%
1992 - 37% 63%
1990 - 36% 64%

You notice where it starts to taper off? between '92 and '94.

Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with the moronic "assault weapons" ban, now would it?

If this is a war of wits, you brought a knife to a gun fight.

[howaboutme]

13. When most Americans become serfs to the elitist rich -

and most will agree they've made pretty good progress in that direction - just how long do you think they'll allow the serfs to own firearms?

You can be sure that the first thing they'll do is neuter the public and eliminate any threat to their opulent lifestyle that might come from a populace pissed because they have nothing while the rich have everything.

Edited to add: Hopefully this will never come about but the more I see from a government intent on bending our Constitution and a media intent on covering it up, and voting machines that are manipulable, and a declining middle class, while the wealthy get even more, the less confident I've become. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[Travis Coates]

178. Given the "serfs" have firearms

How easy do you think they're going to be to take away?

[howaboutme]

187. How secure are our Constitutional rights?

Just because many Americans already own firearms doesn't mean that said firearms couldn't be outlawed and confiscated.

When push comes to shove Americans of 2010 and beyond are not the Americans of 1776. We have become naive, passive, malleable as clay, media centric, entertainment addicts, and ready to bend over and have a red-white and blue flag jammed up our backside while we willingly hand over our liberties to the leaders and royalty if we think it might give us security.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Our US Constitution, Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment are basically held together by a thread. A few orchestrated false flag events planned and executed by our own or another country could end it all. The charade of using false flags and portraying the "enemy" as a terrorist or racist and creating fear has worked too many times for it not to be used, especially in a nation made up of "malleables" instead of cynics and independent thinkers.

Take the right to bear arms as an example. A few dastardly actions by false flag operatives that appear to be carried out by "racist gunmen terrorists gone wild" would create immediate public outcry for action. Congress would hold their investigatory commissions and accede to public anger and pass laws to limit private gun ownership. The obliging media blitz would portray all gun owners as potential terrorists or racists. Take your choice - the terrorists could be portrayed as militia, left wing anarchists, or right wing zealots or all three. The Supreme Court would feel the political heat of these dastardly acts and obligingly rule that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean what it says. Neighbors would turn in neighbors. Those with their "You'll take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!" bumper stickers will be scraping them off under the cover of darkness.

But in the end those who wanted private ownership of firearms limited would get their way, and it wouldn't be the first time that innocent people were sacrificed to further an agenda.

[cowman]

195. Very thoughtful post

That is a scary scenario, However if anyone in the govt. was found to be complicit, the backlash would be earthshattering.
A while back we had a poster who said that he would support the pres. calling in foreign armies to disarm law abiding citizens and he didn't believe the American military or the American people themselves would put up much resistance. After LMAO, I posted this
1. If any US Pres. tried that the Congress would be tripping over themselves to initiate impeachment hearings for the crime of treason.

2. The impeachment and conviction of treason would be the fastest in the history of this country.

3. This would unite the Dems and Repubs like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

4. The American military and people would slaughter any foreign forces that came into the country for hostile reasons.
A long time ago at the height of the cold war a Soviet General was asked if the Soviet Union could invade and occupy the US, his answer was absolutly not because of the american right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
I truly believe that if they tried to outlaw guns and tried to confiscate them
there would be a bloodbath and most states would tell the Feds to go fuck themselves.

[howaboutme]

197. Thanks

1. Let's hope it never comes about.

2. If it does I hope you are correct and Americans would not just rollover for it.

3. Many big cultural changes have occurred in the USA in the last 10 years. One wonders if we are not being exposed to the frog effect. That is if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water it quickly jumps out. But if you gradually raise the temperature to boiling, the frog adjusts but stays there and dies.

4. Since 9-11 I'm not sure of anything especially the priorities of our people, government and the nation. It appears that many people willingly will hand over all the liberties that Americans have fought for 234+ years ago (not that long) just to maintain this illusive concept of safety. I truly wonder if this era was a scheme that involved much more than we could ever imagine and the eventual outcome will be worse than we could imagine. Had Pelosi not taken impeachment off the table I'd feel more confident about the situation.

[X_Digger]

196. In the past, sure..

But in the modern age of decentralized media? Blogs, facebook, twitter, et al- all those things deprive the powers that be of the single bully pulpit that would be required for such a contrived outrage to resonate.

(At least I like to think so, but I can be a cynic sometimes, too.)

[Warren Stupidity]

15. The gungeon is pretty much a cesspool of links to rightwing nonsense.

And the open support here for rightwing PACs like the NRA is amazing given the New Rules. I suppose containing this crap to this forum makes some sort of sense.

[cowman]

17. And more

deep and thoughful comments from W.S., Keep it up, your side of the debate has done more for gun rights than anything else, as a staunch gun rights proponent, I say from the bottom of my heart, Thank You!!!!!!!

[KansasVoter]

33. Cow....

You whine a lot!

[cowman]

35. Thats rich

coming from you who tries to tell us that we're not true progressives if we support the NRA.

[PavePusher]

71. Supporting the Second Amendment is "rightwing"?

Did I miss a memo?

Why do more "progressive" candidates not support the entire Constitution?

Edit: Note that I am NOT claiming that repubs support the entire Constitution.

[Warren Stupidity]

112. The NRA is a rightwing PAC.

[GreenStormCloud]

118. Self-Delete.

[PavePusher]

169. They support people who support the Secod Amendment.

Get more Dems/Progs on board with that and friggen OWN them...

[AtheistCrusader]

174. It is a single-issue PAC, supporting the one line item of the Bill of Rights that progressives ignor

e.

We could have 100% of that support and money coming to progressive candidates.

[Glassunion]

179. False (nt)

[Statistical]

190. Why would a rightwing PAC provide support to Democrats? n/t

[The Green Manalishi]

72. " cesspool of links to right wing nonsense"

Sucks when the facts, history and common sense are against you, eh?

RKBA is a right.
Self Defense is a right.
Rights trump the 'wants' of cities, states, and the alleged progressives who would impose undue restrictions on them.
Anyone who disagrees with the above is delusional, not a progressive, actually not even sane and a danger to society.

If the asshats who are against *ANY* of our inalienable rights would either use their brains and subsequently recant at least STFU and let the adults among us who actually care about our rights under the constitution continue our intent of educating Democratic officeholders and candidates to not fuck with our rights (if that means using the NRA as a stick to beat the sense into some pols, so be it) we can use the NRA just as well as the Republicans can.

It's simple (but still too hard for some here to figure out)- the NRA will support the most pro RKBA candidate. Period. With money and votes. If you're *not* endorsed by the NRA it means that you are either too stupid to learn , or against the RKBA, in either case not fundamentally different from a Repub, a brown shirt is a brown shirt regardless of the patches on the shirt.

Eventually, since marriage equality, environmental protection, regulation of the more avaricious elements of capitalism and and end to foreign adventurism are positions held by the more intelligent and enlightened member of society - both pols and voters- they will learn.

[Callisto32]

176. Da NEU RULEZ!

Is that anything like newspeak?

[Glassunion]

180. Yes,

That which does not fit in our ideas of what we feel should be, shall never be spoken of again.
If we do not say it, it will never be said. It if disagrees, it never was.

