NRA endorses McCain, snubs board member Barr
posted at 10:13 am on October 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
You’re right, it is common sense. Why? Because microwaves aren’t supposed to explode. An exploding microwave is not doing what it is supposed to do.
Now, if someone has a working microwave, and sticks a cat in there, and kills it by using the microwave’s intended function, should we “examine” microwaves?
An automatic rifle fires rounds. If it is not doing this, I fully support examination. Otherwise, what’s the problem?
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I’m the troll? Sorry about that … I simply didn’t believe that even a total Fudd would be so ignorant about cause and effect in politics …
Every firearms restriction ever passed has been used to heap on even more restrictions.
It is already unlawful for felons and madmen to own firearms.
What possible utility do any other laws have, other than to be used to disarm us.
Throwing us black rifle owners to the wolves will not save your hunting rifle … it is a deadly sniper rifle, don’tcha know?
That 1898 Mauser style rifle you own was originally made strictly for the purpose of killing people … and those .30-06 rounds zip right through police kevlar vests.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 11:54 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?
What if the microwave was operating perfectly but some people were using them to beat other people to death, would you advocate that the government remove all such microwaves from everyone’s house?
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Logic like that is why the GOP is in the condition it is in. A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr.
angelat0763 on October 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I might also note that they have the strictest immigration laws in the world. Funny how that seems to have worked for them. If I had more money, I’d seriously consider it.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
If Obama is elected and ends up appointing two or three Supreme Court judges, gun ownership will just be one of many rights that’ll be taken away. Probably one of the big reasons NRA is supporting McCain.
m064404 on October 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
And reasonable people may find themselves disagreeing.
I don’t think we have a right to own whatever our little heart desires (especially if it’s dangerous to ourselves or others).
And if this conversation wasn’t about guns, I’m sure there would be little to no disagreement.
And listen, the way you guys are going about discussing this isn’t helping you.
I have already expressed several times here that I’m not entirely sold on my position.
Instead of insulting me and regurgitating your talking points, how about you actually TALK to me and convince me?
Do you really think any yahoo should be able to own an AK-47 (for instance)?
If so, why?
If not, do you favor restrictions on who can own them or an all out ban?
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I never hunted but I’ve got lots of guns. Can I stay or do I gotta buzz off?
Akzed on October 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
It’s amazing how many people are unable to grasp so simple a concept as this.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
That 1898 Mauser style rifle you own was originally made strictly for the purpose of killing people … and those .30-06 rounds zip right through police kevlar vests.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM
To continue in this vein, the Sharpes 45-70 single shot carbine was developed for cavalry use and its purpose was to kill people. You could damn near walk down the street with one and people would laugh at you.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Your attitude seems to be what is hindering this discussion. You call what we say “talking points”. Most gun owners call this “common sense”.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Why do you conflate “examine” with “ban”?
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Plus they sunk Bush ‘41 in ‘92 by refusing to endorse him.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM
whew – it’s hard to keep up here.
I see, then, that you’re one of those “slippery slopes” people who think that any common sense legislation is some kind of sign of a coming total ban on guns.
BTW – that .30-06 is also a wonderful gun to go deer hunting with. The AK-47 – not so much.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I don’t think we have a right to own whatever our little heart desires (especially if it’s dangerous to ourselves or others).
You remember that when the gubmint decides to put a governor on your sports car.
Do you really think any yahoo should be able to own an AK-47 (for instance)?
If so, why?
You need to define “yahoo” and what you mean by “AK 47.”
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Yes … any free man, who enjoys full rights as a citizen of the US, should be able to purchase exactly the same kind of weapons the State arms its police and soldiers with.
Why?
Because of a litle fracas in 1775 at a place called Lexington. The British Governor had found out that a Mr. John Hancock had privately bought a pair of cannons and had given them to the town militiamen ( an unofficial militia, BTW ), and had decided to send troops to confiscate them.
Our ancestors paid for these rights in blood. I am not going to let some Fudd sell them for his own personal comfort.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:02 PM
My wife hunts mule deer with a Norinco AK, and a five round magazine.
Buzz off, Fuddite.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:03 PM
…why? There are semi-automatic AK-47s. Why not hunt with them? Didn’t you just defend handguns as useful in hunting(which I happen to disagree with)?
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The AK-47 – not so much.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Wrong. The round an “AK” fires is not only a good small-deer stopper but the rifle itself is damn near indestructible; I have hunted with an SKS before, which fires the same round, because I know the gun will never give me any problems and the ammo is fairly cheap.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:05 PM
-sigh-
No.
Misunderstanding where I’m coming from and then regurgitation NRA talking points about how similar thinking has lead to bad bills isn’t helping the conversation.
I don’t think that it’s wrong or somehow bad to admit that fully automatic assault rifles serve no other purpose than to kill other people.
I don’t need to hear about how tired you are of that argument.
What I’d like to hear is why that shouldn’t matter.
And if there are ALREADY enough laws on the books to keep these rifles available but difficult, then there really is nothing left to talk about because that solves any problem I have.
And yet none of this does (or even should) change my mind in that I really see no use for them.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
The hole is getting deeper.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
He does that. A Lot.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 12:08 PM
“A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr.’
A vote for Barr is a vote for an incompetent whose platform statement should be, “Make me President because everything I did as Congressman was wrong.”
Bob Barr has as much chance as I do of becoming President in November.
No one cares when some publicity seeker convinces 1% of the population to waste their votes in the fall.
If by some miracle, the Libertarians finely get one of their guys elected, they will have to work in a coalition, likely with the Republicans. So you’re back in the same boat no matter what you think would be gained by electing a third-party. And to get big, they would have to do the same things and make the same compromises the Republicans have had to make.
So third parties are basically pointless.
NoDonkey on October 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Ah yes, scintillating and intelligent commentary sure to change minds across the nation.
/sarc
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM
It’s intellectually dishonest to claim that one machine that fires rounds is any more designed to kill people than another.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
1898 Mauser rifles were made strictly for the purpose of killing people.
That “made for killing people” meme applies to every hunting tool made since the Atl-atl.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
And yet none of this does (or even should) change my mind in that I really see no use for them.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Then I guess it’s good that you’re not in charge. Probably good for you that I’m not in charge too, because you never know what other people might find “unnecessary” in YOUR life, regardless of what the rag known as the Constitution says.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Dang, did I use the word “useful”?
I shouldn’t have.
What I meant to say is that I know people who actually hunt with handguns.
I scratch my head about that, but then again, I don’t understand bear hunting with a bow. ;)
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM
You’re about the last person who has any authority to claim to know me or what I think.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I am aiming at gun-owners who might be on the fence about Obama and Biden. Your forthright defense of gun-grabbing is helping me quite a bit.
Thank you.
( no sarcasm )
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
It’s intellectually dishonest to claim that all rounds fired by all machines are equal.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I don’t think that it’s wrong or somehow bad to admit that fully automatic assault rifles serve no other purpose than to kill other people.
So shooting them just for fun, just to blow holes in old cars or appliances isn’t a legitimate purpose? There are a lot of target shooters who would disagree with you.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Fair enough, examine.
Anything can be abused. That doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with the item/institution/whatever being abused, it means that sinful man is abusing something. Looking for inherent wrongs in inanimate objects is a fools’ errand.
Akzed on October 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Again, you show that reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Neither do I. I like to think that we’ve risen in technology enough to make killing an animal as quick and painless an event for them as possible, out of respect.
Now, you say you know people who hunt with handguns. I know people who hunt with semi-automatic AK-47s, M4s, AR-15s, Bullpups, SKSs, and G3s. All of these weapons are available in automatic flavors. Oh, and some handguns are also available in automatic flavors as well, like Glocks.
So why do you deem them unfit for hunting?
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Ad hominums now?
I accept your admission of defeat.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I never claimed that, nor would I claim it. However, many rounds fired by automatic weapons are also fired in non-automatic weapons. Explain how the automatic function makes the round more deadly when it lands in someone’s head.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:17 PM
The standard AK round has ballistics similar to the .30.30 round. Not an elk round, but certainly adequate for whitetails. However, since I’m also a nonhunting gun enthusiast, I should probably just buzz off.
a capella on October 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM
At the time of their invention, each machine made was at the pinnacle of killing machine effectiveness.
Every killing tool was once the state-of-the-art assault weapon.
