NRA endorses McCain, snubs board member Barr
posted at 10:13 am on October 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The NRA endorsed John McCain for President today, and Bob Barr has to be steamed. Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, has long-established ties to the NRA and currently serves as member of their board. McCain has annoyed the NRA with past positions on gun-show rules and campaign finance rules which hurt their ability to campaign, but it seems all is forgiven … for now:
The National Rifle Association is endorsing Republican presidential nominee John McCain despite differences with the Arizona senator on gun-show rules and campaign finance restrictions. …
The NRA’s Political Victory Fund has spent more than $2.3 million opposing Democratic nominee Barack Obama. The chairman of the political action committee, Chris W. Cox, says its spending in the presidential race will grow to “eight figures” by Election Day. Besides ads, encouraging battleground-state gun owners to vote will be a key focus, he said.
The PAC was running an ad Thursday in USA Today accusing Obama of waffling on gun-rights issues and challenging his statements that he supports the right to bear arms. Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment but doesn’t think it precludes “some commonsense gun laws so that we don’t have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago.”
The NRA PAC’s future spending will target Obama on gun issues and start publicizing the records of McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, LaPierre said. McCain’s selection of Palin was a plus, LaPierre said.
Palin’s selection probably made the difference between an endorsement and a snub. Palin’s enthusiasm for hunting gives a fresh look for the NRA, and an even more fresh look to John McCain. It’s the best ticket for the NRA in terms of optics in a very long time.
Just yesterday, the Barr campaign hoped they would win the endorsement:
In 2004, the NRA issued lifetime rankings of all members of Congress. Sen. McCain received a “C+”, indicating a mixed record on the Second Amendment.
Bob Barr has an “A+” lifetime rating from the NRA. Bob serves on the board of the NRA. His record on the Second Amendment is without question.
Given the fact that Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox have exposed John McCain as an anti-gun sympathizer, we here at Bob Barr 2008 fully expect that the NRA will announce their support for Bob Barr tomorrow and run ads against both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
I like Barr; I think he’s the most rational candidate the Libertarians have ever fielded for President, and he’s one of the most intelligent men in politics. However, this post reminds me that the Libertarians frequently forget the Quixotic nature of their campaigns and take themselves far too seriously. The NRA wants to play for legislative influence in the next administration, and the Barr campaign has about zero chance of winning the White House. The NRA would only endorse the Libertarian candidate if it wanted to torpedo any chance it has of keeping the ear of people who will actually be working in government in 2009.
The NRA also realizes what a disaster a President Barack Obama would be for gun rights. They want to offer realistic opposition to that outcome, not pointless gestures that will make it more likely.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »
The bottom line.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM
The cavalry is coming. Charge!
BuckeyeSam on October 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
If the American people elect clownbag Obama President in November, I’m buying a pistol and a rifle, first thing.
I’ve never owned a gun and never felt the need to.
But put this unqualified, traitorous idiot into the White House and I’m going to have to prepare for the worst.
NoDonkey on October 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Barr who?
Steve Z on October 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
The NRA board understands Odummy just as us members do; you can kiss away gun rights the moment he takes office.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Obama didn’t get the NRA endorsement… surprise…. surprise surprise…
Maxx on October 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
For gun owners, Obama is a threat at stripping away their constitutional right. Also, the Supreme Court might have two or three openings. The NRA can not risk endorsing a libertarian candidate instead of the republican ticket.
jencab on October 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Palin one, Barr none.
Terrie on October 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM
The NRA knows that this is where the rubber meets the road.
Protest votes are worthless and just as bad as voting for Obama.
A vote for Barr only benefits Bob Barr and ultimately, Barack Obama.
NoDonkey on October 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
This is what got John McCain the support of the NRA.
BHO, 6/26/2008
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I agree. Normally I vote Libertarian in part because I just can’t stand either party’s nominee and believe that government is way to big. But these days I’m living in Ohio and I want to do my part against Dear Leader Obamassiah. By voting. Once.
rbj on October 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
The 2nd Amendment will be seen as a “living breathing” thing, open to interpretation.
See where it says “the right to keep and bear arms?” That actually means that firearms are to be collected and tossed into metal shredders because they are scary and mean.
Sincerely,
Dear Leader Obarfy
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
If the NRA really wants to help McCain get elected, they should buy ads that say they support John McCain even though he disagrees with them in several imporant areas, but that he is, at the end of the day, committed to human freedom, and that he must be elected. That way the NRA members will vote for him, but the people who would be scared away by a NRA endorsement will be less uneasy.
gridlock2 on October 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
You cannot be serious. The man is a laughingstock in his old congressional district in GA.
funky chicken on October 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Tragic.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Now, if we can just get a debate question on Guns and Abortion! If no question is asked, McCain needs to ignore some question and start talking abotu it like Palin did. Obama is horrible on both topics and would scare the daylights out of many americans.
Sad, but True.
jp on October 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
BHO, 6/26/2008
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I guess Ostupid doesn’t think the 30,000 existing gun laws are enough.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Oh hell. Did you miss your opportunity to dress like a hobo for a few days in different areas of the state so ACORN could take you to the polls?
c’mon man, a little urban camping never hurt anybody :-)
funky chicken on October 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM
yeah, but sadly he’s still more rational than all the other past LP’ers who ran. Their 2004 candidate was a joke, Ron Paul is a joke(who needs to be refuted)…don’t remember him but I’ve read the 1980 LP candidate was good though?
jp on October 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Absolutely correct.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Bingo. Without her, and with, say, Romney or Giuliani, Barr might have actually been the pick.
The gun vote has been claimed to be the make or break in the last two elections. Let’s hope it still is.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM
So when do we see the obligatory “Gun Owners Who Just Luuurrve Obarfo” articles, complete with some guy proclaiming that even though he likes to shoot sniper shotguns, he is still voting for Obiscuit?
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM
The gun vote has been claimed to be the make or break in the last two elections. Let’s hope it still is.
200 million guns in the hands of 60 million owners. If ever there was a potential voter juggernaut, that would be it.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM
LOL
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM
You’re absolutely right. Hell, let’s just cut out all that annoying crap and restrict the ballot to two parties. That way we wouldn’t be wasting time with “worthless votes”.
/sarc
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Without a voice in politics, you die a silent death.
NRA at the age of 12, I was taught the RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE TO MAKE NO MISTAKE with my rifle; point at nothing unless I am willing to kill.
maverick muse on October 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM
This one is plenty enough for me.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM
They know about Obama’s work with the Joyce Foundation. Joyce has spent millions funding phony law review articles that can then be cited in court cases to support the view that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own a gun. These articles have already been cited in lower court cases. It is a blatant assault on gun rights and Obama is right in the middle of it.
rockmom on October 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Yeah right . . . and i’ll bet the moon really is made out of green cheese.
rplat on October 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I was campaign manager for a libertarian running for U.S. Congress here in Missouri… he was a great candidate and a true libertarian, but his supporters? 90% nuts… truthers before truthers existed… if it were purely about platform, I would be there… but like the NRA I’m interested in the guy that can win and won’t screw us or this country…
Kaptain Amerika on October 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Gee, Ed, that’s not saying much.
Blake on October 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM
And a lesson that Hollywood actors rarely learn:
Get your goddamned finger off the goddamned trigger unless you’re going to shoot, goddammit.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM
A constitutional right that is becoming progressively more important as each day passes.
rplat on October 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
This should be the background for McCain’s next TV ad.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Wow, you really are serious.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM
No doubt. Since in Teh One’s World View, the 10th Amendment is not in His copy of the Constitution.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I’m shocked that Obama did not get the NRA nod. Shocked!!
All whites guys need to get their Bibles and rifles taken away. Time for re-education and preparation towards the empire of reparation. Guns might just slow down the process.
Peace through change, and hope, and Acorn.
Change heil!
Hening on October 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Yeah, that’s why the /sarc tag was at the end.
