'Dark and dangerous' Democrats under fire from NRA

[T_i_B]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/07/wgun07.xml

America is under threat from malevolent forces intent on stripping citizens of their liberties. Dark enemies are stalking the innocent and the public must gird itself for confrontation.

So claims the National Rifle Association, America's largest, wealthiest and most politically powerful gun rights group, which has printed pamphlets entitled Freedom in Peril to alert its four million members. The danger, it says, can be summed up in one word: Democrats.

So alarmed is the NRA at the advent of a Democrat-controlled Congress after 11 years of pro-gun Republicanism that it has issued a new call to arms, urging benefactors to open up their wallets and stand up for their constitutional right to gun ownership.

"Second Amendment freedom today stands naked in the path of a marching axis of adversaries far darker and more dangerous than gun owners have ever known," it notes. The pamphlet paints a picture of fear and lawlessness under anti-gun Democrats, infested by animal rights terrorists and illegal aliens whose violence goes unchecked while law-abiding gun owners, such as sport huntsmen, see their own rights dismantled.

[Meldread]

1. Insane.

LOL. Good grief. I want one of those pamphlets, because the way it sounds - I can't even believe average red neck Joe is that stupid.

Further, as a Democrat I would contact the NRA and inform them that they are walking on thin ice. If they don't want to give endorsements to Democrats and fall in line behind the new power, then all of their issues fall to the back burner and gun control becomes Issue #1.

[T_i_B]

3. Never mind they way it sounds...

...just click on the link and see the cacky caricatures for yourself!

[Meldread]

4. HOLY ****!!

Wow, it's been a long while since I've seen this type of racism:



Caption: "The NRA pamphlet paints a picture of fear and lawlessness"

See any white folk in that picture? Didn't think so.

[T_i_B]

5. "Wow, it's been a long while since I've seen this type of racism:"

That's precisely what I was getting at.

[MidwestTransplant]

9. Unless I saw this with my own eyes I wouldn't have believe they

would be that blatant. Hopefully this gets some good media attention.

I saw a black guy with an NRA sticker on his car a few weeks ago. I wonder how he will feel about this pamphlet.

[Blue_Tires]

32. ugh

racial fearmongering of the worst order....it alarms me at how many nra members will buy into it

[LaurenG]

2. Oh rofl, here we go again, terra tera terra!

I think republicans must have a dreadful life, everything scares them into (over) reacting.

"Run for your life/get out your guns/bombs/knives/fear - republicans, the ______ are coming!":rofl:

[annabanana]

6. "Violent overthrow" of a duly elected government anyone?

Lock 'em up!

[Kolesar]

7. When this pamphlet was last discussed, the American newspaper did not post the racist images

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2672139#2672187

[T_i_B]

14. That thread is still open

so there's still time to post the offending images on there.

[Kolesar]

17. Between Dailykos, Wonkette & this "concealed carry" site, I cannot figure what is going on.

The NRA defenders wish to establish that the NRA did not publish this.

http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/15/2616.page
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/23/11618/644

Wonkette: Liar
by GoSlash27
Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 08:37:47 AM PST
Perusing the internets last night led me to a highly suspect entry on her blog:

http://www.wonkette.com/...

It's a startling insight into the seedy underbelly of the NRA and it's racist, xenophobic followers.
Or at least it would be if it were true...

GoSlash27's diary :: ::
...But it's not and I'm calling her on it. Super-secret, indeed!
The NRA has no history of publishing this sort of trash, no history of involving itself in issues outside the 2nd amendment, and no history of supporting the mindset displayed by this comic.
Furthermore, she offers absolutely no evidence that the NRA is responsible for this. I find it highly suspicious that I (an actual NRA member) was not given access to this, yet somehow she was. Furthermore, a GIS of the "title" comes up empty and there's no mention of it anywhere on their website. Who made it? Who knows. Either one of those fringey right-wing groups or else some dishonest person on the left looking to paint the NRA as a fringey right-wing group.

So cough it up, lady: Prove that this comic actually came from the NRA as you claim or else explain to us why you felt the need to lie about it.
...more...

[T_i_B]

29. The denial option?

Well I certainly don't see too many people queueing up to defend the NRA leaflets. People defending the second amendment yes (lots of those!), but nobody on that side of the fence willing to talk about the NRA's immigrant bashing tactics here.

[benEzra]

33. The NRA has about 4 million members...

out of ~80 million gun owners in the United States.

I'm not currently an NRA member (used to be, but let my membership lapse last year), and probably most of the gun owners on DU aren't.

FWIW, I think this pamphlet is trash, and whoever thought it would help the pro-2ndA cause is an idiot.

[T_i_B]

35. Yay!

FWIW, I think this pamphlet is trash, and whoever thought it would help the pro-2ndA cause is an idiot.

Pro-gun or anti-gun, it's hard to disagree with that.

[Cobalt-60]

8. They're in it for the cash. And maybe the information.

Once upon I time I was an NRA member for a year.
I didn't renew for two main reasons.
First, because they couldn't get enough of the republican party.
And, because it occurred to me that a totalitarian state seeking to confiscate firearms could want no better suspect list than the NRA membership files.
And then there was the third reason..I hate to sound like an elitist, but the NRA rank and file just isn't much for conversation.

[madrchsod]

10. here is the entire load of crap

http://www.boingboing.net/images/NR-F8_PERILFINAL.pdf
NR-F8_PERILFINAL.pdf (application/pdf Object)

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/26/in_case_you_missed_i.html
Boing Boing: In case you missed it: NRA's wacky graphic novel (UPDATED)

[Kolesar]

11. Your first link is a "damaged file" &I cannot download it...eom

[riverwalker]

12. my NRA family

I always remind them it was a Republican president who issued orders to disarm law abiding citizens in New Orleans after Katrina, and it was their precious NRA that stood SILENT while they did it.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

13. It's horrifying!!!

Hairy-legged women with gasoline cans! Owls armed with dynamite! Cows, pigs and lobsters roaming the streets unchecked! Fire breathing TV sets! Giant tidal waves!

This will all come to pass if Democrats are allowed to pass gun control laws! Only the NRA can save you!

[Irreverend IX]

16. I want one of those dynamite-dropping owls.

Note that the pig in the picture appears to be floating on air.

[MasonJar]

15. Is the 2nd Amendment the only one they care about, or are they

too self-centered to even notice that many other amendments and rights have been abridged by the dunderheads they elect while bemoaning a non-issue of the dems stripping the NRAers of their stupid guns? Who wants their stupid guns? Who wants their stupid president? Thank you, NRA, for ruining our liberties and our democracy with your shortsighted, boneheaded and narrow-minded hypocrisy.

[ooga booga]

18. We have to address this belief that Democrats are anti-gun

This is a good chance for some of the new faces in the Democratic Party to weigh in on this NRA notion that all Republicans are on their side and all Democrats are against them. Jon Tester and Jim Webb leap to mind. Tester, for example, grew up in Montana and probably hunted. He's NOT going to fit their stereotype for a Democrat. We need guys like Jon Tester to take on the NRA and get them talking to the Democratic Party.

To me, the Second Amendment is a fundamental Constitutional right. However, there is the matter of degree. I think you can have a rifles for hunting game and some handguns for target shooting and protecting yourself. Assault weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people in a military assault should be out of bounds. I see no rational argument why a private individual should be allowed to own them. The same goes for Stinger missiles and rocket propelled grenades, right? So, the REAL argument is about WHERE you draw the line. We have to engage the NRA in THAT debate.

[Ishoutandscream2]

19. You nailed my views exactly

and welcome to DU!

[Romulus]

20. welcome

I agree with what you said, but am concerned about two points:

(1)

To me, the Second Amendment is a fundamental Constitutional right.

The Second Amendment and 14th Amendment together protect a pre-existing right of self defense that predates the U.S. Constitution. The amendment is not a "right" unto itself. But I get your point (I think).


(2)

Assault weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people in a military assault should be out of bounds. I see no rational argument why a private individual should be allowed to own them.

If by "assault weapon" you mean a fully automatic machine gun then I agree with you because, like explosives, their use is indiscriminate in that you cannot control exactly where every fired round will go. Therefore, I understand why a government seeking to balance the right of self defense with that of public safety would seek to strictly regulate fully automatic firearms.

If you are talking about semi-auto firearms (that function no differently from other semi-auto firearms), then I am afraid you have perhaps been misled into believing that pistol grips and the like make certain firearms "more deadlier" than others.

Welcome to DU!

[ooga booga]

22. these are useful clarifications

(1) I think we're in accord on this one. I'm trying to say that if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really ARE the basis of US law then the Second Amendment addresses the right of citizens to own firearms.

(2) Yes, I was clumsily trying to refer to fully automatic weapons. As I said, there is a matter of degree here. I think that fully automatic weapons are over that line.

[benEzra]

28. Those have been tightly controlled since 1934...

Yes, I was clumsily trying to refer to fully automatic weapons. As I said, there is a matter of degree here. I think that fully automatic weapons are over that line.

Those have been tightly controlled since 1934, and mere possession of one without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year felony under the National Firearms Act, if that's reassuring to you.

[derby378]

21. So what's an "assault weapon?"

Assault weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people in a military assault should be out of bounds. I see no rational argument why a private individual should be allowed to own them.

It neither breaks your back nor picks your pocket if I own an AK-47. What you're talking about is banning from civilian ownership a form of technology that has been in civilian hands for around a hundred years.

Besides, the Second Amendment mentions a "well-regulated militia." A militiaman need something more substantial than your dad's old 30.06 hunting rifle, you know.

Historically, those who support reauthorizing the 1994 ban on semi-automatics have been labelled "anti-gun," for better or for worse. So trying to hold that line may wind up costing the Democratic Party some much-needed votes in 2008. And that's something I just do not want to contemplate.

[ooga booga]

23. I may have ventured into the debate here....

but the point I wanted to make is that we have to re-engage the NRA and their friends in this debate and defuse this issue so that it doesn't work against Democrats in election years.

I'm certainly NOT a person equipped to do that. Perhaps, you are. If so, go for it. We'll be a lot better off if you succeed.

[derby378]

24. I think we can agree on the "re-engaging the NRA" point

I had a chance to look at the whole NRA pamphlet, myself. Sheesh. Whatever truth may actually lie within its pages has been obfuscated by layers of fearmongering and more than a little xenophobia. But how many NRA members will buy this stuff lock, stock, and barrel?

Still, I have to believe that the average NRA guy is a reasonable fellow who can be engaged in a little one-on-one debate. This may be our greatest hope.

[-..__...]

30. The Brady Campaign is not without it's own fear mongering...

and delusional paranoia...

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=BCP_shootiful

(actually, it's quite funny once one realizes the absurdity and dishonesty portrayed in the flash viseo).

[underpants]

25. Everyone has run away from doing anything about guns since '94

when the NRA and the GOP rushed out to claim that their win was fueled (with other things) by the public being upset about the "automatic weapons ban" and the work of the NRA. The Clinton Dems ran away never to speak of it again.

Now this issue is going to be taken up by the cities, not even whole states want to deal with it. There are some tweakings of laws that need to be seen to and the 12 years since anyone has done anything about this is far too long.

That being said this is just the NRA trying to return to their supposed former glory. They started this up with the case of the confiscation of guns in New Orleans-I thought that was overblown but it turns out that about 700 people had guns taken away from them which WAS in violation of state local and federal laws. No the NRA is just pulling out the tried and true culture of victimization to get their name back out there and to raise money.

[benEzra]

26. Since '04, not '94...which is why guns were a huge issue in '00 and '04, but not '06.

Everyone has run away from doing anything about guns since '94 when the NRA and the GOP rushed out to claim that their win was fueled (with other things) by the public being upset about the "automatic weapons ban" and the work of the NRA. The Clinton Dems ran away never to speak of it again.

Actually, the DLC continued to push the issue through the '04 election, and the leadership even went so far as to pull both Kerry and Edwards off the campaign trail on Super Tuesday (!) to vote for a draconian handgrip ban. S.1431/H.R.2038 was a huge issue in '04, and party strategists made support for it the primary message of the Kerry/Edwards campaign on the gun issue. FINALLY dropping the issue in '06 allowed pro-gun-rights Dems to get their messages out without being drowned out by the gun-404 DLC message, and was a big part of the retake of the Senate (even running on a pro-gun message, Webb could not have won in the climate of '00 or '04, IMHO).

FWIW, the "automatic weapons ban" was in 1934, not 1994; possession of an automatic weapon without government permission (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony and has been since '34. The 1994 ban was about non-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling, not automatic weapons.

[benEzra]

27. Thoughts...

This is a good chance for some of the new faces in the Democratic Party to weigh in on this NRA notion that all Republicans are on their side and all Democrats are against them. Jon Tester and Jim Webb leap to mind. Tester, for example, grew up in Montana and probably hunted. He's NOT going to fit their stereotype for a Democrat. We need guys like Jon Tester to take on the NRA and get them talking to the Democratic Party.

Webb and Tester defused the gun issue because both oppose the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch and support CCW licensure (Webb is a CHL holder himself), NOT because they are pro-hunting. The gun issue has almost nothing to do with hunting, because the vast majority (80%) of gun owners don't hunt. The misconception that the gun issue is about hunting guns is the same mistake the DLC made in the early '90s that helped cost Dems the House and Senate, and was a major factor in the '00 and '04 presidential losses. Since only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter--and many hunters also own nonhunting guns--a message of "I support hunting, but I want to ban popular nonhunting guns like Glocks and AR-15's" is a guaranteed loser from the start.

The perception of Dems as supporting "gun rights for hunters/skeet shooters only" IS the problem that needs correcting--not the perception that Dems are anti-hunting.

To me, the Second Amendment is a fundamental Constitutional right. However, there is the matter of degree. I think you can have a rifles for hunting game and some handguns for target shooting and protecting yourself. Assault weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people in a military assault should be out of bounds. I see no rational argument why a private individual should be allowed to own them. The same goes for Stinger missiles and rocket propelled grenades, right? So, the REAL argument is about WHERE you draw the line. We have to engage the NRA in THAT debate.

That line was already drawn 72 years ago; military automatic weapons are ALREADY tightly controlled by Federal law, and have been for 72 years. Possession of an M16, military AK-47, Uzi submachinegun, etc. without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, the same restrictions that apply to rocket-propelled grenades, stinger missiles, silenced firearms, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), sawed-off shotguns, M203-type grenade launchers, and so on.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch of the '90s was about small-caliber, non-automatic CIVILIAN rifles (NFA Title 1, not Title 2) with modern styling, not military automatic weapons. THAT is where the gun issue is at, as those are some of the most popular civilian rifles in America. Fighting to ban them is arguably dumber than fighting to outlaw hunting, since 4 out of 5 gun owners aren't hunters.

More at length here: Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMHO).

[-..__...]

31. Testor is the man!

"Gun Rights

Jon Tester strongly believes in our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner and custom butcher Jon made his living with a gun for 25 years. As a legislator Tester voted repeatedly to protect gun rights. In the United States Senate, Jon will stand up to anyone — Republican or Democrat — who wants to take away Montanans’ gun rights."

http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues

"I see no rational argument why a private individual should be allowed to own them. The same goes for Stinger missiles and rocket propelled grenades, right? So, the REAL argument is about WHERE you draw the line. We have to engage the NRA in THAT debate.

Then the debate should be ended before it even gets started. A ban on "assault weapons" is not a viable option or something to be compromised on... plain and simple.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. The NRA will not engage in that debate...

This ain't a debating club. These are mentally and morally unhinged people who don't give a damn how many people die as long as they have their guns. It's that simple. They're not to be reasoned with -- they are to be defeated.

Full Disclosure: I'm a hunter and own several firearms.

Further Full Disclosre: I'm comparatively sane.