Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, January 20, 2019

Common Ground On Gun Legislation: Listen To NRA Members, Not Its Con-Artist Leadership

The vast majority of gun owners, and the American people as a whole, agree in favoring new gun-safety measures…

“If we’re going to get past this almost hysterical fear of trying to do anything at all on gun rights,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked on Friday during her breaking coverage of the mass shootings at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, CT, “if we’re going to try to puncture the myth that anything to reform or rationalize gun laws is absolutely, politically impossible as a categorical thing, what would happen if we just started at the edges? What would happen if we just started with what even members of the NRA say they want from national gun laws? Because they want a hell of a lot more than we’ve got right now,” she correctly noted. “The organization that they’re a member of may not admit that, but when you poll their members, even they want improvements.”

She is absolutely right. And so is the rank-and-file membership of the National Rifle Association when it comes to many of the most pressing gun-safety issues. The numbers (read on) are unequivocal. They want what their leadership does not, and by huge margins. The con-men and scam-artists who run the terrorist-enabling NRA racket, on the other hand, as usual, are absolutely bloody wrong.

If we could reform gun-safety laws just enough in this country to meet the wishes of the vast majority of the NRA membership, we would be leaps and bounds beyond the deadly political quagmire we have been languishing in as a nation — thanks to the insidious liars and profiteers of the NRA leadership and the cowardly politicians afraid to take them on — for at least a decade in this country.

The NRA’s loudest and most dishonest voice is its executive VP and chief political strategist Wayne LaPierre. He is opposed to any and all legislation that might stand a chance of making Americans safer, claiming a twisted and tortured view of the Bill of Rights’ 2nd Amendment as a prohibition against any and all such legislation.

He, and the NRA leadership, have long opposed common-sense laws designed, for example, to keep those on the so-called “terrorist watch list” from being able to easily purchase combat-style weapons, laws designed to make it harder for people like the mass shooters in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT from obtaining high-capacity magazines used to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, and laws which would require that those buying weaponry from private sellers at gun shows face the same background checks as those who purchase it at licensed gun dealerships.

Those are all laws supported by an overwhelming majority of NRA members and non-NRA gun owners alike.

LaPierre is also an unapologetic liar. Witness his recent blatant lies about a UN international arms trade treaty which, while having absolutely no effect whatsoever on gun laws or the 2nd Amendment in the U.S., was designed to help keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of worldwide terrorists, drug smugglers, pirates and human rights-abusing regimes around the globe.

All the while, while the NRA pretends that it is still operating under its mission from decades ago — to encourage the safe use of weapons by hunters and families in the U.S. — the (not) “non-partisan” non-profit has become little more than a full-blown racket meant to fool its membership into sending them money to further the aims of the U.S. arms industry and intimidate politicians into doing absolutely nothing about it.

So the members, the NRA rank and file, are being conned by leadership, who are pretending to represent them. In the meantime, however, while many of the members may be conned, they ain’t necessarily stupid. Unlike the leadership, the vast majority of NRA members join the rest of us in the reality-based world in favoring many common-sense gun safety regulations.

It’s not even close, by the way. NRA membership supports many of the policies its leadership strictly opposes, by huge margins. Take a look at some of the following numbers from a recent poll of gun owners [PDF] — both NRA members and non-NRA members — as commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns and carried out last July by Frank Luntz’s right-wing polling firm (yes, that Frank Luntz of Fox “News”):

• 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

• 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees — a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed-carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun-safety training.

• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

• The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA’s Washington office strongly opposes both measures.

As Maddow said during her breaking coverage last Friday (video below), perhaps we could begin gun legislation by, at the very least, agreeing to items “on the edges” which all Americans, including vast majorities of NRA members, agree with — even if their con-men leadership do not.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 0

54 responses to “Common Ground On Gun Legislation: Listen To NRA Members, Not Its Con-Artist Leadership”

  1. Michael Kollmorgen says:

    Yea, if we listened to the NRA…………….

    Every single person – dead or alive, would;

    Own as many Mass-Murdering Weapons that was ever available, semi-auto and auto alike. Please include; rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, maybe even a few Nukes on the side for good measure. You might as well include a few Destroyers and Battleships.

    Every single Child (meaning anyone under the age of 18) would be armed to the teeth.

    There would be NO Gun Control Laws whatsoever.

    There would be OPEN Carry, no matter what type of weapon either.

    We will still be in the Wild West Days, gun shootouts all over the place. Got a problem with your neighbor? Solve it on the street – Wild West Style.

    Mental Cases will not be checked for any background checks because their wouldn’t be any.

    I applaud the NRA for publishing these statistics. But, I wonder if these statistics are real or just trumped up. But, knowing the History of the NRA, they show absolutely NO responsibility for anyone other than Gun Dealers and right wing wackjobs………………….

    To make the NRA anything more creditable than these statistics show. their going to have to show the PUBLIC they support more severe laws and back it up with DEEDS.

    • FredAppell says:

      Michael, I think you should assume that the statistics are grossly manipulated. All these laws and regulations that they supposedly support are the very same that they tried to prevent in the first place. The NRA is counting on the age old belief that people forget quickly and a lot do. What they fail to realize is that they have a lengthy track record of the various legislation they support and oppose and I am sure that it isn’t difficult to find.

      • Michael Kollmorgen says:

        Well, I believe the bulk of the membership of the NRA are honest. I have met a few.

        What I absolutely assume is that the NRA would not support strong gun control laws, not internally as for the body politics. Publicly, sure, they would, for awhile. Then they’d hope the issue went away as people’s memories faded.

        What I believe is that the minority, the most vocal, the fringe elements in the organization is controlling the overall agenda of the NRA, a very similar situation with the Republican Party.

        That’s why I said to have more credibility, the NRA itself is going to have to show the PUBLIC they back strong gun control laws with DEEDS.

        Other than this, it’s going to be no more than smoke n mirrors.

        But, like I suggested on other threads, it’s all fine and dandy to stop sales of these types of weapons and tighten up our laws. How are we going to get rid of the rest of them that are in the public domain? There are probably millions of them in one form or another in people’s homes.

        The common criminal is not going to walk up to someone and hand them over. The average legal owner of these weapons is not going to surrender these weapons easily.

        So, you see, even passing these laws now, is not going to cause a mass surrendering of these weapons.

        Somehow, society itself has to change it’s value system in regards of our Gun Culture.

        • FredAppell says:

          I hear you! Did you happen to catch the news reporting that Bushmaster sales have increased because of anticipation of new anti assault weapons laws. Wouldn’t that make anyone possessing these weapons a criminal? The gun shops are having a hard time meeting the demand. That is troubling news to me. That is a perfect example of everything you have mentioned.

          • Michael Kollmorgen says:

            I heard extra-capacity magazines were totally sold out at one store.

            But, I also heard a big corporation was no longer going to fund one of these Gun Manufacturers that was making these military-style weapons.

          • FredAppell says:

            I got my information from the New York Daily News yesterday and I believe the corporation you are referring to is Cerberus Capital. Cerberus was founded and is owned by Stephen Feinberg. His capital management company does own Freedom Group and they were manufacturing the AR-15. Now they are selling off Freedom Group. Just to show you that truth is stranger than fiction I will give you 3 guesses where 1 of his homes are. If you guessed Newtown you would be right. It isn’t his main residence but still pretty f**ked up. The residents of Newtown are well aware of who he is and some of the local residents were picketing in front of his house Tuesday.

      • CPANewYork says:

        It is becoming increasingly obvious that political contributions must be outlawed. They are nothing more than bribes.

        • ExPAVIC says:

          You’re Funny

          So how long have you been sleeping under that rock until you realized what all of us have known for years, years?

          • CPANewYork says:

            All of us? Really shithead? If “all of us” knew that political contributions are just bribes, then why was nothing ever done about them? Why didn’t we hear from assholes like you sooner?

            It took someone like me to raise the issue so that weak minded shmucks like you could write some sarcastic pseudo intellectual drivel.

          • ExPAVIC says:


            You have enough trouble with your Arab neighbors to start up anything else.

            What do you plan to do when Arab land is returned to the Arabs? Do you have room for all of your relatives?

          • CPANewYork says:

            What are you talking about?

          • ExPAVIC says:


            Oh, you are going to try and take control of another section of the world? Secret is to try as many as possible and hope for one success. Right?

        • Eyma Lyer says:

          The socialist democrats would be restricted from taking political contributions from foriegn sources like George Soros. A true anti-American Austrian. A Jew that turned Jews in to the Nazis.