It's a beautiful thing, this shrinking dictionary.

[east texas lib]

186. Only to the hardcore Stalinists such as yourself...

Lighten up, take a little break in the Lounge or something. Then put on your shades when you return so your fragile retinas won't have burn so badly as you glare at all the deviancy in the Gungeon.;)

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Obama earned that F from the NRA

Obama’s Gun Views

FACT: Supported ban on concealed carry; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

FACT: He voted for 2005 Kennedy Amendment Intended by Kennedy to ban all common center-fire rifle ammo. Kennedy, in his speech named the .30-30, first made in the mid 1890s, as a cop-killer to be banned. The .30-30 is one of the most common hunting rounds in America. Reference to Kennedy’s speech, Congressional Record: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S1634&position=all

“Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating. It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.”

A ban on the .30-30 would have banned ALL common hunting ammunition. Since Kennedy wrote the amendment, and since he specifically named the .30-30, then we must assume that he did intend to ban the .30-30, and ALL hunting ammo.

Obama voted FOR the amendment.


FACT: Obama voted AGAINST the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005

FACT Obama supported a ban in Illinois on semi-auto guns.

FACT: As a state senator he voted against a bill that would have given amnesty for a person who used a gun in self-defense, even if it was illegal for them to have the gun. In New York, Goetz was about to be mugged by four young men. He shot them all, none fatally. The jury accepted his claim of self-defense (The evidence was overwhelming.) but he was also charged with having a concealed weapon illegally and was convicted of that. The Illinois bill would have granted amnesty for gun possession if the gun was used in genuine self-defense. Obama said, “NO”.

FACT: On his website he supported permanent reinstatement of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

FACT: Obama said that he believed the DC gun ban was a good example of constitutional local control of guns.

That is how Obama earned that F, and earned the mistrust of all RKBA advocates. He hasn't made any anti-gun moves since the election because he knows the political price is too high.

[cowman]

18. Good post

Like I said, if he thought he could get away with more gun restrictions, along with DI FI and Schumer and a whole bunch of others,I have no, zero, nada, doubt that he would in a heartbeat. His record is quite clear, luckily, he is a smart pol. and realizes the terrible pol. price he would pay.

[Pullo]

31. That's a HUGE reason I supported Obama over Hillary

Hillary would have jumped on the gun control land mine with both feet, first opportunity she got.

Yes, Obama would prefer more restrictions on gun ownership, but he is savvy enough know his political capital would just be sucked into a black hole, hurt the part, and derail his progressive agenda.

[cowman]

32. What just floors me

is that you think she would learn the lesson of 93 and apply it.

[GreenStormCloud]

119. I think you are right.

Definately Obama is smart enough to stay away from it. He even said so in the campaign when he said that he would not have the votes for more gun control.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. 22 cents on the dollar to good causes? That is better than giving to Hanity to support children

of dead soldiers...
http://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/hannity-steals-from-children-of-dead-soldiers/

And how about Palin's keynote speech at the National Rifle Association... Of course, she wasn't paid for that one. But those who donated, did support paying to give her agenda a nice comfy home. Her Agenda is 78% of the NRA agenda.

But remember, 22 cents of every dollar goes to a good cause. Since Red State hates that (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/), I guess that is OK.

[cowman]

22. What's wrong with giving to Hannity

to support the children of military personell who died in combat? Not that I do, but quite frankly, I don't give a shit if they have a D or an R if it is for a good cause. As far as Palin, well, I'll leave that for a different discussion.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. The word I used was "better" Hanity donates only about 7 to 18 cents on a dollar.

The rest of that money supports a lavish life style for his family and his work to destroy every progressive cause and program in America.

But if you want to donate between 82 cents and 93 cents of every dollar so Hanity can sit on a heated toilet lid when he flies, spend your freedom of speech that way. Me, I will donate directly to groups that help people rather than try to destroy liberal and progressive causes.

[cowman]

24. Wait a minute there

I said I don't donate to Hannity, I said I don't give a shit if there is a D or an R as long as it is for a good cause. I too donate directly to org. that I deem worthy, like to Org. that help fallen Firefighters families.

[Ozymanithrax]

27. What I was saying is that supporting Hanityh, the NRA, or any

group that is 75% opposed to progressive or liberal programs and politicians is a poor way to spend our money. Yes, that +/- 25 cents helps. But that +/- 75 Cents goes directly to opposing everything we stand for.

People can support the 2nd amendment without supporting the NRA. That includes the Democratic politicians that take their money.

[cowman]

29. Maybe if more so called progressives

supported the RKBA then we would get more endorsements from the NRA and just maybe would win more seats in the congress. It's been getting better over the years but there are still some Dems in congress who love to spout off about more gun restrictions. The NRA doesn't care if there is a D or an R all they care about is the candidates stance on the RKBA

[caboose]

There's nothing liberal or progressive about hamstringing the Constitutional Rights

of American citizens. That way lies an oligarchy even worse than what we now have.

[Ozymanithrax]

84. And, clearly, there is no room to disagree with the interpretation

that a highly conservative, anti-liberal, and anti-progressive SCOTUS has foisted on the American public. We just should forget the other amendments and fall back on the well proven law that he who owns the guns makes the rules.

If you pay dues to the NRA, then 78% of your money goes to supporting Republicans. You should take ownership of your donation and be proud of what 78% of your money does. If you are not, continue to support the highly conservative, anti-liberal, and anti-progressive interpretaion of the Constitution but quit giving to an organization that utterly opposes 78% of everything a liberal or a progrssive says they believe in.

[cowman]

89. So according to you

we should just forget how a pol. stands on the 2nd Amend. because they are for other rights? How about we forget how a pol. stands on the 1st amend because they support other rights? I believe that 22% of my money goes to supporting progressive Dems.

[Ozymanithrax]

96. No, you should not support an organization that opposes liberal progressive polices

with money.

Vote as you wish. The NRA should not receive a dime in dues or anything else from anyone who really believes in progressive or liberal values.

Whatever criteria you feel is important in deciding your vote, you should consider.

[shadowrider]

110. ????????????/

RKBA isn't a progressive value?

Huh???????

[X_Digger]

129. Do you donate to NARAL?

You do know that they endorse and support pro-choice republicans, yes?

[Glassunion]

132. How fucking dare they!!!

Pro-choice is ours, it is a progressive value. NARAL is a GOP front. How could any so called progressive support an organization the funds the GOP?

Are they going to be part of that 200m GOP avalanche this cycle? If the GOP takes the house or senate I'm blaming NARAL and their GOP fundies along with all of you so called progressives.

Seething with :sarcasm:

[caboose]

98. I'm not interested in submitting my Democratic credentials for criticism based on one issue.

You can deny my bona fides if you want and you can deny the facts of evolution or deny that the earth revolves around the sun or whatever, but I do not recognize your authority (or that of anyone else) to determine my right to exercise my rights, so to speak. I have never paid one cent to NRA and I have owned - I suppose about a hundred guns in my 67 years and it never ever occurred to me that a 'progressive' person would ever suggest I should compromise my rights in the manner I have seen the last couple of decades...mainly not from "conservatives" (which are nothing of the sort) but from my own Democratic associates who seem to have lost their way with respect to fundamental American rights.

