NRA pressured to resist Bush energy policies.
By on Jan 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
NRA pressured to resist Bush energy policies.
“After years of close association with the Republican Party and hard-nosed opposition to federal land-use regulation, the National Rifle Association is being pressured by its membership to distance itself from President Bush’s energy policies that have opened more public land for oil and gas drilling and limited access to hunters and anglers,” the Washington Post reports.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow, corporate ownership of the NRA? I’m agast!!
Who would of thought that the NRA is for the membership?
/sarcasm off
January 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pmRats! Rats are leaving the ship!
Everyone has a price….
January 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pmWelcome, ladies and gents of the NRA, to the Democracy Bar and Grill. Please check your coat, hats and weapons at the door.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:03 pmYes Zooey,
But…but…wait..incoming…heads up…piss soaked trolls…again…damnit!!
Cough…
January 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pmPerhaps they are also keen to put a little more distance between themselves and the Vice President, for more practical reasons…………….
January 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pmBut…but…wait..incoming…heads up…piss soaked trolls…again…damnit!!
Cough…
Comment by dixie blood
Heh. Women and guns, it gets the trolls every time. I expect every thread featuring Nancy Pelosi will be trashed by trolls.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pmNice ones, Raven. :-)
January 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pmThanks Zooey..
“send lawyers, guns and money,
January 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pmthe sh@t has hit the fan…..”
(Warren Zevon, R.I.P.)
Heh. Women and guns,..
Comment by Zooey
Zooey, again, refer to the Stenopolous(sp?) thread:)
January 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm#6 Zooey,
Every troll that shows up here has “female” problems…
/Aside
Hi MA!
Pustules…
/Aside over
I love women!!!
January 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pmZooey, again, refer to the Stenopolous(sp?) thread:)
Comment by robert
Tag — you’re it.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pmI love women!!!
Comment by dixie blood
Oops. I thought you were a woman. All this time….
January 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pmSounds like the rank and file membership of the NRA are beginning to feel much the same way the evangelical christian right felt when they realized they’d been had.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pmEven the Vice-Hunter cares nothing for hunters use of public lands. He can afford to hunt on private preserves and shoot caged birds.
The weapons industry cares little as well, their sales to Americans are a trifle compared to the money they make arming Africa, South America and the middle east.
Everyone’s finally “seeing the light” at the end of this tunnel of darkness which this administration has wrought upon this country! Fie! Fie! The time is drawing nigh! Impeachment is in the air as the rats are jumping the sinking ship!
January 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pmhere I am Zooey
January 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pmThe beauty of seeing Bush impeached is that the bubble boy will be the last to know. I picture him hunkered down at his desk in the Oval Office when Capitol Police come for him, wondering why the military won’t obey his orders.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:10 pmYou know, when the NRA starts to distance itself, it is usually to line up a clear shot.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:11 pmComment by hh in georgia — January 7, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
You will be gone again.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:15 pmNRA pressured to resist Bush energy policies. – - Ya mean someone put a gun to the NRA’s head?
January 7th, 2007 at 5:26 pm#12 – Zooey,
How do you know I’m not a woman? I said I love women!!
January 7th, 2007 at 5:27 pmHow do you know I’m not a woman? I said I love women!!
Comment by dixie blood
Men are usually the one’s making statements like, “I love women!”
So confused….
January 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pmLameduck-soon-to-be-impeached Bush is so far out of touch with the real world that he probably doesn’t realize that he’s created his own self-fulfilling prophesy…..wasn’t it on 60 minutes that he uttered those fateful words: Well, I don’t care if it’s only Barney and Laura who are still my friends…..yadda yadda yadda?? Well, looks like truer words were never spoken even by someone so totally out of touch. Guess he is capable of personal insight after all?!
January 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pmNo prob…Z…
January 7th, 2007 at 5:34 pmNRA?
National Republican Assholes?
“Nother Rediculas” Agenda?
NeoCons Rehabilitating America?
Ohh should have read the story…duh? National Rifle Association…got it.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:34 pmComment by veritas —
FYI: Had sex with Laura last night and she’s leaving the chimp. Barney couldn’t wait to get the hell out of there. He was barking about something running down Pennsylvania ave…sounded like “Rove..rove…heavy panting…rove, rove…
January 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pmWell something I can realy relate to..I was a life long member, paid up in full and dumped them and the magazine when they kept sending me dun letters to support their republican candidate…..Hummmm wonder if I should write and ask to get reinstated….Nah! I’ll pass for now.
OT…Been off site and out of power since Friday after noon….Skimming the other thread’s glad I missed it all…Flipping crap with a bunch of dumbass troll’s is getting more tiresome all the time….”You can’t fix stupid”…..I’m begennig to think they are just plant’s, either by the reich or TP to try and keep the thread’s stirred up..
Wish I had some of the good posters email’s so I could drop them an occasional note, then I woulden’t be here at all…Blessings
January 7th, 2007 at 5:46 pmNot
January 7th, 2007 at 5:47 pmReal
Attractive
? Mrs. Beasley tired of him too?
January 7th, 2007 at 5:49 pmFYI: Had sex with Laura last night and she’s leaving the chimp.”
Comment by JTitor — January 7, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Be careful JT, those who have sex with Laura seem to end up dead or stupid
January 7th, 2007 at 5:51 pmAgain!!
Why is the FEC not investigating??!! The NRA is an unregistered, illegal 527 group that should be fined for years of shilling for the Repugnicans!!!
January 7th, 2007 at 5:52 pmSharon,
Do have any email addresses of TP commenters? I’d put mine up, but there are too many trolls around. Maybe if we have one in common we can have that person forward our email addresses.
But I also want you to keep coming back here!
January 7th, 2007 at 5:52 pmSharon….â€You can’t fix stupidâ€â€¦..NRA says a bullet to the back of the will fix any problem. I like the trolls coming to TP. I used to be one of them, so know how to fire back.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pmBe careful JT, those who have sex with Laura seem to end up dead or stupid
Comment by Quadrajet
The Reverse Midas Tw*t.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWish I had some of the good posters email’s so I could drop them an occasional note, then I woulden’t be here at all…Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox
I have been thinking the same thing. We are starting to lose too many “good” posters.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pmNo. Laura said that she has always hated the “little prick”, but wanted to keep her lastname for her real love…porno films.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:00 pmZooey how did you know Laura’s first soon to be released porno is called the “Midas Tw*t”? You peeked!!!!
January 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pm“but wanted to keep her lastname for her real love…porno films.”
Comment by JTitor — January 7, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Well, Zooey’s got a great title for her first flick in post #33
January 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pmZooey how did you know Laura’s first soon to be released porno is called the “Midas Tw*t� You peeked!!!!
Comment by JTitor
Excuse me!! I produced it!
January 7th, 2007 at 6:06 pmLaura will never leave the bull shit, she may run him down but she will never divorce him or leave…Bab’s and the family will keep her in line…
Laura Dear, I have a 1968 non discript old 3/4 ton pick up, tall, wide tires, new brakes and clutch, 4 on the floor, wanna borrow it.? You’ll have to cover all the bumper stickers with a tarp so you can pass security but I’ll loan it to ya….Hell I’ll even fil er up with gas…Come and get the key’s sweet cheek’s, take a big one for the team…Blessings
January 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pmZooey and Sharon,
If you are serious, I will set a box up for “the usual suspects” to use.
Zooey, can I have a copy of the movie you produced. I’m a little twisted.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pmZooey, I hear Barney makes a cameo…true? Entertainment tonight gave it two thumbs up….way up!!! ET said Laura is the biggest hoe this side of New Jearsey. I feel dirty now….I have to go take a shower.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:14 pm#39 Sharon, I think Laura would be more comfortable in a Cadillac “Escalate”
January 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pmBarney the purple dinosuar…not the dog.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pmNo I think that would be a Cadillac “Escalaidâ€
January 7th, 2007 at 6:20 pmIt only offends them when they are personally affected. Typical republican thinking.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:22 pmZooey, only have BnF’s , and like you don’t want to put mine up here..Could get more with my account but to much traffic would wear my old puter out..
.We had a terrible wind storm Friday, took down 2 huge evergreens and the power, we were trapped untill one of the neighbors cut the smller one out so little car’s could go under the big tree being held up by power lines…Sure glad I had bottled water and propane. Made it O.K. just a inconvenience for a couple of day’s…Sorry off topic….Blessings
January 7th, 2007 at 6:22 pmI have to go take a shower.
Comment by JTitor
Wait! Don’t forget the camera…!
January 7th, 2007 at 6:22 pmZooey, can I have a copy of the movie you produced. I’m a little twisted.
Comment by robert
Twisted? No shit! I’m calling your CO.
Besides, you pay full price, just like always…
January 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pmIf you are serious, I will set a box up for “the usual suspects†to use.
Comment by robert
That would be cool, Robert.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pmAbandon Chimp!
Whew, they must be running out of life preservers on the USS Chimpy.
-GSD
January 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pmTwisted? No shit! I’m calling your CO.
Don’t ask, don’t tell does not just apply to homosexuals. Besides, my CO wants a copy too.
Besides, you pay full price, just like always…
Damn, after all the business I give you..
January 7th, 2007 at 6:28 pmSure glad I had bottled water and propane. Made it O.K. just a inconvenience for a couple of day’s…Sorry off topic….Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox
Wow Sharon, I’m glad you’re so self-sufficient. We’ve been having lots of wind, too. Still haven’t been able to get the roof fixed on the other building because of it. Lots of snow too!
I thought you probably had BnF’s address. I have that one, too. And Robert is setting up something he’s sure to regret — see #40.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:29 pmDon’t ask, don’t tell does not just apply to homosexuals. Besides, my CO wants a copy too.
This is pretty hardcore stuff you two, don’t say I didn’t warn you! It’ll put you off sex for weeks.
Are you OOD from home or work, Robert? Is your CO hanging over your shoulder reading? :)
Damn, after all the business I give you..
Comment by robert
Aw, toughen up, baby. Republicans know business is business.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pmZooey, OOD from work (Duty hut). I’m posting from my PDA. NAd no, the CO is not here, thats why I’m here.
A pretty quiet day today. About to make my first nightly rounds and make sure all the kids a playing nice.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pmWait! Don’t forget the camera…! Comment by Zooey – No way-DEJA-VUE!!! Thats what Laura said…well at least I think whats she said through all the mumbling. You were there watching….Zooey fess up!
January 7th, 2007 at 6:53 pmZooey, OOD from work (Duty hut). I’m posting from my PDA. NAd no, the CO is not here, thats why I’m here.
Comment by robert
My dad used to do his OOD from home (peace time), and they’d call him. If he went in the CO was always there — newly divorced & whiny.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pmYou were there watching….Zooey fess up!
Comment by JTitor
You didn’t know? I’m watching all TP commenters at all times. Special perk here at the NSA.
Hello!!! Make sure you use all your fingers when you wave!
January 7th, 2007 at 6:58 pmAbout to make you’re first nightly round’s.?.Robert, what is you’re job, head master at the local juvie.?/Just kidding, well, maybe not…Blessings all…Let’s keep it simple Zooey, maybe BnF would let us exchange through him….
January 7th, 2007 at 7:00 pmLet’s keep it simple Zooey, maybe BnF would let us exchange through him….
Comment by Sharon Cox
That would be fine. I’ll write him now. Thanks!
January 7th, 2007 at 7:03 pmSharon,
The deed is done. Remember this thread, and after you receive my forwarded email, come back and read it with new eyes. Heh.
January 7th, 2007 at 7:10 pmHow could this be? But then again, Cheney would rather shoot humans than fowl. Not the real definition of a hunter. Phoney would be describe.
January 7th, 2007 at 7:20 pmZooey and Sharon, this post is for you. Feel free to share.
January 7th, 2007 at 7:30 pmThank’s robert, but this old woman never share’s her men with any one….LOL…One more thing, once I’m done with them they never want any one else…LOL..Libra woman have powers like no other’s…Blessings
January 7th, 2007 at 7:41 pmZooey, sent him an email to give you my email address….Send me a note when and if and I will respond…Blessings
January 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pmZooey done with my shower feel like a new man. That Laura really takes a lot out of a guy.
January 7th, 2007 at 7:59 pmThat Laura really takes a lot out of a guy.
Comment by JTitor
You have no idea. Heh.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:02 pmHey go over to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ and look at the picture of McCain. What the hell is going on with the side of his face? He looks like something out of a horror movie.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pmJTitor,
McCain had a large skin cancer removed several years ago. That’s the scar.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pmI’m certainly not a fan of the NRA, who I think have been completely extreme. However, they are defenders (in their own way) of the Bill of Rights. They’ve focused only on the 2nd Amendment, but it’s very possible that they may also begin to see other parts as under attack as well. We need to link up with the saner members of this group and support them. Those who think you need to have AK-47’s…strangely enough (never have owned a gun myself of any kind), I’m begininng to wonder if they don’t have a point. Food for thought.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:39 pmPry it out of my cold dead hand.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:18 pmThe gun owners want to be able to hunt, quite simply they have begun to realize that technology, and drilling etc, even though they want their hummers, it impacts upon their ability to hunt.
Sounds bassackwards, I know, but that is the reality.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:29 pmIF YOU DO NOT WANT HILLARY IN 2008 WHY HELP HER ?
SIMPLE QUESTION
Comment by elliott abramoff
Cause she will let you keep your gun?
January 7th, 2007 at 10:41 pmIF YOU DO NOT WANT HILLARY IN 2008 WHY HELP HER ?
SIMPLE QUESTION
Comment by elliott abramoff
You are boring. What brought you war and debt? And a country full of poor people that we must spend billions, trillions of dollars on? Do you not understand that Bush has an FDR plan, 1 billion dollars, to restart 23 iraqi factories to jump start their economy?
You cry about social security and welfare, yet you have, thru think tanks and war, bought a poor country?
I will say this one last time, I do not think Hillary has all the answers. NO ONE DOES.
DO YOU?
January 7th, 2007 at 10:46 pmEh, no big surprise here.
Believe it or not, the NRA endorsed a bunch of Dems this year, a surprising amount in fact. Why? For starters, more and more Dems have realized what a political loser gun control is.
When the GOP was the only party that would take their calls in the 80s and 90s…yeah, the NRA probably did sound like a wing of the GOP. But it had to, because the Dems abandoned and vilified the NRA, not the other way around.
Kevin Drum has been noting for a while that Dems should be able to make inroads with the hook and bullet crowd (which BTW is only a fraction of the NRA’s membership…80% of gun owners are people like me who do NOT hunt, but do enjoy target and sport shooting and having weapons for self defense) because they are conservation minded, and the GOP isn’t.
Pretty simple really.
But hey, if you want to make sure the Dems new found power is shortlived, keep belittling and making fun of us gun owners (which necessarily includes progressive gun owners like me), and cracking jokes like I’ve seen in the comments here. Dems alienating gun owners = GOP taking back seats.
Period. End of discussion.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:56 pmComment by impeachcheneythenbush – Nothing wrong with the second ammendment. Also, regardig CAP MAN…Uses different names, just ignore him.
Zooey, I just seen a recent photo of McCain and the manitu growing from his face didn’t look like that. This is scary looking, he has that I’m moving towards the right Hitler look. Almost as if he has been peapodded by the NeoCons.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:58 pm#70–as far as the AK47 thing is concerned, let’s turn down the hyperbole, shall we?
An AK is a fully auto weapon, which is TIGHTLY regulated at the federal level by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which the NRA supports and accepts). For the most part, civilians can’t have them already.
We don’t need any more laws to change that.
So unless the Dems want to rush the GOP back to the top of the Hill, let’s not get the AWB rolling again.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:58 pmBelieve it or not, the NRA endorsed a bunch of Dems this year, a surprising amount in fact. Why? For starters, more and more Dems have realized what a political loser gun control is.
The Dems believe in nature, tree huggers if you will, and though the gun hunters make fun of them, I think, they have shot themselves in the foot. In order to hunt one needs nature to do that. I am not against hunters, or guns, as long as they follow the set rules. We need trees,we need oxygen, we need wildlife.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:09 pmZooey,…..LOL…Love it…….Thank’s robert but I pass, maybe another time….My old iMac can’t handle junk mail and sure enough some one would screw up and I would end up with no computer and a big bill for repairs..Blessings
January 7th, 2007 at 11:10 pmZooey, I just seen a recent photo of McCain and the manitu growing from his face didn’t look like that. This is scary looking, he has that I’m moving towards the right Hitler look. Almost as if he has been peapodded by the NeoCons.
Comment by JTitor
McCain had a huge melenoma removed. They take a lot of tissue when it’s melanoma.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:11 pmSharon, No problem and I understand!
January 7th, 2007 at 11:15 pmSharon,
Told you it was good!
January 7th, 2007 at 11:16 pmBS. There isn’t an NRA member who wouldn’t suck Bush’s dick and swallow the load. Stains on the flannel shirt? Priceless.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:17 pmThe Dems believe in nature, tree huggers if you will, and though the gun hunters make fun of them, I think, they have shot themselves in the foot.
Comment by Tau
If they’re lucky…
January 7th, 2007 at 11:18 pmThe Dems believe in nature, tree huggers if you will, and though the gun hunters make fun of them, I think, they have shot themselves in the foot.
Comment by Tau
If they’re lucky…
Comment by Zooey
I see the zingers are back!
Love ya Zoo!
But really, I am not against guns if handled properly, thieves don’t hunt and hunters dont thieve. I ask the hunters for a solution. =)
January 7th, 2007 at 11:24 pmIF YOU LOVE HILLARY CLINTON AND WANT HER TO WIN KEEP POSTING
Think tanks
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tanks
Think Tank Town -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ linkset/ 2006/ 04/ 03/ LI2006040301493.html
The Left Coaster: Matt Bai on the Center for American Progress
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000699.php
Study Finds First Drop in Think Tank Cites
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2897
Center for American Progress
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1023-09.htm
The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as “a nonpartisan research and educational institute†aimed at “developing a long-term vision of a progressive America†and “providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals.â€
Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: “The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros’ Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders.â€
Soros and Halperin recruited Harold Ickes — chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House — to help organize the Center. It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress (CAP) on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with something it supposedly lacked — a think tank of its own.
Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, “We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party’s values.†She later told The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss, “We’ve had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void.â€
Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary Clinton, and not Podesta, is ultimately in charge of CAP. “It’s the official Hillary Clinton think tank,†an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. Robert Dreyfuss notes in The Nation, “In looking at Podesta’s center, there’s no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile — or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.†Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center’s staff, among them Clinton’s national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton’s National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and others.
IF IT LOOKS LIKE A THINKTANK
IF IT SMELLS LIKE A THINKTANK
IF IT WALKS LIKE A THINKTANK
IF IT TALKS LIKE A THINKTANK
AND IF ALL THE PRESS CALLS IT WHAT IT IS
IT MUST BE A THINKTANK
DID I REVEAL SOMETHING UNKNOWN TO YOU TAU ?
IF YOU WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO WIN IN 2008 KEEP POSTING BY ALL MEANS
IF YOU DO NOT WANT HILLARY IN 2008 WHY HELP HER ?
SIMPLE QUESTION
January 7th, 2007 at 11:28 pmHalbert, you only post the same rhetoric over and over, and give no new ideas?
You think spending billions on Iraqis, that hate America as you say, is better than spending it on our own people?
WTF Halbert?
January 7th, 2007 at 11:31 pmDID I REVEAL SOMETHING UNKNOWN TO YOU TAU ?
You cannot even begin to know what I know. And if you did you would go mad.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:33 pmso you support hillary clinton then ?
otherwise you would not be here at this thinktank of hers
January 7th, 2007 at 11:40 pmso you support hillary clinton then ?
otherwise you would not be here at this thinktank of hers
Comment by tau 2
This is a blog, not a think tank. I have said, and you can read them, no one has all the answers, and that Hillary does not have all the answers.
Nor do YOU.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pmotherwise you would not be here at this thinktank of hers
Comment by tau 2
Do you wish me to judge you?
January 7th, 2007 at 11:49 pmI see the zingers are back!
Love ya Zoo!
:-)
But really, I am not against guns if handled properly, thieves don’t hunt and hunters dont thieve. I ask the hunters for a solution. =)
Comment by Tau
They’ve got things so messed up in terms of balance of nature, they have to go out and hunt, especially the deer. I have no problem with them usually, but then you have the ones who attach the head to the bumper of their truck like a sick trophy. Ugh.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:51 pmThey’ve got things so messed up in terms of balance of nature, they have to go out and hunt, especially the deer. I have no problem with them usually, but then you have the ones who attach the head to the bumper of their truck like a sick trophy. Ugh.
So what is the solution?
January 7th, 2007 at 11:58 pmI can tell you stories about crack houses and people with machine guns.They also would mount a head to their bumper.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:01 amSorry for entering late Tau, but what’s the question?
January 8th, 2007 at 12:01 amSorry for the late entry but what is the question that needs a solution?
January 8th, 2007 at 12:02 amSo what is the solution?
Comment by Tau
If I knew that, I’d get the Nobel Prize.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:03 amSorry for entering late Tau, but what’s the question?
Comment by hellinabucket
Gun control. Thieves with guns versus Hunters with guns basically.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:04 amSo what is the solution?
Comment by Tau
If I knew that, I’d get the Nobel Prize.
Comment by Zooey
Guess I won’t be getting that either, nor Hillary.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:06 amZooey, Is that you?
January 8th, 2007 at 12:08 amPersonal responsibility, Stiffer penalities for crimes with weapons and a ban on assault weapons. There are legitimate uses for weapons such as hunting, target practice and personal self defense. But we’ve let the missintereptation of the 2nd amendment to go on too long. The words that are forgotten are “in order to provide for a well regulated state militia…”. Where is the enforcement of a “well regulated state militia”?
The only way a true democracy will work is if all people take an active roll. Far too long we haven’t. We’ve aloud others to make the decisions for us. So now the same folks that are standing up to carry firearms are inadvertantly helping those in this society that shouldn’t carry a sharp pencil let alone an Uzi.
The answer is invlovement and obeying our laws. No need for additional laws. We have most everything covered. It’s taking an active role and expecting no less from every citizen in this country.
Pipe dream I know but that is the answer.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:10 amZooey, Is that you?
Comment by robert
Another test?
Or masquerading troll?
January 8th, 2007 at 12:12 amZooey, test, you passed.
Security is #1
January 8th, 2007 at 12:15 amSuch as I said, I have no problem with gun owners as long as they obey the laws set down. Now Halbert, if you think this is a think tank, and that Hillary will be elected, then perhaps, she will listen to what we have discussed here. I am but a lowly poster, I have worked for the military, my father has served to protect your rights, my stepfather was shot down in a b-26 bomber and survived to protect your rights to speak freely.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:17 amGod Bless America.
Security is #1
Comment by robert
Okey dokey.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:18 amZooey, test, you passed.
Security is #1
Comment by robert
Robert I know has served. I worked at Tinker AFB =)
January 8th, 2007 at 12:19 amBut we’ve let the missintereptation of the 2nd amendment to go on too long.
What missintereptation?
January 8th, 2007 at 12:19 amAnd ye thought I was for Hillary, bwaahahaha!
January 8th, 2007 at 12:20 amSecurity is #1
Comment by robert
Okey dokey.
Comment by Zooey
You are OK Zoo.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:21 amrobert, take the entire 2nd amendment. What does the part “in order to provide for a well regulated state militia” mean to you? It was put in because there was a real fear England would be coming back soon and we would have to arm ourselves quickly to defend the country. The founding fathers did not intend for automatic weapons to be in every household. They didn’t have the resources to supply weapons to all if another war broke out.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:30 amYou are OK Zoo.
Comment by Tau
That could be interpreted so many ways….
Yep, I’m ok. :)
January 8th, 2007 at 12:40 amhellinabucket, Let’s look at the ENTIRE II Amendment:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No where does it say that ANY FORM of arms should be banned. Cross bows or AK47.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:53 amthey’re just doing this so they can shoot more animals… they say so in the article…
January 8th, 2007 at 8:49 amUnderstood robert. So the entire amendment should be followed instead of just the last part. Where are the well regulated state militias? It’s not the National guard or the reserves. Owning a weapon should be part of an organization (not the NRA) that regulates the weapon and the owner.
It’s not just the last part of the amendment that matters robert. Being necessary to the securtiy of a free state. Is it necessary for you to own an AK 47 for the security of a free state. Not hardly. You want to keep the state free then join a militia. They do exist. But don’t just pick the last part of an amendment and herald it while ignore the full intent of the amendment.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:23 am“BS. There isn’t an NRA member who wouldn’t suck Bush’s dick and swallow the load. Stains on the flannel shirt? Priceless.”
Screw you. I’m in the NRA, and I’m as liberal as they come. Close minded idiots like you empower the Republicans.
“Understood robert. So the entire amendment should be followed instead of just the last part. Where are the well regulated state militias? It’s not the National guard or the reserves. Owning a weapon should be part of an organization (not the NRA) that regulates the weapon and the owner”
Wrong! It is being followed. The 2A does not say “you can have a gun when you’re in the well regulated militia.” It says “because we periodically need a well regulated (meaning able to follow orders and use their weapons safely and effectively), the people who will make up that militia need to be armed”. The idea that you need to be in the militia day in and day out marching and following orders to own a gun is wrongheaded and not supported in either the text of the 2A or in the words of the men who wrote it.
The National Guard is NOT the militia. It’s a federal force that has to respond when the President calls them up.
The militia is legally defined at the federal level as the organized (formally formed up and uniformed) and unorganized militia, and the unorganized militia is defined as pretty much every able bodied adult. In short, WE ARE THE MILITIA.
It’s not just the last part of the amendment that matters robert. Being necessary to the securtiy of a free state. Is it necessary for you to own an AK 47 for the security of a free state. Not hardly. You want to keep the state free then join a militia. They do exist. But don’t just pick the last part of an amendment and herald it while ignore the full intent of the amendment.
The problem is twofold here: firstly, you’re completely missing what the first part means, as explained above, and secondly owning small arms like rifles and shotguns is EXACTLY what’s necessary for a militia to be effective.
Banning assault rifles is stupid. 1) The NFA of 1934 already means you can’t have full auto weapons. 2) Criminals don’t use assault rifles anyway, they’re too expensive and impossible to conceal. So called assault rifles are used in 1% or less of all gun crime.
Crooks use handguns.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:33 amAmendments are afterthoughts. They can be added to (amend the amendment) or taken out entirely. The initial purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be able to defend this country at a moments notice. Thats it. That is also no longer necessary. Banning assault rifles is not stupid, they aren’t needed. Hell the name in itself shouldn’t be tolerated. I’m all for continued ownership of small arms. But there is no need for the prolific purchasing and redistribution of these weapons. The true intent of the 2nd amendment has outlived it’s purpose.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:58 amThe initial purpose of the 2A was to ensure that we’d never have a state of affairs wherein only the agents of the state (and thus, potential tyrants) are armed. The idea of the 2A, as expressed by the founders, is that a state of affairs where only the govt is armed and not the people is a recipe for tyranny.
That is certainly still quite necessary–the right to defend your own life and not be dependent on the good will of your govt is the most basic civil right of all, and I see no reason why that’s changed at all in the last 200 years. The 2A is more relevant today than ever! It hasn’t outlived it’s purpose at all–if nothing else, a potential tyrant like George W. should be a wakeup call for anyone dumb enough to think we can just trust our govt to be the only people with arms.
Banning assault rifles is stupid for many reasons. 1) as explained, crooks don’t use them. 2) crooks don’t obey any other gun laws, why should we think they’ll obey an AWB? 3) We have a bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of NEEDS.
Whether you think I need one or not is irrelevant. I WANT one, and I have the RIGHT to own it. The only things you really NEED are food, water, and shelter. Our rights aren’t predicated on whether people like you think we need to exercise them or not. What if I said there’s no need for you to be protected by the 4th Amendment?
Be specific–what weapons do you think shouldn’t be purchased and redistributed? Are you not familiar with the NFA of 1934? Cause it sure sounds like you’re blathering about something that isn’t happening anyway. Hint: private citizens don’t get to own machine guns already…
January 8th, 2007 at 10:42 amBesides, remember that little thing called Hurricane Katrina? It’s readily apparent to anyone who’s paying attention that you CAN’T just depend on the good will of your govt, and that order and govt CAN EASILY break down at a moment’s notice.
THAT kind of scenario is EXACTLY what the 2A is all about. Disaster strikes outta nowhere, law and order fails, and it’s up to private citizens to save the day when govt falls down on the job, fails to live up to its responsibilities, and leaves people on their own.
There’s a perfect example of why the 2A is still relevant–the private armed citizen, the thing the 2A is protecting in the first place, is still often the only thing between us and chaos. The militia, as anyone who’s studied it knows, isn’t just intended for fighting off the redcoats. It’s for allowing private citizens to protect themselves when the govt isn’t able to.
Besides being a shocking expose of how poorly the govt can respond to protect its citizens, Katrina showed in spades why the 2A was still relevant.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amobviously you are more well versed in this subject than I. I’m not really sure where you get where it was tyrants and not an outside force that was the main point of the 2A. You have talking points down.
Do you need to have a weapon that can pierce armor? Do you need to have a weapon that shoots more than one round a second? Do you need to have a weapon that has a clip for more than 7 rounds.
I’m not on a soap box to take away all weapons. I want an M50 machine gun. Loved to fire it in the service. Makes a great sound and puts big holes in things. Should I be allowed to have one? and why stop there. a LAW is a firearm. Could come in real handy when trying to park at a crowded mall.
There could be better enforcement of existing laws to punish the crooks who use weapons.
Swap meets are no place to exchange items that were designed to kill. It should be regulated. You have to verify all the vehicles you purchase but I can grab just about any weapon I want at a swap meet.
And just because you want doesn’t make it so.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:02 amNo Katrina is not a perfect example of 2a because it’s individuals and not a well regulated state militia.
I know it won’t change but it has been missinterpreted.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:07 amobviously you are more well versed in this subject than I. I’m not really sure where you get where it was tyrants and not an outside force that was the main point of the 2A. You have talking points down.
The founders were explicit in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere that they feared tyranny at home as much (probably more, given that back then the world was a lot “bigger” and you had a lot less to fear from foreign powers) as tyranny abroad. Our very system of checks and balances is there because the founders feared runaway or irresponsible governance.
Do you need to have a weapon that can pierce armor? Do you need to have a weapon that shoots more than one round a second? Do you need to have a weapon that has a clip for more than 7 rounds.
As I’ve explained, what I NEED is irrelevant. You have to quit trying to frame this as an issue of needs. Our Bill of Rights isn’t predicated upon what you need (which again, is pretty much just food water and shelter). Do you need a big screen TV? Access to more than one newspaper? Do you need a car? Do you need to have sex with someone of the same gender? Do you need to get to choose what church–or no church at all–you want to attend? Of course not, but you still have all those rights.
The rights we enjoy aren’t predicated upon needs. The right to own firearms is no different.
Besides, what’s this nonsense about armor piercing weapons? Even your grandpappy’s old muzzle loader rifle will zip right through body armor. Any centerfire rifle cartridge, .223, .243. .270, .308, etc. will hop through body armor. Unless you want to eliminate every hunting rifle on the planet, private citizens will continue to own weapons that defeat body armor.
Body armor is designed to stop handgun ammo, not rifle shots.
Armor piercing ammo is really a myth cooked up by the Brady Bunch.
And yes, I do need a weapon that fires more than once per second. Even the clunkiest old revolver will do that. Bad guys often A) wear armor, B) don’t just fall down and die when they’re shot once, and C) often are armed themselves, and don’t always come after you all by themselves.
So yes, I need to fire more than one round per second, and yes, I need more than seven rounds. Even if I didn’t, what would such a regulation hope to accomplish? Bad guys are still going to ignore such laws and then we’ll just be forced to be outclassed by their firepower.
Screw that.
What the heck is an M50? If you mean M60, we’ve already been over this several times–the only way to get one is under the NFA of 1934, and if you qualify, the tax stamp is $30,000 and up for one of those. Good luck.
The reality is crooks use shotguns and handguns almost exclusively. Rifles of all types kill fewer people in this country than tire irons, baseball bats, and hands and feet. In 2004 here in Maryland, there were two people killed by rifle shot. There were 30 people killed by hands and feet!
Banning rifles is stupid. Even if gun control did make sense, and it sure doesn’t…it would only make sense to ban the guns criminals actually use.
Swap meets are no place to exchange items that were designed to kill. It should be regulated. You have to verify all the vehicles you purchase but I can grab just about any weapon I want at a swap meet.
Ah, the myth of the gun show loophole.
The reality is no, you can’t just do that. Gun shows are tightly regulated, closely patrolled, and handgun purchases have to go through an FFL dealer. Nice try, though!
And you only have to register vehicles if you want to drive them on the road.
As for Katrina, the militia IS DEFINED AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. You’re continuing to miss the point–the 2A does NOT say you can only have your gun when you’re in the militia. It says because we might need a militia from time to time, you can have a gun.
If the founders wanted the 2A to read “a well regulated militia being necessary, people in the militia can be armed”…it would say that.
IT DOESN’T!!!!
It says that because we sometimes need a militia, the people won’t be denied arms by the govt.
Katrina is an example of why–the govt broke down completely, and individuals were on their own to protect themselves. The point of the 2A is that when the govt fails to protect the rights of the people, the people themselves can participate in their own defense and not be beholden to the govt.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pmWell you show your stance on this. Here’s the definition of militia:
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-’li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
So take that in it’s entirety to add to the 2a which says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Looking at the definition of Militia and putting it in context with 2a the only reason for not infringing on the right to bear arms is for a Militia. Which is a part of an organized group for military service.
You are passionate about your right to bear arms. I’m not here to take it away. But the overzealous look at only a part of the 2a, and not the entire text will keep the argument open.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:37 pmAnd there are current laws in the books that reflect my point
So if a sawed off shotgun can be shown not to be a necessary weapon for a militia then others can be determined as well.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pmForget the dictionary, here’s what the FEDERAL LAW says:
See that last part? The unorganized militia is just about everybody. I’d argue that the outdated he-man language should be changed, and the age discrimination removed, but there you have it.
We’re all more or less the militia.
Looking at the definition of Militia and putting it in context with 2a the only reason for not infringing on the right to bear arms is for a Militia. Which is a part of an organized group for military service.
That’s not true–the 2A doesn’t say the ONLY reason to not infringe is for the militia, but it’s an important one.
But even if you’re right, you’re still missing the point. The 2A does NOT require that you actually be IN the militia to have a gun. It says that because we need a militia to be free, therefore you get to have a gun so you’re ready when we need the militia.
Even if you were right–and clearly you’re not–that the 2A only protects the rights of militia members to be armed, so what? You still lose this argument–because you’re wrong about the definition of who’s in the militia.
I’m in it, you’re in it, my brother is in it, and just about anyone who’s not a criminal is as well. Even if you were right that the 2A only protects militia member’s rights to have guns, since we’re all militia members, you’re not accomplishing much here :).
Every other time the Constitution uses the phrase “the People”, it’s protecting an individual right. There’s no legal reason to think the 2A is any different.
And be careful with that Miller argument–if you argue that my 2A rights only extend to militarily useful weapons, sure I can’t have a sawed off, but I clearly CAN have an M249 or an M16 or an AK47.
I rather doubt you want to go that way. :)
It’s not so much that I’m even passionate about gun rights, it’s that once I let people like you deny me my 2A rights, I’ve opened the door for you to take other rights away if you figure I don’t need them.
Screw that. Never gonna happen.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIt’s not going to change and I’m not the Don Quiote of a lost cause. But you can’t use a word to define it’s own meaning.
It’s not defined anywhere so you say one thing and I say another but there is no clear definition.
I’m not hanging my hat on the Miller decision but it is a decision. There has been no major case that defines the 2a and no politician wants to touch it because bearing arms are ingrained in our society.
The staunchness in which you point to the 2a does not prove that it is what you say. And as I have pointed out, the courts have shown that if another case were to be brought up that the Militia portion would be addressed. And it would most likely not go in the favor of the common man.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:32 pmIt’s not going to change and I’m not the Don Quiote of a lost cause. But you can’t use a word to define it’s own meaning.
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I’m not using the word militia to define militia–read what the law says!! It defines militia as “able bodied males” (given that it was written in 1910 or so, I think we can offer it up and agree that it means able bodied adults today).
The definition is right there in the law, as I quoted it for you. There’s no circularity here. None at all.
I’m not hanging my hat on the Miller decision but it is a decision. There has been no major case that defines the 2a and no politician wants to touch it because bearing arms are ingrained in our societyI’m actually glad you brought it up, its one of the handful of decisions on the 2A that gets bandied about quite a bit, but as for the way the Brady Bunch misinterprets it…to quote Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.” The court left open the “who is the militia anyway?” question (the law on that is pretty clear), but they did say the militia can have militarily useful weapons. Not exactly fertile ground for the “ban assault rifles” crowd!
But you are wrong about one thing–politicians touched it last year in a Congressional action that you woulda missed if you blinked. S.397 memorialized the 2A as an individual right.
The SCOTUS has also referred to the 2A as an individual right in dicta in other decisions.
The staunchness in which you point to the 2a does not prove that it is what you say.
No, but a plain reading of the text and the words of the Founding Fathers DO prove that it is what I say. I’m just quoting the darn founders and what they said about it. Heck, Thomas Jefferson was a big pistol carrying guy, once saying that you should “Make your pistol your constant companion on all your walks.”
And as I have pointed out, the courts have shown that if another case were to be brought up that the Militia portion would be addressed. And it would most likely not go in the favor of the common man.
I wouldn’t be optimistic about that–the current make up of the SCOTUS is unlikely to rule against the individual rights reading of the 2A. And in the only Federal Court of Appeals case involving the 2A recently, the Emerson decision, the 5th ckt made it clear that the 2A is an individual right.
So let’s see–the Congress has voted in my favor, the SCOTUS is stacked in my favor, and the most recent caselaw on the subject supports my position.
Yup, I’d say you’re just wrong there.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pmIf your’e going to use the current militia act then at the only one’s eligible for being in a militia are able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. Where’s the obeying of giving up your weapons on your 45th birthday?
for Supreme Court to hear a case one has to be brought up and I doubt there will be any serious challanges to it in the near future. Don’t bet on the Supreme Court to lean one way or the other. There is ample evidence that the party appointing a justice does not necessarily get his ruling to their advantage.
The need for a weapon in the 1700’s and now are very different. Very few people today (excluding Ted Nugent) provide daily food for their families by hunting it.
The 2a has morphed into part of American culture that all have the right to bear arms. The original 2a was not intended for that. The word militia does have significance and even yourself point to the militia act to defend it but you deny the part of ages between 17 and 45.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pmIf your’e going to use the current militia act then at the only one’s eligible for being in a militia are able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. Where’s the obeying of giving up your weapons on your 45th birthday?
As I stated, the language needs brought into the 21st century. People live longer and stay healthy and vital a lot longer these days.
But the point remains–pretty clearly the militia is NOT just the National Guard.
for Supreme Court to hear a case one has to be brought up and I doubt there will be any serious challanges to it in the near future. Don’t bet on the Supreme Court to lean one way or the other. There is ample evidence that the party appointing a justice does not necessarily get his ruling to their advantage.
There’s little evidence that there are five SCOTUS justices who buy into the collective rights nonsense.
The need for a weapon in the 1700’s and now are very different. Very few people today (excluding Ted Nugent) provide daily food for their families by hunting it.
The 2A says absolutely NOTHING about hunting. While millions of people do still hunt, that’s not the only reason to own a gun, nor is it the reason the Founders included the 2A in the constitution. If anything, you “need†a gun more today than you did then. You’re much more likely to be crime victim today.
The 2a has morphed into part of American culture that all have the right to bear arms.
No morphing involved–back then, it was intended to make sure we’d never have a state of affairs wherein only the govt has guns. It’s the same thing today.
The word militia does have significance and even yourself point to the militia act to defend it but you deny the part of ages between 17 and 45.
It has significance, but it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. Like I said, if they wanted it to say “the right of MILITIA MEMBERS to keep and bear armsâ€â€¦.it would have freakin said that.
It doesn’t. Get over it.
As for the age thing, I agree it should be changed. But regardless, the definition of militia is spelled out in the law, and it does NOT mean “just the Nat’l Guard.â€
January 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pmI agree with most of what you say. The original intent was not so the govt. were the only ones with guns. It was to have a ready armed militia available for defense. That is the main reason for the 2A.
That’s it. There was no armory, no budget, no way to supply a new soldier with a weapon. The military was going to be maintained at the same levels as in the revolutionary war.
Nothing for me to get over. I’m all for individuals to bear arms. All times change. And amendments are just that. Amended after the initial thought.
It’s obvious you hold very passionate views about this. Good for you, I’m not taking them away. But your opinion of the 2A is not the only one and your interpretation of the specific wording is not the only interpretation.
The wording won’t be changed because of the cans of worms it would open up. This is something we will live with.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmThat’s it. There was no armory, no budget, no way to supply a new soldier with a weapon. The military was going to be maintained at the same levels as in the revolutionary war.
And very little has changed. Yes, it was intended so that not just govt would have guns. Why is that important? Look at Katrina!!!
The govt couldn’t even evacuate people or supply food, water, and sanitation! Ain’t no way they could be counted on to provide for the common defense.
Actually, the founders abhored a standing army. But they also knew that when the fit hits the shan, there’s no time for the govt to be doling out its stash of guns. People need to supply their own. Katrina is a perfect example of why.
I mean you no harm, but the problem in this country is that people only seem willing to stick up for the rights that are personally important to them. I support gay marriage, drug legalization, the right to choose, freedom of religion…in general I support choice! Like any good progressive.
But you can’t support those freedoms and not support the freedom to participate in your own defense.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pmI have continually said I’m all for your right to bear arms. Not against it. I also support choice. I also believe the entire gun industry should have more scrutiny and not have the spectre of the 2A whenever a discussion on limiting the type of weapon. Look at Katrina, it’s not a resounding success for the 2A, it’s a failure of a larger problem. If the LA National Guard and Reserves hadn’t been depleted by Iraq the situation would have been different.
I support freedom. I also support democracy and democracy takes an active participation. If more actively participated there would be great consesus on many issues. One of the issues is how we treat others and the lessening of the perceived need for any type of weapon that could ever be bought.
Put both of your hands out and hold up your fingers. Those ten digits represent all voting age legal citizens in this country. Now put one hand down. the five fingers remaining represent the registered voters. not put down three more digits. The remaining two represent the ones who actually vote (in some elections holding up three fingers would be a better representation). The point is only 2 to 3 out of 10 eligble voters actually vote. This society does not have a respresentative govt. Or worse, maybe it does. If we would double the involvement who knows what great things could be accomplished, including never having to allow another “Katrina” again. That would be a group decision that would involve taxes, and oversight. With planning and review.
A vision. The 2A will not be altered because the sides are entrenched. But if enough people participated in this great experiment, we could collectively change many things. Without the fear of crooks or hurricanes or terrorists.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm