Your taxes at work for the NRA | Detroit Free Press

[MinM]

http://www.freep.com/article/20090708/OPINION01/907080316/Your+taxes+at+work+for+the+NRA+(and+Cox)

When he isn't running for governor, Mike Cox is Michigan's attorney general. And it was in his capacity as the state's top law enforcement officer that Cox announced with considerable fanfare Tuesday that his office has filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a strict gun control ordinance in Chicago.

If you are wondering how a man with two full-time jobs has time to worry about what local officials in Illinois are up to, the press release issued by the AG's office ("Cox Joins NRA in Fight against Chicago Gun Ban") provides a clue.

Get it? Michigan's attorney general (did we mention he's running for governor?) is backing the National Rifle Association, which has the political clout to make or break gubernatorial wannabes like Cox and isn't afraid to use it, in its valiant fight against Chicagoans who want fewer handguns in their city.

And just to show he's not afraid to put your money where his political interests lie, Cox is deploying the AG's own taxpayer-supported staff to do it...

[baldguy]

1. NRA=GOP

If anyone had any doubt...

[MinM]

11. NRA Ad: Shoot Obama Before He Steals Your Guns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x195967

I thought the NRA was non-partisan. :sarcasm:

[Paladin]

28. Thanks For The Link.

It's worth throwing back at those DU gun obsessives who talk from time to time about what a warm and inviting organization the NRA is---but they'll just do the usual thing and say that the blatant lying and macho posturing in that God-awful ad is all the Democrats' fault. (Google "NRA Comic Book" for another look at just how friendly the NRA is towards liberals....)

[JonQ]

2. Oh those damn civil rights

and groups dedicated to protecting them.

The NRA, NAACP, NOW, ACLU, toss out the lot of 'em.

[baldguy]

5. States & local govts have the right to regulate firearms with the consent of their citizens.

The fed govt, or the govt of another state has no standing to challenge those regulations.

And if you think the corporate-from, Republican-backed, rightist NRA is a civil rights organization, then your have serious issues in your perception of reality.

[DonP]

7. Actually, no they don't

Local and State tegulations can not infringe on constitutional rights. Just ask your "states rights" hero George Wallace how that worked out for him.

But you'd rather pretend that Heller never happened, just like George wanted to ignore Brown v. Board of Education

We get it, you hate and fear guns and loathe gun owners. But what you "Feel" is totally irrelevant to the law as it stands.

Now go start petitions to just repeal the 2nd amendment and keep us posted on how that's working for you.

[Paladin]

10. Even Scalia Said Reasonable Regulations Were Permissible Under The 2nd.

Probably the only fragment of the Heller decision that wasn't a gift-wrapped blessing upon the gun militancy movement in this country......

[DonP]

13. They also said to the DC team, "What's reasonable about a complete ban?"

That's what we have in Chicago now. A complete ban on all handguns, except for the wealthy and well connected politically and our aldercritters.

The question in the NRA v. Chicago case is striking down an obviously failed two decade long complete handgun ban and an annual registration requirement for all long guns.

From this decision we may get a better definition of the level of scrutiny. My guess is that's why Jerry Brown in CA signed on to the Amicus Brief, some defined regulations that might save some of CA's more onerous gun laws.

So all of a sudden you are a big fan and quoting Fat Tony? Interesting.

[baldguy]

17. "Fear" guns? No.

Though I do fear the sick morons who think their guns are more important than their fellow humans. Thats what all the "gun rights" bullshit is all about.

[DonP]

18. Thanks for proving my point in such obvious fashion

You could have fooled me, you sound pretty angry and fearful of guns and gun owners, Otherwise you'd just ignore us.

As what you would term one of those "sick morons", here's the deal like it or not, my real world right to protect myself, home and family trumps your imaginary right to "Feel" safe or feel anything else for that matter. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it but complain.

But, thankfully your kind of retrograde thinking is rapidly dwindling in the overall population, in the Democrat party and the judiciary as well.

But the fair and fun part for both of us is that ... we get to own, carry and use our guns lawfully and you get to whine about it as much as you want.

That covers two major amendments at once. Ain't the Constitution and BoR grand?

[Paladin]

19. It's The "Democratic" Party, Sport.

This is a Democratic site, in case you haven't noticed. Referring to the party as "Democrat" is what the Republicans and other drooling right-wingers do. This speaks volumes as to your true feelings and affiliations---and "retrograde" is a useful term, there.....

[baldguy]

20. The simplest mistakes expose them.

[DonP]

22. Wow, 50+ years working for the party in the 19th ward in Chicago and you caught me!

I'd expect you to recognize a "simple thing" since you seem to get so much of it in the mirror every day.

I'll make sure and have them change all the signs at the state fair and Millennium Park that say "Democrat Day" at every entrance. They will all be so ashamed that you caught all of us.

I'll be sure and let the local party people know that the official "Online Democrat Police" told me we're all GOP phonies.

I'll call it whatever I damn well please you sniveling little losers. Let me know when you've done as much for your local party, and had as much success as we have here, and you might have a right to be a jerk about it.

But its typical, nothing to say about the facts just a crappy little gotcha. Must really be frustrating to be on the losing side of this issue.

We feel your pain, but we'll all keep all our guns and rights, thanks anyway.

[Paladin]

24. Don't Go Away Mad.....

[caraher]

32. "Democrat Day" is actually correct

Each person in the party is (noun) a Democrat. If the day is in honor of "Democrats" then "Democrat Day" is appropriate.

By contrast, when "party" is the noun you need an adjective. "Democratic" is the adjective that modifies the noun "Party." "Democrat Party" is the linguistic equivalent of referring to a spicy meatball as a "spice meatball."

[Paladin]

36. I Stand By My Comments.

I was referring to a clear instance of the word "Democrat" connected to the word "party" (and the "p" in "Party" should have been capitalized, as well). Look at the third paragraph of post #18. That particular use of the word "Democrat" was adopted as a sign of disrespect by the right-wingers a number of years ago, and it deserves to be pointed out in a Democratic forum......

[caraher]

39. Right

I was directing my comments toward the purported counterexample of the "Democrat Day" sign, on the chance that we had a real Democrat who did not get why it should always be "Democratic Party." In my rural, "red state" location it's not uncommon to see local Dems - actual Democrats - who unthinkingly go along with the slur. I've even seen a sign reading "Democrat Headquarters" in the local party office window.

[JonQ]

8. Just like they have the right to regulate who gets to vote,

what dissenting speech can be censored, when "due process" is appropriate and when it can be tossed out, what official religion is appropriate for the masses and so on.

:sarcasm: (obviously)

States rights don't trump basic freedoms.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. You can not be serious that states are allowed to regulate Federal rights

Substitute abortion, race, or gender for guns and see if you like what you see.

[Historic NY]

3. So isn't he interfering in another states sovereignty...

doesn't the RW claim that.

[Recursion]

4. One day, our party will get over its obsession with and misunderstanding of guns

Until then, we'll keep being on the wrong side of this debate

[Paladin]

12. Helpful Definition.

"Wrong side of this debate": The side that doesn't include Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Wayne Lapierre, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, the overwhelmingly right-wing gun rights movement in this country, and the vast portion of regulars in the DU Guns forum.

If you DU gun obsessives spent even half the time you waste here trashing Democrats in trying to persuade all the Republicans you undoubtedly hang out with that being a Democrat and owning firearms aren't mutually exclusive, you'd be taken seriously around here. But you don't do you? It's always 110% the Democrats' fault, isn't it? Nothing new here, move along.....

[Recursion]

14. I live in Boston. I don't think I know any Republicans here

Nice try, though.

[TheWraith]

16. Actually, most of those people don't give a shit about gun rights.

Bush and Cheney particularly were never really friends of gun owners.

Anyway by your logic, nobody can ever support environmentalism or animal rights because that would put them on the same side as the nutcases at ELF/ALF and PETA. Leave the black-and-white thinking to the wingnuts, okay?

On edit: Cheney is also in favor of gay rights. Does that mean everybody who's in favor of gay rights is "on Cheney's side"?

[Paladin]

21. Gun Rights Are Overwhelmingly Skewed To The Right In This Country

Claiming otherwise is to ignore plain and long-standing evidence. You say Cheney was never really friendly toward gun owners? I guess the NRA just fucked up that year they gave him the honorary "From My Cold Dead Hands" flintlock at their convention.

And spare me the PETA comparisons, OK? There is no middle ground as far as the gun militancy movement is concerned; go down to the DU Guns forum at any given time and and you might as well be in Free Republic. Christ, they're even trying to portray the Appleseed Project as a wholesome organization, right now. The fun just never stops...

[TheWraith]

23. Not really. Try looking at the middle and the labor left.

The political organizations like the NRA break down that way because the left has gotten saddled with the gun-control people, and so the gun groups get taken over by Republicans. But gun rights as a whole are a pretty broad issue. Why do you think we got slaughtered in 1994? The AWB and the promise of lots more anti-gun legislation led to a lot of working class, particularly blue-collar union, folks abandoning the party or staying home. Your belief that no true Democrat or anybody but a right-wing psychotic would ever own or use a gun is bubble-thinking at best. It's "But everybody I know voted for McGovern!"

I know a guy, a fairly high ranking member of the Working Families Party in NY. If you don't know them, they're basically our local equivalent of the Green Party. He's high up in a group that the Republicans like to think of as the next best thing to the Communist Party, and he's also avidly pro-gun-rights. He's not the only pro-gun leftist I know either. It may not be the case for you, but guns are a reality of life for a great many Americans, whether like me they're out in the boondocks, or just people who want the option of defending themselves. Failing to understand and accept that is what alienates particularly the rural and ex-urban people from the "big city liberals." It's what leaves us open to being tagged as "elitist" and "gun grabbers." Nobody's asking YOU to own a gun, we're just asking that you respect the rights of others who choose to.

Show me what Bush and Cheney did for gun owners. I'll show you what they didn't do: they didn't lift the import bans. They didn't repeal the AWB. They didn't nationalize concealed carry. They didn't fix the ATF's US parts requirements. I can't honestly think of one thing that they or any of the neocon nutjobs did to support gun owners. The only thing Cheney did do to merit an award was bringing more awareness to the issue of target safety. Bush, Cheney, and most of the other people you listed didn't give a flying fuck about the rights of average Americans when it comes to guns or anything else.

And yeah, thank you for showing that irrational black and white thinking isn't limited to the wingnuts. If you can't tell the difference between DUers you disagree with and Freepers, then you need to step back and reevaluate your opinions.

[Paladin]

25. Gun Ownership Is Broadly Based In This Country

The gun rights movement, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly and obviously right wing. That's a distinction that you gun militants never get tired of obscuring. You even have a snotty little moniker for gun owners who don't see the issue your way: "Fudds." (After the classic Elmer Fudd "Kill The Wabbit" cartoon.)That term is scornfully applied to people who by-and-large own traditionally-styled firearms and who have no problem with backing measures intended to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. I happen to be a "Fudd" myself, guns and all; I consider the term to be an honor. And I didn't vote for McGovern, either. Looks like stereotypes cut both ways, here.

And in spite of the gun rights movement's most fervent wishes (expressed repeatedly in the DU Gun Dungeon), the influence of the guns issue in this past election was exactly dick. Nada. Nothing. Believe it or not, there are a few other things that people are concerned with, these days: the gutted economy, foreign wars, health care---you know, pissy little things like that, somehow deflecting attention from the almighty 2nd Amendment.

And we're all choked up, reading your laundry list of how Cheney/Bush didn't come across for you gun militants in so many ways. I guess it had to be disappointing, considering that quote from the NRA officer that it was going to be like having an office right there in the White House---not to mention all the time and effort that gun militants put into smearing the reputations of good men like Al Gore and John Kerry. I'd like to say we feel your pain, but I'm just not that big a liar.

I guess it's just a lot easier for you, hanging around DU and sniping at all the mean, nasty, elitist, big-city liberal, gun-grabbing Democrats about gun policy. Did you ever consider spending a portion of that time persuading some conservative gun enthusiasts that firearms ownership and being a Democrat aren't mutually exclusive? Bonus points for an honest answer.....

[Doctor_J]

27. Anyone who can see the video linked in post 11, and not understand

that the NRA is part of the enemy, really needs a reality check.

[TheWraith]

29. Gun ownership and belief in being able to own guns usually go together.

"The gun rights movement, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly and obviously right wing."

That'll be news to the many pro-gun-rights Democrats and hard leftists I know.

"That term is scornfully applied to people who by-and-large own traditionally-styled firearms and who have no problem with backing measures intended to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics."

Strawman much? EVERYBODY supports "keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics." As much as you'd like to paint everybody who doesn't favor randomly banning modern weapons as a psychopath, the fact is that you're not going to find any serious gun owner who doesn't approve of things like background checks, safety requirements, mental health restrictions, etcetera.

And the "disdain" for traditionally styled firearms is no more serious than the "disdain" that people who own old-style firearms--like me--have for the users of ugly black nylon. It's a Chevy versus Ford thing.

"And I didn't vote for McGovern, either."

You don't get the reference. There's a famous anecdote about somebody at the campaign HQ on election night, after the results were announced, commenting to others: "But how could McGovern lose? Everyone I know voted for him!" It refers to the fact that somebody is making the mistake of believing that the people they know are representative of the entire population. In this case, just because you don't know people who are both Democrats and pro-gun-rights, doesn't mean they aren't there. Again, I say this: go into a union shop, and ask the guys working there how many of them own guns.

"And in spite of the gun rights movement's most fervent wishes (expressed repeatedly in the DU Gun Dungeon), the influence of the guns issue in this past election was exactly dick. Nada. Nothing."

Because people voted their own interests, the way it's SUPPOSED to work, instead of us garrotting ourselves on a losing issue. Think for a minute about how life in this country would be if we hadn't nearly killed our party in 1994 over self-destructive nonsense (healthcare and guns), Clinton had never been hounded, and thus the tired electorate hadn't turned to a folksy near-retard.

"I guess it had to be disappointing, considering that quote from the NRA officer that it was going to be like having an office right there in the White House"

Wow, the NRA leadership consists of nutbars. This is news?

"not to mention all the time and effort that gun militants put into smearing the reputations of good men like Al Gore and John Kerry."

Doesn't seem to me that Democrats ever need much help hurting outselves, though again, guns weren't the defining problem of those campaigns. I wonder though, what the last couple elections would have looked like if Gore or Kerry had reconnected with their gun-owning roots a little and showed some of the hundred million gun owners in this country that they didn't need to be afraid to vote for them.

"I guess it's just a lot easier for you, hanging around DU and sniping at all the mean, nasty, elitist, big-city liberal, gun-grabbing Democrats about gun policy. Did you ever consider spending a portion of that time persuading some conservative gun enthusiasts that firearms ownership and being a Democrat aren't mutually exclusive? Bonus points for an honest answer....."

Frequently. But thanks anyway for the smear job. Perhaps you should actually check out what gun owners talk about between themselves. I happened to be reading a thread on another site talking about the proposed law to ban people on the no-fly list from buying guns. The discussion that resulted was a near unanimous smackdown of not just the proposed law but also the no-fly list itself and the Bush administration's unconstitutional conduct, with only one right-wing libertarian chiming in to gripe about Democrats.

[Paladin]

30. You Didn't Have To Expend All That Time And Effort In A Response.

A simple "All of it is the Democrats' fault" would have covered it.....

[TheWraith]

34. I'm glad to see you can't rebut any of my points.

And thanks also for proving that you didn't bother to read a damn word of what I wrote.

[Paladin]

38. So Shoot Me..... (n/t)

[MicaelS]

31. You're a Fudd, IF

You think the only justification for gun ownership is hunting. Fudds don't care about any other gun legislation as long as their hunting guns aren't restricted. Given that that hunters are a minority of gun owners in this country, and grower smaller as the years pass, most gun owners have guns for self / home defense. You can denigrate the "gun militants" all you want, but it hasn't been the political action of the Fudds in this country that has gotten nationwide concealed carry passed in this country. Without, I might add, the "rivers of blood in the streets" that so many anti-gun people claimed would occur.

[Paladin]

37. As If I'm Going To Accept The Definition Of A Word From A Gun Militant.

It's gun militants that are a minority in the vast number of gun owners in this country. And the term "Fudd" covers a lot more ground than just hunters. It includes people like me, who used to be active in the shooting sports but who now do other things (my thing happens to be fly fishing), because of the direction shooting sports seem to be headed, now. Take a look at the DU Guns forum on any given day: hardly anything but pistols and military-styled rifles being discussed---firearms designed to kill human beings, and yet treated with all the solemnity of participation in a first-person shooter game on a laptop. Right wing political views, the benefits of openly carrying pistols for all to see, an endless series of threads giving spittle-flecked details of people shooting other people. And all that, in a Democratic site. My guns are gathering dust in a closet because I no longer want to be identified as an active participant in shooting activities; I just wouldn't like the sort of company I'd have to keep. I'm a Fudd, and I'm proud of it.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. YOUR "traditionally-styled weapons" were designed to kill human beings

Seems you didn't mind using the "military-styled" guns you liked:

Lever-action rifles: First wide use was by units of the Union Army (Spencer and Henry rifles), and later used on Native Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever_action

The first significant lever-action design was the Spencer repeating rifle, a magazine-fed lever-operated breech-loading rifle designed by Christopher Spencer in 1860. It was fed from a removable seven-round tube magazine, enabling the rounds to be fired one after another, and which, when emptied, could be exchanged for another. Over 20,000 were made, and it was adopted by the United States and used during the American Civil War, marking the first adoption of a removable-magazine-fed infantry-and-cavalry rifle by any country.

Bolt-action rifles: Mauser design, used to kill millions in the first half of the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_action

From the late 19th century, all the way through both World Wars, the bolt-action rifle was the standard infantry firearm for most of the world's militaries.

Pump-action shotguns: Google "trench gun".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun

Shotguns were used by US Marines in the Philippines insurrections and by General "Black Jack" Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa, but the modern concept of the combat shotgun was fully developed by the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I. The trench gun, as it was called, was a short-barreled pump action shotgun loaded with six rounds containing antimony hardened 00 buckshot, and equipped with a bayonet. The M1897 and M1912 also could be "slam-fired": the weapon having no trigger disconnector, shells could be fired one after the other simply by working the slide if the trigger was held down. The shotguns proved effective enough to elicit a diplomatic protest from the German government, claiming the shotguns caused excessive injury, and that any troops found in possession of them would be subject to execution. The US Government rejected the claims, and threatened reprisals in kind if any US troops were executed for possession of a shotgun. There is no evidence that the Germans carried out their threat, and that was the only challenge to the military legality of the shotgun.

The shotgun was also well suited for house-to-house fighting. An example of this effectiveness is an event from September 27, 1918. Sergeant Fred Lloyd, armed with a Winchester Model 1897 trench gun, single-handedly retook a German-held French village, routing 30 German soldiers.

The shotgun was used by Allied forces and Allied supported partisans in all theaters of combat in World War II, and both pump and semi-automatic shotguns are currently issued to all branches of the US military; they have also been used in subsequent conflicts by French, British, Australian, and New Zealand forces, as well as many guerrillas and insurgents throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Latin and South America, and Southeast Asia.<1> Six different model of shotgun were accepted in the US army during World War II, the most popular being the M97 and M1912.....

....In the jungle warfare during the Malayan Emergency, the British Army and local forces of Malaysia used shotguns to great effect due to limited space in the jungles and frequent close combat. In the Vietnam War, the shotgun was used as an individual weapon in the American army during jungle patrol and urban warfare like the Tet Offensive

"My guns are gathering dust in a closet because I no longer want to be identified as an active participant in shooting activities; I just wouldn't like the sort of company I'd have to keep. I'm a Fudd, and I'm proud of it....."

I didn't notice any cri de coeur from you suddenly embracing pacifism and animal rights, just a screed about
how Modern Gun Owners Are Not Your Sort of People At All.



You're not a Fudd, you're a reactionary. And more than a bit of a hypocrite.

[X_Digger]

33. "the influence of the guns issue in this past election was exactly dick. "

Riiiiiiiiiight..

[DonP]

6. So did 32 other states, including California

Are you suggesting that Jerry Brown and all those other AGs are GOP and NRA shills?

Or maybe they just read the Heller decision and realized Daley is full of crap and wasting millions of taxpayer $$$ fighting what will ultimately a losing battle?

[X_Digger]

15. Good!

We need incorporation and some level of scrutiny attached to interpretation of the second amendment regulation.

[R. P. McMurphy]

26. kick n/t

[Jackson1999]

35. Come on people-get some perspective!!

I am not from Michigan, but I am a Democrat, so I will trust you locals and assume that you are correct in that Cox is a douche. However.....

It really bugs me when people's ideology blinds them to what is a perfectly sane action. Michigonians (is that what you call yourselves?) should be THANKING Cox for filing this Amicus brief. There is a reason that both Democrat and Republican AGs (including California for chrissake!) have filed in support of incorporation-it prevents bad law from coming to your state.

You cannot call yourself a liberal, progressive, Democrat or whatever and be against incorporation of the 2nd Amendment or any other right outlined in the Constitution. It actually helps states righters by leveling the playing field, and preventing a situation like Chicago, that is run like its own little country. You should have the same rights in Detroit, as in Michigan, as in the US.