In light of these somewhat revolting developments, I'm seriously considering joining NRA...not because I agree with every tenet of their political arm but because they actually do support my rights. (I contribute to Human Rights Campaign also...for the same reason.) There is no shortage of people who want to make me a 'second class' citizen because I'm a gay man and it pains me to realize that some of them also want to relegate me to that sort of underclass simply because I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights. There's a lot of hypocrisy about lately.

[cowman]

111. Well said

Welcome to the jungle.

[GreenStormCloud]

120. Welcome aboard. N/T

[X_Digger]

131. Met up with the Pink Pistols, yet?

Welcome to the gungeon!

[Glassunion]

137. Welcome!

Enjoy the show.

Observe the sign.



As opposed to gradual gunfire.

[pipoman]

171. You are the one who is wrong here though

why wouldn't any good liberal or progressive for that matter spring at the chance to support a liberal interpretation of ANY civil right. Instead you seem to be stating that a good progressive would support a liberal interpretation of EVERY enumerated civil right, and likely those which aren't enumerated...EXCEPT for one civil right, on that one you must support a very conservative interpretation of that one right to be a good lib/prog. Please explain this to me...it never ceases to amaze me.

[Glassunion]

26. Love the article...

The headline tickled me... Thanks.

[Glassunion]

25. I found a few things in the OP that are true... The rest... Well...

True: I will admit I was wrong when I said the NRA tried to defeat 90% of the democrats!

Partially True: They only tried to defeat 78% of the Democratic House and Senate candidates in the 2008 election (They also tried to defeat 22% of the Republican House and Senate candidates in the 2008 election)

Partially True: So, any money donated from "progressive" NRA members here was used to defeat 78% of the democrats in 2008. (So any money donated from "Conservative" NRA members elsewhere was used to defeat 22% of the Republicans in 2008)

Partially True: This includes trying to defeat democrats who want equal rights for gays, universal health care, pro-choice, etc. You SHOULD know these causes already. (This includes trying to support democrats who want equal rights for gays, universal health care, pro-choice, etc. You SHOULD know these causes already.)

Partially True: And it means they tried to elect GOP candidates who want to ban gay marriage, want to outlaw abortions, want to privatize social security, etc. (And is means they tried to elect Progressive candidates who support gay marriage, are pro-choice, are for social security, etc...)

True: And they gave Obama, your candidate, your president, a grade of F which means "True enemy of gun owners’ rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation." (Obama's voting history at opposing the 2nd Amendment is worthy of that F)

Misleading statement: What laws has Obama tried to pass to ban guns since he was elected? (He was given the grade of F before he was elected, you are moving the goal post. If you actually look at Obama's statements, written opinions, debates and voting history in 2008, you would give him an F as well when comes to grading him on his support of the 2nd Amendment. That's the funny thing about grades, good or bad, you have to earn them. He would NOT have had a bad grade if he did not earn it.)

True: So you "progressives" who support the NRA realize the NRA wanted Sarah Palin as your vice president? God Bless America!!! (what should we do about that? I will not abandon the Bill of Rights, it is far more important than ANY one person, not the President, our Representatives or ourselves as individuals. It is a collective document, for ALL at once, it is completely impartial and exists outside of any political party or individual person. Basically, the Bill of Rights is more important than Obama, McCain, JFK, MLK, etc...)

False: How many more senate and house members could the dems have gotten if the NRA did not spend millions against them on ONE issue? Wow, it is sad just wondering what 1 or 2 more senate members could have done for us! (they did not spend millions against them. They spent $822,480.36 in donations to Republican candidates. They did spend $231,981.64 in donations to Democratic candidates) ALSO (how many more senate and house members could the dems have gotten if they supported the RKBA and received the support of the NRA?)

I will collect money numbers next which I think will really be revealing. I will be curious how much money the NRA spent trying to put right wing GOP idiots into office. (Why wait? See below... The information is readily available and easy to locate.)

Also: If one or two candidates makes this difference and they are (according to you) a GOP(only) supporting group then why did they support and endorse: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?

NRA PAC Federal Candidate Contributions for 2008. $1 = $1 (these numbers are not in thousands or millions, if it says one thousand dollars, they received one thousand dollars.)
Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) $1,000
Akin, Todd (R-MO) $2,000
Alexander, Rodney (R-LA) $2,000
Altmire, Jason (D-PA) $6,950
Austria, Steve C (R-OH) $2,000
Baca, Joe (D-CA) $2,000
Bachmann, Michele (R-MN) $9,900
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) $2,000
Baker, Richard (R-LA) $1,000
Barrett, Gresham (R-SC) $2,500
Barrow, John (D-GA) $7,450
Bartlett, Roscoe G (R-MD) $1,000
Barton, Joe (R-TX) $2,000
Bee, Timothy (R-AZ) $9,900
Berry, Marion (D-AR) $2,000
Biggert, Judy (R-IL) $2,000
Bilbray, Brian P (R-CA) $2,000
Bilirakis, Gus (R-FL) $2,000
Bishop, Rob (R-UT) $1,000
Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA) $5,000
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) $2,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $6,950
Boehner, John (R-OH) $8,450
Bonner, Jo (R-AL) $2,000
Boozman, John (R-AR) $2,000
Boren, Dan (D-OK) $4,950
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $4,950
Boucher, Rick (D-VA) $3,000
Boustany, Charles W Jr (R-LA) $2,500
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $7,450
Bradley, Jeb (R-NH) $4,950
Brady, Kevin (R-TX) $2,000
Broun, Paul Jr (R-GA) $7,950
Brown, Henry (R-SC) $2,000
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL) $2,000
Buchanan, Vernon (R-FL) $8,950
Burgess, Michael (R-TX) $2,000
Burton, Dan (R-IN) $5,100
Buyer, Steve (R-IN) $3,000
Calvert, Ken (R-CA) $2,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $1,000
Campbell, John (R-CA) $1,000
Cannon, Chris (R-UT) $4,950
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $6,950
Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) $6,000
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA) $1,000
Carney, Chris (D-PA) $1,000
Carter, John (R-TX) $2,500
Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) $2,500
Cazayoux, Donald J (D-LA) $3,000
Chabot, Steve (R-OH) $5,950
Chaffetz, Jason (R-UT) $1,500
Chandler, Ben (D-KY) $3,000
Childers, Travis W (D-MS) $3,500
Coble, Howard (R-NC) $2,000
Coffman, Mike (R-CO) $1,000
Cole, Tom (R-OK) $1,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $3,000
Costello, Jerry F (D-IL) $2,000
Cramer, Bud (D-AL) $1,000
Crenshaw, Ander (R-FL) $1,000
Cubin, Barbara (R-WY) $1,000
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $2,000
Culberson, John (R-TX) $4,000
Davis, Artur (D-AL) $1,000
Davis, David (R-TN) $3,000
Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $2,000
Davis, Jo Ann (R-VA) $1,000
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN) $4,000
Deal, Nathan (R-GA) $2,000
DeFazio, Peter (D-OR) ($1,000)
Dent, Charlie (R-PA) $2,500
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R-FL) $7,950
Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL) $7,950
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $4,000
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $6,950
Drake, Thelma (R-VA) $7,950
Dreier, David (R-CA) $1,000
Duncan, John J (Jimmy) Jr (R-TN) $2,000
Edwards, Chet (D-TX) $3,000
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $2,000
Emerson, Jo Ann (R-MO) $3,000
English, Phil (R-PA) $6,100
Fallin, Mary (R-OK) $2,000
Feeney, Tom (R-FL) $9,900
Flake, Jeff (R-AZ) $1,000
Forbes, J Randy (R-VA) $2,000
Fortenberry, Jeffrey Lane (R-NE) $1,000
Fossella, Vito (R-NY) $1,000
Foxx, Virginia (R-NC) $2,000
Franks, Trent (R-AZ) $2,000
Garrett, Scott (R-NJ) $2,000
Gerlach, Jim (R-PA) $7,950
Gillmor, Paul E (R-OH) $1,000
Gingrey, Phil (R-GA) $2,000
Gohmert, Louis B Jr (R-TX) $2,500
Goode, Virgil H Jr (R-VA) $6,950
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) $4,000
Gordon, Bart (D-TN) $2,000
Granger, Kay (R-TX) $2,000
Graves, Sam (R-MO) $7,450
Green, Gene (D-TX) $2,500
Guthrie, Steven Brett (R-KY) $2,500
Hall, Ralph M (R-TX) $2,000
Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL) $4,950
Harper, Gregg (R-MS) $1,000
Harris, Andy (R-MD) $9,900
Hastings, Doc (R-WA) $2,000
Hayes, Robin (R-NC) $5,950
Heller, Dean (R-NV) $4,500
Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) $2,000
Herger, Wally (R-CA) $2,532
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD) $3,500
Higgins, Brian M (D-NY) $1,880
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $5,950
Hobson, Dave (R-OH) $1,000
Hoekstra, Peter (R-MI) $1,000
Holden, Tim (D-PA) $3,000
Hulshof, Kenny (R-MO) $1,250
Hunter, Duncan D (R-CA) $3,000
Issa, Darrell (R-CA) $2,500
Johnson, Sam (R-TX) $2,000
Jones, Walter B Jr (R-NC) $4,950
Jordan, James D (R-OH) $1,000
Jordan, Nick (R-KS) $2,500
Kagen, Steve (D-WI) $7,450
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) $3,500
Keller, Ric (R-FL) $9,900
King, Steven A (R-IA) $1,000
Kingston, Jack (R-GA) $2,000
Kline, John (R-MN) $3,000
Knollenberg, Joe (R-MI) $4,950
Kuhl, John R Jr (R-NY) $9,900
Lamborn, Douglas L (R-CO) $5,500
Lampson, Nick (D-TX) $5,950
Latham, Tom (R-IA) $3,500
LaTourette, Steven C (R-OH) $2,000
Latta, Robert E (R-OH) $9,000
Lauzen, Chris (R-IL) $3,500
Lee, Christopher J (R-NY) $4,950
Lewis, Jerry (R-CA) $1,000
Lewis, Ron (R-KY) $1,000
Linder, John (R-GA) $2,000
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $2,000
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO) $7,450
Lummis, Cynthia Marie (R-WY) $4,950
Mack, Connie (R-FL) $2,000
Mahoney, Tim (D-FL) $12,400
Manion, Tom (R-PA) $4,950
Manzullo, Don (R-IL) $1,000
Marchant, Kenny (R-TX) $2,000
Marshall, Jim (D-GA) $6,950
Matheson, Jim (D-UT) $2,000
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $2,000
McCaul, Michael (R-TX) $5,950
McClintock, Tom (R-CA) $4,950
McCotter, Thad (R-MI) $2,500
McCrery, Jim (R-LA) $1,000
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) $2,000
McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) $2,000
McKeon, Howard P (Buck) (R-CA) $2,000
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy (R-WA) $2,000
Melancon, Charles (D-LA) $2,500
Mica, John L (R-FL) $2,000
Michaud, Mike (D-ME) $3,500
Miller, Candice S (R-MI) $1,000
Miller, Gary (R-CA) $2,000
Miller, Jeff (R-FL) $2,000
Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV) $7,400
Moran, Jerry (R-KS) $3,000
Murphy, Tim (R-PA) $6,450
Murtha, John P (D-PA) $7,450
Musgrave, Marilyn (R-CO) $9,900
Myrick, Sue (R-NC) $2,000
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) $2,000
Northup, Anne M (R-KY) $7,450
Nunes, Devin Gerald (R-CA) $2,000
Oberweis, James D (R-IL) $2,500
Obey, David R (D-WI) $7,450
Olson, Pete (R-TX) $4,950
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) $2,000
Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) $9,900
Pence, Mike (R-IN) $3,000
Peterson, Collin C (D-MN) $2,500
Peterson, John E (R-PA) $1,000
Petri, Tom (R-WI) $1,000
Pickering, Charles (Chip) Jr (R-MS) $1,500
Pitts, Joe (R-PA) $2,000
Poe, Ted (R-TX) $2,000
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $2,000
Porter, Jon (R-NV) $4,950
Posey, Bill (R-FL) $3,500
Price, Tom (R-GA) $2,000
Putnam, Adam H (R-FL) $2,000
Radanovich, George (R-CA) $2,000
Rahall, Nick (D-WV) $2,000
Regula, Ralph (R-OH) $1,000
Rehberg, Denny (R-MT) $2,000
Renzi, Rick (R-AZ) $2,450
Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) $2,000
Reynolds, Tom (R-NY) $1,000
Robinson, Vernon (R-NC) ($1,000)
Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $3,000
Rogers, Mike (R-MI) $1,000
Rogers, Mike D (R-AL) $2,000
Rohrabacher, Dana (R-CA) $1,000
Rooney, Tom (R-FL) $1,000
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) $1,000
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $6,500
Ross, Mike (D-AR) $6,950
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $2,500
Ryan, Tim (D-OH) $3,000
Ryun, Jim (R-KS) $2,500
Salazar, John (D-CO) $3,000
Sali, Bill (R-ID) $13,850
Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $2,000
Schmidt, Jean (R-OH) $3,000
Schock, Aaron (R-IL) $6,450
Schweikert, David (R-AZ) $3,000
Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI) $1,000
Sessions, Pete (R-TX) $2,000
Shadegg, John (R-AZ) $6,950
Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $1,000
Shuler, Heath (D-NC) $4,950
Shuster, Bill (R-PA) $3,000
Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $2,000
Skelton, Ike (D-MO) $2,000
Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $3,150
Smith, Lamar (R-TX) $2,500
Souder, Mark E (R-IN) $9,750
Space, Zachary T (D-OH) $7,950
Stearns, Cliff (R-FL) $1,000
Stivers, Steve (R-OH) $9,900
Sullivan, John (R-OK) $2,000
Summers, Charles E (R-ME) $1,000
Tanner, John (D-TN) $3,500
Taylor, Charles H (R-NC) ($1,000)
Taylor, Gene (D-MS) $2,000
Terry, Lee (R-NE) $8,950
Thornberry, Mac (R-TX) $2,000
Tiahrt, Todd (R-KS) $9,900
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) $3,000
Tinsley, Edward R (R-NM) $4,950
Turner, Michael R (R-OH) $3,000
Walberg, Tim (R-MI) $4,950
Walden, Greg (R-OR) $2,000
Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) $5,000
Wamp, Zach (R-TN) $4,000
Welch, Peter (D-VT) $1,000
Weldon, Dave (R-FL) $1,000
Westmoreland, Lynn A (R-GA) $3,000
Whitehead, Jim (R-GA) $1,000
Whitfield, Ed (R-KY) $1,000
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $3,000
Wilson, Joe (R-SC) $2,000
Wittman, Rob (R-VA) $5,500
Young, Don (R-AK) $9,900
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) $9,900
Barrasso, John A (R-WY) $7,450
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $7,450
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $12,350
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) $5,000
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) $5,450
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $7,950
Craig, Larry (R-ID) $2,500
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC) $9,900
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM) $3,000
Enzi, Mike (R-WY) $5,950
Gilmore, Jim (R-VA) $4,950
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC) $7,400
Inhofe, James M (R-OK) $8,400
Johanns, Michael O (R-NE) $4,950
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) $2,500
Kennedy, John Neely (R-LA) $4,950
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $9,900
Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $1,000
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $5,950
Schaffer, Bob (R-CO) $4,950
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) $4,950
Smith, Gordon H (R-OR) $6,950
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) $7,450
Sununu, John E (R-NH) $4,950
Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $5,950
Wilson, Heather A (R-NM) $4,000