Even bows and Model 70 hunting rifles.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Even bows and Model 70 hunting rifles.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM
The surviving French knights at Crecy have called for a ban on longbows.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM
That would be great. The Republicans would be forced to act on their alleged small government principles in order to keep their Coalition Government intact.
The only reason Clinton and Gingrich set out to balance the budget was because Ross Perot’s candidacy spooked the two big parties.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Here’s the thing:
Just because I don’t see a need or usefulness for something doesn’t mean that I’m ready to take it away from everyone else.
To make an absurd analogy (hopefully to lesson the tension around here) – I have no need for karaoke – but I feel no need to take it away from everyone.
Contrary to what some have said here, I do not advocate for taking things away.
All I said was “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 still do not see the need, but I recognize that there are others who disagree.
That’s fine.
But that’s not the issue here – and it never was.
The issue is whether or not such reasoning is ‘enough’ to validate laws against them.
I don’t think it is.
As I said earlier I’m fairly swayed there are more reasons to have a gun than hunting and home defense. I believe one of the foundational reasons for the 2nd amendment was what happened before and during the Revolutionary War.
I still believe the government has a right to put common sense restrictions and safeguards on ownership of such powerful weapons, but since these already exist then there’s not much more to talk about.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM
And the German soldiers of WWI actually demanded that American soldiers not use shotguns in trench warfare.
Shotguns. They were designed to kill people. They must be banned.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I don’t see them as fair or sporting.
My Dad instilled in my some real old-school hunting values, so I just don’t see the sport in say rabbit hunting with an Uzi.
It may be fun, sure, but it’s difficult to call it a sport.
But as I said, I’m a bit old-school when it comes to that kind of stuff.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Then why start festival of flame in the first place? Advocating more gun laws on a right leaning forum will always have the same effect…
Would you be willing to discuss removing some of these 30,000 plus laws we already have?
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Before I buzz off, I will add that I own a Remington 7400 which is a semi-automatic 30.06. Only 5 rounds per clip but I can change out clips pretty fast. Is that a bad thing?
a capella on October 9, 2008 at 12:27 PM
The truth is never an “ad hominums” [sic] attack.
And your post here further shows a lack of reading comprehension.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Contrary to what some have said here, I do not advocate for taking things away.
Really? After you said this earlier?
I don’t think we have a right to own whatever our little heart desires (especially if it’s dangerous to ourselves or others).
Huh, your position is very….um….nuanced.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I had hunted with a rifled smoke pole, and have started recently using crossbows ( left elbow injury precludes archery ).
But my wife still uses her Norinco … she is more interested in filling the fridge than being sporting.
Your definition of utility should not be used as a proper yardstick for limiting the basic human rights of others.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
[Luke 22:36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM
What caused my reaction? You cavalier attitude towards a basic human right.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Are you saying that the speed in which multiple shots can be fired should be removed from this discussion?
I’ve used a single shot shotgun and a pump action.
There is definitely a difference in the deadliness of the two based entirely on the speed differential in firing multiple shots.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:31 PM
But as I said, I’m a bit old-school when it comes to that kind of stuff.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Old school would be hunting with a bow or spear, rather than a high powered rifle no matter the mechanism.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Hunting has nothing to do with the basic human right of self-defense.
This hunting utility argument is fatuous at best.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Well, I’m sorry that you can’t pick up on that nuance.
And I’m also sorry that you continue to nitpick things.
I’ve offered you several opportunities for us to agree, and yet you keep picking on little things.
meh.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:33 PM
And, again, you show that reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
-sigh-
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM
I believe I’ve already addressed that: “As I said earlier I’m fairly swayed there are more reasons to have a gun than hunting and home defense. I believe one of the foundational reasons for the 2nd amendment was what happened before and during the Revolutionary War.”
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:36 PM
-sigh-
You’re not really interested in having a discussion, are you?
You seem to be much more interested in having an argument.
My post at 12:23 sums up everything that I have been saying.
I really can’t imagine that you would have much of a problem with what I said there.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM
There is definitely a difference in the deadliness of the two based entirely on the speed differential in firing multiple shots.
The same could be said about scoped versus unscoped single-shot rifles.
Better get rid of those dangerous bolt-action guns before someone adds a scope.