          • Bill says:

            Geerge Soros is an American citizen not a foreign source. Also do you mean Soros informed on other Jews (a fallacy) or was he a magician that turned Jews into Nazis? You alias says it all you are a liar.

        • FredAppell says:

          There is no political will to pass the necessary legislation by either party. As long as cash is king and we allow it than I’m afraid we are stuck with the existing system. The problem is so pervasive that it has become embedded in our culture. If you have any idea’s I am certainly open to hearing them.

          • CPANewYork says:

            I believe that Switzerland doesn’t allow political contributions, but I’m not sure. If they did it, I don’t know how they did it. I’ll see if I can send an email message to a Swiss government agency to ask the question. Do you know of any other countries that forbid political contributions?

            All may not be lost. If Congress was induced to give up its exemption from the insider trading law, maybe, with the right inducement, they’ll place all political funds in the hands of the federal government, i. e. all campaigns for federal office must be financed by the federal government and gifts to members of Congress are forbidden.

          • FredAppell says:

            You have my attention assuming you are being sincere. It will take a great deal of research but you have peaked my interest enough for me to look into this further. I don’t wouldn’t be surprised at all if most of the western democracies forbid political contributions. There probably are a few though where their system is at least as corrupt as ours. One thing you said troubles me because it rely’s on complete cooperation from our elected officials and that is inducing Congress to give up it’s exemption for insider trading. I naively thought that the insider trading law applied to them as well. Of course I wouldn’t actually expect them to follow the law, they should but we know better. Question is, what would the reward be for them giving up such a substantial benefit? One direction we could go in is to create several more parties which would end our 2 party monopoly. The Tea Party has already given us the template on how to do it. We would have to be vigilant against any outside big money trying to co-opt these parties. The Tea Party lost legitimacy rather quickly once it discovered who was funding them. There is so much more to say, so let me know if your interested and we will talk again.

    • ExPAVIC says:

      Real Facts

      Since only 40 percent of the population owns firearms, we have a condition where a minority, for whatever reason, imposes their beliefs upon a much larger majority.

      La Pierre and his fanatical band of idiots are currently existing on borrowed time. Ask VP Biden how long they have in their long-running scam.

      • CPANewYork says:

        Forty percent is a very large minority. Minorities of that size, if they are active, can control the destiny of an entire nation. I learned from a history teacher in college that just over thirty percent of the population of the American colonies supported the American revolution.

      • Michael Kollmorgen says:

        I got a feeling that 40% is much much larger. I haven’t been in a home that didn’t have a weapon of some type. Maybe one or two in 60+ years.

    • Eyma Lyer says:

      M K; Your statements are nothing but inane rants. You need to get back on your mdeication.

  2. Ed says:

    Look, the NRA is not alone. They are backed by ALEC, the right wing “think tank” funded y the Koch brothers who write laws for legislators too lazy to think for them selves. This is going to be an uphill battle after Citizen’s United and the Tea Party. You remember them? The folks that openly carried weapons to political rallies?

  3. howa4x says:

    Wall st is complicit in all of this by making gun manufacture a hot commodity.Recently the California teachers pension fund wanted to pull out of an investment company that was building a gun conglomerate. If government workers pressure their giant pension funds to divest of all gun realted stocks, then it will go a long way to break the power of the gun lobby. These pension funds control hundreds of billions of dollars and are the only ones that can counter the wealth of the Kochs who have shown their distain for the middle class and it’s saftey. If gun stock prices fall, they will pressure the NRA to soften their tune, and just maybe those congress people beholden to them will stand up for want is right.

  4. ExPAVIC says:

    Here’s One

    First, you have a ban of the sale for all “kiddie killing” assault weapons.

    Then, you have a “permit” scheme for owning one of these weapons.

    Last, you have confiscation when you cannot afford the cost of the permit. Remember the clunker automobile buy back? Even NRA’s La Pierre can’t help because it doesn’t violate the Second Amendment since it is “voluntary.”

  5. Eyma Lyer says:

    NO GUN CONTROL! Criminal control!

  6. ObozoMustGo says:

    Any attempts at gun control will do nothing to prevent evil people from performing evil acts. This CT incident is nothing more than an excuse to take political action toward banning the right to bear arms. Every move toward gun control is just the camel getting it’s nose further under the tent. It will no effect on violence. But like everything else to you leftist freaks, the end result really doesn’t matter. The only thing that does matter is that you made yourself feel good because you “did something”, consequences be damend. Gun control is a major step toward tyranny.

