By Josh Marks

NRA Targeting Pro-Gun Control Senators In 2014

February 20, 2013 2:19 pm Category: Memo Pad 50 Comments A+ / A-

Roll Call reported Wednesday morning that the National Rifle Association will be targeting mostly Democratic senators running for re-election in 2014 with a print advertising campaign.

The campaign will cost more than $375,000 and feature full-page ads in local newspapers and regional editions of USA Today, along with supplemental digital advertising. The NRA hopes to reverse its dismal election results of 2012, when the group received less than one percent return on investment out of more than $10.5 million spent.

The ads will appear in 15 states. Incumbent Democratic senators to be singled out by the campaign include Mark Pryor of Arkansas, rated a C- by the NRA, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana with a C and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, who gets an F. Maine, where GOP senator Susan Collins is up for re-election, will also be targeted, as she earned a C+ grade. The ads will also run in West Virginia, where Sen. Jay Rockefeller is retiring.

Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan and other potentially vulnerable Senate Democrats have already been taking a cautious approach on articulating whether they support President Obama’s gun safety measures.

However, in the aftermath of the Newtown mass shooting and President Obama’s call for common-sense gun laws — all of which the majority of  Americans support — groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (backed by NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg), and Tuscon shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords’ new SuperPAC Americans for Responsible Solutions, plan to challenge the NRA in 2014.

Giffords’ group aims to raise $20 million by the midterm elections. And Bloomberg’s own SuperPAC, Independence USA, has spent $2.1 million running attack ads in Illinois against NRA A+ rated Debbie Halvorson, who is a candidate in a special election for ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s seat in Congress. Independence USA is also supporting Robin Kelly, who is devoting her campaign to fighting gun violence.

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

NRA Targeting Pro-Gun Control Senators In 2014 Reviewed by on . Roll Call reported Wednesday morning that the National Rifle Association will be targeting mostly Democratic senators running for re-election in 2014 with a pri Roll Call reported Wednesday morning that the National Rifle Association will be targeting mostly Democratic senators running for re-election in 2014 with a pri Rating:

More by Josh Marks

Profiles In Cowardice And Courage From Our Shameful Senate: Mark Begich And Mark Kirk

On Tuesday 45 senators — mostly Republicans, but some Democrats — made cynical political calculations by choosing to protect the NRA gun merchants over America’s children, betraying the families of Newtown, CT, and the nation in their failure to pass stronger gun laws. It was expected that the right-wing Republicans in the Senate would reflexively

Read more...

Gabrielle Giffords Takes Gun Reform Push To Capitol Hill

On the sixth anniversary of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history at Virginia Tech, former congresswoman and Tucson shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, headed to Capitol Hill to meet with senators in a final push to gather the 60 votes needed to add an expansion of background checks to

Read more...

Georgia Rep Says Romney Right About ’47 Percent’

Apparently Republican representative Rob Woodall of Georgia didn’t get the memo about his party’s “rebranding” effort to avoid offending half the population, or at least avoid getting caught doing it on camera. Woodall, who sits on Paul Ryan’s House Budget Committee, said last month at a town hall meeting that Mitt Romney was right in

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RGOUPZ3JYNMPBVOHLZRCRVRD6Q ivory69690

    maybe the thing that has to be done with the NRA is some of these crazy ppl. that keep shoting and murdering innocent. some how get thenm to target the NRA. maybe after thewm loseing the lifes of their love ones like the rest of the ppl. have then thy will open up their eyes and see how much gun control is needed . it will be only a matter of time before the love ones of the innocent ppl. that have gotten mudrered will band together and go after the ones that dont care about the innocent ones getting murdered. some times it take ones to stand in the shoes of others before thy see just whats going on

    • DEFENDER88

      Well that is rich and pure.
      Just what we need.
      Calling for more killing – Like we have not had enough of it already.

      If you are not going to offer real solutions that can actually work, or address the real problems associated with the killings – Please go away or at least shut up.

  • AdamMos

    Good,

    The NRA has become so unpopular that anything they are for, most Americans are now against. They have shown their true colors and are nothing more than advertising agency for gun manufacturers. They dont represnt gun owners which is obvious by their position against even universal background checks. If I were a candidate ruinning against someone who is on the record of not favoring universal background checks then I win by a landslide. Any candidate that the NRA tries to throw under the bus is a candidate that I will vote for and/or contribute to. It is time to run the NRA out of our country with our ballot boxes.

    • Dmullins84

      Now, you know why I no longer belong to the slaughtering house. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. LaPierre is nothing but a radical fool working for the Gun Company’s. I also will vote against anyone who does not vote for gun changes to the current law.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

      Time for us to target ALL pro-NRA senators and congressmen. It takes two to tango…

  • 1scorpion2

    LaPierre is a greedy ghoul, with blood all over his hands
    he will spend the afterlife working with the devil

    • DEFENDER88

      You discussed his future with the devil?

      Or did God just tell you that?

      Anyone who creates a false Gun Free Zone without providing armed security has blood on their hands.
      A lot of people have screwed up here, maybe even you.
      If you are not trying to discuss or develope real solutions that will actually work to stop the killing, you are just part of the problem with your – I am the Lords right hand pios arrogance.

      AlQaeda thinks and say they are doing Gods will too.

      • DurdyDawg

        No D88, it’s merely assumption that Christians rant hell fire when they have no other outlet. Just like others who assume they know the workings of politics, that if nothing gets done, if someone in another country dies or if things don’t go as they perceive then it’s all the president’s fault.. There are many faces, many voices.. TOO many lobbyists determining what and where this country needs to go (in their ideals) that it’s ludicrous to imply that it revolves around one person. Take NDAA, most believe Obama created this atrocity, some that he added to it what he wanted but hardly anyone notices that this (supposedly) being a democracy, it’s votes that determine which laws and bills are enacted, continued and refined and if these (representative) votes favor continuation, refinement and/or enactment.. unless the people protest and protest greatly then what was passed must become law and no president can prevent it even with veto as it comes back in either riders or another language.. This is where we’ve failed.. Continually voting in ambulance chasers who speak in languages we can’t understand until it’s too late. Am I rambling? (sorry).