See how the debate reforms itself? The exact same method used by the anti-gun crowd when they began demonizing shrouds, bipods and bayonet lugs.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Try reading the stuff Tenche Cox and the folks who actually crafted the second amendment wrote after the fact.
We do have a right to own whatever dangerous individual weapons our little hearts desire ( especially if it’s dangerous to ourselves or others).
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM
The use of “Uzi” to refer to automatic firearms is rather cliche. If you’re going to complain about talking points, please refrain from using those of the Brady campaign.
Again, I’m talking about semi-automatic rifles. SEMI-AUTO, not full-auto. You claim that despite this, they are somehow not sporting. How is a semi-auto AK-47 less sporting than a semi-auto HK USP 9MM?
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I spoke Barr a few years ago in Dulles airport. He’s a smart guy.
I was disappointed that he went over to the Libertarians, because the Republican party needs more people like him. Also, Libertarians often become like Kool-Aid drinking single issue groups, except that they pursue multiple issues without clear priorities.
Right_of_Attila on October 9, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I can read just fine. I simply don’t agree with your logic or reasoning. I would suggest you consider ditching the ad hominums, they just make you look dumb.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I hope that you’re just trying to be cut here, because that verse is no proof-text that shows that God advocates His people purchasing fully automatic assault rifles.
While I don’t believe that there is a religious reason against owning guns, neither do I think that God is in love with the idea that we have easy means to kill each other.
And I definitely do not think that religious reasoning has anything to do with the Constitution.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Are you saying the ability to be accurate with a weapon should be removed from this discussion? Go fire off a fully-automatic weapon at a target, fully depressed until the magazine is empty. Then fire off the exact same weapon in semi-auto. Let me know how many headshots you get with each. Then tell me which is more capable of killing a large group of people.
Firing multiple shots is relevant at close range. However, rifles are meant for long range. If anything, the ability to places shots consistently at precise areas makes them deadlier.
Now…do you see how silly the assertion is that making a weapon fully-automatic makes it more dangerous? Thirty bullets, whether fired with 30 trigger pulls or 1 trigger pull, are deadly.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM
-sigh-
1) ‘Sporting’ nor not is a personal opinion, not a reason to ban the weapons. I’ve noted this before.
2) and, no, I do not think any fully or even semi-automatic weapon is ’sporting.’ Obviously, your mileage may vary.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:44 PM
WOW.
Wow wow wow wow wow.
I’m an agnostic and that still just bowls me over.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Ok RZ, you can quit with the condescending “sigh” after earlier calling for a rational debate, the drama-queen antics are getting old.
Your post at 12:23 contradicts what you said at 11:56.
You simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be allowed to own “whatever their heart desires” but also that you don’t advocate “taking things away.” I desire an assault rifle.
Now since you obviously believe that no one here understands your deeply insightful posts (”SIGH”), why don’t you lower yourself to our moronic level and explain the contradiction.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Tell you what, instead of answering your question, let me just encourage you to go back and read my 12:23 post.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Exactly. The founding fathers made owning the exact same assault weapons soldiers carried a basic human right.
Under that same logic, if a soldier in the US army is issued an M-4 assault rifle, then I have every right to buy and own exactly the same weapon … a basic human right to it, up there with my right to free speech and assembly.
It is the governments burden to prove that I, as an individual, should have my citizenship curtailed ( Am I a felon or a madman? ) if they feel a need to curtail my rights.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Even if guns had absolutely no purpose but to kill people, that would make them necessary. 911 is not an acceptable way to defend home and property. So yes I say full auto, if you were a professional lumberjack would you choose a swiss army knife saw as your tool of choice? Efficiency is desired in just about any other tool and guns are no exception.
LevStrauss on October 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM
The SKS uses a smaller round than the Soviet tank-killer its design is based on.
I may be looking for something cheap to put holes in tanks, given the way things are going.
Right_of_Attila on October 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I already read it. If you don’t want to answer my question, that’s fine. Just quit “sigh”ing all the damn time as if you’re trying to hold a serious discussion, because you’re not.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM
And my post about your being “old school” stands. Nailing a deer at long range with a high-powered rifle round is no more old school than me sneaking-up on a whitetail with an SKS which is far outranged by that 30-06.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM
To be honest, that statement didn’t come out very well.
What I really meant to say is this:
In a conversation about the whether banning guns is constitutional, religious beliefs are not germane to the discussion.
Or, to put it in another, very general, way: Just because the law says something is legal, doesn’t mean that, as Christians, we should do it.
And again, I do not think there is a religious/Christian reason against banning guns. If anything, just the opposite.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I may be looking for something cheap to put holes in tanks, given the way things are going.
Right_of_Attila on October 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Good luck, we may be reduced to throwing molotovs or digging anti-tank ditches.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:51 PM
No, this was a no-brainer and no surprise. They have been sending me stuff all year pushing McCain hard and attacking Obama – rightly so – for his belligerence on the 2nd Amendment and his lies and flip-flopping and pandering.
Jaibones on October 9, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Seeing those two words together gave me a chuckle. However I completely agree with this statement.
LevStrauss on October 9, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I’m not trying to be cute at all.
When Jesus knew he was soon to be crucified and that his disciples would no longer be under his divine protection he told them to arm themselves.
Now often Jesus would tell them to do something, they would carry it out to the word and he would reproach them for their literal-mindedness but significantly in Luke 22 he does not.
[Luke 22:38] See Lord, they told him, here are two swords. And he said to them, That is enough.
Of course I’m not saying that you have to get an automatic rifle but simply that you are commanded to protect yourself, in self-defense, against murderers and the like.
King David killed Uriah the Hittite in self-defense.
I haven’t read it so I wouldn’t know. I think religious reasoning is perfectly valid for purposes of conversation.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 12:54 PM
neither do I think that God is in love with the idea that we have easy means to kill each other.
Eh, He knows we are imperfect mortals. He probably also isn’t in love with the idea that we take His name in vain, turn away from evil and eat fatty foods.
Like I said, imperfect mortals; trying to cast what He thinks about any of the stupid things we do is akin to herding cats.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Then do so.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 12:58 PM
+1
+1
Y-not on October 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Do you really think that was a contradiction – the difference in a general thought and a specific point?
True, I could have/should have been clearer in what I said the second time.
I what I should have simply said was that “Contrary to what people are claiming, I’m not a “gun grabber.”
Now, that does not contradict what I said earlier because what I said earlier was a general point (backed up by our laws) we simply do not have the right to own whatever our little hearts desire.
And as I said earlier, if this discussion was on anything else but guns, there would be little disagreement on the matter.
But, as they say, the devil is in the details. Just because we don’t have a right to own WHATEVER our little hearts desire, that doesn’t mean that we have no right to own ANYTHING.
And it doesn’t necessarily mean that some people may not have rights that others have (should felons have the right to vote? should people in foreign countries have the right to run for political office here in America? should a person with bad credit be able to buy a car they can’t afford?)
Or, more specific to your claims of a ‘contradiction’ – just because I believe (and the laws state) that we don’t have a right to won whatever our little heart desires, that doesn’t necessarily mean that owning a fully automatic assault rifle should be illegal.
One does not directly follow from the other.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Of course I’m not saying that you have to get an automatic rifle but simply that you are commanded to protect yourself, in self-defense, against murderers and the like.
I read it that we were SUPPOSED to get an assault rifle, then again I believe that the story of Noah meant I was supposed to buy a decked-out Mastercraft ski-boat.
If you can make the wife believe, anything is possible.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 1:00 PM
You claim that there is no “need” for fully-automatic weapons.
You claim that fully-automatic weapons’ only purpose is to kill people.
You claim that fully-automatic weapons make bullets more deadly than if those same bullets were shot from semi or non-automatic weapons.
Seems to me you’re making a pretty straightforward argument in favor of outlawing them.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Define ANYTHING, please.
Nukes, bio-weapons? Yea … they aren’t individual weapons, and merely having them is exactly equal to pointing a loaded gun at the head of your neighbor, so we are probably in agreement that they should be banned ( hell, if a neighbor builds a nuke in his basement, I’ll shoot his ass myself ).
But if it is an individually carried weapon, currently one issued to soldiers, then the text and ( and context of of the time ) of the second amendment make my right to own it pretty damned clear.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 1:06 PM
And you would be completely, totally wrong.
As I said earlier in my 12:23 post:
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:07 PM
That’s kinda beside the point. Those who support third parties (I’m not one) have the right to do so without the “a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama” nonsense that some of the trolls on this site keeps spewing. If somebody wants to “waste” their vote by punching the ballot for a third party candidate they should be able to do so without the arrogant condemnation from the self proclaimed “wise men” who are blinded by partisanship.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Ah….ok. I don’t believe you, I think you’re trying to nuance the hell out of what you already said. You weren’t talking about a “general point back up by law” because you prefaced your statement with:
“And reasonable people may find themselves disagreeing.”
before saying:
“I don’t think we have a right to own whatever our little heart desires (especially if it’s dangerous to ourselves or others).”
That’s not the government talking, that’s YOU talking, as in YOU don’t believe in the right to own assault rifles because YOU disagree that they have any use beyond killing people.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM
No sarc, but you answered your own question.
There are plenty of things that are illegal to own – and many of them ARE the heart’s desire of people.
Whether they should be or not is a different story.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Everyone who voted for Ross Perot helped to get Bill Clinton elected the first time.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I’m sorry, were any of the claims I listed not made by you?
Again, you spent this entire thread moaning about “NRA talking points” when you have been using Brady talking points. Verbatim.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Please define who is being reasonable here. I and others have already demonstrated repeatedly that buying an automatic weapon legally is extremely difficult, and there’s little effort underway to change that. At this stage, you can either admit you’re speaking out of ignorance, or that you’re a Fudd/Zumbo/AHSA astroturfer. Pick one, because at this stage, you’ve made no real point, you’re just flailing haplessly.
So, you want to ban scotch and cigars? Get bent.
O RLY?
In other words, quit attacking me guys, even though I’ve made no real point because my position has been debunked repeatedly!!!1!11
I don’t believe that.
No, you deserve to be insulted, because your original point was stupid, and was proven to be a position based on fear and ignorance, and wasn’t even correct in the first place. We’ve stated repeatedly that getting an automatic firearm is extremely, extremely difficult, the background check intrusive and expensive, that they are registered, and are prohibitively expensive. Yet you persist on making a bunch of noise…why?
Are we talking about a semi-auto AK, or an auto AK? Make the distinction. Anyone who passes the basic background check can own a semi-auto AK, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. This is what the AWB in the 90’s targeted.
Anyone who wants to go through the extensive, expensive Class III licensing process, registrations and regulations and has the gigantic pile of money required to buy a full-auto AK should be permitted. This process was created in the 30’s, and has been updated over the years to be more stringent, with new manufacture autos being banned in I think the 80’s, so unless you become a Class III dealer, you’re dealing mostly in antiques. What else is there to discuss?
doubleplusundead on October 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM
There are many times during my commute into work where a RPG launcher would come in handy. ;-0
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Agreed, I did. No nukes, nerve gas, or anthrax.
If you look at the text and context of the second amendment, we have a right to own exactly the same firearms that are issued to the State’s soldiers.
Which are the very weapons you have been arguing in favor of infringing the right to bear for these past two pages or so.
That “assault rifle” is EXACTLY the weapon the founding fathers were refering to when they crafted the Second. The Charlevill and Brown Bess muskets were the “assault rifles” of their day.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 1:13 PM
…cannot resist…
YA RLY!
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Then there’s nothing more to say, is there?
You’ll see whatever you want to see in my posts whether they are there or not.
No, I believe in the right, I just don’t see the use.
Just like I believe in the right of free speech, I just don’t see the use in protesting political rallies for Gov. Palin with signs that say “I don’t vote with my vagina” (whatever THAT means).
But just because I don’t see the use in it, doesn’t mean I’m ready to pass laws against them.
One last silly analogy – I don’t like asparagus. I don’t see the NEED for asparagus. I’m not going to buy or eat asparagus. But that doesn’t mean I think asparagus should be outlawed.
So, yes, Bishop, people can actually be against something without trying to make a law against it.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Again, so what? You maintain that they don’t have the right to vote for a third party candidate and that just isn’t true you mindless troll! Perot was a legitimate candidate who legitimately sought the presidency. His supporters legitimately cast their votes for him because they viewed him the best candidate for the job.
Who the hell are you to say otherwise?
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 1:16 PM
If this government ever turns fascist, and the JBTs park an M2 Bradley in your front yard, you are going to wish you had one, instead of a stupid f*cking Molotov.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »