Haha...Kerry sends letters to NRA's blacklisted Americans.

[blm]

Below is letter he wrote to one of his supporters on the list, Jerry Seinfeld.

Kerry Stands Up to NRA's Divisive Agenda in Letter to Blacklisted Americans


October  30,  2003

Washington, DC-
Democratic candidate for President John Kerry wrote a letter to the hundreds of individuals, celebrities, authors, religious organizations, and businesses blacklisted by the NRA, to join him in standing up to the divisive agenda of the gun lobby and standing up for gun safety. 

In a letter to the many prominent Americans put on the NRA’s publicly advertised “anti-gun” list, Kerry said,  “The NRA’s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon’s enemies list. This blacklist is precisely the politics of division and distortion that have turned too many people away from participating in the process. We can’t let the NRA scare people into silence.  I know what it’s like to be targeted by the NRA, and I refuse to sit idly by during my campaign for the presidency while they push their divisive agenda on America and slander those who stand up for gun safety.”

Kerry also promised to continue his fight for gun safety during his campaign for the presidency: “Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren’t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital? I believe that standing up for gun safety is important, and I refuse to be a candidate who retreats from the issue out of political fear or one who tries to have it both ways.  I’m a hunter and a gun owner, but I’ve never gone hunting with an AK-47.  I’ll stand up to the NRA when they call law enforcement officers ‘jackbooted thugs’ or stand in the way of common sense efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and children. The Democratic Party will never be the choice of the NRA—and I’m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA.”

The full list of individuals being blacklisted by the NRA can be found on the website www.stopthenra.com  The Kerry campaign is also asking Americans to sign the petition started by the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom march and join the NRA’s blacklist. 

 Here is an example of the letter:
 
October 30, 2003
 
Jerry Seinfeld
Shapira/West Associates
141 El Camino Drive, #205
Beverly Hills, 90212

Dear Jerry Seinfeld,

 As I scanned the pages of the New York Times this morning, I couldn’t help but notice the new ads taken out by the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March to stop the NRA’s assaults on mainstream American values.  As you may know, the latest of these attacks features a blacklist with your name on it.
Though it is not surprising that the NRA would publicly advertise a 19-page list of individuals, celebrities, authors, religious organizations, and businesses it describes as “anti-gun,” it certainly is infuriating.  The NRA’s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon’s enemies list. This blacklist is precisely the politics of division and distortion that have turned too many people away from participating in the process. We can’t let the NRA scare people into silence. 

I know what it’s like to be targeted by the NRA, and I refuse to sit idly by during my campaign for the presidency while they push their divisive agenda on America and slander those who stand up for gun safety.

Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren’t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital? I believe that standing up for gun safety is important, and I refuse to be a candidate who retreats from the issue out of political fear or one who tries to have it both ways.  I’m a hunter and a gun owner, but I’ve never gone hunting with an AK-47.  I’ll stand up to the NRA when they call law enforcement officers ‘jackbooted thugs’ or stand in the way of common sense efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and children. The Democratic Party will never be the choice of the NRA—and I’m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA.

We can stand up for safety in America and keep guns out of the hands of children and felons and still respect the Second Amendment of our nation—and if the NRA wants to blacklist us for that position, then I am ready to wear it as a badge of honor. 

If you share my feelings, I ask you to join me in my campaign for the presidency, as I stand up for the values we hold dear, and a politics that elevates—not denigrates—the public discourse in America.
 
Warm Regards,
 
John Kerry

[sangh0]

1. Kick some ass, John!!

Hahahaha!

[blm]

2. Yeah, it is kinda funny, while being dead serious.

Seinfeld is already supporting Kerry, so, I expect that last line was meant for those undecideds on the NRA blacklist.

[slackmaster]

114. Yes, always take a firm stand on every lose/lose issue

Anything guaranteed to alienate one group of people or another.

It's the Democratic way.

:eyes:

[Frangible]

3. Common sense indeed

If it comes down to Kerry and Bush I'll still vote for Kerry but I'm swear I'm going to pimp-slap the next person who makes an "AK-47 for deer hunting" comment.

[cindyw]

4. Why not, it's true.

n/t

[Frangible]

9. Believe it or not

Deer are not mentioned in the second amendment. I've looked and looked, and I just can't find the word "deer" there. Perhaps you can help.

Everyone I know who hunts deer does not do it for meat. They do it for the pleasure of killing the animal.

I do not derive pleasure from killing animals, in fact I find it downright unpleasant. I have zero desire to go in the woods and kill cute woodland mammals.

Yet, I am a gun owner. Why should gun laws reflect what a bunch of people killing animals for pleasure want? That has nothing to do with anything, imo.

I'm not anti-hunting... if they want to hunt deer, that's there business, I just don't want any part of it.

I prefer using my guns to put holes in paper targets at a shooting range. But appearently that's a misuse of guns, since they obviously are only intended for killing animals for pleasure, and any use other than killing for pleasure isn't legitamate.

[Hep]

17. well

Everyone I know who hunts deer does not do it for meat. They do it for the pleasure of killing the animal.

You can amend your statement. My family hunts deer for meat. I know because I score some of it. And I make some MADD elk jerky.

Yet, I am a gun owner. Why should gun laws reflect what a bunch of people killing animals for pleasure want? That has nothing to do with anything, imo.

What is it you think they want? Because the animals killers I know just want to be able to kill animals. If you think hunting should be illegal, take it up with the parks and game commissions.

I prefer using my guns to put holes in paper targets at a shooting range. But appearently that's a misuse of guns, since they obviously are only intended for killing animals for pleasure, and any use other than killing for pleasure isn't legitamate.

Where did you get that idea? I don't know any hunters who don't also enjoy target shooting.

[Frangible]

25. woah woah

I never said hunting should be illegal. As I said, if they want to, that's fine, I just don't want a part of it.

The AK-47 - deer thing is exactly that, for some reason people think the only possible legal use for guns is killing animals.

I guess I should have taken up archery instead. Banning "assault compound bows" is a few years off still.

[Hep]

38. LOL

Damn those assault bows!

I got your point. Thanks.

[cindyw]

45. The most popular response by gun owners, is "I need my gun

for hunting'. The comment seeks to respond to that way of thinking. Not all gun owners have guns for hunting. There are a whole lot of reasons to address gun control, for safety reasons. I person using the AK-47 comment is not endorsing hunting deer. It is just directed at hunters.

By the way, I think hunting for sport is pretty sick.

[DoNotRefill]

53. Got a link for that?

I own many guns. I've never been hunting. The only animal I've ever killed jumped in front of my car.

I own my guns for SELF DEFENSE. Hunting is a dying sport, as areas suitable for hunting keep shrinking, and it's not nearly as "father-son bonding experience" as it used to be.

[cindyw]

55. Why would I have a link for a general cultural consensus?

Do have a link to prove that women like bad boys? People just say this. On tv, on conversations, in interviews.

I also don't understand why you are being defensive. You asked why people say the ak-47 thing and I gave you the reason. Because you don't claim to own a gun for this reason, doesn't mean others do.

I personally don't have guns. My children would be more likely to get killed by them than saved by them in a break in. many cope have them for self defense. I can understand that. If you live in a high crime area, I could also see them as SD.

[DoNotRefill]

65. there was once a general cultural consensus...

minorities shouldn't be allowed to vote, that doesn't right or accurate.

I live in a place where there are many hunters, yet most of the people I know who own guns own them for self-defense (part of the reason crime is so low here).

Instead of "general cultural consensus", shouldn't you call it what it is, "personal bias"?

[MrBenchley]

117. That concensus is stil prevalent among gun nuts

Trent Lott led a campus riot to keep blacks out of the U of Miss in the 1960s. In this century, he announced that we wouldn’t have "all these problems" if we still had Jim Crow. He's spent his career pushing the phony "gun rights" issue.

How about John AshKKKroft? Got his career started fighting integration in Kansas City…he’s been noticeably timid in protecting the rights of minorities, and notably gung-ho trampling the Constitution to punish them. Again, he’s not only pro-gun rights; he’s one of the shrillest and most strident proponents of the dishonest "individual rights" revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. He’s so pro-gun rights that he refused to let the FBI check to see if terrorists bought guns after 9/11.

Jesse Helms? The old turd used to scream that the UN was trying to ban gun ownership in the US to inflame his inbred supporters. Bob "C of CC" Barr? He’s on the board of the National Rifle Association.

And which side of the debate threw out an ignorant slur in Congress this year about all black people being drug addicts? The gun rights crowd, which at the time was trying to engineer immunity from liability for the corrupt gun industry.

What about that National Rifle Association? What’s their record on bigotry and tolerance? Well, it’s not so hot…
Outgoing president Charlton "Moses" Heston made big capital of the fact that he marched ONCE with Martin Luther King, Jr. But that didn’t stop him from making racial slurs in front of the far right wing Free Congress Foundation, nor did it stop him from calling for a lynch mob in Michigan in 2000.

But what about the other board members? Well, board member Ted Nugent spewed racial slurs during a radio interview in Denver earlier this year. What did the NRA do about this disgrace? Nothing.

Board member Jeff Cooper calls blacks orang-outangs in public. Several board members have ties groups like English First. Then there’s the publisher of Soldier of Fortune…who can forget all the stirring calls for brotherhood and racial tolerance in SOF magazine (snicker)?

But the NRA is just one group. What about other gun rights groups?

Well, about the next largest is Gun Owners of America…which is pretty much a goober named Larry Pratt. Larry is so racist that even Pat Buchanan had to back away from him in public.

[kmars]

78. Not sure who you are speaking too...

but my most common answer is because it is an individual right assured to me by the Second Amendment, and contraty to what the Brady Bunch has to say, the Supreme Court of the United States (the final word on what is and is not constitutional) has said so.

Read "Supreme Court Gun Cases" by Korwin, Halbrook and Kopel for a more clear understanding.

[drdigi420]

101. I dont use my gun for hunting

I use it to discourage road rage.

Something that is very necessary in the Atlanta area. There are people around this town that will intentionally slow down the left lane on the interstate, ignoring the "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" signs and causing a dangerous situation on the road because they think someone else is going too fast.

These people will cause an accident rather than let you pass. It's a childish, dangerous activity that needs to be stopped. But the only thing that seems to dissuade these safety nazis is the sight of a weapon. It's sad. But that's just how nasty our society has become.

People will actually cause dangerous situations just to slow someone else down. I know eventually I will have to protect myself from one of these people because they get EXTREMELY mad when I get around them. THATS why I have a gun.

BTW, I'm all for gun control, I control mine.

[Brian Sweat]

44. "And I make some MADD elk jerky."

Right now I am invisioning a pissed of elk roaming the woods with a serious nervous tick. :silly:

[Hep]

99. LOL

That was hilarious!

[Upfront]

36. For 50 years

I have hunted Deer, mainly for the meat. We eat it and think it is about the best meal going. Yes, I am glad to shoot a nice buck, but you can't eat the horns. If you want to lose another election then go big after guns.

[kwolf68]

52. OUTstanding post

Kerry and his "AK 47 deer hunting" palbum was garbage and always has been.

There is NO constitutional right to hunt. In fact, many Southern States have put hunting into their own constitutions; obviously, because they know its not a right.

The right to own and posses a gun does exist. Presumably it is there in case we have to overthrow our government and to protect freedom. Agree with that take or not, that's pretty much it in a simple nutshell.

Kerry is doing what I have accused Dean of doing: Playing both sides of the debate.

Kerry is "pro gun safety" while at the same time aligning himself with the pro-gun groups. Frankly, I don't care that Kerry hunts...What kind of legislation will he support?

[Monte Carlo]

61. The word "gun" isn't in there, either...

... so let's not get so grabby with the 2nd Amendment. Shooting paper targets is swell and everything, but let's not forget what some of these weapons were designed for. Anti-personnel weapons. We must be very, very careful about those who get their hands on these things.

[Hep]

5. WOW! He didn't mention Dean!

Won't be long before one of the Kerry camp does though.

Incidentally, Dean and Kerry have strikingly similar positions on gun contrl. Closing the loopholes. Enforcing the laws. Renewing the assault weapons ban. But all the while respecting the second amendment. Dean gets good marks from the NRA and Kerry doesn't. Why is that? What is the difference between the two positions that leads to this? Just that Kerry thinks that gun control should approached from the broadest possible perspective, federal gun control laws rather than a state by state basis?

Or is it that for Kerry, the NRA represents the enemy knowing he can score some votes if he rails against them every once in a while?

[Romulus]

8. Kerry

routinely touts his gettting a 100% approval rating from a group that wants to ban all private handgun possession in the US, and impose DC-style mandatory storage requirements that all other firearms be kept unloaded, dissassembled, and locked. (www.csgv.org)

Dean is also routinely "bashed" by the Brady Campaign, while they actively support Kerry - presumably because of what the CSGV endorsement implies.

Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice before.

[Frangible]

10. Kerry's backed off his anti-gun stance lately

But from a historical perspective his position is much more restrictive than Dean's. I think that explains why the various political groups support either.

[Uzybone]

11. But you did

n/t

[Hep]

18. very astute!

Well done, Mr. Holmes!

[mitchum]

51. No he didn't , but you did...

like any other noviate rattling off Hail Marys

[Hep]

100. Wow

You're right on top of things, only the second (of two) people to say the same thing.

Do you guys have walkie talkies, or do you just have an aversion to reading before you post?

[mitchum]

124. Wow! The drummer's reputation for witty repartee is no myth!

[Romulus]

6. quick question

Has anyone actually asked those people on the "blacklist" what their thoughts are on private firearms ownership?

Maybe some of them, if not many, are "anti-gun." The stupid "NRAblacklist" website and the Kerry letters seem to be premised on belief that those people/orgs are not hostile to private firearms ownership, including ownership for self-defense purposes.

I have read several editorials clamoring for their authors to be put on the list precisely because those authors want to ban private firearms ownership, and are miffed from being left out of the orgy.

[Hep]

7. I'm not on it

because I don't think that the NRA is as evil as others do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Well, if they are 'anti-gun' they surely won't be supporting Kerry

Increased Gun Safety: John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime.html

[sandnsea]

12. Gun owners support safe weapons

I don't know any who don't. If the few gun ranters really stepped away from the NRA rhetoric, they'd see most gun owners already practice what these laws would require. They keep their guns unloaded, they keep them locked up, and they use trigger locks more and more. There has always been records of gun purchases and they've always been available to the police.

And what is the deal with updating the banned weapons laws? How come our grandparents could figure out there was a difference between the guns they owned and sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and Saturday Night Specials used primarily for crimes? What's wrong with today's gun owner that they don't have as much common sense as our grandparents had on responsible gun ownership?

[Hep]

14. This is why the whole NRA thing is such an idiotic, political

crapfest.

ALL of the NRA members that I know are nothing more than responsible hunters. The NRA provides hunters safety courses. They teach people how to shoot, and how to properly maintain and store a weapon. If we had a second amendment and NO NRA, I'd be a lot more worried than I am right now.

As a political organization, the NRA is at constant odds with liberals, but why? The NRA gives a 100% to a man who favors the gun control legislation we have, and favors expanding it to close loopholes. So how can they becalled unreasonable rednecks? This is just more of that idiotic political grandstanding.

[sandnsea]

20. Odd conclusion

The NRA gives 100% to someone who favors gun control legislation that they fought every step of the way. He then spouts 'states' rights' and suddenly he's a good guy to the NRA. It is idiotic political grandstanding. Apparently the NRA is duped pretty easily too.

[JohnKleeb]

22. The NRA was respectable before Heston Ive been told

Promoting safety and not so idealogical.

[LeahMira]

28. You're right, John...

My Dad was an NRA member for most of his life. They promoted safety, training, and sponsored some marksmanship competitions way back when.

It's only been fairly recently that the NRA has hooked up with the folks who think they're going to defend their property when the liberal, socialists try to take it away from them. Hard to believe that some of these gun rights folks would kill a person who was trying to steal their TV set.

Plenty of people do hunt for food though. For instance... you don't think the Indians on the rez survive on commodities do you? And while I want nothing to do with shooting Bambi, I admit to being a total hypocrite because I do know where hamburgers come from. I also know they don't kill the cow with an AK-47.

I have to admit, though, that now that Shrub is in the White House, I'm reconsidering my position on guns in the house.

What can I say? :shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

32. Now its politcal and thats why I dont like it

Now of course on hunting, I respect that. I dont know about getting a gun, I am afraid of guns really in a way.

[Eloriel]

83. Uh, more like before Wayne LaPierre

If indeed there wasn't someone before him who took the organization to the far, far right.

Eloriel

[Hep]

40. yeah

Everyone who thinks objectively about Dean's position is a dupe. Thanks for that objective opinion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Revisionist history?

The NRA worked hard to defeat the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.

In fact, the NRA still opposes the Assault Weapons Ban:

(from the NRA website:)

Why does NRA oppose “assault weapon” laws?

There is no rational reason to restrict firearms as "assault weapons"-arguments for doing so are founded on emotion, not fact.

State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that firearms arbitrarily defined as "assault weapons" have never been used to commit more than a minute fraction of violent crimes. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the author of the federal "assault weapons" law, admitted this fact before the law was passed, and a study mandated by Congress determined: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."

"Assault weapons" have been incorrectly portrayed as being entirely different from other firearms. Despite their appearance, they operate like any other semi-automatic firearm, use the same ammunition as other firearms, and possess no feature or characteristic not available on other firearms. They are widely used for a variety of legitimate purposes.
http://www.nraila.org/Faqs.asp?FormMode=Call&LinkType=Section&Section=18

I personally would never call anyone "unreasonable rednecks" even if that's what I thought. But the fact is the NRA is an extremist organiazation that has historically opposed any and all gun restrictions.

[Romulus]

27. what about this point?

Assault weapons" have been incorrectly portrayed as being entirely different from other firearms. Despite their appearance, they operate like any other semi-automatic firearm, use the same ammunition as other firearms, and possess no feature or characteristic not available on other firearms. They are widely used for a variety of legitimate purposes.

That is why the AWB needs to go. It's public policy based on hooey, that does nothing but set a precedent for banning all the other deadly firearms (you know, "the ones that shoot bullets") simply because some politicians "feel like it."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. I agree that both you and the NRA are opposed to the AWB

and that is MY point. LOL

[sandnsea]

34. Nonsense

There's been bans on certain weapons for decades. Why do you choose to throw out the alarmist rhetoric the right uses to divide this country? Do you want one of YOUR guns to be the one that kills a 5 year old? Why don't you join the efforts to make gun laws reflect the reality of the guns used in crimes, instead of joining in with those whose vote-pandering continues to put kids in danger?

[Romulus]

42. *Legitimate* bans on certain weapons

based on what they do, not on how they look. That's why machine guns & genuine assault rifles (both not affected by the AWB) and cannons (not affected by AWB) are tightly regulated, but even those are not flat-out banned.

There's been bans on certain weapons for decades. Why do you choose to throw out the alarmist rhetoric the right uses to divide this country? Do you want one of YOUR guns to be the one that kills a 5 year old?

The only thing my firearms have in common with "guns that kill 5 year olds" is that they both fire bullets. :eyes: That's why they're next on "the list."

And it's not alarmist if it's true. Look at the UK, AUS, CAN and NYC, Chicago, DC & CA for examples of gun banning after gun control incrementalism reached the "end game" being sought all along by organizations which are the pattern-setter for the likes of CSGV, MMM & The Brady Campaign.

[sandnsea]

47. Just being an alarmist

I don't know why you would want to go to alarmism when you have the opportunity to be rational and propose various weapons bans based on what weapons DO. And if your guns are stolen, it doesn't matter what kind they are, they can be used to kill a kid. Or if you sell them at a gun show, and that person sells them to a disreputable gun dealer or a criminal, then your gun can kill a kid. You can either be part of the solution, or part of the problem. Right now, the way I see it, you're part of the problem.

[Romulus]

48. thank you for clarifying your position

Private firearms ownership = "part of the problem."

And if your guns are stolen, it doesn't matter what kind they are, they can be used to kill a kid. Or if you sell them at a gun show, and that person sells them to a disreputable gun dealer or a criminal, then your gun can kill a kid. You can either be part of the solution, or part of the problem. Right now, the way I see it, you're part of the problem.

The solution = get rid of all privately owned firearms that fire bullets. :eyes:

Notice the NRABlacklist isn't about anything that would address your concerns: (1) safe storage, (2) background checks on all sales, or (3) innovative ways of attacking the firearms black market.

It's about (1) pushing the cosmetic rifle ban that does nothing to make us any safer, and (2) allowing frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding third parties that may have had nothing to do with the cause of injury to a plaintiff.

If "being part of the problem" means attacking stupid PR stunts, so as to expose them for what they are and get the focus back on laws that actually address people's legitimate concerns, then count me in.

[sandnsea]

67. Alarmism

The solution = get rid of all privately owned firearms that fire bullets.

Nobody said that. You're hoppin' around like a bunny rabbit. If you're serious about gun laws that will have an effect, get with the NRA and propose them and back them. If you're not willing to do that, you're just making excuses. For what purpose, I have no idea. If I did, I could defeat the Republican propaganda machine single-handedly.

[DoNotRefill]

58. Same thing when you sell your car to a potential alcoholic...

but cars routinely kill far more Americans than guns do....

[sandnsea]

68. Cars are licensed

Drivers are licensed. Not the same thing at all.

[DoNotRefill]

74. Yet if you sell a car to somebody and it's later used in a crime...

you're not prosecuted, are you?

[sandnsea]

77. Because there's a record

It's filed with the state so people know who owned the car at the time a crime was committed. And if there wasn't, I would be damned careful about selling my car with no way to trace what was going to happen to it. I would not want it to end up in the hands of a gang that made running over people part of their routine activities.

[DoNotRefill]

81. At least here...

it's legal to sell your car simply by signing the title over to the other person, who leaves with the title and has to register it to pay tax on the transaction. Re-registering it is the BUYER's responsibility.

How many gangs routinely run over people? That's quite a stretch, and makes you sound desparate.

There are 300 million guns in the US. How many are used criminally each year?

[sandnsea]

86. Well guess what

If the buyer doesn't register it and the car is involved in an accident, guess who they come looking for? And I know gangs don't routinely run over people and cars aren't routinely murder weapons. That's why the whole car thing was stupid to begin with.

And it doesn't really matter how many guns are used criminally each year. What matters is that there are particular guns that are primarily used in crimes and have no other reasonable use. We've regulated those types of weapons for decades and just because you've bought into right wing devisive drivel is no reason to stop writing good gun laws.

[DoNotRefill]

92. They come to the registered owner...

he tells them he sold the car, and then they can try to find the buyer. They will have a VERY difficult time prosecuting somebody ONLY because it was his car used in the crime, when he claims he sold it, and has ANY kind of records (like a deposit into a bank account of the proceeds).

"no other reasonable use"...what about self-defense? If it's good for criminal misuse, wouldn't it de facto HAVE to be good for self defense? That's a legitimate use, isn't it?

[sandnsea]

102. Oh yeah, that'll work

Your car was used in a crime, they have pictures of the car, they show up at your door and you say "I sold it" and they're just going to go away. Somebody hurt by that car has nobody else to sue except you, and you think you're not going to end up in a lawsuit anyway? "I sold it" isn't going to cut it. And it shouldn't cut it with a gun either.

A shotgun is the best weapon for self-defense in a home. There's very little reason to own any other gun at all for self-defense. Outlawing guns commonly used in crimes wouldn't make anybody unable to defend themselves. I really don't know why you can't see this NRA 2nd Amendment gun stuff is all hyped up nonsense, like every other issue the Republicans use to get people all riled up.

[Romulus]

105. um, no

I'll just take it we disagree on these points.

A shotgun is the best weapon for self-defense in a home. There's very little reason to own any other gun at all for self-defense.

I do not want to lug a three-foot long ten pound piece of metal around the narrow hallways of my home, in the dark or while holding a flashlight, when a two-pound, 7-inch handgun will do.

I can't take a shotgun with me when I go camping in any national forest or state park. With my concealed handgun permit I can take the handgun. When I have to travel around late at night or on interstate trips, I can take the handgun, not the shotgun.

I don't know know where you are getting your ideas, but I definitely disagree with them.

[DoNotRefill]

111. Please provide a cite for that.

"A shotgun is the best weapon for self-defense in a home."

Where's your evidence? I don't like shotguns for home defense for various reasons, and find a semi auto rifle much better for that purpose.

"There's very little reason to own any other gun at all for self-defense."

Sure there is. Ever tried walking into a supermarket carrying a shotgun for self-defense? I do it with a concealed handgun all the time, and never have a problem.

And civil rights are NEVER "hyped up nonsense" when you're the one being denied them.

[DoNotRefill]

59. Heh...there you go.

"You can either be part of the solution, or part of the problem. Right now, the way I see it, you're part of the problem."

And we WONDER why we lose elections?

We used to court the blue collar vote. Now we deliberately try to alienate them. How special.

[sandnsea]

69. My family are those blue collar workers

Midwest truck drivers, a railroad engineer, plumber, and a painter. None of them owned guns and none of their kids own guns now. I lived in Montana for 15 years. Lots of gun owners there. Gun laws aren't a problem with responsible gun owners. Only a few right wing loons buy into the militia 2nd Amendment bullshit. And people like you who prefer to perpetuate the insanity instead of setting the record straight. The Democratic Party does not want to take away all the guns, never have, never will.

[DoNotRefill]

75. Come down into the gun dungeon...

and you'll find some who do want to take them all away. There are also a fair number of vocal gun banners in Congress. They give us all a bad name. On top of that, there are LOADS who want to do it incrementally.

Why do the pro-chioce people get all pissy when they try to ban partial birth abortion? It's a tiny, tiny fraction of all abortions, and is almost never used. It's because they know that some of the pro-lifer's objective is to take away their rights incrementally. Are the pro-choice people paranoid? I don't think so, and I'm one of them. Same deal with the pro-gunners....how many more stupid laws will we have to endure before they finally get around to banning them totally? I'm not willing to find out. NO MORE GUN LAWS, just like NO MORE RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION.

[sandnsea]

76. Actually, it's a D&X

And it has a medical purpose and women are going to die without the procedure. That's why I oppose banning it.

As opposed to responsible gun laws, which responsible gun owners can take a part in crafting. Just like responsible construction business owners have taken a part in crafting responsible explosives legislation.

[DoNotRefill]

82. So, you would support a partial birth abortion ban....

if there was no risk to the life of the mother? I sure as hell wouldn't....

[sandnsea]

87. I support medicine

A woman's reproductive medical care is between her and her doctor. There are far too many reasons for various gynecological procedures for there to ever be laws that can regulate all cases.

And PLEASE stop callling it partial birth abortion. That is a made up right wing alarmist phrase, just like 'they're gonna take all our guns'.

[DoNotRefill]

94. What do you call it then?

A "D&X" doesn't cover it, since obviously you can have a D&X without a fetus being carried almost to term.

And while I agree with you 110% about medical care being between a patient and doctor, I also think that the government has exactly the same justification to stick it's nose into my gun safe as to stick it's nose into medicine...none at all.

[sandnsea]

98. That's exactly right

Any D&X at any time, outlawed. Second or third trimester, most of these are performed in the second trimester anyway.

And the government does stick its nose into medicine, it regulates doctors, nurses, hospitals and medicines regularly. It has never regulated medical procedures. You have to have a license to practice any kind of medicine because it is necessary for the safety of citizens.

The government regulates all kinds of dangerous substances as well, there's no reason for the government not to regulate guns.

[DoNotRefill]

112. Except, of course, for that pesky Second Amendment...

what part of "infringed" don't you understand?

[MrBenchley]

119. Which says you can join a state militia

and that's ALL it says, no matter how furiously John AshKKKroft and his kind lie about it.

[DoNotRefill]

123. where in the Second Amendment...

does it say that membership in a State Militia is a necessary precursor of the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Why isn't it "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" or the "right of the government to keep and bear arms"?

Pesky thing, that word "people"....

[DoNotRefill]

57. Heh...

"guns used in crime"....Yup...that's why they regulated machineguns and silencers. Of course, they did it in a way that keeps in mind the VERY best traditions of Jim Crow...In most states, you can still own them, but you have to be "white enough" to get the head cop where you live to give his permission.

I own several machineguns legally. If I didn't have the clout to get signoff, I wouldn't. That's a sick and twisted thing, where being able to contribute to the Sheriff's re-election campaign means you get to exercise your civil rights, while poor people are told to "fuck off" when they want to exercise their rights like the rich people do.

On top of that, you're ignoring the positive aspects of firearms ownership, while overstating the negative. In 2001, there were FEWER than 1,000 accidental deaths (that's people of ALL ages, not just kids) resulting from the misuse of a firearm, and at LEAST 70,000 defensive gun uses (this figure is the subject of lots of debate, the gamut runs from 2.5 million a year for the most pro-gun researchers to 70,000 from the anti gun researchers. I'm going with the most conservative figure so we don't get into a "his research sucks!" debate) nation-wide. We don't know how many of those 70,000 DGUs would have resulted in a dead victim, but you can bet that it's more than a 1 in 70 ratio.

Gun control laws have KILLED children. There have been well-publicized cases where this happened, including one ghastly double-murder with a pitchfork where a teenage girl was unable to access a family firearm that she had been trained to use safely because of a CAP law.

Before you go off on a "It's ALL FOR THE CHILDREN!" kick, just remember...the kinds of laws you are pushing on a Federal level have been DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of children on a State level. How many kids and other Americans are you willing to kill each year in an effort to save those <1000 people who die accidentally every year? 20,000? 5,000? 2,000?

[sandnsea]

72. Defensive gun uses

Like unloading buck shot in the backside of a kid stealing apples from an orchard? Or, even killing someone for stealing your TV? I've seen lots of statistics too. The truth of the matter is that most guns are bought by people just like you, some rich white guy who doesn't really need a weapon because he doesn't live in a high crime area in the first place. The guns are then stolen and transported into high crime neighborhoods. And then those guns end up in the hands of someone killing young people and kids. That's the way it really is and I don't know how anybody can think they have a right to continue purchasing an item that is proven to kill their fellow citizens. I'm sure you think bomb making materials should be regulated, why not guns?

[DoNotRefill]

79. those are crimes in most of the US....

and are NOT bona-fide DGUs. DGUs, in order to be counted, MUST be legal.

BTW, when did I become rich? I still have a (very) negative net worth. If I died tonight, my estate wouldn't be able to meet all of it's obligations.

"That's the way it really is and I don't know how anybody can think they have a right to continue purchasing an item that is proven to kill their fellow citizens."

Lots of things kill fellow citizens. Cars, swimming pools, 5 gallon buckets, knives, cigarettes, et cetera. Pick an item, ANY item, and I'll tell you how you can kill somebody with it. The tool isn't important, it's the INTENT of the person doing it that makes it dangerous.

I don't think bomb making materials should be regulated. it's an impossible task, which can't suceed. I think adding the (E) to BATFE was REALLY stupid. And in case you didn't know this, you can make a bomb out of a shitload of stuff. Ever buy chemical plant food? That's the main ingredient used to make the OKC bomb. There's been talk of putting taggants in FERTILIZER. That's frigging ABSURD. Let's say we ban chemical fertilizer, and go strictly with organic fertilizer. It's pretty easy to turn that into saltpeter (it takes a while and it stinks, but it's part of the natural process), which is the "hard" item to find to make black powder, a more explosive version of gunpowder. Hell, I've got bats in my attic, and can use their poop to make an explosive. Want to make a chemical weapon? Mix two EXTREMELY common household cleansers, and you've got a very effective chemical weapon that was extensively used in the trenches of WWI. Ever notice how grain silos keep exploding out in farm country? It's not because people are packing them full of explosives, it's because grain, if ground fine enough and put into the air and ignited, makes a spiffy explosive, just as ANY aerosolized substance ground fine enough does.

Once again, it's not the tool used, it's the INTENT TO CAUSE HARM that's the problem. And I don't know HOW you could regulate intent.

[sandnsea]

88. Now you're just being goofy

"I don't think bomb making materials should be regulated."

You're just makin' it up as you go. You don't mean this.

[DoNotRefill]

95. Nope, I mean every word.

In case you didn't pick up on it, I could almost CERTAINLY build either an improvised explosive device or an improvised chemical weapon of some sort out of JUST things in YOUR house right now. THAT'S how widespread "bomb making materials" are. It's simple chemistry. What are you going to do? Regulate bleach for laundry use because I can build a chemical weapon out of it? Regulate cigarette lighters, flour, rocks and fans? Because I can make that go "Boom!" too. Hell, I can take a car and rig an improvised incendiary device from it that would literally make CONCRETE catch fire, (ever tried to put out burning concrete? Don't!!! ;-) ) and the owner would be able to drive the car away after I got what I needed. It's not like Tim McVeigh made his bomb out of supplies purchased at "Dangerous Dave's Bombmaking Components Store"...

BTW, kiddies, don't try this at home...Chemistry, while fun, can be quite dangerous. And I don't do this any more..."Uncle Sugar" stopped paying me to do it.

[sandnsea]

104. anthrax, sarin, ricin, smallpox

Let's just make it legal to own any damn thing. You really don't mean what you're saying, you've grabbed a few lame arguments in an attempt to prop up your position. If you were actually in charge of making the laws, and thought situations through to their logical conclusion, you wouldn't be saying this stuff. You said yourself there's 300 million guns in this country. And you can honestly say you're 'worried' about not being able to get a gun when you want one?

[DoNotRefill]

115. What, are you going to ban sheep?

because given access to a herd of sheep, you can generally find enough anthrax spores to start a culture to make it, if that's what you're into.

I don't want the government to ban guns. I'm not giving my guns up, period. If the government said I had to, that'd make me an instant criminal. I'd rather not go down that road. It's easier on me and my family, and MUCH easier on any cops who would have to arrest me.

[Frangible]

19. probably because there isn't a difference

The "assault" weapons ban bans guns not on firepower, lethality, or use in crime, but in cosmetic function alone. Despite what freak fringe groups claim, they are not "weapons of choice", nor have they have ever been.

The top 10 guns used in crime are, and always have been, mostly handguns, along with the very common Mossberg pump-action shotgun.

A 1996 NIJ study on the effectiveness of the AWB found 1) the weapons were rarely used in crime, and 2) the law did nothing to lower crime.

I do not understand how banning weapons based on cosmetic features that were rarely used in crime, then wanting to keep the laws around even though they don't help anything is "common sense."

"Common sense" would be looking at the guns actually used in crime, not the ones that aren't.

"Common sense" would be treating the social problems behind crime and being compassionate.

"Common sense" wouldn't be banning weapons based on cosmetic features that no effect on crime and were rarely used by criminals.

But somehow it's all degenerated into a partisan politics issue, rather than taking the "common sense" to look at the effects of the law, read the NIJ study, and tell what it does.

No, I'm afraid "common sense" has little to do with it.

The sad problems that need to be addressed by gun control -- shady distributors funneling cheap handguns for criminals -- still have not been addressed. Will they ever be? I don't know.

My opinion:
1) Use gun control to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, not to ban cosmetic features that have zero effect on crime
2) Fix the deep-seated social problems responsible for the US's high rates of crime (less than half the homicides are committed with guns in the US, the issue runs far deeper than guns)

But that won't be done. I want to see the problems fixed as much as you do, but I don't think passing laws that don't affect the crime rate is the way to get there.

[sandnsea]

30. Then why not cooperate?

If gun owners really do want to promote safe gun ownership, why don't they propose their own list of guns to be banned?

[Frangible]

50. Do any really need to be banned?

The ones used in crime really don't have any distinguishing features that makes them bannable, other than the fact they tend to be cheap, low caliber handguns.

Some of those handguns are poor, unsafe designs. But not all. So while enforcing safe gun designs would help, the problem wouldn't go away. Even the California "safe gun design" law still permits most of the top 10 crime guns to still be sold.

I'm all for gun control -- when it works and is reasonable.

I think we really need to work on shutting down HOW criminals are getting access to the guns they do, close those distribution channels that supply the bulk of crime guns, and look at addressing the long term societal problems that are responsible for gun and non-gun violence alike.

I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.

[fujiyama]

73. Why should anyone pander to the NRA?

Or any other interest group for that matter? I have my disagreements with the ACLU as well about campaign finance reform and affirmative action...

But about the NRA. They're rhetoric is definetely alarmist and paranoid. I admt many of the people who have joined probably believe in it as a matter of principle, but I don't think they understand where to draw the line either.

I see a lot of extremists on both sides...

I've come to a point where I've realized this issue is not worth fighting for, at least not vocally. Partly because I would like to believe it is possible for a society to function without too many strict gun laws and I'd like to see a democrat in the WH. Either way though this country has a lot of problems, and even with regard to its population, the ratio of gun related (and non gun related) murders are simply way too high.

I'm not too familiar with SC rulings regarding the second ammendment, but I have a question for NRA supporters on this board. What SHOULD be done to reduce gun related murders? Please don't give a run around, asking about car control or hammer control, or knife control, or screwdriver control. Yes all of those things can kill, but guns are made TO KILL.

The reason I ask about gun related murders is because many of the murders in this nation ARE committed by guns. Urban crime may not be the same problem it was in the mid eighties, but I'd say it still IS a problem. Many of these crimes are commited by guns.

"Do any guns need to be banned?". That's a good question actually, because taking that to its logical extreme, no weapon should be banned. In that same way ,why shouldn't I be allowed to make bombs? I wouldn't hurt anyone with them. Are we going to start looking at those that buy ammonium and other chemicals?

Now, I'm actually pretty liberal on guns (I use liberal in a classical sense), in that I actually believe that many provisions should be left to the states. And states should pass their own laws regarding concealed weapons laws (and I have the same fear some do on this board that gun control laws would be selectively enforced especially with regard to race). I also wouldn't ban handguns for that reason. A woman who gets off late in a high crime area should carry a gun, as should a party store/gas station owner that works late.

I myself think that this rhetoric is ridiculous and no group is giving practical recommendations as to how to cut the excessively high rate of violent crimes in the US. It's much higher than just about all industrialized nations. Either we as Americans can just admit, we're more reckless and incompetant than Switzerland, Israel, and other devloped nations with lax gun laws, or we can do something.

The most practical things I've heard is stopping the distribution. This means stopping the illegal imports from China and Russia and closing gun show loopholes (the NRA opposed this though). Why shouldn't there be background checks for criminal records? And why is it a person's right to own any sort of weapon made? If that's the case, give me some freakin napalm!

[DoNotRefill]

84. the same things to curb non-gun murders.

"What SHOULD be done to reduce gun related murders?"

work to eliminate the root causes of ALL crime...poverty, hopelessness, inequalities in the education system, et cetera.

"In that same way ,why shouldn't I be allowed to make bombs? I wouldn't hurt anyone with them. Are we going to start looking at those that buy ammonium and other chemicals?"

They already have. That's why BATF is now BATFE, because they added "explosives" to their baliwick. People should be allowed to make bombs. They can be useful things. Ever tried breaking up a big rock outcropping without explosives? What should be criminal (and is) is USING a bomb in an unsafe manner. That means no bombs in apartment buildings, or suburban neighborhoods, but they're just fine and dandy for blasting stumps out in the middle of nowhere, causing controlled avalanches for safety reasons, drilling wells in rocky soil, and a bunch of other uses.

"The most practical things I've heard is stopping the distribution. This means stopping the illegal imports from China and Russia"

Uh huh. That's why we won the drug war, because we made distribution of drugs heavily regulated or outright illegal. If they can smuggle in tons of drugs, they can smuggle in tons of guns too.

[fujiyama]

85. I mean no offense...

but I've read a lot of your posts and you sound like a bit of a nut! ;-)

Don't get me wrong though. I would still prefer the big tent. But one thing many people that seem like "strict contructionalists" of the consistution don't really understand is that we have no absolutes on the constitution. We do have restrictions on the first ammendment as well. We outlaw threatening speech. We cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.

So you make exceptions about keeping bombs in apartment buildings and suburbs. But what about sub machine guns, AK-47s, and other such weapons in apartment buildings and suburbs? I live in a suburb. What really is the difference between these weapons (or i'm guessing you would prefer to call them all "tools")? It's just a matter of one type of weapon having a better focus(the gun) than the other.

I'm just trying to figure out your logic. In some ways, making certain weapons so easilly accessible, is a security threat. Plastic weapons for example are ridiculous, as they will bypass metal detectors. Same goes with super scope high powered, automatic rifles used for military purposes (OK I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about guns).

Arms can be construed in a broad light. I myself may consider small pipe bombs or other such exploding devices as "arms". There is no difference between them and guns.

So you don't want restrictions on distribution and imports, no bans on any type of "gun" whatsoever...Do you believe there should be any restrictions? What about background checks?

Your views are somewhat extreme and unreasonable. You remind me an awful lot of that Nichols brother in "Bowling for Columbine". Micheal Moore's question of whether or not civilians should own nukes may have been somewhat ridiculous, but it had a point. Where do we draw the line, as to what sort of "arms" people should own?

.

BTW, what is BATF?

[DoNotRefill]

91. I can tell you don't know a lot about guns.

that's OK, hope I can help you learn something about them.

BATF is Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, (adding "explosives" now) and is the chief federal executive agency dealing with firearms.

"But one thing many people that seem like "strict contructionalists" of the consistution don't really understand is that we have no absolutes on the constitution. We do have restrictions on the first ammendment as well. We outlaw threatening speech. We cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc."

WHY are those things outlawed? Because they cause IMMEDIATE harm. Yet we don't have censorship or "prior restraint", even though failing to have that may cause harm since you can't take action on it until AFTER the fact. I don't mind laws banning CONDUCT (you can't just shoot people" laws), but banning the tools that might lead up to that conduct? THAT I have a problem with.

"So you make exceptions about keeping bombs in apartment buildings and suburbs. But what about sub machine guns, AK-47s, and other such weapons in apartment buildings and suburbs? I live in a suburb. What really is the difference between these weapons (or i'm guessing you would prefer to call them all "tools")? It's just a matter of one type of weapon having a better focus(the gun) than the other."

I used to live right outside DC but inside the beltway in a "cheesebox" apartment building, something like a thousand units large. I kept machineguns in my apartment, legally. Why? Because they're not a danger just sitting there. If they catch fire, they don't explode or spray bullets everywhere, they melt if it gets hot enough. Where's the danger in keeping them there? With explosives, many kinds of them would explode if they were in a fire. That poses a danger to the building.

"I'm just trying to figure out your logic. In some ways, making certain weapons so easilly accessible, is a security threat. Plastic weapons for example are ridiculous, as they will bypass metal detectors. Same goes with super scope high powered, automatic rifles used for military purposes (OK I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about guns)."

Regarding plastic guns: there is no such commercially available gun. They simply do not exist as functional weapons. That whole thing is a figment of feeble uninformed minds in Hollywood. Regarding scoped rifles, the Military still uses a bolt-action rifle to arm it's snipers that is virtually identical to civilian hunting rifles. And the very fact that a gun is militarily useful is what protects it under the Second Amendment according to the Miller decision.

"So you don't want restrictions on distribution and imports, no bans on any type of "gun" whatsoever...Do you believe there should be any restrictions? What about background checks?"

For me, it's just like abortion. I don't want ANY restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms (that's what "infringed" is by definition, restrictions). I wouldn't have a problem with mandatory background checks for ALL gun purchases in THEORY, but it's the practical details that screws it up for me. I'm TOTALLY against any form of registration. Keeping records of who purchased firearms is a form of registration. If the "instant check" was free, truly instant, and there were NO records kept, I'd probably be OK with it. I don't have a problem with felons, et cetera, not being able to own a gun. I DO have a problem with restricting all arms for everybody on the basis that a felon might get ahold of a gun. If the law is felons can't have guns, fine, they can't have guns. they forfeited their rights when they committed a crime and were convicted of it with due process of law. But disarming the law abiding because of the actions of the felons is downright wrong and un-american (innocent until proven guilty, no "corruption of blood", and all that great stuff).

"You remind me an awful lot of that Nichols brother in "Bowling for Columbine". Micheal Moore's question of whether or not civilians should own nukes may have been somewhat ridiculous, but it had a point. Where do we draw the line, as to what sort of "arms" people should own?"

Gee, thanks. :eyes: I believe that people should be able to own whatever kinds of guns they can afford, as long as they haven't done anything to lose their civil rights. You can do just as much damage with a fertilizer bomb or a handgun as you can do with a machinegun. Of course, even Bill Gates can't afford a nuke. They're VERY expensive. And before you get on the "what about the black market for nukes" kick, please remember...Saddam Hussein was the ruler of a nation state, with huge resources at his disposal, and HE couldn't buy a black market nuke, and you KNOW he'd have LOVED to.

I have friends who own tanks and other armored vehicles, and know a guy who owns a functioning bomber. What's the problem? They're rare, so how hard could it be to track them down if they used it? It's kind of hard to hide tank tracks....

I own guns only. True, I've got some belt-fed machineguns, but so what? They're legal, and they don't hurt anybody except me (I tend to get my fingers caught in moving parts or else burn myself on them). Someday if I ever get rich I may buy some armor just for "shits and giggles", and as long as I don't hurt anybody with them, what's the problem?

[fujiyama]

97. I guess I'll just

have to disagree with you on some of these issues.

Thanks for clarifying your position though.

And I did guess why you would support explosives being banned from apartments (that was kinda obvious).

I understand where you're coming from, and to some extent I support that because there is one defense gun activists use that I am sympathetic to (especially after the current admin.) and that is to protect oneself from a tyrannical or unjust government. I also don't trust Ashcroft when it comes to background checks, especially if they would keep racial statistics. More than anything else, "selective" gun control, against people of certain races or certain names, disturbs me greatly and I would guess that with an administration like that we have now, there is a lot of potential for misuse.

Still, I'm hesitant about letting people have access to such excessive weaponry as submachine guns, uzis, ak-47s, and armor piercing bullets (I remember a case in LA a few years ago where the criminals had armor piercing bullets and there was a shootout...basically the cops were outgunned and didn't have enough power)...

And about the case with the tank, there was a loony going down a highway somewhere with a tank (I think he stole it though)...

But I suppose there are a lot of loonies out there that would commit crimes, whether the laws existed or not. I simply don't understand why American society is so much more violent than other industrialized nations that also have large populations (and those without as well).

[DoNotRefill]

116. Hint: it's NOT the guns...

if you look at the crime rates in the US for crimes that didn't involve a gun, you'll see that they're uniformly higher than much of the rest of the world. If guns are the cause of the violence, then why are so many people in the US murdered WITHOUT a firearm? That rate is higher than most of the "first world's" combined firearm and non-gun murder rate put together.

[sandnsea]

89. Then work FOR that

Instead of just fighting what others are trying to accomplish.

[DoNotRefill]

60. ROTFLMAO!!! "promote safe gun ownership" and "banned"...

don't you see even a LITTLE bit of a dichotomy there?

Almost all guns are safe. If nobody pulls the trigger, they just lie wherever they were set down. They only become unsafe when handled by idiots.

Why ban guns? They're just inanimate objects.

[sandnsea]

90. Idiots

Exactly. Who refuse to register their weapons, store them safely or acknowledge some guns just don't need to be sold because there's just too damn many idiots.

[DoNotRefill]

96. Why not ban idiots then?

That'll work... ;-)

[penny foolish]

24. What the hell is a safe gun?

I have never understood that one. A GUN KILLS, how can that be safe?

[sandnsea]

29. No, a gun is an inanimate object

It doesn't actually DO anything. Frankly, your attitude does nothing to promote communication with hunters, target shooters, and other gun owners. It's just not useful.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. A safe gun is one with a responsible owner.

None of my guns have killed. Even my hunting rifle, I'm slightly embarassed to say, has never killed anything.

[sandnsea]

41. rotfl

Oh man, I KNOW that had to hurt!!

South of Havre, outside of Big Sandy, there's a couple of big ranches. Go get yourself a deer!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Actually my neighborhood is crawling with deer

but I didn't even get a license this year. Maybe my heart's just not in it...

[DoNotRefill]

54. Heh...

the "saturday night special import ban" from 1968 was a charlie fox situation. One of the guns banned from import was the Walther PPK. It's very expensive, and extremely well made, but couldn't pass the "points" system for imports.

[durutti]

13. Kerry was on Nixon's list, wasn't he? n/t

[CarinKaryn]

16. This is a great idea

We need to rekindle the fire we all had several years ago when responsible citizens gathered, protested, shouted and sang to ban handguns and assault weapons.

I just received a fund raising letter from the Million Mom March that specifically mentioned the NRA on its envelope. And now this!

Let's use our common disgust with these knuckledraggers (and even the gun lovers in the dungeon dislike the NRA) to respark that flame, get our people elected and PASS SENSIBLE GUN LAWS!

[DoNotRefill]

63. Yup...let's rekindle a fire...

that burned the HELL out of us at the ballot box in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002. Hell, if we push it long enough, the Greens will eventually overtake us as the honorable opposition party. GREAT idea.

Hey, while we're at it, why not adopt a pro-NAMBLA plank?

[slackmaster]

107. Hey there big boy, what have you got against NAMBLA?

:evilgrin:

JUST KIDDING!

[slackmaster]

106. Please define "gun lovers"

...get our people elected...

Not possible if you alienate TOO many people who support gun owners' rights.

...and PASS SENSIBLE GUN LAWS!

Please define "sensible gun laws". Be as specific as you can.

[JohnKleeb]

21. You know thats really neat

Way to go, be blacklisted with pride. You know I agree with him about the AK comment, I am not a hunter so maybe you can flame but why would you need an AK for hunting, now a rifle I can understand, my grandfather hunted with one. Congrads to Kerry if he is on the list, wear it with pride and for Nixon's list, thats the equiv of a medal of honor lol.

[phillybri]

26. Awesome idea....

:thumbsup:

[neuvocat]

33. Where can I get that list?

I think its rather useful. I wish more lists would come out like that so we know who to support.

[Fescue4u]

35. Just what we need...an attack on Guns going into an election year

yeah..that'll win'm over

Sounds like the makings for 4 more years of Bush.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Who attacked guns? When? Where?

Do you have a reference for your off-the-wall statement?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

66. Kick

[blm]

46. The NRA started a blacklist. It should get a proper response.

Blacklists are NOT cool, no matter what year it is.

[DoNotRefill]

64. Hmmm...better tell that to the MMM, NAACP, and every other organization...

that organizes boycotts...

[sangha]

71. Do those groups

list the names of individuals they want to see have their careers ruined?

[DoNotRefill]

80. Some do...

What was that baseball player from NY....Ringer or something...who made the racist comment? Didn't the NAACP speak out about that?

How about the MMM's list, which IIRC included Tom Selleck on it?

Didn't PETA tell people not to buy Nugent's records?

So, in short, I think the answer is a resounding YES.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

49. Hey. If you want BushLite then vote for the NRA candidates

I don't need to name names. Kerry's acting like the true Democrat here. He needs our support. Zell Miller can go fuck himself with an AK-47.

[Forkboy]

56. An excellent move!

[Monte Carlo]

62. Canada has LOTS of guns but no NRA...

... so I don't see what is so important about the NRA's role in this country, nor it's relevance to the gun right issue. I like guns, but boy, I can't stand the NRA.

[alfredo]

70. I just signed up

It would be an honor to be seen as an enemy of the NRA. I am not anti gun, I just don't like the NRA.

[neebob]

93. It looks rather self-serving to me

It would have been more believable and more effective, I think, in a series of speeches. As a letter, it says, "Celebrities needed. Send money."

[slackmaster]

103. Meanwhile in the real world, AFL-CIO about to endorse Dean

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/news/news_1n31dean.html

WHEN WILL DEMOCRATS STOP WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHER?

[livinontheedge]

108. Sorry John, you can kiss my gun-owning ass.

Your "publicity stunt" just cost you ANY hope of winning the hearts and minds of us here in the south. You are such a fool. You can't win by being anti-gun. That may play up north, but down here, your walking on the wrong side of the road.

[slackmaster]

109. He's sure not going to get any money from me

Not a penny.

[blm]

110. What's antigun about his position? Gun control is not antigun.

Why pretend it is just to make an argument?

[slackmaster]

113. Not ALL gun control is anti-gun

Some certainly is.

[livinontheedge]

118. Gun control is not anti-gun? Tell that to bubba.

And we need ALL the bubba votes if we want the southern white male, NASCAR, god-loving vote. You can play word games all day long. Bubba don't care that you can't tell the difference. He just hears that you said "gun" and "laws" in the same sentence and that is enough to make him vote republican.

[blm]

122. There is also a GOP fed meme that ONLY Repubs good on national security

should we roll over and play dead on THAT lie, too? How about ALL the GOP lies they spout about the Dems? Just rollover because some people already believe them?

[Doctor_J]

120. Lots of repubs on this list

Kathy Lee Gifford, James Brolin, Andy Garcia, Geraldo, Mary Lou Retton, Colin Quinn, ...

I think there is political hay to be made promoting sensible gun laws.

[livinontheedge]

121. Yeah, lots of political hay. Just ask Gore why he lost Tennessee.

You like electing republican presidents, keep talking gun laws. Your deffinition of sensible is probably a moon-shot apart from what a southern white voter thinks is sensible. So go ahead, make Bush's day. Try to make political hay out of gun control.