Also, you do realize the NRA is supporting almost 30% of the Dems this year yes? This is alnot 2x higher than the numbers prior to the 2006 election.

[Hoopla Phil]

30. Tells me we have a lot more work to do to get more pro RKBA Democrats

to run for office.

[KansasVoter]

34. And stop supporting the NRA

[cowman]

37. Once again

you don't get to tell us who or who not to support.

[KansasVoter]

38. I will tell you exactly what to do. Someone has too!

[cowman]

39. You can tell all you want

don't mean shit. Like I said before, I don't give a rats ass what you think

[KansasVoter]

44. Yes, you do....but embarrassed to admit it......

Send me a PM and we can discuss how I can make you a better person!

[cowman]

47. Make me a better person?

I think I'm doing just fine, been a Firefighter/Paramedic for 35 years and getting ready to retire in Sept. so thank you for the invite but I'll pass. I do appreciate the humor. If I need an opinion, I'll ask my wife what my opinion is.

[KansasVoter]

49. LOL.....

good one. And congrats on your retirement.

[cowman]

50. Thank you

plan to finally see this beautiful country of ours without having to worry about going back to work.

[KansasVoter]

52. Neat! 10 years from that point

[cowman]

53. I'll tell ya

these last 2 months are going to be the longest of my life

[KansasVoter]

54. I bet. Just be extra careful! Dangerous job.

[cowman]

57. Well I don' do entry to much

anymore, I direct the younger whippersnappers on what to do now, I stay at the command vehicle and give orders although I will admit every once is a while I will put on a SCBA and go in behind the nozzle person to keep my hand in it, but for the most part I'm now an order giver.

[KansasVoter]

60. Well, do that the last two months! No hero crap. I have seen too many movies! :-)

[cowman]

61. Oh. I got that

hero crap out of my system during the first 2 years of my career, had a roof collapse on me and my partner because I didn't trust my instincts and stayed inside to long. No hero here.

[KansasVoter]

64. Well, I am sure we will argue more down the road but good luck!!

[cowman]

68. Thank you

and your right about arguing more down the road but at least we can try to keep it civil.

[KansasVoter]

69. I will try also. Heated topic at times.

[cowman]

93. You are right about that

sometimes I get so passionate abut a subject that I end up with the disease of foot in mouth. Just go done feeding coyote pup. Will try to post a pic of her, quite a beautiful animal.

[cowman]

99. Ok here goes

.wilycoyote001

[cowman]

100. well that didn't work

how do I post and image?

[cowman]

108. here we go again

/

[oneshooter]

116. Cute Pup! Looks like she doesn't trust the camera! n/t

[cowman]

127. She was an orphaned pup when I got her

Her mother was killed in a wildland fire and she just didn't trust anyone at first but now she has really taken to my wife and the little girl has made best buddies with our himalayan cat and they actually sleep together and play together. She really is a remarkable animal. We were going to release her back to the wild but she has become so tame that I don't think she would survive on her own.

[KansasVoter]

134. Cute. My daughter loved the pic!

[cowman]

138. Thank you

I'm glad your daughter loved the pic. will post more as I get them. we also have a pet house sparrow that I rescued from the fire station I am assigned to. I am an avid animal lover.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. It is an amazing country. I have been in all 48 lower states. N/T

[cowman]

128. I've been to lots of different

countries but have never seen the whole of our country. I can hardly wait.

[GreenStormCloud]

167. Allow me to make a suggestion.

Get off the interstates and travel the two-lane roads. Get to places that are 50 miles from an interstate or interstate quality super-highway. You will find a different America. It is hard to do that in the East, but in the West it isn't too hard to do. You will find many towns that still don't have a McDonalds, or any chain fast food place. They will have Mom & Pop restaurants that depend on repeat business, and the food will be wonderful.

Take your time. Make detours.

One of my best memories is when I arrived, by plan, at Loveland Pass in Colorado, an hour before sunrise, and watched the sun come up on the mountains. The snow capped peaks reflected the colors of the morning sky. It isn't a town, but it is where State Route 6 crosses the continental divide next to Interstate 70. You will be at 12,000 feet so do everything in slow motion. A regular walk of only 100 feet will have you gasping for breath as if you had run a mile.

In Wyoming, you will find one building towns. One small building will be the Post Office, and gas station. You will see signs that say, (Town name) 15 miles, Population 9. And twenty miles later you will realize that you haven't seen a town. The next time you see a sign like that you will start watching the miles and slow down as it approaches and you will see one building. That is assuming that you travel some of the state highways.

Explore, and have fun.

[cowman]

181. Thank you

for the great advice and tips. We had decided to do just exactly that so we could see the real America. we're going to take 6 months to explore and enjoy this wonderful and beautiful country of ours.
Will store the majority of our weapons with our police offficer daughter while we're gone and our other daughter is going to live in our house until we get back.

[shadowrider]

87. If I need an opinion, I'll ask my wife what my opinion is. --SNORT-- n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

91. Ha Ha Ha: "respect my authoritah"

[GreenStormCloud]

121. And we will ridicule you for attempting to command us.

Democrats are like cats, they don't take orders too well.

[Hoopla Phil]

90. I think it would be more in my interest to support democrats that fully support the 2A.

You do as you see fit.

[ejbrush]

191. Obey, David R (D-WI) $7,450; Kagan, Steve (D-WI) $7,450

N/T

[spin]

36. The NRA is a ONE ISSUE organization ...

that issue is RKBA.

When I look at the NRA ratings, I realize this and take it into account.

But many gun owners are one issue voters and they will pay close attention the the NRA ratings and they show up at the polls. In a close election, they can tip the race.

In the 1994 election the NRA is often credited with defeating Congressmen Jack Brooks and Tom Foley (the first Speaker of the House to lose reelection since 1860). Bill Clinton wrote:
“ The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker. ”

—Bill Clinton, My Life pp 629-30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

I understand your dislike of many current gun laws such as those that allow concealed carry. I disagree with your viewpoint but people differ on many issues. You feel that this would be a better country with stricter gun laws and perhaps only trap shooters could own firearms. Fine, that's your opinion.

But the majority of the voters in our country do not consider more restrictive gun laws all that important.

In U.S., Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Laws
October 9, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990.



***snip***

The poll also shows a new low in the percentage of Americans favoring a ban on handgun possession except by the police and other authorized persons, a question that dates back to 1959. Only 28% now favor such a ban. The high point in support for a handgun-possession ban was 60% in the initial measurement in 1959. Since then, less than a majority has been in favor, and support has been below 40% since December 1993.



The trends on the questions about gun-sale laws and a handgun-possession ban indicate that Americans' attitudes have moved toward being more pro-gun rights. But this is not due to a growth in personal gun ownership, which has held steady around 30% this decade, or to an increase in household gun ownership, which has been steady in the low 40% range since 2000

You state:

"How many more senate and house members could the dems have gotten if the NRA did not spend millions against them on ONE issue? Wow, it is sad just wondering what 1 or 2 more senate members could have done for us!"

I will counter by saying that these Democrats would have likely been elected if they had a good NRA rating. I believe that it's time for our party to stop flogging the dead horse that's draconian gun control.

[KansasVoter]

40. Even with that argument you could work on it without support the NRA.

[cowman]

41. But who are you

to tell us that we can't support the NRA and be good progressives?

[KansasVoter]

42. Besides being smarter than you and more successful........

I am the leader of this forum when it comes to how to be a progressive!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. LOL

GTFO

[cowman]

48. Now your being humorous

I like that. Sometimes we get a little too intense here and injecting humor is a good thing. Thanks

[spin]

56. Agreed. Often we take ourselves too seriously here. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

65. You certainly excel at being arrogant and narcissistic

:nuke:

[KansasVoter]

97. I forgive you for being confused. I deal with people like you a lot!

[Katya Mullethov]

125. More of these .................." people you know "

Did you know they're spitting in your food ?

[slackmaster]

182. I'm not in a position to do that

But I do occasionally read their emails.

[spin]

55. My yearly dues support the NRA, not the NRA-ILA or the NRA-PVF ...

I get contribution requests from the political organizations of the NRA but I file them in the trash can.

The fund-raising that sustains NRA`s legislative activities is conducted by ILA. Federal and many state election laws dictate that funds used to assist candidates for office must be raised separately, and that is the task of NRA`s political action committee--the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF). Neither NRA member dues nor contributions to ILA can be used directly for the election or defeat of candidates.

Because of these clearly defined parameters, and because only a small fraction of ILA`s operating budget comes from regular NRA membership dues, both ILA and NRA-PVF must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA`s legislative and political activities. The resources expended in these arenas come from the generous contributions of NRA members--above and beyond their regular dues.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=186&issue=011

The NRA does far more than rate candidates and oppose gun control legislation. Their efforts enhance the shooting sports in many ways. Their educational programs introduce new shooters to safe firearm handling and educate hunters to help eliminate hunting accidents. NRA certified instructors provide law enforcement training. They help design gun ranges and sponsor competition. These are just a few of the programs offered by the NRA which can be viewed at:
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx



Admittedly, I will contribute to the NRA-ILA if there is ever a real threat to my RKBA rights.

[villager]

43. NRA membership is indistinguishable from GOP membership

...and yet touting it and defending it here seem to be okay...

[cowman]

51. thats you opinion

and your entitled to it, however many of us have a different opinion, ain't it grand that we can do that?

[villager]

58. those are actually stats, about the positions the NRA takes, and the candidates they support

You are of course, entitled to your pleasant fantasy that the NRA is benign, and not the obviously corrosive force in American politics they clearly are...

[cowman]

59. Hell, every Org. these days are a corrosive force in

american politics. there's NARAL, the ACLU, Lobbyists, Corporate interests and many more, to pick on just one org. is kinda silly. I guess your right, I do live in fantasyland where I believe that all rights should be honored by the pols. no matter what party.

[villager]

62. The ACLU and NARAL are as corrosive as the NRA? Really?

:shrug:

[cowman]

63. To the Rethugs

yes they are and a wonderful thorn in their side

[villager]

67. Ah yes, just as the NRA is corrosive to Dems and progressives! I get your analogy now...

n/t

[Statistical]

74. NRA isn't corrosive to ALL Democrats just those who don't support RKBA.

Also there is nothing progressive about denying Constitutional rights. Nothing.

[villager]

76. Ah, yes, they never support speakers like Palin, or adopt over-arching rightwing planks

...at their conventions!

and they supply just enough clever rhetoric for befuddled "Democrats" to keep cutting the noses off their faces, while shoveling money them...

There's nothing progressive about the NRA. Nothing.

[spin]

66. Touting false information is OK? I'm sorry but you're totally wrong.

The NRA is not a political organization but instead supports shooting activities. You can view these programs at:
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

The NRA-ILA and the NRA_PVF are the political wings of the NRA.

The fund-raising that sustains NRA`s legislative activities is conducted by ILA. Federal and many state election laws dictate that funds used to assist candidates for office must be raised separately, and that is the task of NRA`s political action committee--the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF). Neither NRA member dues nor contributions to ILA can be used directly for the election or defeat of candidates.

Because of these clearly defined parameters, and because only a small fraction of ILA`s operating budget comes from regular NRA membership dues, both ILA and NRA-PVF must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA`s legislative and political activities. The resources expended in these arenas come from the generous contributions of NRA members--above and beyond their regular dues.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=186&issue=011

Let me assure you that a Democrat will never receive a GOP endorsement. The NRA-PVF can and does endorse Democrats. Obviously, the NRA-PVF gives more Republicans high ratings than they do Democrats, but considering that many Democrats oppose RKBA this is hardly surprising.

You can't blame the NRA-PVF for supporting politicians who favor RKBA. Perhaps our party needs to wake up and realize that draconian gun control is a dead horse.

The NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We do not base our decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues. The NRA is a single-issue organization. The only issues on which we evaluate candidates seeking elected office are gun-related issues. While there are many issues a candidate must address with voters, and while voters evaluate a number of non-gun-related issues in factoring which candidate they will support or oppose, NRA-PVF’s sole criteria in issuing grades and endorsements is a candidate’s position on gun-related issues.

With four million NRA members and 80 million gun owners in the country, our constituency is diverse in its views on multiple issues of our day. However, we are all united in our support of the Second Amendment and our opposition to the notion that passing more laws that negatively impact law-abiding gun owners will reduce crime. For us to divide that otherwise united base of support on non-firearm-related issues would be strategically foolish.

NRA has an incumbent-friendly policy that dictates our support for pro-gun incumbents seeking reelection. It is important that we stand with our friends who stand with us in Congress or the state legislature through their actions. Of course, should a pro-gun challenger win his election, and stay true to support for our gun rights, then he will be the beneficiary of this policy when seeking re-election.