    Merry Christmas!

    “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” — Charles de Montesquieu

    • Bill says:

      Bozo you just bush the same old tired bovine fecal matter. Australia put in tough gun control laws after a mass shooting and they are hardly a tryanny. Why does any ordinary civilian need a semi-automatic handgun or rifle with a high capacity clip. You don’t hunt with it or shoot at targets. I didn’t think you were one of the black hellicopter, UN taking over the world crowd.

      The people you generally quote are usually diametically opposed to your viewpoint. Charles de Montesquieu believed in the separation of powers and separation of church and state. It’s real easy to find some quote and use it a claim of suport for your view, just google some name and there will be a website of their qutoes. WWhy don’t you do some indepth research first.

    • grammyjill says:

      I don’t agree. Surprize! The constitution, when written, said you could keep your musket period!
      I don’t much give a damn what gun you’ve got if you are responsible about it. But the guy that breaks into your house and steals it won’t.

      • ObozoMustGo says:

        Grammy, the Constitution does not say “you can keep your musket” anywhere. As well, by your rationale, if we took away all guns, suddenly people would be civilized and not kill each other? Sorry grammy, but you may have been hitting the sauce a little hard last night… just sayin… LOL 🙂 🙂

        Merry Christmas, Grammy!

        “The only defense against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.” ― John Locke

        • grammyjill says:

          No, don’t want all guns taken away. Just no reason for anyone to have assault weapons.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            What is an “assault weapon” Grammy? There is no such thing. That’s an invented term created by the anti-gun lobby in 1994 for marketing purposes. It’s a common mistake by people who have no idea what they are talking about to label a gun as an “assault weapon” based upon the way the gun looks, not the way it functions. It is a fact that in 1994, Diane Frankenstein’s staff decided what weapons to ban by looking in catalogs to see which ones looked “mean”. That’s just plain old stupidity to be writing laws based on what staffers see in a catalog. Further, if they passed a law that made clips that hold more than ten rounds illegal, anyone shooting people can easily bring more clips and change them in less than one second. This is the same as that idiot in NY banning soda drinks larger than 16 OZ. How stupid can he be? There’s nothing stopping a person from ordering 2 or 3 or more 16 OZ sodas. And there’s nothing stopping a mad man from changing clips. Don’t you get it? There is no logical way to accomplish the objective of keeping mad men from killing lots of people if they want to. The only solution is to have others armed with the capability to avoid being slaughtered while defenseless. Of course, the other alternative is to ban all gun ownership, but then again, criminals don’t obey the laws anyway, now do they? Grammy, there are no amount of laws that can be passed that will prevent tragedies like Newtown, CT without severely restricting the rights of the 99.9% of people that would never perpetrate such acts. I’m not willing to trade my liberties for the false perception of safety. Not even a little tiny bit.

            Merry Christmas, Grammy!

            “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

          • grammyjill says:

            I talked to Jarad about this. He’s the military kid. In the military an assault weapon is one that can hold a clip of more than 15 rounds and is semi automatic or full auto. And my thoughts are that such weapons are designed for one reason only. Kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Do you really need one of those?  Is Bambi or Bullwinkle shooting back? In australia they had a mass shooting. The next day the prime minister said he would not have america’s disease infect australia. He banned assault rifles and the large clips, then did a buy back for all that anyone already had. There has not been a mass shooting in that country since. That was 10 years ago. I understand hunting. Got many in the family. Been target shooting myself. Hate guns. Recoil hurts and they are much too loud. And if someone is going to come after me, I want them to get close enough that I get a fighting chance. Learned to throw knives when I was young. They are quiet!

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Hi Grammy… the matter continues, I see. The term “assault weapon” never existed before the 1994 debate over banning certain rifles that looked “mean”. And the point of owning them is NOT for hunting. It’s a 2nd Amendment right that cannot be infringed. Besides, banning so-called “assault weapons” will have no effect. How do I know? Because we already did it and it had no effect. Here’s a brief article written on this topic. Hat tip, Tim Macy, at gun owners association.

