Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, NRA, President Obama, assault weapons, swing states, legislation, advertising campaigns, rocket launch  
•       •       •

3360 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2012 at 5:12 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-10-08 06:08:03 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.


The fark they are. Please refer any self professed libertarian who still supports the NRA to me for a quick education.

The actual libertarians behind the Heller and McDonald cases were Alan Gura, Clark Nealy, and Robert Levy. That's a group of people who are affiliated with long time libertarian groups like CATO and the Institute for Justice (yes, I am aware that according to most of the Politics tab, CATO is just a front for Republicans, but if you can't tell the difference between CATO and a mainstream republican think tank like Heritage, you're not going to believe a thing I have to say anyway). That group had to fight the NRA the entire time. The NRA didn't want the case brought, didn't want it before the Supreme Court, and ultimately fought to have oral argument time taken away from Gura and given to them in the McDonald case because they didn't believe in the argument Gura was making.

That argument was based at least in part on the idea that the Slaughterhouse Cases were wrongly decided and should be overturned. For those that aren't aware, the Slaughterhouse Cases are to libertarians what the Citizens United ruling is to progressives (i.e. it's nearly universally hated). It stripped many of the rights and protections the 14th Amendment had been intended to provide to citizens against the states. McDonald was an attempt by libertarians to not just expand the 2nd Amendment to the states, but also to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases. The NRA wanted none of it, because the last thing that conservatives want is more judicially created rights and protections that don't bear directly on the 2nd Amendment. Only the libertarians and liberals typically want an ultra-broad reading of the 14th.

If you don't believe me, you can always listen to the beginning of the oral arguments in McDonald. Actually, a simple method would be to post the start of the transcript:

Mr. Gura: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Although Chicago's ordinances cannot survive the faithful application of due process doctrines, there is an even simpler, more essential reason for reversing the lower court's judgment.

The Constitution's plain text, as understood by the people that ratified it, mandates this result.

In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family; they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship.

The rights so guaranteed were not trivial.

The Civil War was not fought because States were attacking people on the high seas or blocking access to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

The rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment were understood to include the fundamental rights honored by any free government and the personal guarantees of the--

Chief Justice John G. Roberts: Of course, this argument is contrary to the Slaughter-House Cases, which have been the law for 140 years. It might be simpler, but it's a big -- it's a heavy burden for you to carry to suggest that we ought to overrule that decision.

Mr. Gura: --Your Honor, the Slaughter-House Cases should not have any stare decisis effect before the Court.


Gura goes on arguing that the Slaughterhouses Cases should be overturned for another few minutes, before eventually being slapped down by Justice Scalia. In the end, Gura won, but he only got one vote to overturn Slaughterhouse (from Thomas).
 
2012-10-08 06:08:57 PM  

strapp3r: [i524.photobucket.com image 480x639]
come at me brobama!


You what frightens me? The odds that that photo was taken in all seriousness.
 
2012-10-08 06:11:08 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: During his senate race, he backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying "I don't line up with the NRA" and "that's not going to make me the hero of the NRA."

That just proves that Obama really IS going to ban any guns he can once he gets re-elected.

Oh, wait...

Correction - that was Mitt Romney, when HE ran for senate.

Never mind.


Smart guy. He knew he didn't have to pander to the NRA if he was going to go heads-up against a Democrat, because the NRA just defaults to supporting the GOP. Why bother to do their bidding if they are enslaved to supporting you no matter what?
 
2012-10-08 06:11:57 PM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-10-08 06:11:57 PM  
The NRA is not a guns rights organization. They are a far right, extremist arm of the Republican Party, and their supporters have all been taken for fools.
 
2012-10-08 06:12:14 PM  

pdee: Vodka Zombie: 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?

The NRA will never learn. I was a member when the NRA was pushing H. W. Bush. Within a month of taking office Bush Sr. signed the original assult weapons ban.


Ummmm......no.

Poppy signed an executive order stopping the importation of some foreign made guns; that's how we lost the Uzi.

The assault weapons ban passed by Congress was called "The Clinton Gun Ban" for a reason.

And Bill Clinton subsequently realized that's why Al Gore lost in 2000. Ya' think maybe there were 538 gun owners in Florida who voted Bush because of guns?
 
2012-10-08 06:12:53 PM  
Which I would argue, he should, and why not? Take these farking guns away from these crazies already.
 
2012-10-08 06:12:56 PM  

dr_blasto: 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?


Because Mitt Romney believes everything and nothing, on every issue, at all times. He would perform an abortion with a AK-47 if it would win him an extra vote with the coveted "NRA Feminist" demo.
 
2012-10-08 06:12:57 PM  

redanglespanish.files.wordpress.com

"Just remember. It's not a lie...if you believe it."

 
2012-10-08 06:13:35 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.


NRA members get a discount rate at the NRA shooting range in Fairfax, VA.

that's about it.
 
2012-10-08 06:13:54 PM  
Four of them today? Tell us what we've won, Beavis!

webpages.charter.net
 
2012-10-08 06:15:40 PM  

Lando Lincoln: strapp3r: come at me brobama!

Step 1) Find the picture of that carp on the guy's screen
Step 2) Make it your own screen background
Step 3) Post a picture of your desktop on Fark in some innocuous geek thread
Step 4) Wait for someone to notice, and then out you as the naked gun guy
Step 5) Troll the ever living shiat out of everybody for a good six months


theconsciouslife.com

carp
 
2012-10-08 06:16:47 PM  

Lando Lincoln: strapp3r: come at me brobama!

Step 1) Find the picture of that carp on the guy's screen
Step 2) Make it your own screen background
Step 3) Post a picture of your desktop on Fark in some innocuous geek thread
Step 4) Wait for someone to notice, and then out you as the naked gun guy
Step 5) Troll the ever living shiat out of everybody for a good six months


Link
 
2012-10-08 06:18:36 PM  

KarmicDisaster: casual disregard: Nadie_AZ: 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.

Liberals - I challenge you.

We all need to go out and buy guns and actively use them. This is not a request. This is not a suggestion. We need to take this issue and own it. We can steal this talking point. We can make it ours. Let's do it.

Plenty of "liberals" already own guns. I would not be surprised if the proportion is up there. I've got some, but I'm not joining the NRA because they have gotten so kooky.


I emboldened the part with which I disagree.

We must join the NRA. We must own it.

If you exclude yourself from a club on principle, the only result you achieve is to silence your own voice. I want you loud.
 
2012-10-08 06:20:32 PM  
The Obama administration has done enough to try and take away the rights of gun owners. Do you liberals even try anymore, or do you simply throw out baseless accusations and hope people believe them? Liberals blatantly lie
 
2012-10-08 06:21:23 PM  

casual disregard: We must join the NRA. We must own it.


Fark that. I think the Klan is crazy too, but I'm not about to put on a white robe and pointy hood.
 
2012-10-08 06:21:43 PM  

smitty04: [images.sodahead.com image 338x350]


Democrats completely pussied out on the gun issue years ago. They are about as much a threat to gun ownership in this country as Yosemite Sam.

There is a giant pile of black corpses in Chicago from this year's gun violence alone and still you won't get a peep from the supposedly militant, anti-gun Dems.

It's an abdication of their responsibility to the people, but there are zero votes in it, and politicians are in the business of vote getting.

Wayne Pierre is in the business of dues getting, so like any whore he will rally around the pimp and indemnify the gun lobby from their shameless fear mongering.
 
2012-10-08 06:21:50 PM  

gearsprocket: The Obama administration has done enough to try and take away the rights of gun owners.


Such as?
 
2012-10-08 06:24:47 PM  
NRA = (Notorious Republican Asshats) is at it again eh? I wonder when that organization was actually about the rifles?

I like your rifles... I do not like your NRA.
 
2012-10-08 06:25:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: gearsprocket: The Obama administration has done enough to try and take away the rights of gun owners.

Such as?


For one, he opened up the national parks to firearms.
 
2012-10-08 06:25:45 PM  

smitty04: [images.sodahead.com image 338x350]


I don't understand why "conservatives" are so fond of rehashing issues that didn't work four years ago.

But by all means, keep it up!
 
2012-10-08 06:26:39 PM  
FYI, this non-republican here owns guns, guns, swords, archery things, armor, armor, guns. We like to hunt, hunt, target shoot, beat each other with swords and drink homemade moonshine. I will NOT be voting for Rmoney
 
2012-10-08 06:27:18 PM  
The NRA serves the firearms, gear and ammunition industries who have never had it so good since Obama took office.
Just check out any issue of the NRA's "American Rifleman" magazine for the ads and anti-Obama blather.
The fact Obama's done zip on gun control just calls for some creative marketing.
 
2012-10-08 06:27:22 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: casual disregard: We must join the NRA. We must own it.

Fark that. I think the Klan is crazy too, but I'm not about to put on a white robe and pointy hood.


Reverse Fark. Let's be crazy together. I don't seek any special uniforms. I merely want to steal the mat from under the feet of my enemy. Let us take their most important values. Let us make them ours

Wherever they claim membership, let us take it. Whenever they show up, let us kick them out. Let us unravel them.
 
2012-10-08 06:28:22 PM  

gearsprocket: The Obama administration has done enough to try and take away the rights of gun owners.


By expanding them? I don't get it.

Do you have a reason for disliking Obama that is something he actually did?
 
2012-10-08 06:29:41 PM  

casual disregard: We must join the NRA. We must own it.


I disagree. The NRA is not the only gun rights advocate in the country. There are ways to have your voice heard without supporting a partisan and ultimately destructive organization. Support the Second Amendment Foundation, or the Liberal Gun Club instead.
 
2012-10-08 06:31:34 PM  

violentsalvation: 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.


That is utter and complete and absolute fiction.

He never once brought the subject up during his campaign. Never.
Nothing whatsoever - not a word - remotely relating to gun control appeared anywhere in his campaign platform, the Blueprint For America.

When he received the Democratic Party nomination, the pre-existing DNC platform by definition was attached to the campaign - a platform which in its 70+ pages contained exactly one paragraph on the subject, beginning: "We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms." after which Obama brought the subject up exactly zero times. It was niot part of his campaign at all.

When Heller was decided, Obama lamented gun violence (as the NRA would do if it actually gave a goddam about firearms safety) but deferred to the Constitution and to the Supreme Court and never brought it up again. He's not always been so deferential to those jackholes, you're remember.

If you base your decisions on an imaginary history you have fabricated entirely from whole cloth, you will make crummy decisions.
 
2012-10-08 06:36:43 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: FYI, this non-republican here owns guns, guns, swords, archery things, armor, armor, guns. We like to hunt, hunt, target shoot, beat each other with swords and drink homemade moonshine. I will NOT be voting for Rmoney


I want an invite to your next party.
 
2012-10-08 06:37:17 PM  
From what I understand the NRA is arguing that the president won't appoint pro-second amendment USSC justices. The rest of the Bill of Rights be damned.
 
2012-10-08 06:38:50 PM  

smitty04: [images.sodahead.com image 338x350]


I don't see a 100% cognitive disconnect there. I freekin love guns but see no use for an AR-15 outside of killing lots of people. And I'm a damn good shot with one. I also freekin love pistols but don't think you should be able to just go get one at the convenience store either. And yeah, I'm a damn good shot with one of those too.

/a mac10 on full auto is fun but an enormous waste
 
2012-10-08 06:42:24 PM  

FlashHarry: 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 not blah.


FIFY
 
2012-10-08 06:42:50 PM  

JohnnyC: gearsprocket: The Obama administration has done enough to try and take away the rights of gun owners.

By expanding them? I don't get it.

Do you have a reason for disliking Obama that is something he actually did?


He's blah. That's enough for 98% of the NRA's membership pool.
 
2012-10-08 06:43:00 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?


If you count Fast & Furious as pro-gun...

/pew, pew, pew
 
2012-10-08 06:43:06 PM  

Blathering Idjut: From what I understand the NRA is arguing that the president won't appoint pro-second amendment USSC justices. The rest of the Bill of Rights be damned.


O you know he will!
You Know!
You KNow IT

See? It's true already!
 
2012-10-08 06:44:16 PM  

Troy McClure: For one, he opened up the national parks to firearms.


Yeah, not to mention his ATF wants to track people who buy multiple rifles so badly, they decided to manufacture outrage and crime by arming Mexican cartels. Of course, this has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano's outright lie that somehow 90% of guns used in cartel violence came from US gun stores he also appointed a steadfast 2nd amendment supporter to be his AG. A guy who believes that we need to brainwash people and pass additional gun legislation

The president also refuses to pressure Harry Reid to hear HR822 which passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support in the house.
 
2012-10-08 06:45:19 PM  

smitty04: [images.sodahead.com image 338x350]


citations needed
 
2012-10-08 06:56:40 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.


Yeah, that's just over 10% of the seats that were up in the House. How many Republicans did they endorse?
 
2012-10-08 06:57:21 PM  
Fark the NRA and their legion of tiny dicked partisan paranoids who continually and without shame or forethought give a bad name to law abiding gun owners like myself.

seriously, shoot yourselves.
 
2012-10-08 06:57:25 PM  

o5iiawah: The president also refuses to pressure Harry Reid to hear HR822 which passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support in the house.


Because that is a truly horrible piece of legislation.
 
2012-10-08 06:57:39 PM  
It's classic GOP logic.

Romney will maybe swing to a center right position on everything so you should support him instead of the guy that has always actually been a center right politician.

Obama will maybe take away your guns so instead, if you're pro-gun, you should support the guy who has actually banned guns.
 
2012-10-08 06:58:02 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I don't understand why "conservatives" are so fond of rehashing issues that didn't work four years ago.

But by all means, keep it up!



Especially the Jeremiah Wright shiat. He's already president, you can't keep bringing up shiat from before he was elected that we ALREADY knew about.
 
2012-10-08 07:03:22 PM  
 
2012-10-08 07:04:01 PM  
As a state senator, Obama supported banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions on firearms.
 
2012-10-08 07:07:34 PM  

HeadLever: BuckTurgidson: That is utter and complete and absolute fiction.

[the usual talking point about Eric Holder mouthing off on his own dime (long after the election) just before getting his dick smacked for it by Obama after which the subject vaporized]


And?
 
2012-10-08 07:11:21 PM  

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

Loose? Really?


Blame GOAL. I was just quoting them.
 
2012-10-08 07:11:23 PM  

FlashHarry: 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..."


That's pretty much how all these attacks go. Just add "once he doesn't have to worry about being elected..." to all of your old talking points for a whole new set of talking points.
 
2012-10-08 07:13:11 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.


I have this fantasy. In it, I live in a country where people who favored an "assault weapon ban" could actually be understood to be in favor of gun rights because they are removing access to something that is so absolutely insane that it undermines every legitimate reason for households to own guns.

Then I wake up and realize I'm currently working in Australia, and my fantasy is temporarily true.
 
2012-10-08 07:13:18 PM  

dittybopper: 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.


Looking up 18 USC 922 Appendix A there is nothing but boilerplate language concerning title 2 firearms that you see in just about every firearms bill, and nothing specific dealing with so-called "assault weapons" at all.

Secondly, that law did do some nice things, but I wouldn't at all say they expanded gun rights. Especially the part that says you can bar someone for owning a gun after the commission of a misdemeanor. The federal government gets a lot of bad raps about gun regulation, but when you go, as a state, above and beyond federal regulations like that (that is, not in a common sense fashion) you have no grounds to stand by a statement you are expanding gun rights.
 
2012-10-08 07:15:53 PM  

trotsky: My problem is that the NRA has poked its nose into a whole slew of non-gun conservative legislature. I am sick and farking tired of the political wing of the NRA being a bunch of partisan assholes.


Show me a piece of legislation the NRA has endorsed or condemned that wasn't in some way related to guns, gun ownership, or gun rights.

They are a single issue organization. They don't care about abortion, or any other political issue. Individual members might have opinions about those things, but as an organization, the NRA doesn't, and it doesn't make endorsements for legislation or legislators based upon anything other than their stance on guns.
 
2012-10-08 07:16:49 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.


It's that the new talking point for the sheeples trying to convince themselves Romney isn't a RINO and will not govern as a RINO? *shaking head*
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report