    • http://www.facebook.com/russell.byrd.14 Russell Byrd

      He is already working for him, right now.

  • SnideRemarks

    If you’re going to try to support Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) please spell his name correctly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mary-Ann-Hoogeveen/100001288045325 Mary Ann Hoogeveen

    The GOP/tea party will lose many elections in 2014!

  • leadvillexp

    They brought it on themselves. President Obama was smart enough to stay away from gun control the last two elections. When the Democrats decided to take up this issue they shot themselves in the foot. I am a Republican and Life NRA member. I voted for Democrats and President Obama in the last two elections because I like most of their their policies. I will be supporting the NRA next election. You can’t take away my rights and expect me to vote for you. I have also added my name to a lawsuit to get rid of the New York State Safe Act. The worst thing about this act is that it was done by “Message of Necessity”, a back door method. Fire all those that supported this act. I am unwilling to give up my rights, even a little, in the name of safety.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/LLEFUAHLJ67E3SS72WFUSQSDHM Lilly

      How many assault rifles do you own?

      • leadvillexp

        None. Assault rifles are fully automatic and illegal in New York.

      • DEFENDER88

        As long as what I own is legal, not a threat to anyone, or imposing on anyone, it is none of your business what I own.

        How many anti-depressants do you have in your cabinet?

        How many sex toys do you own?

        Do you drive one of those huge Vans or Hummer taking 1 kid to school, there and back, driving up gas prices?
        I think we should ban them.
        They could easily kill someone in a small car in a wreck.
        And you are driving my gas prices up.

        When I ask soccer moms why such a huge car for 1 kid?

        The say – “I just want to be safe.”

        ok

        Well – Why I want a gun – “I just want to be safe.”

        I have just as much right to own a gun as you do a car.
        Especially since I am fully permitted, FBI finger print checked, highly trained, etc.

        • pattreid

          And if I want an abortion, I have just as much right to that as you have to owning a gun and shooting whatever. The SCOTUS said so. It’s my constitutional right and I can do it whenever and for any reason I please. So there, right-to-lifer!

          • DEFENDER88

            You are mistaken.
            Dont know where you got the idea I was a right-to-lifer because I am definitely not.
            I am a womens rights advocate.
            1- I dont think you are a person until you are actually born
            2-I think a woman has a basic and inherent right to her own body and what happens to it

            That was what ? Roe v Wade?

            Much like I have a basic and inherent right to defend myself with equal or greater force. With a gun if necessary -Forget the 2nd Amendment. Although I pray I never have to shoot anyone. Been attacked a couple of times, couple of gun fights, did not like it. Fun it is not.

            But that is just my opinion. re abortion
            Many others, especially around here, disagree.
            So we agree to disagree.

    • wesley rasmussen

      You talk like the NRA is a political party? While I favor sensible gun control, I do not favor the removal of all guns and rifles from the people. Weapons made for warfare have no place in the hands of casual gun owners, and less of a place on the streets. The kinds of weapons that are manufactured solely to kill large numbers of people are the type that should be regulated heavily, as well as the mental capacity of the purchaser. That would mean background and psych tests for ALL gun purchases, at pawn shops, gun dealers, gun shows, and even online. Add to that a mandatory, non-negotiable sentence for ANY crime committed with a firearm, that would be in addition to any penalty for conviction of the crime itself. Maybe a minimum of 2 years in jail – no parole – with a longer time for wounding anyone during the crime, and more on top of that for causing a death. Gun control should be well rounded, and real penalties for the offender, not just making offenders out of owners.

      • leadvillexp

        NRA has a strong influence on political parties. I too favor sensible gun control. People should be able to own any type of firearm they want. Many even compete with machine guns in some states. I do believe in licensing ALL firearms owners and users. It could be done the same way Hazmat is done now on CDLs. This would include a back ground check every five years and attached to the drivers license. You would not be able to even purchase ammo without a license. I am not against common sense ideas only legislation based on emotion.

      • DEFENDER88

        Get them(Assault Rifles) out of the hands of the gangs and bad guys and I would be a lot more likely to not feel the need for one. Even with a “ban” that is not likely to happen any time soon if ever.

    • pattreid

      First, and foremost, no one is taking away the 2nd amendment. So, assault rifles and huge magazines are more important to you than, oh, let’s say, the constitutional right of a woman to choose? Or the right to vote? Or equal pay? Or ending wars? Or protecting the earth? Your right to kill supersedes all others? Oh, so glad I don’t know you IRL

      • leadvillexp

        You are correct. They are not taking it away. They are chipping away at it. I take all my rights seriously including the others you mentioned. I do believe in a womens right to choose, ending these stupid wars etc. I voted Democratic the last two elections because of that. To teach the Republicans, especially about the right of choice. I thought we got the gun issue across to the Democrats after Clintons fallout. I believe they need a reminder to stay away from that issue. I would be willing to accept better back ground checks even licensing all firearms owners. This could be done like Hazmat is on CDL drivers licenses with 5 year back ground checks and marked on the drivers license. I will not tolerate banning any type of weapon. I could change my mind depending on the outcome in Washington. As for New Yorks governor, he’s out. He has misused “Message of Necessity” to many times. He bends the Constitution of New York to his own benefit bypassing the law and the constituents.

        • pattreid

          All they are talking about is background checks, and limiting the clip size. That’s all. That’s what most citizens support, and even the NRA supported that back in the day, before they became the mouthpiece for the gun industry. What do we do? Throw our hands up in the air and say we are helpless against mass shootings? Do we only write laws that criminals would willing obey? Or do we take a page from the gun restrictions that were enacted in Australia successfully?

          • leadvillexp

            It depends what you call successful. Australia banned almost all guns including antiques and museum pieces. They confiscated them with very little or no reimbursment to the owners. They still have gun violence. Also most shootings are done with hand guns not so called assult rifles. Shooters in Columbine used 2 sawed off shotguns, 1 Tech 9 pistol, 1 rifle, in Vir. Tech a glock 9mm, walther 22 pistols, Gabby Giffords glock 9mm, Aurora glock 40 cal, 12 ga shotgun, glock 22, S&W MP15 rifle, Sandy Hook was glock 10mm, sig sauer 9mm, bushmaster 223 and a 12 ga shotgun. In the Aurora shooting the MP15 with 100 round clip jammed after less than 30 rounds leaving him to continue with the pistols. He also used tear gas grenades. In Sandy Hook most were shot with the Bushmaster and he changed many clips after fireing less than 10 rounds leaving some clips only partially used. I still support back ground checks and even licensing with 5 year back ground checks. Just not bans.

