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  
•       •       •

3361 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2012 at 5:12 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-10-08 02:51:27 PM  
5 votes:
NRA: No Reasoning Allowed
2012-10-08 02:37:53 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:34:17 PM  
4 votes:
does the NRA even claim to be nonpartisan anymore?
2012-10-08 03:40:24 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:53:15 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:40:44 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:37:26 PM  
3 votes:
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 07:19:47 PM  
2 votes:
I bought a S&W pistol a few months back, and it came with NRA propaganda in the box! Now I'm getting junk mail from them too, which I can only assume means they got my address from the background check info (shouldn't that be confidential? Pisses me off!)

Seems to me that the NRA is just the lobby for the Gun Industry, and they profit from whipping up hysteria about Obama. Remember how gun and ammo sales spiked after his last election? They're probably hoping that the fear of a re-election will generate another windfall.
2012-10-08 03:29:24 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:21:01 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:15:19 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:59:52 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:35:56 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-09 03:08:20 AM  
1 vote:

violentsalvation: If it wasn't so late I'd try to google around and look to find something from his actual time campaigning to be president and see if I could prove you wrong.


Ah! My own apologies to your sir for my previous post!

Please Google around to your heart's content, we'll wait.

Myself, as a gun owner and ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and liberal open and concealed carry laws, I was paying close effing attention during the 2008 primaries.

But maybe I missed some telling slip the utterly contradicts every other statement on the subject I've ever heard from Mr. Obama.
2012-10-09 02:59:41 AM  
1 vote:

violentsalvation: Obama had an anti-gun record before and during his 08 presidential candidacy


Obama advocated no anti-gun policy during his 2008 presidential candidacy.

When you repeatedly lie by asserting that he did, you lie, lying like a lying liar who lies with lying lies.
2012-10-09 02:15:18 AM  
1 vote:

violetsalivation: I'd appreciate


You think anyone gives a crap what you do or do not appreciate?
2012-10-08 10:33:15 PM  
1 vote:
Like some metal phallus loving righty is going to vote for Obama. The lying is rather shameless I have to admit, although not unexpected.
2012-10-08 10:12:27 PM  
1 vote:

redmid17: AFAIK it never got past Feinstein's mouth, but, given that there had been attempts to reintroduce it just about every year since it's sunset provision trigger, it doesn't surprise me that 65 members of the democratic party decided to intervene when the presidency, house, and senate were all controlled by democrats. Does it really come across as shocking to you? The last time that happened, the AWB was passed and it was one of many reasons why the Dems lost a shiat ton of seats in the next election.


Scaring the gun nuts for more money is what the NRA does best.
2012-10-08 08:14:49 PM  
1 vote:
The government has the NRA member list, and if they ever actually come for anyone's guns, that'll be the list they start with.
2012-10-08 06:57:21 PM  
1 vote:
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 06:31:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:26:39 PM  
1 vote:
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 06:21:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:11:57 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:47:45 PM  
1 vote:

dittybopper: Romney didn't sign an Assault Weapons Ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons
...
What Romney signed actually *LOOSENED* restrictions on assault weapons in Massachusetts.


The funny thing is your source for that article was OUTRAGED at Romney's administration when the bill was signed.

On July 1, 2004 , Governor Mitt Romney signed into law one of the greatest of reforms to Massachusetts gun laws in recent history. In what should have been a day of celebration for GOAL and its members, the Romney administration took a major shot at lawful gun owners and showed their true colors.

GOAL Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Wallace was invited to attend a ceremonial bill signing at 10:30 AM Thursday in the state house press room. Several of the reform bill's supporters and the entire state house press corps were at the gathering.

In a move that shocked many in the room, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey began the ceremony by hailing this bill as "...an important victory against crime." The Lieutenant Governor went on to say, "The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens."

After the Lieutenant Governor's shocking and insulting comments, she then gave John Rosenthal, of Stop Handgun Violence, an opportunity to address the press corps. Of course, Mr. Rosenthal took the opportunity to put his spin on the bill as "gun safety legislation." During his remarks he stated. "We're not taking guns away from anyone except assault weapons and cheaply made Saturday Night Specials." Romney officials also gave Mr. Rosenthal an entire paragraph in their official press release, while GOAL was not even mentioned.

After the "stage" had been set, Senator Stephen Brewer and Representative George Peterson were allowed to say a few words. These longtime friends of gun owners spoke on the importance of the reforms the bill made. "This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law," said Representative George Peterson.

Governor Romney then took the podium to make a few remarks before signing the bill. Although the Governor did make mention of being a "sportsman" and the reforms in the bill that would help other sportsmen, he spun the bill as a ban.

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts ," Romney said. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

When asked by a reporter if he supported the renewal of the federal "assault weapons" ban and if he had spoken to the senators about it, Governor Romney replied that it was not really his job to lobby on federal legislation, but that he shared Senator Kerry's and Senator Kennedy's position on the issue!


Funny that you have to go to the Web Archive to find that kind of thing, isn't it? It's almost as if they've scrubbed their site.

And the Romney admin's press release put it this way:

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.
2012-10-08 05:34:12 PM  
1 vote:
I'm about as pro-gun as anyone, but because I'm a liberal I would never be endorsed by any gun group. And that's sad. Isn't the point of your association to support the candidate who clearly shares your stated cause, or at least has no history of acting against it, regardless of that candidates other policies not in your stated reason for existence? Nah - your purported purpose isn't the actual gun. It's the politics. If your concerns about firearms were anything but a front to cover what you really are (a conservative whaargarbl machine), you'd refuse to endorse Romney. I imagine the reasoning is something like, "Sure, he's passed anti-gun laws, but I bet he'll fark over the poor real good."
2012-10-08 05:15:50 PM  
1 vote:

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
2012-10-08 05:13:24 PM  
1 vote:
There is some serious spinning going on in here for the NRA
2012-10-08 04:21:24 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:16:04 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:15:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:11:23 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:03:40 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:47:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:23:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:03:52 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:54:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:50:30 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

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