Why do you even respond? Quit trolling.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I grew up in rural PA where guns where simply a part of life. It was no big deal if a kid drove to school in a pickup that had a a .243 and/or .30-.06 in the gunrack.
When I moved out of the area and into a suburban area, I realized that guns meant something different.
Thus, I believe McCain is correct is saying that some common sense needs to be involved in enacting gun laws and restrictions.
The NRA have a problem with such common sense restrictions because they see any such thing as the beginning, the “slippery slope”, toward out and out gun banning.
In this regards they are, sadly, much like the abortion groups who vote against anything, no matter how much sense it makes (like bans on partial birth abortions or aid for babies that survive abortion attempts) because they believe that doing so would be the first step toward making abortion illegal.
I support the 2nd Amendment and the NRA, but I don’t always agree that the NRA has the best interests of the country in mind.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
So whens the last time a third party candidate was elected in your lifetime Madison? In 2004, Bush got 62 million votes,(50.73%) Kerry got 59 million votes(48.27%) and the closest the third party got was 465,650 votes, or 0.38% - less than one percent.
Anyone who votes third party and thinks that they are doing anything else than pissing in the wind needs their brain checked.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I honestly want to know why someone like you thinks the way they do. Were you dropped on your head as an infant?
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Perhaps that was true at one time, but very recently they supported (maybe even helped draft) a measure that requires states to improve background checks to ensure guns don’t end up in the hands of the mentally ill.
Slublog on October 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Heard an ad like that last night on 1450 WILM, followed by a kickass McCain ad exposing Ograbber’s history of gunophobia.
“Hi, I like to hunt, I’m a pussy, and I’m going to vote for Barack Obama.”
Followed by:
“Obambi hates guns, he worked for a foundation that hates guns, and he hates guns. Get it? Get it?”
I mean, those aren’t verbatim transcripts but, pretty much.
Akzed on October 9, 2008 at 10:45 AM
The Assault Weapons Ban and DC Gun Ban would still be active if not for the NRA’s efforts. Plain and simple.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
…as a former member of the Texas Libertarian Party, I’d have to say that I seem ‘em as quite the opposite: they don’t take elections seriously.
They’re all theory, patting themselves on the back for their open-mindedness, valuing ideological purity above any actual electablity. They are doomed to be an electoral joke…and, unfortunately, they’ll take libertarianism down that road with them. They may siphon off a few stiff-necked malcontents, but they’re a distraction.
Obama must be stopped. They can’t recognize the danger, looking as they do through their theoretical-colored glasses. I’m told that a German philosopher (does it matter which one, after all?) said that theory was grey, but that real life is green. They need to get out more.
The NRA plays realpolitik…for grown-ups. They see Obama for the gun-grabbing collectivist egomaniac he is…sorry, Bob….
Puritan1648 on October 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
“some common sense needs to be involved in enacting gun laws and restrictions.”
What common sense?
DC has/had the most restrictive gun laws in the country and people get shot down there more often than they do in Baghdad.
Whereas over in Virginia where I live and where I can buy a gun tomorrow if I want, it’s safe.
Why? Because the District of Crazy doesn’t enforce their laws. They have an incompetent police force run by an incompetent Democrat and even when they by some wild chance, catch a criminal, their lunatic left judges will left them off.
If you commit a crime with a gun in Virginia, however, you get locked up for five years and that’s on top of anything else you get convicted of. That’s why DC perps don’t roll across the Key Bridge or the Memorial Bridge.
As far as I know, the NRA is not against locking up people for lengthy sentences if they are convicted of a crime where a gun is involved. That’s the only “common sense” law we need, in my opinion.
NoDonkey on October 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Yes, absolutely correct and I apology for not making that distinction in my post.
There WAS a period where the NRA fought everything - to the extent that even my friends and family from rural PA began to not renew their memberships.
But somewhere along the way they wised up and started to make a whole lot of sense.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
When you can respond without insulting me, you’ll be treated to an intelligent answer. However, your record on doing so is 0 and 347, so I’m not expecting any change.
I will ask this, though: Who are Jesse Ventura, Joe Lieberman, and Bernie Sanders?
