If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The NRA launches a swing-state ad blitz to defeat a candidate who has never advanced any anti-gun legislation in favor of one who has actually signed an assault weapons ban   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 288
    More: Followup, NRA, President Obama, assault weapons, swing states, legislation, advertising campaigns, rocket launch  
•       •       •

3327 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2012 at 5:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-08 02:34:17 PM
does the NRA even claim to be nonpartisan anymore?
 
2012-10-08 02:35:56 PM

FlashHarry: does the NRA even claim to be nonpartisan anymore?


They are 'libertarian' who always happen to vote Republican. Or so I hear when I'm at the shooting ranges and stores.
 
2012-10-08 02:37:26 PM
They've got Grover Norquist and Bob Barr on their board of directors, so they're never going to endorse a Democrat no matter how pro-gun they are.
 
2012-10-08 02:37:53 PM

Nadie_AZ: They are 'libertarian' who always happen to vote Republican. Or so I hear when I'm at the shooting ranges and stores.


they claimed that if obama were elected, he'd take your guns. no such thing has happened. not even close. in fact, the only gun legislation he's signed, as far as i know, is a bill allowing guns to be carried in national parks. a PRO-gun law.

so what's their rationale this time? "well, we know we told you he'd take your guns if he were elected - what we meant was, if he wins a second term. yeah, that's it..."
 
2012-10-08 02:40:44 PM
That is because their Retard-In-Chief, Wayne LaPierre fervently believes that Obama has been holding off so he can do all his gun rights removing in his second term. It has all been planned, you see, based on a ton of no evidence whatsoever.
 
2012-10-08 02:42:07 PM

FlashHarry: does the NRA even claim to be nonpartisan anymore?


Well, Fox still pretends to be, so the NRA will to. Only NRA members will pretend the NRA is bipartisan.
 
2012-10-08 02:50:11 PM

Marcus Aurelius: They've got Grover Norquist and Bob Barr on their board of directors, so they're never going to endorse a Democrat no matter how pro-gun they are.


They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.
 
2012-10-08 02:50:30 PM

FlashHarry: they claimed that if obama were elected, he'd take your guns. no such thing has happened. not even close. in fact, the only gun legislation he's signed, as far as i know, is a bill allowing guns to be carried in national parks. a PRO-gun law.


You can also take them on Amtrak as well now.
 
2012-10-08 02:51:27 PM
NRA: No Reasoning Allowed
 
2012-10-08 02:53:15 PM

jbuist: They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.


so why are they endorsing an actual gun grabber over a pro-gun candidate?
 
2012-10-08 02:54:01 PM

FlashHarry: Nadie_AZ: They are 'libertarian' who always happen to vote Republican. Or so I hear when I'm at the shooting ranges and stores.

they claimed that if obama were elected, he'd take your guns. no such thing has happened. not even close. in fact, the only gun legislation he's signed, as far as i know, is a bill allowing guns to be carried in national parks. a PRO-gun law.

so what's their rationale this time? "well, we know we told you he'd take your guns if he were elected - what we meant was, if he wins a second term. yeah, that's it..."


Shouldn't Fast and Furious really win them over, given it was a gun-buying program that created new gunowners that otherwise never could have been?
 
2012-10-08 02:54:58 PM

jbuist: Marcus Aurelius: They've got Grover Norquist and Bob Barr on their board of directors, so they're never going to endorse a Democrat no matter how pro-gun they are.

They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.


Can you explain their Romney endorsement?
 
2012-10-08 02:55:54 PM

FlashHarry: jbuist: They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.

so why are they endorsing an actual gun grabber over a pro-gun candidate?


I'm predicting the spin is 'Obama is guaranteed to grab every gun! So we must endorse the guy who actually grabbed guns.' It can't possibly be anything sensical.
 
2012-10-08 02:58:04 PM

FlashHarry: jbuist: They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.

so why are they endorsing an actual gun grabber over a pro-gun candidate?


SCOTUS nominations. That's pretty much it. They state some other reasons in press releases, but this has to be the only real reason.

That and calling Obama "pro-gun" is a bit out there. Don't get me wrong, Romney sucks monkey balls, but at least he's trying to run away from his record. Obama still put calls for a renewed assault weapon ban in his campaign literature last time around. I bet it's still there too.
 
2012-10-08 02:59:52 PM

jbuist: That and calling Obama "pro-gun" is a bit out there.


well... fair enough. i shouldn't lower myself to using their tactics.

obama has certainly not been "anti-gun." and romney certainly HAS been "anti-gun."

yet they're endorsing romney. why? because he is a republican.
 
2012-10-08 03:02:16 PM

FlashHarry: why? because he is a republican.


That and if you ask them, right now, what their stance is one will say he's for a ban on the most popular rifles and handguns in today's market.

Don't get me wrong, Romney sucks monkey balls on guns, but at least he's trying to run away from his record. Obama has never changed his tune.

If it were up to me I wouldn't endorse anybody in this election. Tell them both to STFU and sit in the corner for their past actions.
 
2012-10-08 03:03:52 PM
Part of me would love to see Romney elected just so he could enact some insanely tough gun control legislation to make these sad-bastard gun nuts hate themselves.

On the other hand, since they're willing to support Romney, and given his past history of harsh gun control legislation, maybe Obama actually will see this as a green light from the NRA to crack down on guns in his second term?
 
2012-10-08 03:06:06 PM

FlashHarry: does the NRA even claim to be nonpartisan anymore?


Like any good pimp the NRA knows it can get Mittens back in line with a strong hand
 
2012-10-08 03:06:49 PM

jbuist: Marcus Aurelius: They've got Grover Norquist and Bob Barr on their board of directors, so they're never going to endorse a Democrat no matter how pro-gun they are.

They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.


Shocking.
 
2012-10-08 03:15:19 PM

FlashHarry: does the NRA even claim to be nonpartisan anymore?


They didn't kick Ted Nugent off the board-of-directors for making comments about the current President that warranted a Secret Service visit. Or even release a statement why they felt it was worth keeping Captain Skidmark around.
 
2012-10-08 03:18:24 PM

jbuist: FlashHarry: jbuist: They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.

so why are they endorsing an actual gun grabber over a pro-gun candidate?

SCOTUS nominations. That's pretty much it. They state some other reasons in press releases, but this has to be the only real reason.

That and calling Obama "pro-gun" is a bit out there. Don't get me wrong, Romney sucks monkey balls, but at least he's trying to run away from his record. Obama still put calls for a renewed assault weapon ban in his campaign literature last time around. I bet it's still there too.


And yet here you are defending the NRA picking Romney over Obama.
 
2012-10-08 03:20:50 PM

Sgt Otter: They didn't kick Ted Nugent off the board-of-directors for making comments about the current President that warranted a Secret Service visit.


The BoD is an elected position and Ted, IIRC, receives more votes than anybody else. I don't even know if the BoD can kick somebody out.
 
2012-10-08 03:21:01 PM
In order to keep your sheep together you need to make sure the majority of them are all going in the proper direction, which means appealing to your hardcore gun nuts. And most of the hardcore gun nuts are racists and teabaggers so...Romney?
 
2012-10-08 03:23:54 PM

GAT_00: And yet here you are defending the NRA picking Romney over Obama.


I'm explaining it. Defending it would mean I think it's a good call. I don't think that. I understand it but i don't like it.

Since you missed it the first time I'll repeat myself:

jbuist: If it were up to me I wouldn't endorse anybody in this election. Tell them both to STFU and sit in the corner for their past actions.

 
2012-10-08 03:24:31 PM
Could be this.

Link (pops)
 
2012-10-08 03:25:49 PM

bdub77: In order to keep your sheep together you need to make sure the majority of them are all going in the proper direction, which means appealing to your hardcore gun nuts. And most of the hardcore gun nuts are racists and teabaggers so...Romney?


The NRA has no official party direction. Your own statement shows their official policy is total bullshiat.
 
2012-10-08 03:26:57 PM

unamused: Could be this.

Link (pops)


That's like a month and a half old. Doesn't count.
 
2012-10-08 03:27:02 PM

jbuist: I'm explaining it. Defending it would mean I think it's a good call. I don't think that. I understand it but i don't like it.


jbuist: SCOTUS nominations. That's pretty much it. They state some other reasons in press releases, but this has to be the only real reason.


jbuist: Obama still put calls for a renewed assault weapon ban in his campaign literature last time around.


jbuist: Obama has never changed his tune.


And then these are...what? Oh, right, you defending the NRA picking a gun grabber over someone who has expanded gun rights.
 
2012-10-08 03:29:24 PM
Meh, the NRA just gives lip service to the whole "defeat Obama". Obama is the best salesman the NRA and the gun industry has had in a LONG time. They want him in office to keep the gun nuts paranoid and buying. Since the gun industry kicks back to the NRA it helps Wayne keep his $970,000+/year salary too. It's the circle of life.....
 
2012-10-08 03:34:24 PM

jbuist: unamused: Could be this.

Link (pops)

That's like a month and a half old. Doesn't count.


He said he thinks we should revisit the issue next year (when he doesn't face reelection.)
That scares the shiat out of a lot of folks.
I'll still vote for him (the Talibornagain scare me that much,) but I'll be white knuckling the next 4 years.
 
2012-10-08 03:35:03 PM

jbuist: The BoD is an elected position


The Bowl of Dicks is elected? If you win, does that mean your dick is put in the bowl, or your dick is *not* put in the bowl?
 
2012-10-08 03:40:24 PM
The NRA is a f*cking joke and Wayne LaPierre is an insane douchebag.

I don't care how much you love guns, why the f*ck would anyone send these guys their hard-earned money? They're far more concerned with electing Republicans than protecting your rights.
 
2012-10-08 03:47:27 PM

Lionel Mandrake: The NRA is a f*cking joke and Wayne LaPierre is an insane douchebag.

I don't care how much you love guns, why the f*ck would anyone send these guys their hard-earned money? They're far more concerned with electing Republicans than protecting your rights.


Well for one thing the NRA does do a few good things, like firearm safety/education. Plus in some cases you don't have a choice but to join. A lot of gun clubs require you to be a member to join. So if you want to shoot somewhere you have to join.
 
2012-10-08 03:48:31 PM

FlashHarry: does the NRA even claim to be nonpartisan anymore?


If you ever wanted the best organizational example of a Fark Independent...
 
2012-10-08 03:59:52 PM
You'll all be sorry when 0bama and the UN come and take your guns away.

They'll never get mine!
 
2012-10-08 04:01:34 PM

jbuist: I bet it's still there too.


I'll take you up on that bet.
 
2012-10-08 04:03:40 PM
Obama went pretty quiet on it after F&F broke but bringing back the the AWB and making it permanent was part of his 08 campaign.

Holder brought it up in early 09 but he had little support.
"Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

And he was pretty anti-gun preceding his presidency. Link

Considering that, I don't think signing one pro-gun law which was attached to something else makes Obama pro gun. I don't think Obama deserves a pass on his original campaign. And on the other side of the coin, I sure as shiat don't think Romney deserves any endorsements, quite the opposite.
 
2012-10-08 04:05:32 PM

Lando Lincoln: jbuist: I bet it's still there too.

I'll take you up on that bet.


OK, I checked. They actually did remove any references to an assault weapons ban from the campaign website.

Looks like they're learning.
 
2012-10-08 04:11:23 PM
Romney didn't sign an Assault Weapons Ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3. Extended the term of the state's firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.


5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver's license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3" x 4".

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.


What Romney signed actually *LOOSENED* restrictions on assault weapons in Massachusetts.
 
2012-10-08 04:15:28 PM

Hershey Highway Patrol: Lionel Mandrake: The NRA is a f*cking joke and Wayne LaPierre is an insane douchebag.

I don't care how much you love guns, why the f*ck would anyone send these guys their hard-earned money? They're far more concerned with electing Republicans than protecting your rights.

Well for one thing the NRA does do a few good things, like firearm safety/education. Plus in some cases you don't have a choice but to join. A lot of gun clubs require you to be a member to join. So if you want to shoot somewhere you have to join.


I can appreciate the gun safety courses; that is very good.

But I sure as shiat wouldn't join any club that required me to join a lobbyist organization. 

But that's just me.
 
2012-10-08 04:16:04 PM

GAT_00: Oh, right, you defending the NRA picking a gun grabber over someone who has expanded gun rights.


Romney actually expanded gun rights in Massachusetts. See my post above.

The only thing Obama did to expand it was to merely sign a minor expansion of concealed carry in National Parks that was attached as an unrelated rider to his "Must Sign" Credit CARD Act of 1999. I'm sure he held his nose when he did it.
 
2012-10-08 04:18:14 PM

Lionel Mandrake: But I sure as shiat wouldn't join any club that required me to join a lobbyist organization.


The NRA is the gun safety/range/competition arm.

NRA-ILA is the lobbying organization.

NRA-PVF works on elections.

By law the NRA can't use more than 15% of membership fees for the ILA and PVF branches. They're basically funded by separate donations.
 
2012-10-08 04:21:24 PM
Keep sending the NRA your money. Morons.

Hershey Highway Patrol: Obama is the best salesman the NRA and the gun industry has had in a LONG time


Absolutely. Hell, Ruger has been so swamped that they actually stopped taking orders for new guns for a while sometime last year.
 
2012-10-08 04:25:19 PM

dittybopper: GAT_00: Oh, right, you defending the NRA picking a gun grabber over someone who has expanded gun rights.

Romney actually expanded gun rights in Massachusetts. See my post above.

The only thing Obama did to expand it was to merely sign a minor expansion of concealed carry in National Parks that was attached as an unrelated rider to his "Must Sign" Credit CARD Act of 1999. I'm sure he held his nose when he did it.


SVR
 
2012-10-08 04:38:01 PM

dittybopper: we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions


Loose? Really?
 
2012-10-08 04:49:04 PM

Marcus Aurelius: They've got Grover Norquist and Bob Barr on their board of directors, so they're never going to endorse a Democrat no matter how pro-gun they are.


I went through their site and checked all of their endorsements.

They endorse exactly one democrat for the house, and they apologize for it.
 
2012-10-08 05:13:10 PM
Oooh. Guns, guns, guns. C'mon, Sal. The Tigers are playing... [slaps the table] tonight! I never miss a game.
 
2012-10-08 05:13:24 PM
There is some serious spinning going on in here for the NRA
 
2012-10-08 05:15:30 PM

Marcus Aurelius: They've got Grover Norquist and Bob Barr on their board of directors, so they're never going to endorse a Democrat no matter how pro-gun they are.


Also, their membership pool is almost entirely comprised of angry white men. So supporting Obama isn't exactly good for business.
 
2012-10-08 05:15:50 PM

jbuist: FlashHarry: jbuist: They endorsed 58 members of the Democratic Party in the 2010 US House races alone.

so why are they endorsing an actual gun grabber over a pro-gun candidate?

SCOTUS nominations. That's pretty much it. They state some other reasons in press releases, but this has to be the only real reason.

That and calling Obama "pro-gun" is a bit out there. Don't get me wrong, Romney sucks monkey balls, but at least he's trying to run away from his record. Obama still put calls for a renewed assault weapon ban in his campaign literature last time around. I bet it's still there too.


Good call. This makes more sense now at least
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report