          • DEFENDER88

            Glad to see you asked about what to do about mass shootings.
            I have lived here long enough(65yr) to remember when we did not have this problem. But have always had many assault rifles around. What has changed in the last 10-15yr?
            Isnt that what we should be asking so we can get to the root of the problem?
            This is about stopping the killing is it not?
            Or is this about your desire to ban guns so you can feel good about doing “something” even if it does not work here?

            Why is it happening now and not before? :
            In the last 10-15yrs I have seen 3 major contributing changes leading to these mass murders.

            1) Creation of Gun Free Zones without providing for Armed Security. Another progressive idea gone horribly wrong.

            2) Years ago – If a young man needed to be drugged he was put in an institution where he could not hurt anyone else.
            An uncomfortable, regressive concept but it did work.

            3) Now young men are self medicated at home with these new designer anti-depressants, go crazy head to the school and shoot everyone in sight. Especially now young 15-25 yr old white men. It is a repeating pattern.
            Another progressive idea gone horribly wrong.

            What to do about it:
            1) Provide for Armed security in all Gun Free zones.
            Would seem like a no-brainer. But since there is no support for this at the National level, or in here, the local people are tacking action all over the country to change this.

            2) Recognize the drug problem with young white men is a serious part of the problem. So do something about it. Control and investigate any script for anti-depressants or something/someway to control it and them.

            Nothing is 100% but Just these 2 things alone would go a long way to greatly limiting the killing.

            There are some things that can be done to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Psyc testing for gun buyers, etc. But a ban will not help, not anytime soon anyway – not when there are already so many out there in gang and bad guys hands. Also several of the killings have been done with pistols(Giffords, VT, more) which have more than enough killing power to do mass slaughter also.

            Feinstein has re-submitted a bill in congress calling for a ban on guns and includes confiscation.
            So, dont tell me noone is talking about banning guns.

            A gun ban will only disarm the law abiding people while the bad guys will still have theirs.

            A ban will have about the same well intended effect that creating Gun Free Zones has – how has that worked out?

      • DEFENDER88

        Can you even consider what may be part of the real problem or are you just trying to ban weapons to make yourself feel good about doing *something* whether or not it will actually stop the killing? Banning weapons is not an analysis of the problem to develope actual solutions but an emotional knee jerk reaction, understandable as it may be.
        Stopping the killing is the objective is it not???

        I sent this below to someone else in here who was actually interested in *stopping the killing*.
        Now you are talking. And there is merit to what you are saying. And it is part of a bigger problem that I think I have identified as one of the Causal Factors(Root Causes) of these killings in Schools especially. Back when I was in HS (61-65)this crap did not happen. What has changed since then? For one thing – if you acted bad enough to have to be drugged you were put away where you could not hurt anyone else. Now these “young men” are self medicated at home with these new designer Anti-Depressants, go crazy, head to school and shoot eveyone in sight.
        On top of that we got so “Progressive” that we felt we did not need Armed Security in Gun Free Zones. Another good Progressive idea gone horribly wrong.

        Most of the killing is being done by young white men on an anti-depressant. They are typically “gifted” students but have trouble relating to others and get diagnosed with some form of depression, given a subscription and sent home with it.
        And guess what happens then???
        They spend a lot of time planning and practicing what damage they want to do.
        Playing violent video war games, etc. Go to school and kill every one in sight.

        I started seeing this trend and putting forward this theory a while back but have not gotten many in here to listen because they are concentrating so hard on assault rifles and the NRA to listen to anything else that may be the actual cause of the killing.

        So today I looked up the record of some of the killings and the drug they were on and the weapons used. Note also NONE of the below were done with an assault rifle.

        I have been arguing that the assault rifle is not the real problem.
        But get called every name in the book for even thinking such a thing.
        I do think some stricter rules etc should be in place to keep them out of people hands who should not have them but not ban them since they are used extensively in sport, for hunting and self defense – in spite of what is said in here. ie the “rifle” is not the problem. Rifle crime is a small fraction of gun crime in the US(check it out).

        ps I am a competitive shooter. Fully permitted, FBI print checked. Highly trained, etc.
        Often practice with police and some special forces and SWAT people.

        My point is so much effort is being spent on banning assault rifles and the NRA that people are missing the real root problems. And thus real workable solutions.

        Also note the dramatic increase in school shootings from the 1980’s to the 1990’s.
        That is about the time we emptied all the assylums, institutions etc.
        And came up with these new designer anti-depressants and started medicating people at home.

        So what do you think about this?
        Seems to me banning assault rifles is a knee jerk, emotional reaction. Understandable as it may be, it will have little real effect on stopping the killing. That is what we should be thinking about how do is it not?

        School Condition Drug Weapon Killer/Age Killed
        ———— ————– ————— ———– ————- ——-
        1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun Male 17 12 killed

        2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 16 9 killed

        2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol Male 23 32 killed

        2008 N. Ill Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 27 5 killed

        2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol Male 17 15 killed

        # of School Shootings in USA
        1960’s 1
        1970’s 5
        1980’s 3
        1990’s 15
        2000’s 19
        2010’s 5 (so far)

        • pattreid

          In response to your first question: Can I consider I’m trying to “make (my)self feel good about doing *something*. No, because that is not the case.

          You are generalizing your notion over 5 examples of people on psych drugs. That’s what is called anecdotal, not evidence. Then you narrow down the numbers to only school shootings. Unless you’ve been on another planet, you must know that school shootings are only part of the mix: We also have theaters, political gatherings, military bases, government offices, etc. There has been a marked increase in shootings involving “assault” type guns since the ban was lifted. And furthermore, I don’t know one person today who hunts with an assault rifle. If you can’t shoot the deer with 8 bullets, you should give up, the deer should have his escape clause too.

          As for the part that goes like this: “we got so “Progressive” that we felt we did not need Armed Security in Gun Free Zones”. When I went to school, we did not have armed guards and, believe you me, my school was a gun free zone. We also did not have assault weapons in the general population, in fact, there were so few guns around it never occurred to anyone to have armed guards or a gun-free zone. However, I grew up in a rural setting where everyone hunted and had guns in the home, they did not bring them to school or church or the local bar, let alone National parks.

          Your one observation that I agree with is that this is largely a young white man’s crime. but they are not ALL on psych drugs. Maybe some should be, but they are not. Mental problems are a big issue, but the (pesky) Constitutional right to privacy keeps us from having a list of all who are crazy available to the public. Additionally, last time I checked, people of color have mental issues, too. But they’re not doing the shooting, are they?

          But the biggest error in your post is that we are after the guns of responsible gun owners. Assault rifles are, please forgive the wording: OVER kill. But the ordinary weapons are off the table for banning. And if you and others are in fact responsible, what’s the big deal with registration? The NRA used to support registration when it was tied to keeping guns out of the hands of black people. Now, not so much. In fact, Mr. LaPierre is the best argument against guns to come down the pike.

          • DEFENDER88

            Thanks for your input.

            I agree with some and not with some – surprise?

            At least now we are talking about problems and solutions and not each other.

            1st let me address the problem with Registration.
            The gun owners that I know(and I am in a club of 2,000 + a lot of police, special forces, etc) dont give a sh-t what the NRA has to say, they dont like the idea of a National Register because they see it as the next required step to confiscation. Right or wrong all the hate loaded negatives being thrown around out there about guns and gun owners makes us think the ultimate objective for the “progressive left” is confiscation. I have been on the “progressive left” all my life and voted BHO both times, so i can say that with truth and not dogma.

            The fact is gun owners feel they are being demonized and under attack and that the ultimate objective of the people now in power and those who support them is to eventually confiscate all guns. Even though they are smart enough not to say it at this time.

            So while we do support more control and some system for universal type background checks we do not want it run by the Fed Govt.

            The Back Ground system now is run by the states. The Fed does not run it. So I would propose a compromise like a National/Federal set of enhanced standards for Back Ground checks but still run by the states with FBI etc help like it is now. That way we do not have to create another Fed Govt monster dept to run it. And the Fed is not in control.

            So in sum – we are basically for improving and even enhancing the system but not under Federal Control.

            The left(gun owner haters) does not understand that because they dont want to take the time to listen to us low down, paranoid, sick,….., gun owners and our concerns or potential compromise solutions that will achieve the same objective.

            Why listen to us, we are just dumb, gun crazy, sick red necks anyway. As I have experienced being called in here anyway.

            On the Analysis
            I did limit it to school shootings only to try to identify commonalities for this particular problem and perhaps begin to think about solutions here. Then later analyze other shootings in the same way and see if there are similarities or differences that need to be addressed.

            But try to break down the larger problem(of gun related crime) into manageable sectors we can discuss/analyze one at a time. Then compare commonalities and differences.

            The 5 cases I cited were the worst 5 cases on record I think. That is what I looked for anyway.

            It is not a huge data set(thank God for that) but it is “Facts” not anecdotal info.

            The one I left out was the Texas Tower guy at UTwho I think used a sniper rifle. But that was way back and seemed like more of an outlier to what is happening now.

            I expect the other problem areas will have other causes and different solutions or maybe some of the same but break it down into sections that we can logically discuss piece by piece.

            I have already noticed some similarities with schools and some of the other killings. For example I did not find what drug The Giffords guy or the Aurora theater guy were on but you can take one look at the pic of each and suspect they were on something. Plus they, as you say, were both young white men. Loghner in Giffords used a hand gun – like most school killings. Aurora theater guy used Assault Rifle but it jammed after a few rounds and he did most of the killing with a hand gun.

            One for sure data point commonality is *most* of the *killing* has been done with hand guns.

            Even Giffords and Aruora Theater.

            The trend may now be to assault rifles but for now the data/facts say hand guns are doing the killing(primarily anyway).

            My point here is banning assault rifles will not have any real effect on the killing.

            Even if a ban worked(highly unlikely as that is) they would just revert back to hand guns.

            So lets concentrate on doing things that will have a real effect to limit the killing.

            And I say, a ban on assault rifles and mag capacity will have little to no effect.

            It is pretty much an emotional response(understandable as it may be) It will make many feel good about having done *something* but not really work toward limiting the killing. Which is the real objective is it not?

            You do have a point about no Black kids are doing the killing. Why is that? I suspect they are not being drugged with anti-depressants but dont know really. Perhaps since most black folks dont have as much money to buy these drugs they dont medicate them?
            That is however an issue that needs a closer look.

            Not all on psyc drugs? – as for the schools, the record says all the killers were diagnosed with some form of depression, and on the prescribed anti-depression medication as I noted.
            Sure looks like a pattern to me.

            As for the Ft Hood shooter. He used a 5.7 Pistol and basically was an Alqaeda Operative. But it was a supposed “Gun Free Zone”.

            So still some noted similarities – Pistol in a Gun Free Zone.

            Aurora Theater – He sought it out because it was the only Gun Free theater in the area(I cannot “verify” that but saw it somewhere).

            But again when the Rifle jammed he did most of killing with a pistol. Again Pistol in a Gun Free Zone.

            I am seeing another pattern and it is the same pattern as the school killings – Pistol in a Gun Free Zone.

            I grew up in a rural area also, but on any one day there would be several trucks in the parking lot with a rifle in the back window. And if someone had brought a gun into school no one would have been worried, curious but not worried. Every one hunted and every one had a gun. But no one ever got shot. No one thought anything about anyone having a gun inside school or out.

            In college on the shooting team we stored the guns in a class room building. I could have taken one to the dorm if I had wanted too. No big deal. Somehow very different from your youth apparently. But that was the 60’s for me.

            That was the 60’s

            You deny things have changed since then?

            The bigger gun crime issue
            And knowing that all of this does not even address the much bigger problem of everyday killing in the cities. Which accounts for some 75% of gun crime nation wide. 70% of which is drug related. But I already know that is an entirely different and even more difficult problem and will take a much different set of solutions. And that issue will indeed involve black folks.

            Dont get me started on State and National Parks – I have been shot at 4 times in “Gun Free” State and National Parks.

            I got lucky and did not get killed but needed an Assault Rifle badly, very badly.

            Let me know what you think about all this.

            A last point about Assault Rifles.

            You may not have been aware of it but there have always been a lot of them around.

            They are the most popular gun in the US and are indeed used for hunting.

            It is as good a varmit gun as you could want.

            Flat shooting small bullet much less powerful than standard hunting rifle.

            And used extensively for sport including “3Gun competitions” etc.

            They are popular because they are the most versatile rifle out there.

            They are used extensively for hunting, sport, and defense.

            And in a break-down of civil order event like Katrina – that is what I definitely want.

            That is what the gangs already have and I want equal force to them for defense.

          • pattreid

            You say/I say:
            1. (oppose) a National Register because they see it as the next required step to confiscation. That’s paranoia. No such plans. BUT, if gun owners continue to be a hazard to America and insensitive to the loss of life, that may come down the pike. Right now, it’s the stuff of conspiracy nuts. I am a progressive, with even stronger left leanings than you could tolerate. I don’t care about taking your guns. Just lock them up, keep them away from children and criminals, and don’t shoot me. I’m all good with that.

            2. The fact is [SOME] gun owners feel they are being demonized and under attack. Truth, nearly 80% support registration, including NRA members.

            3. I really don’t care who runs the background checks as long as we all play by the same rules. You know how hard the right is fighting abortions, and making different laws for different states? Guess what that does: creates a trafficking environment. Why would guns be different? BTW: law of the land: abortion is a Constitutional right. Would you fight for this as strongly as you fight for the 2nd Amendment? When different states have different rules, you get Chicago.

            3. I did not call you dumb. You brought that up, I never had that thought. BTW, you generalize the left as being “gun owner haters”. Wrong again. I know many on the left who own guns and insist on that right. My husband is one.

            4. Gun-free zones came about because of increasing gun violence. Did you protest the drug-free zones around the same schools?

            5. You state that legislation will have no effect. Where are your stats to support that?

            6. Drugs as a cause of gun violence? So, the war on drugs has failed. Need I say more?

            7. Fort Hood shooter, an “operative”? Wrong, wrong. He had start to question why he was being asked to kill others of his religion, as if the religion were the determinant. Something like turning the lions loose on the Christians. And, he was on a MILITARY base, and you call that a gun-free zone?

            Actually, I am not going any further. Your claim that you are oh so objective but all your comments say otherwise. I am supposed to believe this? I have been on the “progressive left” all my life and voted BHO both times, so i can say that with truth and not dogma.

            Yeah, not so much.

          • DEFENDER88

            I see now why we are so at odds about weapons and the killing, and gun control – you dont know your facts and are operating on erroneous information, conjecture and emotion to forward your agenda.

            And, by the way, I am a women’s rights advocate. A woman has the right to determine what is and is not done too or with her body.
            And I actually have fought for that.
            *I* dont believe you become a “person” until you are “born”. That is what I actually believe anyway. My wife says different re abortion, but that is her (the Christian Right).

            You dont seem to be trying to identify or understand the real facts and causes to come up with real solutions to stop the killing.

            Your agenda seems to just be criticize gun owners and ban guns.

            You said – “And, he was on a MILITARY base, and you call that a gun-free zone?”

            Since you dont believe what I say maybe you will believe the Facts about the Fort Hood killing – see below:

            From various verified news and govt sources.
            Military firearms policy on bases –
            The Army prohibits soldiers from carrying personal firearms inside Fort Hood and other bases. They want to reduce casual violence among the soldiers. Military weapons are used only for training or by base security, and personal weapons were kept locked away by the provost marshal. Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, said he felt this policy left the soldiers vulnerable to violent assaults: “Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can’t even defend yourself.” Jacob Sullum, an opponent of gun control, described the base as a “gun-free zone.”

            According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform. These soldiers were not allowed to carry personal firearms on the base due to military policy.

            My comments
            The shooting took place in a *Soldier Readiness Processing Center* in-bound and out-bound processing center for people returning from In-Theater(war zones) and he(Nidal Malik Hasan-the killer) was working there as a Psychiatrist to help them with transitions, potential PTSD, etc. And soldiers processing out to war zones.
            Nidal Malik Hasan – He had an office there and brought his gun in in his brief case.
            There were 200 or so in a large room filling out paper work. All unarmed.

            There was no “security officer”(the only people on base allowed to carry a gun) located in the Processing Center.
            So it truly was a *Gun Free Zone*.

            So, as I said, Using a Pistol in a Gun Free Zone.

            One of those pesky facts that get in the way of your agenda.

            Terrorist Attack re Fort Hood
            The Senate released a report describing the mass shooting as “the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.”
            Since he was in direct contact with AlQaeda leadership and did their bidding sounds like an AlQaeda operative to me.

            And – NO – again – you twist my words.
            I did not say “legislation” would have no effect.
            I said banning assault rifles would have little to no effect.
            All rifle crime in the US is only 3-4% of total gun crime anyway. So even if they could all be removed today it would (by default) have a but a small effect – 3-4% at most. Assault rifles compose maybe 1/2 of that so maybe 2-3% at most.
            Even the discussions in DC confirm that. From leaked news sources about Administration discussions.
            But any “legislation” done needs to have the effect of stopping the killing or reducing it significantly.
            It needs to have a positive and real effect on the problem and soon.
            Sorry but banning Assault Rifles and magazines will not have a significant effect – that is known.

  • jointerjohn

    I got rid of my guns years ago. After many years living and working in a poor inner city neighborhood without finding any need for them, it was foolish to even have them around. The NRA which once represented gun owners is now just the marketing department for the gun industry. Sincere and sensible gun owners should start a new organization to promote their interests because the NRA will never be back on their side.

    • DEFENDER88

      You dont understand.
      A lot of people like most in here are against gun owners – legal or not.
      Many if not most want all guns banned – they deny it, but we know it is the ultimate objective.
      The only ones gun owners have supporting them are the County Sheriffs and the NRA.
      We might not like all the NRA positions but at least the NRA does not hate gun owners and want guns banned like many in here and elswhere. So we are left with the NRA and the Repubs to count on.
      Where I live almost everyone is pro-legal-gun ownership and self defense, the whole state and region.
      I realize the NE, W Coast, and big cities are different. So we are very polarized.
      I have been a Dem all my life and voted for BHO both times but may have to change over this issue if gun bans are coming.
      Forget the 2nd Amendment – I have a fundamental, basic right to defend/protect myself.
      Its good if you dont have to worry about that anymore but I do.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/HFYZP2APYPP7H6PWS2ZDQRWFEQ Hillbilly

        No you don’t understand. The ones that want better gun control are not trying to ban all guns. Just guns that can cause a bunch of deaths in a matter of seconds and guns that have large magazines. In other words gun that the military use in war time. I don’t want a gun in my life because I have to much of a temper to own one but if you have a hunting rifle, a shootgun and a pistol why do you need any other kind of a gun. Also if people didn’t own so many guns it would be harder for criminals to arm themselves. Guns, money, drugs and jewelry are the first thing a thief looks for when he or she breaks into a home then they go for the electronics and other stuff that they can carry. Criminals are getting the majoritory of their guns from gun owners and gun stores that they break into. If there are no guns in your home or store that are military type weapons then the criminals won’t have them and can’t use them against you or anyone else. So remember the criminals have all these guns because they have stolen most of them from gun owners and gun stores or bought them at gun shows where there is no background checks done thanks to the NRA. Althrough I think many are reading and interperting the 2nd amendment wrong I do think you have the right to own guns but not the military style guns and magazines that hold a 100 bullets or more or clips that hold more than 12 bullets

        • DEFENDER88

          First let me commend you for not owning a gun since you have a temper.
          Owning and especially carrying a gun is a big responsibility.

          I refused to sell a gun to someone like you not long ago. And think(hope anyway) talked him out of trying to get one.

          I dont disagree there are some problems that need to be addressed in gun purchasing and ownership. . I am not against more rules for who can own an assault rifle or any gun for that matter. I think a psyc test should be required, among other things. Background checks at gun shows and for any sale – I agree.

          As for stopping the killing in Schools etc
          1) Provide for Armed security in all Gun Free Zones
          2) Address the problem of young men on anti-depressants who are doing most of the killing. Keep them away from guns or lock them up(the young men).

          ps here – I am fully permitted, highly trained to the competitive level, even higher than 98% of police(on guns and shooting), and keep any gun locked up that is not in my possession. And there are a LOT of others out there like me.
          I am in a gun club with 2,000 others just like me, all permitted, checked out etc.
          And there are clubs like mine everywhere in the US.
          In spite of what many in here say, we “are” the good guys in this mix of gun owners. We want the killing stopped, maybe more than most others.

          Also, there are millions of “assault” rifles out there already and many are in the hands of bad people. Even with a complete ban right now those guns will not go away. Not for a long long time anyway if ever. A ban will only have the effect of disarming we law abiding owners while the bad guys still have theirs. It will be like these supposed Gun Free Zones – not work out the way it was supposed to. In fact it will have bad “unintended consequences” like the Gun Free Zones have worked out.
          They are now the preferred killing zones of the crazies. They know they can go there kill everyone and not be challenged.

          The local sheriffs, around here anyway, understand this and do not support a ban on assault rifles. Maybe in big cities but not around here ie down in Dog Patch USA.

          I have a particular need for an assault rifle since I have been attacked(shot at) when going up into the mountains 4 different times. I dont go up there anymore without my rifle. Problem up there is local red necks who think they own everything even State and Federal Land. But I also own land up there. But I was attacked on Gun Free Federal Land.

          Since I got my rifle and let them know I have one they dont mess with me now.
          So it is a real deterrent to the bastard cowards. That is how I like it, a deterrent, (more scared of me than I am of them) so I dont actually have to use it on anyone.

          Biden says all I need is a shotgun. Well in the mountains at 100yds and more a shotgun is no good to me. And would leave me essentially defensless.
          Also I use it (assault rifle) for hunting in spite of what you have heard.

          Also I think the US may be entering a period of severe social unrest in the not too distant future if not nationally then regionally and locally. Think Katrina with roving gangs. So since I also hunt with my assault rifle, need it for self defense in the mountains, and want it in case of future turmoil in the US I dont want to give mine up. Also I think once we start banning and confiscating guns it will not stop until all guns are banned and then the bad guys win.

          Also, several of the mass killings have been done with hand guns – VT, Giffords, and others.

          All US statistics show that where gun ownership has increased violent crime has gone down. Look it up.
          Where bans have been done, violent crime is highest, think Chicago, & DC.

          Violent crime has been dropping steadily in the US since gun permitting was started(about 20 yr ago) – check it out.

        • DEFENDER88

          re the 2nd Amendment
          While the Supreme Court (in interpreting what the Amendment means) did confirm the right to individual ownership,
          I dont rely on the 2nd as much as I feel I have an inherent right to defend and protect myself from attack with equal or greater force.

      • jointerjohn

        So let me get this straight. You are saying that “many if not most people want all guns banned”, although that is clearly not what people claim at all and is unsupported by any polls or evidence, yet I’m the one who doesn’t understand? Amazing, utterly amazing.

        • DEFENDER88

          1st The subject was the NRA. And people in here could not understand why anyone even gun owners could support them. And were convinced that they would no longer get any support.

          So I was trying to explain why many gun owners still support the NRA even though they may not agree with all their positions.
          It is because they along with the County Sheriffs are about the only ones who are fighting gun bans.

          Since I dont support any gun bans I am surprised that you are surprised my experience in here has been different from yours.

          What I was trying to say was – A lot of people and *many* if not most people *in here* want a gun ban.
          That could be exaggerated some but not by much.
          But you dont get the hate mail on this issue that I do either.
          No they dont *claim it* because it runs into basic and fundamental rights to self defense not to mention the 2nd Amendment and they know there would be a BIG backlash. But if you read enough in here you can get a pretty good feeling of the predominent disdane and often even hatred for guns and gun owners. Legal or not.
          Even so, I have seen numerous calls for gun bans in here especially assault rifles.
          Of course this is a predominently left wing/progressive site. So I expect it in here.
          I have been a dem myself all my life but balk when people want to confiscate my means of self defense I have a problem with it.

          On gun bans
          Diane Feinstein D – Has re-submitted her failed(in was done before and failed to have any effect) gun ban for a vote in congress and it includes a confiscation section in it.
          It is being considered now in congress.
          And it has a lot of support – out West, the NE and the big cities.
          I expect it would work about as well as it did before, it had no effect on crime and killing. I expect it to work about as well as the gun bans in Chicago and DC – murder central since they banned guns there. They just dont work in this country.
          I expect it to work about as well as Gun Free Zones have worked.

          We can and should find other ways to stop the killing.
          Work together on it??? What a novel concept.
          But not as long as responsible, legal, gun owners are demonized like in here.
          And I have thoughts on what actually does have a good chance to stop the killing.
          Which I want as much if not more that anyone else in here.
          So I keep trying .

          • jointerjohn

            Good for you. Promote the work together for real solutions concept, and I’ll be with you all the way. I personally suspect that many of these headline cases of mass murder are traceable not to guns, but to a shift in childrearing and schooling which took place in the 1970s. When I was still a very young man in those days I witnessed a shift away from training youngsters in a very important concept: YOU CANNOT ACT ON EVERY EMOTIONAL IMPULSE YOU FEEL. I was raised by parents from the Great Depression and they instilled in me restraint and coping skills. My teachers did the same. We sat down in class, shut our mouths and faced forward. It was OK to become angry, but not OK to act out of that anger in anyway we pleased. If any of my teachers disciplined me, my father would never take my side and sue the District or the School Board! He would send the teacher flowers and thank her! Your thoughts on this theory?

          • DEFENDER88

            Now you are talking. And there is merit to what you are saying. And it is part of a bigger problem that I think I have identified as one of the Causal Factors(Root Causes) of these killings in Schools especially. Back when I was in HS (61-65)this crap did not happen. What has changed since then? For one thing – if you acted bad enough to have to be drugged you were put away where you could not hurt anyone else. Now these “young men” are self medicated at home with these new designer Anti-Depressants, go crazy, head to school and shoot eveyone in sight.
            On top of that we got so “Progressive” that we felt we did not need Armed Security in Gun Free Zones. Another good Progressive idea gone horribly wrong.

            Most of the killing is being done by young white men on an anti-depressant. They are typically “gifted” students but have trouble relating to others and get diagnosed with some form of depression, given a subscription and sent home with it.
            And guess what happens then???
            They spend a lot of time planning and practicing what damage they want to do.
            Playing violent video war games, etc. Go to school and kill every one is sight.

            I started seeing this trend and putting forward this theory a while back but have not gotten many in here to listen because they are concentrating so hard on assault rifles and the NRA to listen to anything else that may be the actual cause of the killing.

            So today I looked up the record of some of the killings and the drug they were on and the weapons used. Note also NONE of the below were done with an assault rifle.

            I have been arguing that the assault rifle is not the real problem.
            But get called every name in the book for even thinking such a thing.
            I do think some stricter rules etc should be in place to keep them out of people hands who should not have them but not ban them since they are used extensively in sport, for hunting and self defense – in spite of what is said in here. ie the “rifle” is not the problem. Rifle crime is a small fraction of gun crime in the US(check it out).

            ps I am a competitive shooter. Fully permitted, FBI print checked. Highly trained, etc.
            Often practice with police and some special forces and SWAT people.

            My point is so much effort is being spent on banning assault rifles and the NRA that people are missing the real root problems. And thus real workable solutions.

            Also note the dramatic increase in school shootings from the 1980’s to the 1990’s.
            That is about the time we emptied all the assylums, institutions etc.
            And came up with these new designer anti-depressants and started medicating people at home.

            So what do you think about this?
            Seems to me banning assault rifles is a knee jerk, emotional reaction. Understandable as it may be, it will have little real effect on stopping the killing. That is what we should be thinking about how do is it not?

            School Condition Drug Weapon Killer/Age Killed
            ———— ————– ————— ———– ————- ——-
            1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun Male 17 12 killed

            2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 16 9 killed

            2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol Male 23 32 killed

            2008 N. Ill Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 27 5 killed

            2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol Male 17 15 killed

            # of School Shootings in USA
            1960’s 1
            1970’s 5
            1980’s 3
            1990’s 15
            2000’s 19
            2010’s 5 (so far)

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
    —————~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZYLS3QMN3LXPGQNQHSSR5Y4YDA Lee

    I have more respect for my dead dog than I do for the NRA President. He is an embarrassment to humanity. But he gets very well paid. His money is more important than lives. As much as he tries to polish his speeches before Congress or in front of the American people, there are some stains which will never be erased, the color are those stains is coffin. Let him answer to the Lord.

  • smilelaugh

    How anyone can listen to this man and think he has everyones best interest is blind. This man is out for the almight dollar no matter who it hurts

  • bchrista

    Hey Defender I am a person that believes that a persons rights are protected by the Constitution so if you feel that you can’t live in this life without a gun go for it buddy I won’t put you down for it but, people keep talking about all the tests and licencing and putting a time limit on how often you need to be tested and that’s great but what you or nobody can test is human nature a person that test perfectly today can go on a rampage tomorrow and kill a half a dozen people and what test predicted this, you don’t have to be mentally unstable for this to happen all it takes is the right cercumstances and someone can go on a killing rage, a fight with his wife, a fight with his boss , the loss of his job for what he feels unjustifible reasons and the list goes on, how do you tell when that will happen. A gun is only a means to an end if the gun was not there then probably he would have just gone to some bar gotten drunk and then home to sleep it off, but the fact that he has access to a weapon makes it different, he’s going to show them assholes a thing or two it has happened time and time again. No one can forsee the future if there was this would be a different world but alas we are only human, I for one wouldn’t own a gun because I know If someone fucked with me and I had a gun handy that person would be in a whole lot of trouble because I’ve always said that I would not wear an ass whipping needlessly if I had the means to prevent it and I know there are a lot of people that think like I do, so lets cut out the bullshit a gun does not belong in anybodys hands except to shoot something or someone, this would be a better world if all guns were melted down and the material used for making something useful but, don’t worry nobody wants to take your gun in fact I propose a law that everybody that wants a gun should get one that’s the main theme of the NRA, LaPiere proposed that so that everybody would be safe at home. Frankly I would be in favor if every one could wear a side holster like in the Old West the we could have more OK Corrals or shoot outs in the middle of the streets like in the Old West. That is the only thing that’s missing, since Newtown shooting have increased two fold at least two or three a day I guess the message is lets get this done before they take all the weapons away, or maybe we should have a points system whereby you get so many points for everyone you shoot, wouldn’t that be neat? There will never be an effective gun law until you take the profit out of it, LaPeire, the gun manufactor, the people that sell them elegally on the street, why do away with a system that produces millions of dollars you can’t kill the Goose that lays the Golden Egg.

    • DEFENDER88

      omit

    • DEFENDER88

      You are right about 1 thing, you should not be a gun owner.
      If you have such violent tendencies and let other people control your emotions so easily.

      The objective IS to stop or at least limit the killing is it not?
      Or is it to just ban guns so you can feel good about having done “something” whether it works or not?
      So is that your true objective/agenda?

      Some real solutions that can actually make a difference:

      1) Provide Armed security in all gun free zones.
      Gun Free Zones – another good “progressive” idea gone horrible wrong.
      It would take an absolute blind fool (Or someone who has a different agenda all together.) to not recognize that the crazies are targeting these areas because they are “gun free” so no fear of being challenged or stopped.
      Can you say “unintended consequences”?

      2) Do something about these young men who are put on anti-depressants at home then go crazy and kill everyone in sight. Stop feeding them drugs at home or lock them away or something. Most of the killing has been done by young white men on anti-depressants.
      When I grew up, this sh-t did not happen. If you needed to be put on drugs you were locked away where you could not hurt anyone else. Now they are self-medicated at home then go to school and kill everyone in sight.
      Another good “progressive” idea gone horribly wrong.
      Can you say “unintended consequences”?

      3) A gun ban will also have similar “unintended consequences”.
      Like in Chicago and DC ie gun ban murder central – now there is a gun ban model we should take nation wide.

  • JSquercia

    Based on the NRA’s Success rate in the last election I wouldn’t be too worried

  • jointerjohn

    We need all remember that 9/11/01 was a “Faith Based Initiative”. Need I say more?

  • jointerjohn

    You nailed it brilliantly Pattreid! For some here their right to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits, their right to their own bodies and personal family decisions, the right to marry who they choose free of ignorant and archaic religious superstitions, ignore an unbalanced international trade which is starving the working class, and voting rights go up in a puff of smoke as soon as you suggest that we might sanely and thoughtfully limit their ability to purchase and own some big old replacement “man parts”. There are a lot of frightened little “thumb-dicks” here who will flush away their jobs, their daughters, their retirements and all else just so they can cling to their phallic replacements from Smith & Wesson. Just want you to know not all we men are that pathetic.

  • DEFENDER88

    Now you are talking. And there is merit to what you are saying. And it is part of a bigger problem that I think I have identified as one of the Causal Factors(Root Causes) of these killings in Schools especially. Back when I was in HS (61-65)this crap did not happen. What has changed since then? For one thing – if you acted bad enough to have to be drugged you were put away where you could not hurt anyone else. Now these “young men” are self medicated at home with these new designer Anti-Depressants, go crazy, head to school and shoot eveyone in sight.
    On top of that we got so “Progressive” that we felt we did not need Armed Security in Gun Free Zones. Another good Progressive idea gone horribly wrong.

    Most of the killing is being done by young white men on an anti-depressant. They are typically “gifted” students but have trouble relating to others and get diagnosed with some form of depression, given a subscription and sent home with it.
    And guess what happens then???
    They spend a lot of time planning and practicing what damage they want to do.
    Playing violent video war games, etc.

    I started seeing this trend and putting forward this theory a while back but have not gotten many in here to listen because they are concentrating so hard on assault rifles and the NRA to listen to anything else that may be the actual cause of the killing.

    So today I looked up the record of some of the killings and the drug they were on and the weapons used. Note also NONE of the below were done with an assault rifle.

    I have been arguing that the assault rifle is not the real problem.
    But get called every name in the book for even thinking such a thing.
    I do think some stricter rules etc should be in place to keep them out of people hands who should not have them but not ban them since they are used extensively in sport, for hunting and self defense – in spite of what is said in here. ie the “rifle” is not the problem. Rifle crime is a small fraction of gun crime in the US(check it out).

    ps I am a competitive shooter. Fully permitted, FBI print checked. Highly trained, etc.
    Often practice with police and some special forces and SWAT people.

    My point is so much effort is being spent on banning assault rifles and the NRA that people are missing the real root problems. And thus real workable solutions.

    Also note the dramatic increase in school shootings from the 1980’s to the 1990’s.
    That is about the time we emptied all the assylums, institutions etc.
    And came up with these new designer anti-depressants and started medicating people at home.

    So what do you think about this?
    Seems to me banning assault rifles is a knee jerk, emotional reaction. Understandable as it may be, it will have little real effect on stopping the killing. That is what we should be thinking about how do is it not?

    School Condition Drug Weapon Killer/Age Killed
    ——– ———— ————– ————— ———– ——-
    1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun Male 17/18 12
    2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 16 9
    2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol Male 23 32
    2008 N. Ill Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 27 5
    2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol Male 17 15

    # of School Shootings in USA
    1960’s 1
    1970’s 5
    1980’s 3
    1990’s 15
    2000’s 19
    2010’s 5 (so far)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/U4WYPFY5L7YMSWCYS3D2FHIBKU HATIMK

    Every normal and patriotic American is hating NRA I define as ” NO RIFLE ATTITUDE” OR “NO REPUBLICAN ATTITUDE” NRA should be abolished on this earth. Have a peace on earth. It had become Global problem. Those countries including Pakistan learning from America to shoot their own people. If you love America and its Citizens then kick-out NRA on this land. Support Obama and patriotic Americans. It seems Republican endorsing more Gun Lovers as they lost the election. I have nothing against Good Republicans. I voted Reagan and Sr. Bush as a President. WAKE UP AMERICA burn your guns and join the PEACE and save innocent children, women and men.
    Stop those Gun Magazines.

scroll to top