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I was a Libertarian in MD, spoke at the convention once etc, and they are so theorized out that you can’t have a normal conversation with them. I was all gungho until I attended the convention.
Then I moved to DE, and tried to locate the state party’s web site to make contact. Across the top of the site was, “All men are endowed by nature with certain inalienable rights…” I thought that was kind of dishonest for a party that supposedly adores the Constitution.
Akzed on October 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I know the answer: Never elected president of the united states by running as a third party.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM
No, it’s just that the alternative is so much worse; this is more of an endorsement against Obama.
rmgraha on October 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM
rplat on October 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I agree that the DC gun ban was stupid and illegal.
That said, I DO think that there should be common-sense restrictions to buying guns.
If you are the following, I don’t believe it is in the best interest of the community/country for you to be able to purchase a gun:
- convicted felon
- history of severe mental/emotional “issues”
- a Democrat (just kidding!)
- have a restraining order against you
Obviously, your mileage may vary.
I also don’t see a need for people to have fully automatic assault rifles (as they are properly defined, NOT as Congress defined them).
However, with the increasing ‘buzz’ about what Obama supporters may (or may not) do when (not IF) Obama loses, I might have to rethink that! ;)
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Don’t forget, folks, the ridiculous ad that some group put out showing gun owners favoring Barry. You remember…..the ad that starts out with a guy that says he’s in the NRA and talks about stuff that has nothing to do with gun policies.
“Life Member”
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
…I voted for the 1976 LP candidate…and we got Carter….
…I still feel responsible…*SNIFF*….
…what do you call someone who votes LP (or Constitution Party or Green or whatever) this election cycle?
…a Democrat…by default….
Puritan1648 on October 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
DC has/had the most restrictive gun laws in the country and people get shot down there more often than they do in Baghdad.
You obviously don’t understand the end-game; get rid of guns completely, for everyone, everywhere, and crime will disappear.
Yes I know, it doesn’t make sense. When did liberal policies ever make sense?
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
It’s too bad that more people don’t understand this, Puritan1648.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Oh look: intellectual dishonesty. Avoiding the answer. Sort of like your responses to questions about McCain’s liberal positions. I’m glad the ability to choose between more than two people pisses you off so much.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
…Sanders is a socialist…not an Obama underground socialist, but an actuall out-of-the-closet socialist….
…Lieberman is a mensch, but is a Democrat….
…Ventura is a wacko…and was elected in Minnesota, where currently Al Franken is ahead in the polls (I read somewhere)…so he was the wacko governor of an evidently wacko state….
…and none of ‘em is an argument for third party politics…not this year, anyway….
Puritan1648 on October 9, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I also don’t see a need for people to have fully automatic assault rifles (as they are properly defined, NOT as Congress defined them).
Why not? The most heinous gun-related crimes in our history were committed with hunting firearms and handguns.
The laws governing their purchase and possession are draconian, and if you have ever seen what they cost you would see it’s not a hobby for the faint of wallet.
Besides, I could show you how to turn your semi-auto AK into a full-auto using nothing more than a bread-tie, much less a cheap aftermarket part available online.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Using that same tunnel vision, what do you call someone who votes in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, more global warming legislation, and restriction of the first amendment around election time?
A Republican.
If not for Palin, McCain would have no chance.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
You really enjoy being an idiot, don’t you.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Funny; that’s my position as well.
fourstringfuror on October 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Ventura is a wacko…and was elected in Minnesota, where currently Al Franken is ahead in the polls (I read somewhere)…so he was the wacko governor of an evidently wacko state
I thank you for you truthful critique of my state, we are indeed wacko here, at least according to our record of electing complete morons.
Frankenstein is only ahead in a Star Tribune poll, and if you ever read that rag, you would know why.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
What you failed to mention is that they are all third party candidates who were voted to high office. Do I like Ventura or Sanders? Not in the least. However, they beat the big two. I’m not for any third party candidates myself, but calling the option to do so “worthless” is spitting on the very freedom the founding fathers fought for. It’s also ignorant, when you recall that Nader “won Bush the 2000 election”. Perot also probably won Clinton the election in 1992. Those votes are anything but worthless.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:04 AM
If you’ve got nothing other than your typical childish insults, stop replying. Thanks.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
“What you failed to mention is that they are all third party candidates who were voted to
highlocal office.”wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
You misunderstand where I’m coming from with my thoughts.
As I said, I grew up in rural PA where guns where simply a way of life and a way of putting food on the table during the cold winter months.
As such, I don’t fall into the line of thinking that certain guns should be banned to “save the children!!!1!1!!elventy!!” or whatever nonsense the anti-gun lobby is currently pushing.
As a former hunter, I simply do not see the need (or the sport) in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. There is no other purpose for those things to exist other than to kill other people.
that said, I am starting to rethink my position based simply on the principle of the right of a citizen to defend themself.
I see that point, but as I said, I just don’t see the need for such a rifle.
At the very least, gun ownership and usage is a very different issue in rural areas than it is in urban and suburban areas.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Oh, and while George W Bush was reelected with 62 million votes, Jessee Ventura was elected with 77,3713 votes.
And we are talking abut the NRA endorsing McCain for president, not Bob Bar for governor of Minnesota. I don’t give a * about how some third party fluke that divided the three way vote 37% to 34% and 28% from a state to achieve “high office”. It’s just a common fact that third parties are jokes, and anyone who considers endorsing them for president is seriously deranged. Let’s leave the derangement to the democrats, huh? Please.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM
The “no other purpose than to kill people” argument has been used to justify the banning of handguns as well. It was also used when banning “assault weapons”, which included such kill-crazy accessories as detachable magazines, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, bayonet clips, and telescoping and folding stocks.
Guns are made to fire rounds. That is their purpose. Where those rounds end up is as irrelevant to their function as where a kitchen knife ends up.
You may not see the need for certain rifles. I may not see the need for shotguns. Another person may not see the need for handguns, or SUVs, or plastic bags, or cigarettes, or any of the things that certain groups want to see vanish. It does not hold any bearing on whether said item should be legal or not.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I already own a pistol but if he wins, I may add a shotgun and only partially because I’ve recently developed a taste for skeet.
Very nicely put.
Kafir on October 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM
As a former hunter, I simply do not see the need (or the sport) in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. There is no other purpose for those things to exist other than to kill other people.
I understand what you’re trying to get across, but this argument is simply a refinement of what the gun-grabbers say about all guns, “Those things aren’t good for anything but killing people.”
You could say that about riot shotguns because they aren’t useful for sport or hunting, snub-nosed revolvers for the same reason, same for high-cap pistols. All these guns have their own uses but people will desire them for their own reasons, whether it be sport, hunting, investment or because of aesthetic value.
I have three full-autos myself and as far as I know, I haven’t killed anyone with them yet. If I jump through the myriad hoops to gain legal acceptance to have these firearms, there should be no problem in me having them, and if you knew what those hoops were, you might feel better about it.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Why then shoot themselves in the foot by endorsing someone like McCain who won’t win? If they endorsed Barr, they would be standing on principle voting for an A+ guy instead of a C+ guy.
When Obama wins, he’ll now be downright antagonistic toward the NRA. If they had endorsed Barr, they might have seen that as a principled ‘Switzerland’ endorsement.
I hope you people are all bracing yourselves for an Obama landslide. Laugh at Barr all you want, but he’ll be in the same boat as McCain next month this time (losing to Obama). With or without this endorsement.
Endorsements are old politics. McCain goes after them with as much vigor as he goes after the Hispanic vote. They are really not very relevant, but it’s ‘old politics’.
ThackerAgency on October 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
LOL. Again. So many comedians in here today.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’m just being ‘realistic’ instead of making ‘pointless gestures’.
I don’t post much because I’m about realism. The people on here are so involved in McCain that they can’t handle what is actually happening. Be prepared. I’ll be campaigning for my GOP gubernatorial candidate this weekend. I’ve given up on DC.
ThackerAgency on October 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
-sigh-
Please, guys, stop giving me the standard NRA talking points.
You do not need to convince me that handguns should be legal or that congress’ definition of “assault rifles” was a wee bit broad.
But “rebutting” my thoughts by saying that “other people used that argument for nefarious means” doesn’t invalidate that point.
It just means that others have used and abused that point.
The fact is that there ISN’T any other reason for fully automatic assault rifles to exist other than to kill people.
Now, there definitely IS an argument to be made that such weapons might be exactly what the founding father’s meant when they guaranteed the right to own guns.
That is - the reason for this right is not just so people can hunt or defend their homes from intruders, but also to defend their land from foreign invaders.
Of course, a national militia might seem to make that last point unnecessary. Your mileage may vary.
I absolutely believe that the use and abuse of anything warrants an examination of whether said thing should be readily available.
If a toy is found to be a choking hazard or have lead paint, it gets “banned” pretty quickly (and rightfully so).
Now, I am neither drawing a comparison or saying that this automatically makes everything OK to be banned.
I’m simply saying that reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions about the necessity and harm certain things bring to their community.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Don’t you ever get tired of being a nasty bitter troll, an ignorant partisan, a misinformed American, and a craven coward?
I, for one, get tired of your spamming nonsense about the end of the world if we don’t all pretend that McCain is the world’s last hope for salvation. Fact of the matter is that the US would survive an Obama presidency. It wouldn’t be pretty or something that I want to see but you really need to do something more productive with your life than trolling around the edges spewing you hate-tinged nonsense at anybody who happens by.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM
If they had endorsed Barr, they might have seen that as a principled ‘Switzerland’ endorsement.
Yeah great. We won’t invade you yet, just every other nation around you, and you get to play by our new rules when it’s all over.
The NRA can see the Odummy writing on the wall as can the rest of us.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
LOL @ low hopes. Whatevers.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
And I hope that your candidate loses this election and you are depressed and despondent with the rest of the democrats
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
And get you some “walking around money.”
m064404 on October 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Then that’s where we disagree. Everything from food to sporting goods to toys to firearms to kitchenware to automobiles to tools to electronics and more can be used and abused. There are millions of assault rifles and automatic weapons being held by citizens in this nation, and most of them have never killed anyone. There’s your argument, er, “NRA talking point”.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
“As a former hunter”
Then you aren’t one of us. Buzz off.
This seems to be the new tactic for victim-disarmament supporters … claim to be a Fudd, then start demanding more anti-gun laws be added to the tens of thousands already on the books.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
The fact is that there ISN’T any other reason for fully automatic assault rifles to exist other than to kill people.
Then you aren’t making any point at all, other than to say you don’t see why anyone would want or need a FA assault rifle and that such a conclusion should be the “reasonable” outcome of people in a community.
I find that unreasonable.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
For the record, there’s firearms in damn near every home in that country. Attempting to take it over would make Fallujah look like a sunday picnic.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
You DO realize that I am not a “gun grabber”, right?
As a former hunter, I KNOW that most guns have other reasons/uses.
Even handguns can be used during hunting (and they’re especially good at thinning the herds of beer bottles that roam the backwoods of rural areas ;) )
And I also think that handguns are necessary for home defense (although shotguns are also good for this).
But no matter how you parse it, I simply can’t bring myself to get upset over making fully automatic assault rifles illegal.
They are an offensive weapon made to kill other humans.
Or, if not illegal, then very difficult (and expensive) to purchase.
Simply because people desire things doesn’t make those things legal, right, good or healthy.
The government’s involvement in banning/restricting/warning people about such things, though, depends entirely on context, the Constitution and one’s philosophical beliefs.
As I said above, maybe just making them difficult to purchase (with background checks and registration), might be enough.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Well put.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I ran into this when I was running as an “L” for state office in the ’80s … if you want NRA endorsement, you have to prove to them that you CAN get elected.
An A+ rating is useless to them if you cannot get elected. Get into office, and they will support you. Once “L”s have a track record of winning some election, then they might get funds and help, but not before that.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Very few people own automatic weapons, they’ve been extremely difficult to own since the NFA in 1934. Those who do have gone through the extremely expensive and intrusive federal background checks and other regulations to get a Class III license or Class III FFL license.
Besides, the NRA hasn’t pushed that hard for expanded rights for automatic weapons, some of the more hard-line groups like the GOA probably do.
It is? I live in a small city, and we use guns the same way they do in rural areas. It seems to me that the difference between these rural, urban and suburban voters is that a good number of urban and suburban people are clueless about firearms and are content operating on fear based in ignorance, or they want to blame the firearms for societal ills they lack the stones to address directly.
doubleplusundead on October 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM
So otherwise, Hussein would love the NRA more?
Endorsing McCain assures the membership that he isn’t crazy.
Endorsing Barr means backing a loser, and means that they would be encouraging people to vote for a loser with no chance rather than for McCain who has a chance.
Why do you bother?
Akzed on October 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM
*sigh*
So is every other other gun ever made. If you refuse that rule, then the rule is that every firearm is made to fire rounds, as I’ve already said. A 7.62mm round is as deadly from a semi-automatic AK-47 as it is from a fully-automatic AK-47. A 5.56mm round is as deadly from a semi-automatic AR-15 as it is from a fully-automatic AR-15.
Well, technically less so, because it’s easier to be accurate with a semi-automatic rifle. I don’t see the need for semi-automatic rifles. Iron sights are made to kill other humans. I don’t see the need for sights.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Smart move on the part of the NRA. A vote for Bob Barr is tantamount to a vote for Obama, “The One” who really does not believe in the Second Amendment.
Phil Byler on October 9, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I used the word “examine”, not “automatically ban” and examining a topic does not preclude doing nothing more than issuing a warning (or even doing nothing).
Thus, I can’t really see how anyone would/could disagree.
AM
And if a certain brand of microwave oven, due to poor design, had a habit of exploding, shouldn’t the some part of the government leadership (whatever level) take some time to see what the problem is and get the manufacturer to stop making exploding microwaves?
Sounds like common sense to me.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Additionally, John McCain is vastly superior to Bob Barr as Commander in Chief. McCain is vastly superior to Barr concerning military matters, foreign policy and national security.
Phil Byler on October 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
All right Zealot, I’ll assume you are not an anti, and are having a problem with the concept of “shall not be infringed”.
You favor registration? Damned near every jurisdiction in the US that passed assault rifle registration laws had, a few years later, passed assault rifle confiscation laws, or simply banned new sales of said rifles.
Simple flow chart here:
Register weapon class -> ban weapon class once we know who has them.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM
For the record, there’s firearms in damn near every home in that country. Attempting to take it over would make Fallujah look like a sunday picnic.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Yup, they also have enforced military conscription and training, the thought of which would make your average American liberal fall into a swoon.
I also believe that most of their bridges have preset demo charges (rumor?) and that military rifles are required to be kept in homes of those who would be mobilized; supposedly their defense plan is based on partisan techniques.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Hey troll, I know reading comprehension isn’t your strength, but actually READING my posts may help.
I’m a “former hunter” because I moved into a suburban/urban area and got caught up in getting married and raising a family.
Having just moved back into a rural area I’m thinking about maybe getting back to some hunting. Depends on how much free time I have (my job doesn’t really have set hours per day or week).
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 11:49 AM
*headdesk* Auto weapons already are extremely expensive and difficult to acquire, and they’re also already registered, as are all Class III or Class III FLL license holders, assuming you own them legally, you friggin’ idjit.
doubleplusundead on October 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM
But no matter how you parse it, I simply can’t bring myself to get upset over making fully automatic assault rifles illegal.
They are an offensive weapon made to kill other humans.
Sucks living in a free country,doesn’t it? Wait until they come for something you deem benign, I have a feeling you wouldn’t feel the same way.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Huh. So if a guy beats his wife with a claw hammer, do we ban claw hammers, marriage, or both?
Akzed on October 9, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »