Dear Gun "enthusiasts"......your sacred NRA opposes Kagan......

[KansasVoter]

Do you support the NRAs opposition against her? Do you also oppose Kagan?

If so then you are against most of the democratic party.

[FBaggins]

1. Can't Democrats support gun ownership...

...without supporting the NRA and their activities?

[KansasVoter]

3. Yes. And I am proud of the ones who do and do not support the NRA!

I would never support an organization that opposed great dems over a single issue.

[Warpy]

5. The NRA used to be a useful organization

but now it's mostly a shill for gun manufacturers and merchants.

It's also SOL. Kagan was confirmed today.

Democrats who own guns have a duty to oppose the NRA.

[KansasVoter]

9. Thank you!!!

[spin]

24. Read some of the recent posts in the Gungeon on the NRA ...

while the facts and logic may not change your position, you will at least be exposed to a different viewpoint from Democrats who DO support the NRA.

The NRA-ILA and the NRA-PVF are single-issue organizations. That issue is RKBA. They do back Democrats who support gun rights, and it irritates the hell out of Conservatives and Republicans who have grown to feel the NRA supports ONLY their candidates.

The main father organization, the NRA, is primarily involved in promoting shooting sports through its many training and safety courses and its support of shooting competitions. The NRA-ILA and the NRA-PVF are the political wings of the NRA. I am a member in the NRA, but only a small fraction of my membership dues goes to support their political organizations (by law). I do research the info from the NRA-PVF and consider their recommendations on political candidates as part of my decision on who to vote for. I am not a single issue voter and voted for Obama despite his record of opposing RKBSA as a politician from Illinois. I realized that if Obama would have been pro-gun advocate in Illinois, he might not have won an election for dog catcher. The NRA rated him on his history on gun control and as a single issue organization, they were fair.

Kagan had little record on her position on gun control for the NRA to consider. Still, considering the opinion by Sonia Sotomayor in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, it's not surprising that they opposed Kagan. Remember, they ARE a one issue organization. Once appointed, it's hard to say for sure how a Supreme Court Judge will rule on individual issues.

The posts I suggest you check out on DU (if you have the time) are:

The NRA Doesn't Deserve Your Support
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=332402&mesg_id=332402

Support the NRA if the NRA endorses Harry Reid?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=332938&mesg_id=332938

There are lots of good arguments on both sides of the debate.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. The NRA is a republican tool...people here do not support that particular stand...

with any money they donate to the NRA. The NRA, being an upstanding organization, would not spend the money of people who do not support their extreme right wing fringe ideas. They will donate money given by Democrats only to support Democrats.

:sarcasm:

[KansasVoter]

4. LOL! Good one!!! +1000

[shadowrider]

7. The 2A and the NRA support thereof is an "Extreme right wing fringe idea"??????

Take a pill, have a drink, relax

The 2A is in the BOR in case you haven't noticed and NRA support is for ALL Americans, NOT just those on the right.

[Ozymanithrax]

20. The second amendment as interpreted by the Roberts Court...

is an extreme fringe interpretation. It took over 200 years to find a court extreme enough to make that decision. I feel the same way about their interpretation of campaign financing. But I'm willing to disagree respectfully.

[X_Digger]

22. 'extreme' interpretation that is mainstream?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35735/americans_agree_on_second_amendmentaas_meaning

Most people in the United States interpret their Constitution’s Second Amendment in the same fashion, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 81 per cent of respondents believe the Second Amendment means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

And this one right after the Heller decision.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx


I think you'd be hard-pressed to call a certain interpretation 'extreme' when it's the same interpretation as an overwhelming majority of folks.

[beevul]

40. Does saying that make you feel good?

"The second amendment as interpreted by the Roberts Court...is an extreme fringe interpretation."

Does saying that make you feel good?

I hope it does, because simply saying it, does NOT make it true.

Thats your position though.

Now lets examine mine:

The interpretation at issue here, is in line with this:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

That there is the preamble to the bill of rights, and the interpretation being in line with it, is not just my opinion, its a fact.

Now, please explain, how the interpretation at issue, which is in line with the preamble to the bill of rights itself, is an "extreme fringe" interpretation.

Then explain how an interpretation, which is supported in various polls by 70-80 percent of Americans, is "extreme fringe".


Your position is a holdover from the early 90's, and behind the times.

Your position, in fact, is the "extreme fringe" opinion.

By definition.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. I belonged to the NRA for a year back in about 1971.

I've been trying to live it down ever since.

[ZombieHorde]

6. Is being against most of the Democratic Party on an issue a bad thing?

What is the Democratic Party's stance on Afghanistan, marijuana, or gay marriage?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. You support Afghanistan, enforcement of pot laws

& indifference to gay rights?

Some of us get a little peeved when we see little evidence of progressivism in certain places.

[ZombieHorde]

15. Interesting reaction.

I wonder why you avoid my questions in favor of going after me.

[KansasVoter]

16. No, I was exaggerating...

But you know that the GOP oppose those topics much more than the dems do.

I hate the dems on many topics, especially the war, but you know we have many more members on the correct side of those issues.

[Deep13]

21. Right, because those are the only possible choices.

[Euromutt]

37. Ouch, good point! Especially regarding marijuana

Because last week, the Senate voted unanimously in favor of Dianne Feinstein's “Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009,″ the main effect of which is to double the penalties for possession of marijuana brownies (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/07/30/senate-votes-to-double-fines-jail-time-for-pot-brownies/). Again, unanimously, so every single Dem in the Senate voted for this bill.

Admittedly, the bill was named so as to make it compelling to vote for it; any politician is going to have as hard a time explaining why (s)he didn't vote to "save kids from dangerous drugs" as why (s)he voted against the "USA PATRIOT Act." But the person who named it that was also a Democrat, namely the senior senator for California.

I'm rather disgusted with my own senators on this one, incidentally. While I take some pride in residing in a state of which both senators are women Democrats, there's not a lot of point if they vote for stupid shit like this. I'm definitely voting for a Dem other than Patty Murray in the primary.

[proteus_lives]

11. Laughable as always.

[Common Sense Party]

13. I support gun legal ownership and hunting, but I'm not a member of the NRA.

Here's a towel--you might want to wipe up your dripping condescension.

[Deep13]

14. What makes you think the NRA is sacred?

:shrug:

Anyway, I do disagree with them on a few things. For example, their recommendations in every presidential election since I have been voting. I disagree with the idea that being against allowing guns where people are drinking makes someone "anti-gun." I also would never allow a traitor like Oliver North or a psychopath like Glenn Beck to speak for me about values or whatever.

And I disagree with them on Kagan. While I would have prefered a true socialist for that position, Kagan is a pretty good choice.

[spin]

26. Many of the state that allow people to have concealed firearms in bars ...

or restaurants have prohibitions against drinking while carrying.

43 states now allow gun carry where alcohol is served
July 3, 8:51 PMDC Gun Rights ExaminerMike Stollenwerk

On July 1, 2010, Virginia and New Mexico legalized the concealed carry of handguns in restaurants where alcohol is served. That makes 43 states allowing handguns to be carried in alcohol serving establishments, with only Montana still requiring unconcealed or "open carry" at these venues.

In Virginia, members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) celebrated their legislative achievement to repeal the open carry requirement in restaurants. VCDL President Philip Van Cleave told the Washington Post that

"gun rights have been moving strongly in favor of less control. For us, this is a big step."



http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d3-43-states-now-allow-gun-carry-where-alcohol-is-served {/div}

Now I will agree that mixing firearms and alcohol is a bad idea, but only if the gun owner is actually drinking.

If there was a serious problem with allowing concealed carry in establishments that serve alcohol, why isn't there weekly reports on the news that document the problem? Maybe there really isn't a problem!

[benEzra]

30. Note that most states that prohibit carry in alcohol-serving restaurants

are historically red-leaning states. That is probably due to a lot of entrenched "alcohol consumption is teh evil" sentiment from the Religious Right.

My state of NC is one of the few that prohibit carrying in a restaurant even if you're not drinking.

[spin]

35. Interesting and a good point ...

The area of Florida that I live in currently is EXTREMELY religious and anti-alcohol. Hell, I can't buy beer on Sundays. All that accomplishes is that I buy MORE beer on Saturday just in case.

But the Tampa Bay area was more realistic and I could buy beer on Sunday. After 1 pm in Hillsborough County. There was usually a long line at the cash register at 1 pm. That ruined the start of many football games.

[one-eyed fat man]

32. The law here in Kentucky

The law prohibits the carrying of firearms (openly or concealed) in places where the primary business is liquor is sold by the drink, e.g. bars and saloons. It doesn't not prohibit being in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Being drunk while armed will get you arrested, just like being drunk while driving gets you arrested.

Despite drunk driving still being a bigger problem than CCW in no state are you prohibited from taking your car to the bar. While people with guns drinking are a potential hazard, merely having a gun while other people around you are drinking much less so. It there had been a any upsurge is saloon shootings both of the biggest newspapers in the state who strenuously opposed the concelaed carry law 15 years ago would have every episode on their front page in 32 point type. They still keep predicting a bloodbath will start any time and they seem profoundly disappointed that none of their dire predictions have come to pass, which stikes me as perverse.

Does it get your knickers in a twist because you can't be sure if the guy at the next table with the big party drinking ice tea is the designated driver or carrying a concealed weapon?

In the "cut and shoot" dives where bar fights, stabbings and shootings are routine, you know 'ain't nobody in the place gives a shit' what the law is. In the rest of the places, will likely make little impact.

[oneshooter]

38. I like the Texas 51% law. n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

17. Gun owner...yes,...NRA suporter.....no.

I agree. Republican tools. Simple as that.

[X_Digger]

18. The only reservation that I have is actually related to Sotomayor, which may or may not be fair..

Sotomayor said that Heller was settled law, yet joined the opinion in McDonald that basically tried to re-argue Heller. I know that confirmation hearings are nothing more than political circus these days, though.

I don't hold Kagan's work for Clinton against her, since like any lawyer, she was representing not her own opinion, but those of her client.

[valerief]

19. I wish gun lovers loved the "real thing" instead of the "symbol".

:rofl:

[Chulanowa]

23. Maybe more of them would be for equal rights for gays if they loved the "real thing"

*Cough, cough*

[benEzra]

25. I'm pro-gay-rights...

and my carry gun is a S&W Ladysmith. I'm not sure what anatomical part I'm supposedly compensating for...



...probably the same as the 1/3 of gun owners who are women, I guess...

:eyes:

Seriously, do you not think that one can disagree with the Third Way'ers on the gun issue for non-biological reasons? Like, you know, thinking through the issue and coming to a different conclusion?

[Chulanowa]

27. Good for you

I was unaware that you were the only gun-lover in the world. I've met so many imposters!

[benEzra]

29. Do you have any rational points to make, or are insults all you have?

Nationwide, Dem and indie gun gun owners equal or slightly outnumber repub gun owners, if you run the numbers. Repubs own guns at somewhat higher rates than Dems and indies, but in most of the country the absolute numbers are comparable.

And, of course, the vast majority of us are nonhunters. If you're wondering why the owners-of-nonhunting-guns-are-of-the-debbil meme played so badly nationwide 1994-2004 even among Dems, that's why. Thankfully, the party leadership has now come to a more thought-through position on the issue, even if not all the Third Way types haven't yet.

[spin]

28. What exactly do you mean? ...

It that, perhaps, an infantile snarky comment with a sexual connotation such as referencing firearm interest to the size of certain a male organ? Or just a reference to Kagan's sexual identity.

If the latter, be aware that many gun owners here in the Gungeon support gay rights. Also realize that any speculation about her sexual orientation is just that. Who knows, and why should it be important?

edited to update comment

[valerief]

36. I'm pro-gay, too. My remark had nothing to with Kagan. nt

[spin]

41. Does that mean that it was choice one? ...

a snarky comment with a sexual connotation aimed at gun owners?

If it was, it qualifies as one of the more clever insults targeting firearm lovers that I have read here on DU. I am a gun enthusiast, but still maintain the ability to laugh at a truly creative put down.

I would be far more upset if the comment was anti-gay.

[TPaine7]

31. Ask that KansasVoter guy. He's an NRA member in good standing, I'm not. n/t

[Callisto32]

33. False dichotomy.

You lose.

[Glassunion]

34. Flame Bait...

"Dear Gun "enthusiasts"......"
"Enthusiasts" KV's word for "Gun-Nuts". However he had to stop using "gun-nuts" because his posts were being deleted by moderators. So now, he encloses the word with quotes in order to single out the word and add sarcasm at the same time. Basically an allowed insult.

"your sacred NRA opposes Kagan......"
As if all of us gun-nuts all hold the NRA as some masterful creation bestowed upon us to be revered. Implying we hold all the organization does above anything else, and we live and breath the very air it gives us.

"Do you support the NRAs opposition against her?
Honest question. Bereft of sarcasm and insult.

"Do you also oppose Kagan?"
Another honest question.

"If so then you are against most of the democratic party."
As Calisto32 mentioned... False dichotomy. Plus yet another dig at the gun-nut, as if we cannot possibly be progressive individuals if we support the NRA.

How about you word it like this?
Dear NRA members. The NRA opposes Kagan......
Do you support the NRAs opposition against her? Do you also oppose Kagan?
If so why?
You may get a more productive discussion going.


1. I support the NRA's opposition against her. Her own opinions on issues related to the 2nd Amendment leave me with the feeling that she will not protect the 2nd Amendment strongly as an individual right and most likely will side against the 2nd Amendment.
2. No I do not oppose Kagan.
3. There is no "if" so, so there is no "why". Or as you put it I am not against most of the democratic party.

So in conclusion, I am a NRA member, I agree with their view on that one issue and I am still a progressive. I'm just glad that you are not the doorman to the Democratic party, getting to decide who does and does not get in.

[cleanhippie]

44. "I'm just glad that you are not the doorman to the Democratic party".......

I'm just glad that you are not the doorman to the Democratic party, getting to decide who does and does not get in.

A-fucking-MEN!

[rrneck]

45. The OP is a Democratic Party fanboy. nt

[east texas lib]

39. Slow day?

Maybe it'll pick up later.

[Ter]

42. They oppose her for good reason

She is awful on the issue of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

[Euromutt]

43. Just because I'm a member doesn't mean I agree with organization's views all the time

Kagan struck me as a perfectly fine candidate for Supreme Court justice. Personally, I think the vehemence of the NRA's opposition to Kagan was a result of their frustration at not having mounted a more vociferous opposition to Sotomayor, only to find that Sotomayor essentially lied about considering the individual right to keep and bear arms to be "settled law." And while I think it's fair for the organization to be upset about that, I don't think it's fair to take it out on Kagan.

[DissedByBush]

46. She's one of those who believes in the "Bill of Rights Minus One"

Of course the NRA, which is dedicated to that one right, will be against her.

[Francis Marion]

47. And what's wrong with that?

If "...most of the democratic party," disrespects the Second Amendment, and if Kagan's written record as we see it so far disrespects the Second Amendment, then it is an American's sacred duty to stand with the Bill of Rights against such ignorance, both to oppose and to dispel such error.

There was a time when "...most of the democratic party" agreed with Taney that a black man had no rights a white man was bound to respect. Such as, the right to own guns.

When most of a group is just plain wrong, then moral courage is medecine.