            Thursday, 20 December 2012 14:36 Written by Tim Macy

            Let’s let facts guide the gun control debate for a change

            With the recent horrible shootings around the nation, the left-wing — led by President Obama, some members of the Senate and House, and most of today’s media — are screaming for new gun control laws.

            But what would the consequences of such laws be?

            A study done by the Justice Department in 1999 analyzed the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban and concluded it did nothing to reduce crime or shootings. The Justice Department stated, “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun-murder incident or multiple-gunshot wound victims.”

            No wonder the Congress allowed the useless gun ban to “sunset” after ten years — it didn’t work, period!

            Despite the fact we have these new incidents where innocents were murdered, gun murders themselves have drastically dropped over the last two decades. Why?

            Noted gun-crime author and statistician, Dr. John R. Lott, attributes much of this to the increase in “concealed carry” permits issued nationwide to ordinary citizens, which now allow them to carry weapons for personal protection and the protection of others. These laws have reduced crime because potential perpetrators don’t know who’s carrying for personal protection. In fact, according to FBI data, U.S. murders dropped nearly 40% to 14,478 in 2010 — a significant drop from 23,440 in 1990 — even as the overall population grew by 24 percent!

            This may be why Dr. Lott’s most famous book is titled “More guns, less crime.”

            So, if Congress really wants to reduce crime and to stop shootings at so-called “gun-free zones” like schools, movie theaters and other places, maybe they ought to pass laws making it easier for citizens — especially teachers and school administrators — to get the training they want to be proficient in gun safety and proficient in hitting their target with a concealed handgun.

            Most freedom-loving Americans understand that this administration and many in Congress are radical anti-gun members of the Left. They know America and our Constitution are much safer when the Second Amendment is in full force. And that is exactly what they want to change. They are in this for the power, plain and simple. They want control over every aspect in American life, and they are moving at break-neck speed to attain their goal.

            Many nations that have given up their rights to gun ownership have suffered by the hand of their own government shortly thereafter. Over 170,000,000 (that’s one hundred and seventy million) human beings have been slaughtered by their governments in the 20th Century after they gave up their guns.


            I pray they don’t. That’s why Gun Owners of America was formed to fight the anti-gunners in Congress and in every state house in the nation.

            Tim Macy is the Vice Chairman of Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members

            Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Grammy!

            “Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control” — unattributed

          • grammyjill says:

            You really need to read the second amendment. It does not give you the right to own military weapons. It gives you the right to have your hunting rifles and a pistol for self protection. The military are the ones that are allowed to have military weapons. Not you. The NRA have been pushing it far too long. It is time to rewrite the second. When written, it was so you could keep your musket. At present, that is still what it means. When it went before the surpreme court, they ruled that you could have your hunting rifles and a pistol. It does not say you can have whatever your little heart desires. Hell, I want enough money to get out of where I am, but you can’t have everything.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Grammy…. don’t be so foolish. It’s not becoming of you. The 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about what types of arms the people can bear. In fact, it is true that when it was written, they intended that people could bear the most advanced arms of their day. Do you think the Founders were not aware of the fact that new technologies and advances in gun manufacturing would NOT happen? Or course they knew advances would happen, yet did not place restrictions on the right to bare arms. What is a military weapon anyway? One that looks “mean”? There are no restrictions in the 2nd Amendment, only those that are interpreted. And while I don’t think citizens should have anti-aircraft missiles, the possession of a rifle that holds 15 rounds in a clip is a far cry from a missile. And if you read Ford Truck’s post in here, you will see that he is 100% correct. And one other point, at least you are honest when you say that you want the 2nd Amendment repealed or changed. Such honesty of your intent is not very common amongst the leftstis. They usually must hide their intentions behind cute and harmless sounding labels because very few would support such stupidity if they knew what was really behind it.

            Happy New Year Grammy!

            “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Grammy… since you seem to be somewhat ignorant of the 2nd Amendment, I am taking the liberty to post here for your and other leftists edification, actual commentary from one of the Founders regarding the right to keep and bare arms.

            As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution: “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

      • Michael Kollmorgen says:

        And, remember, it wasn’t some crook that broke into that woman’s house and stole her guns. It was her own son that killed her to get access to them.

        Studies constantly show, people who get killed in their own homes is usually done by a family member, not a stranger lurking behind the bushes.

        This also stands to be very true for a large array of other types of crimes as well.

        It’s an unfounded fear.

        The people that you should be afraid of is your own family members.

    • Michael Kollmorgen says:

      We don’t need to worry about Mao, Hitler or Stalin. We have our own here, people like you who believe in all these conspiracy theories.

      Besides, like I’ve said on several other threads, even IF we stop selling all these mass killing weapons now, there is still millions of them in the public domain.

      Think man, how would the government confiscate them? In reality, it would be an impossible task.

      The Government wouldn’t even try it because if they did, we’d have a Civil War within a month.

      Grow Up!

      • ObozoMustGo says:

        Mike, the right to keep and bear arms is an issue of liberty. Gun control is not about guns, it’s about control. You know that.

        Merry Christmas!

        “The only defense against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.” ― John Locke

        • Michael Kollmorgen says:

          OH, I totally agree;

          All of these issues we debate he is about CONTROL and who does the CONTROLLING.

          I know one thing for sure, I’ll be dammed if I let Republicans CONTROL me, not willingly anyway.

          As far as the NRA, the organization has not spoken for the general membership in years. Even their latest statistics point this out when well over 60% or more of the general membership approves of a ban of one type or the other of these military-styled weapons. And, as such, only a small minority of the membership, the most vocal, control the organizations agenda.

          The NRA has become nothing more than the Hand Maiden of the Gun Dealers and Gun Manufactures.

          Now, for the against the world, well, I would like to believe this country would take the best of that knowledge and use it for our advantage. Too often though, THIS country compares ourselves to the worst the world has to offer.

          Kind of assbackwards – as the US usually is.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Mike… doesn’t take long for your “blame America first” attitude to creep out, does it? And let me tell you something, America has been the greatest force for good and human freedom the world has ever known. Period. End of story! Have we been perfect? No. Who has been? No country. But when it comes to spreading the message of freedom and liberty thr0ughout the world, there has been no other country who has been a bigger influence than America.

            That said, the stat you cite about the NRA is bullsheet because it doesn’t actually tell you anything. You anti-gun leftist freaks are the ones that extrapolate a meaningless stat for y0ur own propaganda. For example… You can aske me if I support people having their own anti-aircraft missiles and I will likely say no. Am I a member of the NRA? Yes. Does that mean I support gun control of some measure? Yes. But does it really tell the story? NO! This is how you leftist freaks operate. With propaganda.

            One other point… this is where your mind is so effed up, it’s like a disease. You say you don’t want the Repubs to control you. You could not be further from the truth. Actually, the Repubs want you to control yourself. Be responsible for yourself and your life. Repubs, in general, want maximum freedom. DemonRATS on the other hand want more control over your life through bigger government and more regulation and higher taxation. Higher taxes ARE a restriction of your freedom and liberties. You have it all backwards, Mike. Perhaps you like being dependent upon the state. Most DemonRATS do.

            Merry Christmas!

            “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

          • Michael Kollmorgen says:

            Freedom for WHO is the main question.

            This country, its citizens have been fighting for “freedom” since its foundings.

            Try saying people here have freedom. The American Indian, people of color, many immigrant groups, throughout our history would laugh right in your face.

            Haven’t you figured out yet that ONLY the Elite have true freedom.

            As with Trickle Down Economics, Trickle Down Freedom and our Liberties also applies.

            And, don’t even try to tell me, the United States is a shining light Internationally either. Our Corporate-Backed Military has murdered millions.

            The ONLY war we were ever engaged in which was justified was WW2. Even then, it might have been avoided if they would have solved many of Europe’s problems which was created after WW1.

            And, the only reason we entered the European Theater was because we were fooled into doing it by Churchill who was the head of the Navy, in which case he directly withdrew a convoy’s destroy escorts, thereby allowing German U-Boats to sink them, which he knew was carrying mostly US Citizens back to the US, which inflamed public opinion to enter the war in Europe.

            Even the invasion of Pearl Harbor by Japan wasn’t needed. But, the US pushed Japan to the breaking point to do it. Remember, during WW1, Japan was an Allie of ours. What changed Japan from being an Allie to being part of the Axis Powers during WW2? Blame the US.

            And, the US is the direct fault for China Being Communist today. We turned our back on Chiang Kai-shek in favor of Mao during WW2. I know personally someone who’s father knew Chaing personally.

            And, we’ve made China even more powerful by a guy named Nixon, who “opened up” China to american corporations, which since that time has allowed corporations to funnel most of our jobs, technology and our country’s wealth to, backed of course by cooperating Republican members of Congress.

            Read your History Books. Granted our country has done some things good. But overall, we are not the Shining Light we are lead to believe we are, or ever were.

  7. Eyma Lyer says:

    The national memo gives you a choice of like the statement or like the statement unless you concider the collapse choice. How nice of them to give you such choices. Their choice.

  8. Eyma Lyer says:

    madow is a cow. she is not worth listening to. like ALL liberals she foams at the mouth like a rabid as she spews her inane rants.

  9. patuxant says:

    Associations in DC are all into control, influence, and power. I worked at one for 8 years and saw the obsession the CEO had for his position which he had held for over 25 years. They rub elbows and do political favors for each other to stay in power and in the mainstream. They will snuff out any one who stands in their way, including employees. LaPierre is a manical demon and not to be believed or trusted in any regard. All he cares about (like so many CEO’s of associations) is adulation from his followers. They need to all be disrupted. Money corrupts absolutely! And so does power…no matter how slight. Get the guns and ammo out of our world! No excuse for saying guns don’t kill–people do..then why put the lethal weapons in their hands so easily????

  10. Ford Truck says:

    Well, now to piss off a lot of people….. I am a Democrat, always have been, and I would describe myself as standing “center to slightly left” on most matters. I hurt for the people of Newtown Ct. As a parent and grandparent, I can’t even imagine the pain they are feeling. BUT…

    The problem is more than guns! I happen to be a gun owner. I grew up in a family that hunted. I served in the Marines and earned my snipers badge. Now years alter, I own guns for hunting, guns for target shooting, and guns for protection, as well as some I own because they are rare collectors items. I have a concealed carry permit and am almost always armed. Yes, some of the guns I own are “military style tactical weapons.”

    But my guns are not a threat to anyone who does not need threatened! I keep them safely locked away from curious hands or thieves. My guns are also not a threat because I am not crazy or depressed or psychotic or anything like that.

    In Switzerland, the government supplies every able bodied adult man with a gun, ammunition, and training, and thus they have one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world, yet they do not have mass murders like we do, and a very low murder rate.

    I will agree that the EASE at which guns are available, and WHO THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO is a problem. What angers me the most, is that in every one of these mass murder events, from Columbine to Newtown, when the truth about the killer(s) comes out, everyone says “Well someone should have known.” The parents, the teachers, the students around them, their neighbors, someone should have known something was wrong with that person, but they did NOTHING!

    Why did they do nothing?

    Well, remember when the Reagan (a conservative Republican) administration called for the release of many mentally ill people? The did it partly to get them out of government (tax) funded facilities, and partly because they didn’t think being mentally ill should require you to be locked away from society.

    Today, it takes fighting hell and high-water to get someone committed to a mental facility. And when someone is committed, it takes only a family member to beg a couple doctors to sign a release and get them back on the street.

    There is a stigma attached to having a mentally ill relative, so many families who know full well a family member is ill and maybe even dangerous, set back and do nothing because they don’t want to be embarrassed by committing their relative.

    I fully agree with a background check for all gun purchasers, and I don’t think a 10 day or even 30 day waiting period is too long for a gun purchaser to wait. I think if you own a gun, you should be required by law to have it locked away unless it is in your personal possession at the time, like my concealed weapon, or when I’m out hunting or target shooting.

    However, blindly outlawing guns, or specific guns that look like a military weapons, is stupid and will not solve our problem!! It will only change the method of murders.

    Timothy McVeigh used a bomb guns would not have killed as many people as he wanted to kill. And you can find plans on-line to build bombs with commonly available materials, and many of us military vets know it without going on-line.

    So whats next, are we going to outlaw everything to build bombs too?

    The media pounds it into our heads to talk to someone if we think a friend may be depressed and thinking of suicide. Maybe we should also teach each other to talk to someone if we think a friend, coworker, neighbor, acquaintance, or yes, even a son, daughter or other relative, is going off the deep end and may be a threat to someone.

    How about each of us open out eyes and ears and be more responsible for the people who are around us, people we think may be dangerous or people we have questions about? Maybe that should be the first step!!

    • grammyjill says:

      Just a question: if you were to be told by your doctor that your mind was going, would you give up your guns while you stiil knew what was going on? I ask because I have an uncle who at this point sometimes doesn’t even know who his wife is, but he knows all of his guns. He almost shot me a couple weeks ago when I went for a visit.

      • Michael Kollmorgen says:

        The man should be reported to the Police and monitored constantly. Sounds to me, he has End Stage Altzimers Disease.

        Believe me, the law or social services will find a way of getting those guns out of his possession.

        But, in the mean time, he is posing a major private and public threat.

        I wonder if his doctor knows he has these weapons?

        • grammyjill says:

          His wife brings him to visit my parents about once a week, when one or more of her sons have a day off. They go in and remove some of the guns each visit. Can’t take them all at once, he’d notice and have a major fit, so a few at a time. After my close call visit she unloaded that gun and got all the ammo out of the house. He’s going down hill quickly.

    • ObozoMustGo says:

      Ford… while you and I typically see things the opposite of one another, on this issue we are 100% in agreement. The mass killings are NOT related to guns. They are related to deeper cultural issues that we need to address. I don’t find it to be a coincidence that the growth of the state, the decline of the traditional family, the increase in fatherless children, and the removal of religion from our public discourse and the resulting decline in traditional morals combine to result in more and more garbage like Newtown that we are experiencing. These things go hand in hand. Unfortunately, it will get worse because very few have the courage to speak out about cultural decay, lest they be demonized and mocked for doing so. And unfortunately, more and more people are willing to trade in their liberties, AND yours and mine, for the false notion of safety and security that both you and I know can never be achieved.

      Happy New Year, Ford!

      “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  11. JDC says:

    The NRA has been taken over by and subsumed into the gun manufactures coalition. It is no longer a collection of sportsmen looking to protect their right to hunt with rifles originally issued as military weapons (such as the 30-06).

  12. 13observer says:

    But isn’t this the same argument some make against the “UNION BOSSES” and how they run their union members. Right to Work, collective bargaining agreements, public sector employees having the right to bargain, contributions to elected officials, pensions, corruption and the list goes on. Most organizations are under some type of scrutiny! Organized labor has had its problems with leadership but do you throw out the baby with the bathwater? I think not. Most unions believe that employers, corporations and the like are out to crush them, to eliminate them from the face of the earth or to compromise them so greatly they become insignificant! Why? Because of the gains financially, control and the END to their ability to fund democratic candidates! That being said, the same exists for the gun grabbers who want to ultimately compromise the NRA to the extent they also become insignificant. To do that they must take away the reason gun owners support the NRA and that is PRESERVATION OF THEIR RIGHTS under our Constitution. The democrats drove gun owners who are members of the NRA away from their own party by insisting on obeying the fringe extremists in their party, from the generation of our society that promotes a more communist agenda. That is where the problem exists for the democrats. If American citizens are buying guns in record numbers, that ought to tell you something, and its not criminals buying them because contrary to the lies, criminals are not able to buy guns legally. When Americans see an administration bending over backwards to ensure that illegal aliens get all these RIGHTS, while working to destroy RIGHTS guaranteed by our Constitution, WTF do you think LEGAL CITIZENS of America are thinking? The suspicions of the left’s attempt to make the public safer by implimenting ANY form of GUN CONTROL is summed up best by Senator Diane Frankenstien from the “People’s Republic of California” ; “a sweeping ban to collect all guns is needed” and that is why most gun owners know that if we give a little, there will be NO FUCKING END TO IT!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!

  13. Wow! What a great article! It clearly shows that someone is listening. The thought of someone entering a classroom and “BLOWING TO PIECES” THE BODIES OF TWENTY CHILDREN moves me to want to do something! It is not something that I can sit back and ignore. I simply cannot understand how anyone would allow the REMOTEST of possibilities of allowing anyone to put up to nine bullets into the bodies of children because of a Second Amendment right! If the forefathers were here today, I know that they would be appalled at this terrible atrocity committed in its name!

    Of all of the evil acts that have moved me, as of late, none are more profound to me than (1) the young mother who killed her two children (under he age of 6) while one of them screamed, after watching his little sister be killed, “Mommy, you going to kill me?” That child knew that this was not something that parent did; (2) Sandy Hook where the killer pumped bullet after bullet into the bodies of TWENTY little children and teachers. My heart goes out to those who had to clean up the blood!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.