For candidates who are not incumbents or who have not previously held elective office and thus lack voting records, we review answers to NRA’s candidate questionnaires, their campaign literature and relevant statements, and rely on intelligence from NRA members and gun owners in the field.

All of this information is then reviewed and a grade of "A" to "F" is issued. Endorsements are not given in every race. Our endorsement is not given lightly; it is something that is reserved for those candidates who meet certain criteria and something that must be earned.
http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Article.aspx?ID=413

edited for HTML error

[villager]

77. "The NRA is not a political organization" -- plus, more bridges for sale in our new catalog!

sheesh....

[Statistical]

82. The NRA is not a political orgnization. The NRA-ILA is.

The NRA-ILA has a budget of about $10 million - $20 million per election cycle (2 years).

The non political NRA has a budget of about $200 million and it has nothing to do with politics, courts, or legal challenges. They build and maintain ranges, provide financial support for existing ranges, gun clubs, and gun shop. They provide eduction, gun safety, and firearms training.

[spin]

83. Did you bother to read my post and visit the provided links?

Would the GOP ever endorse a Democrat for Congress?

The NRA which you claim is the same as the GOP has endorsed many Democrats for Congress.

Currently the rumors are that they will endorse Harry Reid over Sharron Angle. They endorsed Ted Strickland in his race for Ohio governor.

Ohio governor lands NRA endorsement in campaign
Updated 5:27 PM Monday, June 14, 2010

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The powerful National Rifle Association endorsed Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland on Monday in his re-election bid against Republican John Kasich, picking the battleground state for the first of its general election endorsements in 37 governor's races nationwide.

Strickland, a former congressman from Appalachia, made two appearances — at a sporting goods store in Proctorville on the Ohio-West Virginia border and at a steel workers' union hall in the Ohio River city of Martins Ferry — to formally accept the NRA's backing.

If history holds, it will mean important grassroots campaign support for him, which is especially valuable in Ohio's remote rural regions.
http://www.journal-news.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-governor-lands-nra-endorsement-in-campaign-761212.html?cxtype=rss_ohio-news

[villager]

86. do some Democrats bow and scrape in front of the NRA, they way they do in front of corporations?

sure they do. Democrats will usually court rightwing and conservative votes -- it's the progressive votes they sluff off.

In certain areas, obeisance to the NRA pays off for the same reason. But none of that means the NRA isn't "political," or lends evidence to the hilarious fantasy that the group is anything but reactionary.

[spin]

95. For years Democrats "bowed and scraped" in front of the Brady Campaign ...

and lost many elections.

You have to remember that the politicians we elect are put into office to support the voters who sent them there. Obviously, Obama would have had a hard time winning a Senate seat from Illinois if he would have been a strong supporter of RKBA.

But if a high percentage of the voter base is firearm owners and draconian gun control is unpopular in the candidate's area, it's foolish to push for it. This mistake has cost our party dearly in the past and will continue to do so as long as many prominent Democrats in leadership positions desire to push for such gun control laws.

All you have to do is look at a map that shows CCW in our nation to realize that in most areas of the country, people disagree with very restrictive gun laws.



Obviously the people in many states have decided that owning firearms and even carrying them in public is not a serious problem.

You disagree and that's fine, perhaps sometime in the future states will begin to impose more restrictions on firearms. But right now, gun control is a losing issue for Democrats and when we push it, we shoot ourselves in the foot while the Republicans laugh at our foolishness.

I will continue to say that the NRA is not a political organization but merely a single issue oriented group. You may hate them because they have been able to convince many people that RKBA is a right and a good idea in our country. Despite the opposition of many Democrats and organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the negative portrayal by the mainstream media, the NRA has won battles in state after state. Remember they only have four million members. The efforts of their political groups, the NRA-ILA and the NRA-PVF have accomplished an amazing feat.

But once again, the prime purpose of the NRA itself is to enhance the shooting sport through training and education and supporting shooting competitions. The NRA-ILA and the NRA-PVF are the organizations you despise.

[villager]

101. "NRA Puts Weight Behind Opposing Kagan"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009480-503544.html

nope, nothin' political to see here, move along...

[spin]

148. Based on what may be her views of just one issue, RKBA ...

She could have easily stated that she fully supported the 2nd Amendment and the recent decisions by SCOTUS in the Heller and McDonald rulings.

Now I realize that Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominees have recently turned into dog and pony shows that only serve to allow the senators to pontificate endlessly and the nominee's ability to tap dance around any important issues.

During her confirmation hearings, Kagan was repeatedly asked about her views on the Second Amendment, especially with respect to the Supreme Court's Monday ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, which limited the government's ability to restrict gun rights.

In responding to these questions, Kagan maintained that recent gun rulings have set clear precedent that amounts to "settled law." But she avoided stating her personal opinion on the issue.

According to their letter, the NRA was particularly unsettled by this move.

" often speak in terms of 'settled law' or 'I understand the right,'" the letter read. "When those statements are contradicted by an entire body of work over a nominee's career, however, it would be foolhardy to simply take them at face value."

The NRA also mentioned Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who during her confirmation hearings last year said that she supported an earlier high court decision on gun rights as settled law. She then voted with the dissenting minority in the McDonald case.

"Justice Sotomayor's blatant reversal on this critical issue requires that we look beyond statements made during confirmation hearings and examine a nominee's entire body of work," said the NRA, adding: "Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan's record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the Court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009480-503544.html

I would be willing to bet that she would have ruled with the minority opinion on both Heller v Washington D.C. and McDonald v Chicago.

While her opinion may have changed over the years, when she was a young law clerk working for Thurgood Marshall she wrote her views on a case similar to Heller V Washington D.C. She was not "sympathetic".

You can view her short comment here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Kagan_guns.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

As I have stated, the NRA is a one issue organization. She could hold firmly Republican and conservative views on every other issue and I firmly believe that based on what she said in the hearings and her record, the NRA would have had exactly the same opinion.

[Callisto32]

177. The Korporashuns!

You mean like....the STATE?

[shadowrider]

92. Your head must hurt from having so much hate toward one organization n/t

[villager]

102. Not as much as it hurts from reading the lies people tell themselves to rationalize their support

...for such a toxic organization.

[shadowrider]

109. Toxic? Whodathunk

By the way, the way to get the NRA to support more Dems is for more Dems to support RKBA.

Easy.

Don't worry, be happy.

[villager]

130. "Support us our we'll kill this election!"

Yes, we've seen those particular electoral "strategies" before...

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Factose intolerance acting up again? I've got a good remedy for you:

Take a few deep, cleansing breaths beforehand. Then, start doing your research. Opensecrets.org is a good place to begin.

While researching, recite this mantra (silently, if you wish):

The promulgation of untruth is not a good thing. Acceptance of fact, while it might be painful at first, is a good thing.
It is better to save most than vainly attempt to save all. Blind faith is not my friend.

In the long run, you'll be a better person for it...

[lynne]

81. That's simply laugh-out-loud ridiculous -

- and sadly naive. I'd suggest you not push the "them or us" button or you might find yourself unpleasantly surprised.

[MisterBill45]

73. Keep going after gun rights and watch the GOP get back in power

the Democratic Party's obsession over gun control has cost many, many elections all over the country. In state elections in particular I've seen a lot of good people go down on that one issue because even the Democrats wouldn't vote for them. They just stayed home.

It's bad policy and it's bad politics. We can debate the policy, but the political facts are not in doubt. Gun control is a net negative everywhere outside some of the larger metropolitan areas.

People always have to choose between two evils. Usually it's deciding which person is most aligned with them and cope with the things they don't like about the candidate. In a close race where the Republican is fairly moderate, one issue DOES make the difference. Especially if you think the Democrat is going to restrict your freedom and at least the other guy is more likely to leave you alone. Republicans lose plenty of votes over abortion rights from people otherwise inclined to agree with their party. I know quite a few that would vote Republican in a heartbeat except for that one thing. Good for us, bad for them.

You don't ever want put to voters in that position unless you can't avoid it. And gun control is NOT a liberal core issue. It's something a distinct minority of Americans want and it's generally restricted to Democratic Party partisans who insist on clinging to a demonstrably failed experiment. You remind me of some old lefties I knew who were still trying to make excuses for the Soviets after Prague.

You can be hold onto your obsession all you want. It won't win you any elections.

Blaming the NRA for supporting Republicans who support their single-issue agenda is just ridiculous. WTF do you expect them to do? Send out "Vote for Chuck Schumer" stickers?

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. +1 Well said.

It's long past time to stop letting a minority wreck the Democratic Party and the country over a chimerical quest for 'control'.

[rrneck]

79. +1 nt

[spin]

150. Well said. Gun owners vote against politicians who favor draconian gun control ...

because they often have a lot of money and time invested in their hobby.

The normal individual who doesn't own a firearm has far less reason to show up at the polls to vote the the candidate that loves gun control. Most people in our nation realize that we already have more than enough gun laws and what we need to do is actually enforce them.

[KansasVoter]

151. Yes, it worked in 2006 ans 2008! LOL.

[SteveM]

189. This would work: drop the gun-control issue, the NRA fades to the fifties.

Are you ready to do that?

[X_Digger]

80. You assume that anyone not endorsed by the NRA lost?

So, any money donated from "progressive" NRA members here was used to defeat 78% of the democrats in 2008.

Tell that to the people of the following states:

State % (R) %(D)
NV 62.5 37.5
HI 45.2 54.8
AR 48.1 51.9
KY 42.9 57.1
WV 37.9 62.1
MA 36.8 63.2
RI 17.1 82.9


Here's how much they gave to dem and rep candidates in the house:

Total to Democrats: $225,380
Total to Republicans: $662,982

"True enemy of gun owners’ rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation."

And even the gun "enthusiasts" here know they were lying about Obama and just trying to scare people, which works with most of the NRA members because they let the NRA tell them how to vote. Just like pastors do in churches.

Is this actually President Obama? (then senator).. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

Is this actually Obama's AG, Holder?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Is anything in the following untrue?

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions
Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“

It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: : I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

You do know that other single issue organizations also endorse republicans, right? Like NARAL's endorsement of Steve Litzow, among others.

Somehow I don't see you in the Choice forum railing against NARAL.

[KansasVoter]

94. No, I assume more would have lost if not endorsed by the NRA.

[proteus_lives]

136. KV: a one-trick pony who refuses to see that his trick old and debunked.

:rofl:

[spin]

152. In my opinion, he's wrong, but he did start some good debate recently. (n/t)

[KansasVoter]

161. What trick is debunked? The 78% number?

[knownothing]

164. KansasVoter

Do you support the right of law abiding people to defend themselves? If so, why are you getting your panties in a wad over the NRA when the fact is that most Democratic candidates haven't had a good voting record in supporting the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves? In fact, many of them have consistently voted in favor of depriving these people of the most effective means of defending themselves, which is firearms.

Another question: If gun laws work, then why is it that felons (who are by law not allowed to own guns) still manage to obtain guns (selling guns to felons and buying guns for somebody else are both illegal)? Why is that many prohibited users not only use guns, but use them to commit crimes? And why is it that as a solution, since the crooks won't give up their guns, we're making laws that take them away from law abiding citizens?

What Virginia did (which the NRA, by the way, was a huge supporter of) was made laws that set forth a stiff mandatory sentence for crimes committed with firearms. Just as an example (not that this is really the case), say that armed robbery is a 15 to 30 year sentence. What you'd do is make it so that if the weapon used was a firearm, the minimum sentence served before parole would have to be 25 years, and the maximum sentence would be life. That seemed to work a little bit.

Another thing that I'd really appreciate is the FBI going after people who shouldn't own guns and try to buy them. During the Clinton administration over 400K gun sales were revoked due to legality of the would be owner. In order to buy a firearm, one has to sign a federal document that declares that you are indeed allowed to own firearms, and subjects you to a five year jail term if you are found guilty of falsely signing the document. The background check goes through after that. So right there are 400K crimes that are a felony and subject to a five year sentence. How many of them got prosecuted? It was less than 100, in fact, it may have been less than 10 (my memory on that's a little foggy, but I'm a little lazy at the moment). That's less than 0.025% prosecution rate for a trial that would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel once you caught the perp. Why so little on the enforcement side of things?

I could quote a bunch of stats to prove my point, but that'll have to wait. I'm feeling lazy, and I need to go to bed as I have work tomorrow.

[Ter]

175. Then 78% of Democrats need to change their views on guns

It's that simple.

[howaboutme]

192. Party politics and their leaders love these issues

It allows them to draw a line in the sand so that they can play one side against the other. Is gun control a progressive or conservative issue per se? It probably became "progressive" not because most Democrats see it that way, but because some of the biggest money donors to the Democratic Party want it that way. Our Bill of Rights and the right to own a firearm is clear and should not be against any conservative or progressive ideology.

Too many people are led by group think instead of using their own brain and logic to decide what actually benefits their interests. Every now and then an issue will come up where average Americans know exactly what is right or wrong, but some pro corporate hack such as Limbaugh will steer them in an opposite direction because it benefits the corporate rich.

The real political battle developing in the USA is going to be more about the haves and have not's and control of government by economic class than liberal vs conservative. The fallout is going to be either a third Party or some strange bedfellows within both the D/R Parties.

[SteveM]

188. You're so obsessed with the NRA, you joined! Stockholm syndrome? nt

[Taitertots]

199. If the Democrats oppose issues that people support, they will give money to support those issues

Maybe it is time for the Democrats to start supporting gun rights because they are widely popular. Instead of catering to an already tiny and shrinking group that opposes them for nothing but ideological reasons. The money is there for any Democrat that wants it.

It is time for Democrats to support the will of the people.

[DissedByBush]

201. Of course it's all over one issue

The NRA is a one-issue organization.

That's why 22% of Democrats got their backing.

I expect a higher percentage this year as more Democrats see the light and stop believing in the "Bill of Rights Minus One"

[Walk away]

202. What does NRA really stand for?

Nazi Republican Activists?

[oneshooter]

203. National Rifle Association

http://www.nra.org/home.aspx