ASSAULT WEAPON BAN IS EITHER ON THE TABLE OR IN THE FREEZER

Guns, Sex, Lies, and Democrats

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-22-07

I don't know Bill, a donkey trying to wear an elephant suit is odd sight. The braying on gun control is dead giveaway and it cause the elephants to stampede.

Hillary Clinton on gun control: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

“I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.”

“We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.”

“Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.”

Barak Obama on gun control:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

“Principles that Obama supports on gun issues: Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.”

“Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.”

----
The NRA will play "pin the tail on the donkey" for 2008 no matter what happens with H.R. 1022. Where does Senator Tester stand on gun control pushed by Hillary and Obama?

Comment By Robert Pew, 3-22-07

Schneider, you once again that you are no real friend of hunters and you certainly are not a friend of gun owners. Keeping what you describe as a pro-environment Congress at the expense of gun rights is the worst sort myopia to try to sell to hunters. The vast majority of Dems in Congress are HOSTILE to our gun rights. Keeping gun ban supporters like Pelosi, Conyers, and Schumer in power is idiocy. This column proves once again that you are little more than a shill for the extremist environmental movement that is populated by liars and con-men like Al Gore, radical leftists and luddites that want to force their lifestyle choices on the rest of humanity.

Quit calling yourself a hunter, and then working every day to take away the hunters most basic tool, his firearm. And stop selling your extreme environmentalism as pro-hunting. If the hard left environmental movement has its way, hunters will end up being lumped in with all the other "exploiters" of the environment and barred from the woods.

Comment By DonP, 3-22-07

The Dem's in congress can't help themselves on gun control. It's core to who they are ... and who provides much of the funding for their campaigns.

It's like the old story of the frog and scorpion. Scorpion begs the frog to give him a ride across the river, frog says no, you'll sting me and I'll die. Scorpion says no, I'd drown too. Frog gives in. Scorpion strings the frog and as they both go under the Frog says why? The scorpion answers, stupid, you should never have trusted me because I'm a scorpion.

Same way with Dem's, ignore what they say and promise, watch what they do and have done.

The new "Moderate Dems" that got elected in many rural and Southern states are pro-shooter and hunter. But, they also have absolutely no power in DC unless the old timers give it to them. In return the old timers demand total and absolute loyalty on their votes.

The power in Congress is still held by the far left types that see the 1994 gun ban as one of the high points of their career and power. Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg, Kennedy et. al. You know, the same folks that tried last year to ban that deadly body armor piercing 30-30. (Look up Kennedy's speech on the "vest busting 30-30" for really good laugh/cry)

To see what that "Blue Congress" will wind up giving you, why not take a look at the all blue states we have now. New Jersey? Illinois? Here in Illinois we have total gun bans in Chicago, De Facto gun owner registration with a State supplied Firearm Owners ID Card to buy guns, ammunition or even powder for reloading.

Now, after building a multi-million dollar shooting complex in downstate Sparta they are trying to pass a total ban (SB 0016) on any rifle holding more than 10 rounds, any .50 caliber rifle, yes - including muzzleloaders, any semi-auto shotgun (bye-bye Grandpa's Browning Auto 5). To make it really fun, there is a 90 "grace period" where you must turn them in to state police for destruction. No compensation, no grandfathering of current rifles or 10 round magazines. It also includes my three Marlin Model 60's semi-auto because their tube magazines hold 15 rounds and I guess that makes it an "Assault .22".

If you want to know how they see the whole issue of guns (FWIW, They don't differentiate between your Remington Model 70 with a nice high end Swarowski and my Bushmaster M4gery. In their world "gun go bang = bad!") go to Moveon.org or the Democrat Underground and you'll see what they have in mind, not just for those evil "Assault Weapons" a lot of us use for high power target shooting, but they also want that 60 year old M-1 Carbine and Garand you might have safely stored in a government controlled locker.

Or better yet, melted down to make another nice anti-gun sculpture in front of the UN building, to match the one they already have.

Oh, and they really aren't too keen on those "Sniper Rifles" a lot of you deer and elk hunters have either. That's not my fertile imagination, that is what they have actually been called by the folks at the Brady group. Take a look and see what Josh Sugarman, one of the Brady founding fathers, has said about those one of these days.

It's really not about what they want to do, it's about what they think they can get banned first.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-22-07

Robert, you are mixing pears and oranges and coming up with horse apples. Without mainting open space to hunt, there won't be much public lands to hunt in the future. The US forecasts that the world poplulation will grow to 7.9 billion. We have seen explosive growth in the West. What's the use of a deer rifle if you have no place to use it. Bill, is 'spot on' in advocating protection of public lands, in my opinion. The NRA would gain immense credibility and allies if it joined in this effort to preserve public land recreation. Bill may be blue and we may be red but we should all be on the same team in the public lands game where a single loss will be forever-- no 2 out of 3, no 3 out of 4, no 5 out of 7. I, for one, would be honored to share a hunting or fishing adventure with Bill as I have with other blue friends.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-22-07

Correction: Meant to write UN forecasts, not US forecasts.

Comment By Moorcat, 3-22-07

To answer one of the Questions above, Senator Tester has been unwaivering since that beginning on his stance about the the 2nd Amendment - Leave it ALONE. He re-iterated that stance on Friday, March 16th, when he was addressing the Dillon Veterans and was asked about HR1022. He makes no distinction between "Black Guns" and other guns (at least he hasn't anywhere I can find - and certainly didn't when he was speaking to us). Montanans are guarenteed thier right to keep and bear arms by our State Constitution and any Montana Senator or Representative that forgets that doesn't deserve to serve the people of Montana.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-22-07

Moorecat, see: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm

Statistics on Gun Ownership

 40% of all US homes have guns
 81% of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for.
 91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership;
 57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban.

I guess that's why Senator Tester is a Democrat, he disregards the will of the people. ;)

The Montana Shooting Sports Assoc. was less than enthusiastic with Senator Tester. http://www.mtssa.org/tester/mssa_tester.phtml

>>>>>>>>
Jon Tester served in the Montana Senate, in the 2005 Session as President of the Senate. MSSA had two important bills moving through the Legislature in 2005, HB 693 (about self defense) and HB 366 (about Montana-made firearms). Both bills passed out of the Montana House and were assigned in the Senate to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee tabled both bills. MSSA asked friendly senators for motions on the Senate floor to forcibly extract each bill from committee for discussion and a vote before the full Senate. Jon Tester voted AGAINST giving both of these bills a fair hearing before the full Senate. He voted to keep these bills dead and bottled up in committee, against the express wishes of MSSA.

In April, just after the candidate filing deadline, MSSA sent candidate questionnaires to all candidates for U.S. Senate. Libertarian Stan Jones and Republican Conrad Burns immediately completed and returned their candidate questionnaires to MSSA. Jon Tester never completed and returned his MSSA candidate questionnaire.

Just after Tester had won his nomination in the Primary Election, MSSA president Gary Marbut called Jon, to brief him about MSSA issues pending in Washington. Before the briefing was complete, Tester asked to be excused so he could field another phone call, and promised to call Marbut back soon. Marbut never received a return phone call from Tester.

In mid-October, MSSA emailed a formal request to all U.S. Senate candidates asking them to vow to never support any gun control, under any conditions. Burns and Jones responded immediately with very positive responses. (See the questions posed and the Burns response at http://www.marbut.com/mssa.) Tester did not respond.

Based on all information available, MSSA determined to endorse Senator Burns for reelection on October 26, 2006. MSSA sent out a statewide news release to news media and MSSA members on October 26th announcing the MSSA endorsement. MSSA scheduled a news conference for October 27th with Senator Burns, Senator Craig (Idaho) and Senator Stevens (Alaska) in Missoula to formally announce the MSSA endorsement. Mid-day on October 27th, the Tester campaign finally provided the first information to MSSA concerning Tester's positions on the right to keep and bear arms - too late.

Later in October, the Tester campaign began mailing and showing on television pictures of Tester looking like a hunter, with a shotgun, wearing hunting clothes, and asserting to support hunters. Subsequent research with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks revealed that Jon Tester has not purchased a Montana hunting license in the last 15 years. MSSA views this effort as disingenuous, at best.

One other issue has affected the MSSA view of Jon Tester as a potential U.S. Senator. Tester has demonstrated that he can be pressured to play politics with gun issues, witness his votes against HB 693 and HB 366 in the 2005 Legislature. Tester will allow himself to be pushed by campaign handlers to impersonate a hunter when he is not a hunter. The dominant non-Montana influence in Tester's Senate campaign has been Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who is known to aggressively lead every anti-gun effort in the U.S. Senate. MSSA is beyond concerned that a Jon Tester who will go along with pressure to vote against gun bills in Montana, and to impersonate a hunter, should end up representing Montana in the U.S. Senate while owing huge favors to and being susceptible to influence from Senator Charles Schumer.

Tester has failed to provide information about his positions on guns in a timely manner, has been persuaded in the Montana Senate to vote against important pro-gun bills, tries to fool Montana sportsmen with imagery of himself in hunting costume, and owes huge favors to Senator "Gun Control" Schumer if elected. MSSA does not see this history as good credentials to represent the gun owners and hunters of Montana in the U.S. Senate.
<<<<<<<<<<

With Senator Tester being out of step with the will of the people (including Hillary, Obama, and Schumer) and in disfavor with the MMSA, just where does he really stand on gun control?

Comment By scott, 3-22-07

Poor old Bill,

You still just don't get it. You may save your outdoors, and I'm with you on that, but you may do it at the cost of your guns. Because make no mistake Bill, the Dummycrats (except for a FEW mavericks) want YOUR guns, ALL OF EM. So, maybe all you'll be able to do in those great outdoors is fish, hike, and photograph. You certainly won't be able to shoot. I'll have to vote for saving the guns first, then we can work on keeping the outdoors free too.

Comment By kldimond, 3-22-07

Frankly, as a long-time politics-watcher, both parties are bad for freedom and the environment. The way I see them is as "two horses from the same stable"--as long as one of them wins, that stable wins.

Bill, I can empathize with your concerns about what certain policies do with regard to hunting lands, etc. But I think your faith in the Democrats is misplaced.

Yes, they are the vocal ones, but what do they actually do? They push ideas that really don't deal with the issue. So the issue remains, but they've created a new crime and punishment that solves nothing.

Wanna squawk about ANWR? Ok, here's what I have to say about it. Unless the oil will be extracted (officially by the U.S. government, but probably with services paid to a contractor), with the oil sold at market prices to refineries in America, for American consumption, don't drill the stinkin' place. I'm tired of corporations feeding at the public trough (at all, really, but also) by getting great prices to use public lands and STILL have them make a sweetheart deal with (Japan, China, wherever) that leaves Americans out in the cold.

Will the Democrats respond to this? Oh, not really. They'll squawk and fuss, and might even manage to put the kibosh on drilling, but it'll be because the Sierra Club told them, not because it'll be a corrupt enterprise from the get-go. And if they fail to stop drilling, they will do so in such a way that leaves the corporations (and not Americans) all the benefits.

Neither party's very good for guns, either. I think someone above said that if you look at the Republican candidates for president--the ones likely to get the nomination, that is--they're all terrible.

I just have to add this little interjection: if the Republicans nominate McCain, Giuliani or anyone else so Democrat-styled-Republican, they ABSOLUTELY won't get my vote. I WILL vote STRAIGHT third party, and I will encourage all my friends, acquaintances--everyone--to do the same. Who benefits if we get what in reality is a Democrat with a penchant for paternalistic draconian law enforcement and has NO grasp of the Constitution?

But then again, the Democrats don't mind draconian law enforcement either. And they don't mind blithely and openly wiping out 80 people at a time, just for daring to think government is--well--irrelevant... Heh, ir-revelant? Eh, a little play on words. My wife says I need new writers, when it comes to humor. Oh well.

It's kind of an epidemic in America. Lots of people take the attitude that draconian punishment is the only way to get people law-abiding. What crap! A better way is not to have so many stupid laws that benefit nothing and no one but the ego of the law-maker, his narcissist constituents and perhaps his career.

As you pointed up, it's not much use to have guns for hunting if there are no hunting lands. And it's not much use to have hunting lands if they outlaw your gun. Oh, archery. Yah, sure. Why not just ask us to TACKLE the deer and slit its throat? Now THAT's sporting! I have to admit to appreciating the grit of the bow-hunter.

Bill, there's a real problem with the whole environmental movement. The best conservationists I've seen have been hunters. The rest just want no one to touch anything, as if humans weren't part of nature's equation. It's debatable whether humans have as over-populated as we're told by the enviro-wonks. And there are absolutely HUGE expanses of land that are relatively undeveloped. Right here in America.

I live next to a forest in an area where we don't see city lights and do see the Milky Way. I LOVE it. I don't want that ever to go away. So I empathize. Humanity often undermines what humanity could most enjoy. But there are better ways than America's "Left" OR "Right"--and especially the radical HSUS, PETA, ELF, and ALF are offering. Even the otherwise-known-as-tame Sierra Club is too shrill.

And if you look at our views--just yours and mine--I'm sure we'll disagree vehemently about what should and shouldn't happen. I, for one, think a road is a beautiful thing, if it's done well. Whether it's on a mountain or whatever. You evidently disagree, probably with a reasoning that looks kinda like this: I don't want all those folks in territory that a REAL outdoorsman LIKES getting to only on foot or by pack animal.

And then PETA and the Human Society of the U.S. and ALF pipe up and tell you just how AWFUL it is that you ENSLAVE that rights-entitled creature. And ELF tells you that by BREATHING in the forest, daring to enter, you're a rapist. (Ok, now I'm getting creative, but I wouldn't put it past them)

For all those who think the self-defense/community-defense gun owners and advocates are nuts, recognize, our whole world has gone nuts. Maybe we are right to be watchful and to want to be ready, should that turn into the free-for-all we seem to be brewing up.

But we can't rely on political labels. All I care is what they do. What we need in Congress and the presidency is people who comprehend freedom and its benefits, and only then flex to a degree to push things toward a "greener" Earth, dark enough nights, and a soothing quiet.

Meantime, what we should so is outlaw corporate welfare. Period.

Comment By Mike, 3-22-07

Dear Bill:

Like Mr. Zumbo, you must be careful with terminology. The anti-gun types use it cleverly and it's foolish to play into their game. Even if you consider yourself to be primarily a hunter and outdoorsman, the same folks who would be absolutely giddy if they could pass a total gun ban would surely eliminate hunting shortly thereafter. There are really only two sides to this debate: You believe in the Second Amendment or you want to ban all guns and you support the socialist agenda that goes along with that desire. And yes, there is a constant danger. Remember that the gun banners were able to ban completely innocuous semi-automatic rifles for 10 years. The ban did absolutely nothing to impair criminals, in part because far less than 1% of criminals ever used such weapons, but mostly because criminals commit crimes and have no more tendency to obey gun laws than any other kind of law.

But back to terminology. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." That's a wholesale invention of the gun banners and an attempt to trick the public into thinking that any gun that physically resembles a military firearm is a machinegun. There is a class of fully automatic firearms known as assault rifles. These are light arms such as the M-16 that fire intermediate sized rifle cartridges. The civilian versions are not fully automatic and are certainly not "assault weapons." Using the gun banner's terminology harms those who believe in freedom and self determination and aides those who don't.

As to why people choose a given type of firearm for hunting, it's an interesting question. Much of the shooting public is conservative and traditional. If your father hunted with a scoped, bolt action rifle with a wooden stock, chances are you'll tend to do the same. But the simple truth is that a good hunting firearm should be lightweight, rugged, corrosion resistant, accurate and be chambered in a cartridge appropriate for the game being hunted. That many hunters still prefer select hardwoods and deeply blued steel in their hunting firearms is a matter of tradition and preference, not utility. AR-15 type rifles are in fact excellent choices for hunting, being lightweight, rugged, corrosion resistant and accurate. In the usual .223 chambering, they're appropriate for much small game. In the larger chambering becoming much more common, they're appropriate for deer and larger animals.

But the larger point is, again, that if all of us who enjoy firearm sports do not stick together, then as Ben Franklin said, we will certainly hang seperately. The NRA is a powerful voice because it truly represents the best interests of millions of Americans, and because it is utterly dedicated to defending a natural right mentioned in the Constitution. If the NRA seems a little alarmist to some, that may be because they deal daily with those who would destroy liberty and know them and their tactics intimately. It is always wise to listen to what the NRA has to say.

Please be careful, Bill. While I don't hunt, I do own and shoot a variety of military-looking firearms that the gun banners would just love to take. I'll support your interests. How about you support mine?

Comment By mike, 3-22-07

Okay, Mike, let me try to get it all straight. Let's see, first, we all have to watch our terminology or the NRA will see to it that we end up like Jim Zumbo? Second, if we don't support the NRA's positions, we'll automatically be supporting a socialist agenda. If we happen to be in the public eye, it goes without saying that the NRA will, of course, have an obligation to make sure that everyone knows that we are actually supporters of socialism. The NRA is only forced to take these steps against us because socialist thought is a constant danger. Have I got the message right so far? Next, there is no such thing as an assault weapon; that terminology is a socialist invention placed in our minds to trick us and take away our freedom. If we do not stick together and think in accordance with the NRA, those others will destroy our liberty and we will lose the freedom to think for ourselves. The NRA is powerful and we can only defend our rights and be free by giving up the right to question the NRA and by carefully conforming to the powerful NRA line. We must be careful to support the NRA's interests or the NRA will not support our interests and, well, we saw what happened to poor Zumbo, didn't we?

Gosh, Mike, your comments are better than watching a rerun of Fahrenheit 451 and, silly me, I thought Goebbels, McCarthy, and Stalin were all dead.

Comment By Hal Herring, 3-22-07

All,

I'm enjoying the exchanges here. I agree that hunting and gun rights go hand-in-hand. I'll go one step further, perhaps into the territory of controversy. I have always been a shooter -- recreational, hunter, handgunner, long-range, short range, tactical, whatever. Because of all those interests in shooting, I’ve always been very interested in guns, especially well-made and aesthetically appealing guns like the Colt 1911 .45, or the Colt AR-15 (esp. the super simple tack driving pre-ban H-Bar), the Winchester Model 70, Springfield M-14, or any of a thousand others. Maybe this makes me a “gun fanatic” to use Bill’s words.
I don’t feel like a fanatic, but hey, it’d be a boring world if we all thought alike.

I was lucky enough to have pursued the shooting sports since I was a child--my parents did not hunt, but recognized that hunting and shooting were good, healthy interests, fostering a love of the outdoors, study of nature (no, not just to shoot it, but to be out in it, day after day, looking at things and hunting, which is among the closest studies of all), and a strong sense of personal responsibility. I graduated from a Benjamin pump pellet gun (I wore it out) to a beautiful and cherished BL-22, the Browning lever action, .22 cal, gold trigger, accurate enough to pulverise aspirin tablets (they burst like tiny clouds of smoke when hit dead center) at thirty feet or so. It was about skill, reflexes, precision, coordination. It was about a marriage of hunting and a martial art, the art of using firearms. We lived pretty far out in the country, and being proficient with a .38 revolver (esp. our favorite, the Colt Diamondback) was considered a good idea for any potential needs of self or home defense. There were some robbers and general malefactors around, and there were certainly no police anywhere within 25 miles. Having a gun around, and being proficient and safe with it, was a good idea. I keep coming back to it, but it was about personal responsibility, taking responsibility for taking some deer meat, or frog’s legs, or squirrels, turkeys, etc, and for your own safety if the need should arise. It felt good.

And maybe –it’s a chicken or the egg thing—I came to associate that feeling of taking responsibility with the liberty and freedom that we were taught was the hallmark of our country. I read Machiavelli in high school, and remember the much-quoted line (and I’m not sure this is exact, it may have been twisted a bit) “An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject,” and thought that was pretty sharp— although I recognize now that it is the CHOICE to be armed or not that makes the “citizen” (and no gender distinction needed, of course)– because you choose not to be armed does not make you any less a citizen, of course. But not having the choice could indeed make you a subject. I hope that is clear. I think it is important.

So I’m not here to argue about “hunting” rifles, or “assault weapons” or semantics or nomenclature. I feel that the Second Amendment gives us the right to be armed in the manner we choose, up to (and not including) full-auto weapons, which are already heavily regulated, and which nobody that I know thinks should be more readily available than they already are.
We put up with a certain level of danger in return for a certain level of freedom. I listen closely to the arguments of those who want to disarm the populace, or make owning guns more difficult and restrictive, and I first try and respond (in my mind, I don’t argue about it anymore, not much), and I see the old exchange of freedom for more security. I see fear
based, emotional longing for the world to be different, better, something other than it is, and desperation to make it that way, not through personal action, but through more and more laws. I get angry (fanatic!!) when I realize that these folks are willing to support and create laws to take away something from me, something that they do not themselves value. I listen to the arguments for gun control and I think of the colossal level of arrogance contained in them, the arrogance that no one need ever resort to force to protect themselves or their children, that nothing bad can ever happen, that peace is our right, always, that we demand it and will sacrifice anything for it. “Others” wil protect us, won’t they? The police, the soldiers?

Disarm the populace, don’t let the little boys and girls play with toy guns, and when they are of age, they will know nothing of violence. Seems so idyllic. But it also seems to me an ultimate arrogance given the history of our species, and the daily news.


I’ll argue for the Second Amendment, and for teaching the sane and safe use of arms to young people who are interested in them, and for no more gun controls than we have already.


Hal

Comment By L. J. Martin, 3-22-07

There's no question that the Republican Party has been anti-environment. Any group so pro-oil company could be nothing else. Having grown up in a county hosting 4 of the country's 10 largest oil fields, I'm very cognizant of the total disregard of oil company's for anything other than profit. Remember Standard Oil's great advertisements on building shelters for the tiny Swift Fox...it wasn't a total lie, they did build the ONE pictured in the ad. Now that you've read this, I'll tell you I've been a Republican all my life, having stumped for Goldwater. The last election was the first (in 45 years of voting age) I voted for a Democrat, a slate of local politicians and one national, Testor and Schwitzer among them. The next year will tell if I ever vote for one again. If it's true that Testor hasn't purchased a hunting license in many years, and fooled me by his campaigning, then he's lost my vote. I can tell you one thing, no matter how the Demos in D.C. avoid the issue of gun control, it won't cover the fact they detest guns and have total disregard for the Constitution. I'm torn, as I love and want to protect the outdoors, but even more so I want to protect my sons' right to bear arms, and this country's. The real underlying issue here, and to 99% of the world's political and environmental problems, all comes down to population and birth control. Solve that problem and gun control (at least in the red states) and environmental depredation go away, or at least remain nutral given a attention paying voters. It settles aorund the fact that there are no conservatives left in D.C., no one to conserve the constitution and/or the wildlands. The mantra once worn by the Republicans has been fettered away. Let's conserve all of what's best in this country, gun rights, the outdoors, and all our individual freedoms, and most of all a population that no longer grows for the sake of growth and by it's very result, crowding, destroys all in its path with individual rights and freedoms at the top of the list.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-22-07

Hal, very eloquently stated. I hope your thoughts get widely published. As I see it, regulating firearms breaks down into these areas: type and function, access, possession, and owner responsibility. H.R. 1022 and its ilk seem to play only to type and function and ignore the other areas. This seems to play to a fear constiutuency (the 57% that I cite above) for political purposes rather than interdicting the problems of violent and criminal behaviour, that like lightning, will find their way. The recent appelate court decision on DC handguns left open areas such as registration and required owner training certification as requisites for firearm ownership. Perhaps there is a more constitutionally and effective regulatory scheme than mere appearance alone. Why don't democrats like Carolyn McCarthy understand this?

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-22-07

Mr. Martin, regarding Senator Tester and his nonexistent hunting license, NPR ran this story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6451556

>>>>>>>>>>
Red Meat for a Blue Candidate
November 7, 2006 · NPR's Martin Kaste is covering the Senate race in Montana and sends this dispatch:

A lot of the last-minute attack ads here in Montana have been the usual stuff: Republican Sen. Conrad Burns takes money from Big Oil; Democrat Jon Tester is a pussycat on terrorism and doesn't care about kids seeing Internet porn. But one ad just cracked me up when I heard it, driving to the polls this morning. Some hunter calls the Tester HQ to invite him to join the guys in shooting a little white-tail, only to have the Tester receptionist admit that hasn't had a hunting license in years.

Cue dire music.

So during an interview with Tester this afternoon I mention this ad, hoping to inject some levity into our chat, but he won't crack a smile. His eyes go steely, and he delivers what sounds like a practiced defense: He uses guns to shoot gophers and vermin, and he doesn't hunt big game only because he has a butchering business and he doesn't need the meat.

"So your defense is you shoot gophers?"
<<<<<<<<<<

When Schumer calls in all the markers for funding Senator Tester's campaign, which way will he vote on gun control?

Comment By L. J. Martin, 3-23-07

I have been reminded that a hunting license and gun ownership are not necessarily hand in hand, and as a rancher Tester might cherish gun ownership for other uses, like coyote predation, etc. I stand corrected and will watch his votes closely before jumping to a conclusion. I also was asked where I was from: born in California, first born there in my family from a long line of Okies, Missorans, and Texans, but got to Montana as quickly as I could twelve years ago, now living far enough east of Missoula to have room to roam, and carry my bow and/or rifle. My wife and I both write for a living, and I am developing a cooking show webpage, http://www.wolfpackranch.com. I, like Zumbo, don't like seeing pseudo battlefield weapons in the field, only because of the bad gut reaction it gets from those who believe everything they read in the press. And, I'm sure like Zumbo, I would fight for your right to be there with your choice of firearms. I'm a lifelong member of the NRA, but don't blindly follow their lead, often disagree with them but still send money, because I only judge by the larger issue: what they protect. I spend too much time in New York and other metropolitan areas (because of the writing biz) not to be continually astounded by how ignorant city people are of the real values and rights that kept and keep this country free.

Comment By Jack, 3-23-07

You are confused Bill. Now I read where the democrats want to stop the bison hunts. Sounds like the democrats are becoming more anti-hunting to me.It was the democrats(Clinton) who brought the killer wolves to YNP from Canada. That was the best anti-hunting tool ever invented. Wolves killing our valuable big game populations and hunting opportunity will be curtailed as well in Montana ,Idaho and Wyoming.You will see the democrats fighting the delisting of the recovered grizzly bear and gray wolf as well. Get real Bill.

Comment By Moorcat, 3-23-07

Jack,

What planet do you live on? Do actually know anything about the situation with the wolves in Yellowstone? It was the re-introduction of the wolves in Yellowstone that HELPED the game animals there. I would suggest you learn a little about what you are talking about.

As far as the label "Assault Weapons" - again, it would help if the people that used that term really knew what it meant. An "Assault Weapon" is a selective fire (meaning it can fire fully auto or semi/auto with a selector switch), medium caliber battle rifle used by the military. Assault weapons are already regulated by existing law. If you want to own an assault weapon (and in some states you still can), you have to go through a process to obtain one and you certainly wouldn't hunt with it.

I have a pistol grip stock on my Remington 742 30-06. The Remington 742 is a semi-auto hunting rifle. I put the pistol grip stock on my HUNTING RIFLE after the original stock cracked for two reasons - 1) the stock was a pound lighter than the wooden one 2) As a long range target shooter, most of my high end target rifles have pistol grips. I find that configuration more comfortable and since I do vastly more target shooting than hunting (hunting is only allowed part of the year, the range is year 'round), I see no reason NOT to set up my hunting rifles that way.

Unfortunately, too many ignorant people assume that if you own a rifle that bears any kind of resemblence to a military rifle, you are a "gun nutcase". Your comments are the reason that is true. Zumbo was crucified (not just by the NRA, either) and the reason he was crucified is because he (a supposed gun advocate and expert in the field) wrote something that was ingnorant and uninformed.

As far as the rest of the argument, the minute you bring "party" into it, your argument is suspect. I know a lot of Democrats that that support gun control but I also know a lot of Democrats that will shoot you for even suggesting gun control. Same with Republicans. The problem is NOT one of party but one of IGNORANCE. Fight the Ignorance instead of propogating it.

Moorcat

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-23-07

Moorcat, please refer to the comments and positions of the democrats that I posted above. Which of them support gun rights vs. gun control? Isn't HR 1022 being pushed by democrats? On democrate Senator Jon Tester's website ( http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues) he state, "As a legislator Tester voted repeatedly to protect gun rights. In the United States Senate, Jon will stand up to anyone — Republican or Democrat — who wants to take away Montanans’ gun rights."

HOWEVER, as the MSSA reports (see above) Tester voted against gun rights legislation in Montana. The MSSA state: "Jon Tester served in the Montana Senate, in the 2005 Session as President of the Senate. MSSA had two important bills moving through the Legislature in 2005, HB 693 (about self defense) and HB 366 (about Montana-made firearms). Both bills passed out of the Montana House and were assigned in the Senate to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee tabled both bills. MSSA asked friendly senators for motions on the Senate floor to forcibly extract each bill from committee for discussion and a vote before the full Senate. Jon Tester voted AGAINST giving both of these bills a fair hearing before the full Senate. He voted to keep these bills dead and bottled up in committee, against the express wishes of MSSA." Democrats can't have it both ways.

Comment By Moorcat, 3-23-07

Yes, HR1022 is sponsored by a Democrat. At the same time, how many gun control initiatives and acts did Rudy Guliani sponsor? Didn't Bush go on record saying that he would sign the AWG if it came across his desk? Republicans have just as many "skeletons in the closet" as Democrats on the issue of gun control. Many use the issue for thier gain (vote for me because the Dems will take your guns away) and then turn around and vote for more gun control. In fact, I laugh at the Republicans who say that the evil Democrats are going to take my guns away. Let the try....

Revisionist history doesn't help ANYONE and by making this a "partisan" issue, you are obfuscating the facts. Gun Control is a "hot button" issue and any politician (Democrat or Republican) will use this issue to his advantage. Personally, I think that if a politician were smart, they would back away from the issue right now since there is SO much legal manuvering being done on it.

As far as MSSA, I see them the same way I see the NRA. They serve a purpose - thier own. If it is in thier best interest (not necessarily the same interests as gun owners, either), they will say what they want to illicite a responce. Not knowing the information on the bills you mention, I have no idea whether Tester did the right thing in voting against those bills (my gut tells me that from what I have seen of Tester's voting record, he probably did....) but I certainly am not going to blindly buy into an issue because MSSA says to. Hell, the NRA and MSSA came out supporting Burns - a man under investigation for many and varied things as well as an idiot. Sorry, you may tow the "MSSA" line but if you want my support, talk the issues not the lobby.

Moorcat

Comment By Jack, 3-23-07

When your just on some 'obscure ag committee' to work on farm subsidies for corn for ethenol which will never happen where is our voice in Congress? Casting that one vote the way Pelosi wants won't help either.

Comment By Jack, 3-23-07

Besides the senator from NV, a democrat, never did return his $70,000 of Jack Aber payoff 'dough'. Why?

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-23-07

Moorcat, Bill framed the discussion around Democrats. All Democrats have to do is strip out all of the pork from the Pelosi's war funding bill and add AWG to it and see what Bush will do. That way the D's can take credit for disarming US forces and the American people in one fell swoop. By the way, it was the D's who swore up and down there would be a year's moratorium on earmarks and pork. Barely 3 months into the year and that promise is trashed. Senator Tester promised to take a broom to Washington and clean up the backroom backscratching and pork. As the Pelosi's bill goes to the senate, let's see how Tester backs up his talk.

Comment By Moorcat, 3-23-07

You are completely misrepresenting what Senator Tester said. He said that he would do his part to try to clean up pork and "K" street influence. To date, he seems to still be committed to that goal. Unfortunately, he is just one Senator in Congress - with over 400 other Congressmen and women. I do not expect Senator Tester - in his first year in the Senate - to be able to cause sweeping change but as long as he sticks to the tenants and promises he DID make (not the ones that the Pundants want re-write history to say he made), I will continue to support him, regardless of what party he puts on his declaration.

It seems to me that you simply can't get past a person's political party and look at the individual. I truly feel sorry for you. Once again, look at the issue, not the organization.

Moorcat

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-23-07

Moorcat, again, Bill framed this discussion in a partisan way. Regarding your defense of Senator Tester over "pork" please remember that he beat Senator Burns over the head with it at every debate. He took a "holier than thou" superior position over special interest legislation. When Pelosi's bill comes before him for his vote he is going to be faced with a decision that will reveal whether he stands by his boasts and his word over pork. Sounds like your expectations are rather low as you are making excuses.

Comment By Moorcat, 3-23-07

I understand that - in some ways - Bill framed this discussion in a partisan way. If you would simply read my comments, you would understand that I consider that "less than useful". Gun Control is NOT a partisan issue. It is an issue that divides people in BOTH parties and it certainly isn't just an Democratic Concern.

Second, if you think that I am making "excuses" for Tester, you obviously have some issues with reading comprehension. I hold Tester to the same standard I hold EVERY one of my representatives to. What I don't do is have unreal expectations. It is silly (Personally I like Wulfgar's "Deeply Stupid" but it is his phrase...) to expect anything else. Yes, I expect Tester to stick to his guns on pork and "K" street deals. No, I don't expect Tester to "single handedly" run all the "K" street crooks out of town by high noon. If that is what you expect of Tester .... Well, see above. What you took as "holier than thou", I took as simple statements saying let's get rid of the crook (Burns) and put some honesty back into federal government. YMMV.

Moorcat

Comment By Caig Moore, 3-23-07

Moorcat, you can't be serious to say that gun control is not a partisan issue given the statements by both Hillary and Obama using it as an issue and the sponsorship of gun grabbing legiislation by democrats. You deny the reality of your own party. By the way I don't know who Wulfgar is. Now back to Tester, you again seem to be making excuses for his eventually vote of "yea" on Pelosi's pork bill. All he has to do is vote "nay" and maintain his integrity on pork. You and I both know he as to pay the piper for all of the DSCC money that went to help his election.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-23-07

Moorcat, one more thing. For Senator Tester's words on pork look here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Jon_Tester_Government_Reform.htm

Earmarks without transparency are wrong for democracy
Q: Which of the 34 Montana earmarks in the latest transportation bill qualify as unjustified pork?

TESTER: The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good projects, like this land-grant university, can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day. Quite frankly, I don't support earmarks, period. If a project's a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I'm not for earmarks because they don't pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up.

Source: 2006 Montana 3-way Senate Debate at MSU Oct 9, 2006
________

For someone that doesn't "...support earmarks, period." the Pelosi bill will be a real test.

Comment By Moorcat, 3-23-07

Craig,

I most certainly can be serious about it being a non-partisan issue. Yes, I know that Clinton and Obama have supported Gun Control. So have 2/3 of the people running for president from the REPUBLICAN party. You are welcome to ignore that fact all you want, but it simply proves my comment about "deeply stupid". You need to look past party and look at the issue.

Second, you have me confused with someone else. I am certainly NOT a Democrat (though many have made that mistake before). I do not vote a party - I vote issues and even though I have voted for more Republican candidates than Democrats, I certainly don't consider myself a modern Republican (Rethug if you look at the vocal ones...).

Third, you stated that "You and I both know he as to pay the piper for all of the DSCC money that went to help his election." I know nothing of the sort - and neither do you. I really don't care what the voices in your head tell you, it just isn't so. I have no idea how Tester will vote but it appears that either way, you will try to construct some way to point out how "Tester lied". You have now been officially labeled a "Nut Job" in my book and I will no longer respond to you. If you want to come back to the earth the rest of us live on, let me know and we can talk about it...

Moorcat

P.S. The Credibility of your arguments just went down the toilet when you stated you had no idea who Wulfgar is. You really need to get out more in Montana

Comment By Mike Smith, 3-23-07

I really like Democrats such as Zell Miller and Jim Talent. Most of those in that party are more DemoMarxist who would feel more at home with the likes of Lenin, Pol Pot or Stalin. 80% of the DemoMarxist in the US House and US Senate are Pro Socialist, Pro Marxist, Anti Gun, Anti Freedom and Anti Liberty. If you'd like examples, I don't mind sharing with you the names of Finestien, Boxer, Schumer, Lautenburg, Clinton, anybody named Kennedy and about three hundred others. According to reports many Pro Gun Democrats were elected in the last national election. Time will tell.

There are many Republikins who fit the profile of RINO/Socialist/DemoMarxist also.

Any other questions?

Moorcat, don't spend your time arguing with Craig/Bob. He uses the same argument with any one who disagrees with their Liberal/Socialist Anti Gun Fudd Hunting BS.

Respectfully,

Michael Smith

Comment By Douglas Fir, 3-23-07

Interesting. I grew up in Idaho, worked as a logger, worked on farms during harvest, went to school on my own dollar, got a doctorate and got out. Maybe I'll come back one day 'casue I love the country. I grew up with guys driving around town with (loaded) rifle racks all year, and don't really have a problem with it. I worked in the woods with guys who wore sidearms. Incredible. Quite a pose. But you know, I remember a number of times out in in woods, during break, things like that, when guys would just see a beautiful bird or even some chipmink, and get their gun just to shoot it. Made me sick. And you know, I can't help thinking a lot of these gun guys are pretty much still like that, can't go out into the woods if you can't make it your project to kill something. Most hunters say it's the experience of the outdoors that makes it right. Here is my true question: why not just got out and listen and look? I know some of you need the meat, and I'm not talking to you. I'm a vegetarian, but no problem, really, meat eaters get theirs one way or another, but that's another story and I'm getting off track. So: why not just go out and listen?

And really, boys and girls, if the government ever truly wanted to subdue you, your pitiful arsenals would only slightly prolong the amount of time it took to pry the weapon from your cold, dead, hands. So it's a fantasy then, right?

Comment By Moorcat, 3-23-07

As one of those "gun guys" that spends a great deal of time in the woods during the spring, summer and fall, let me remind you of why I carry a sidearm. They are big, they usually outweigh me (and I am a pretty big, corn fed mountian boy), and they have sharp teeth and claws. They usually don't know what they are going to do until they do it. Yep, you guessed it... Bears. There are also cougars to consider.

Do I go into the woods and shoot the furry little animals singing thier twitterpated song? Nope. In fact, I would venture to say that the number of trigger happy "gun guys" you describe is extremely low - about the same number as the number of vegetarian loggers. (Yes, I have been a logger and I have worked pulling lumber off a green chain at a lumber mill).

Do I hunt. Well, it depends on a lot of things. I hunted as a teen. I hunted in Alaska when I homesteaded. I will probably hunt this year now that I am settled back in Montana. I do it for meat (the same reason most Montanan's hunt) and for the chance to spend the time with my wife and brother tramping around in the woods.

I also enjoy the time I spend backpacking in the woods (firearm on my thigh - the hip holster gets in the way of my backpacking belt). I do enjoy the sounds and smells of the woods. I guess I am not one of those nasty, trigger happy squirrel killers you describe.

As far as the evil government coming to take my guns... Not likely. Further, I think you would be surprised if they did. I would pit my 30-06 hunting rifle against a pitiful .223 anyday. Same goes with my SKS. The bottom line here, though is that it is a fantasy to even think that the govment would show up at my door and try to take my guns. They know better. They may pass laws that say that I can't carry them. They may pass laws that say I can't sell them, but not even the most rabid anti-gun moron would try to pass a law that requires the government to try to take them away from me. They know better.

"Shoot for the head"

Moorcat

Moorcat

Comment By Spruce Engelmann, 3-24-07

Douglas Fir,

My forest is cooler than your forest.

I don't really mind the gunnies either, considering the potent symbol guns represent.

I too had to runrunrun once I got my PhD, 'cuz honestly, when those brutes shot little squirrels, I saw a release of such magnitude it reminded me of--well, not polite to say in... heh, mixed company.

Oh, but I love the country too, Douggie. I just don't know if I can keep my cool when all those guns and big men with big.... ammo... fire away.

Ooooh La LAAaaa.

Well, I think you and I have a little attitude difference, now don't we? You say tomayto, and I say tomawto, but I have more fun...

Sprucie

Comment By kldimond, 3-24-07

Holy crap! What's going ON in here???

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-24-07

Kldimond, we are discussing how democrats support gun control. See the latest: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY;=/www/story/03-23-2007/0004552278&EDATE;=

>>>>>>>>>
House Democrats Reveal True Colors; Sacrifice Voting Rights Over Gun Issue

BELLEVUE, Wash., March 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Congressional Democrats claim at every turn they "support the Second Amendment," but the truth came out Thursday when they pulled a coveted District of Columbia voting rights bill because of an amendment that would have ended the long-standing handgun ban.
"This shows the true colors of the Democrat leadership," Alan M.
Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms stated. "It should have been easy for the Democrat caucus to agree to the Republican- sponsored amendment, because of the recent federal appeals court ruling that declared the handgun ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
"Instead," Gottlieb said, "Democrats proved once again that all their avowed support for the Second Amendment is nothing but empty rhetoric. House Democrats had a chance to stand up and be counted, but instead they ran for cover, afraid to have a recorded vote prove that, as a party and as individuals, they remain as anti-gun as ever."
Republicans attached an amendment to the District voting rights measure that would have essentially restored the Bill of Rights to Washington, D.C. residents. The bill would give District residents full representation in the House of Representatives. It's a bill Democrats want because the District is heavily Democrat.
"With this delay over the addition of a gun rights amendment," Gottlieb observed, "House Democrats have demonstrated a new low in moral hypocrisy that, frankly, just didn't seem possible. It has taken Democrats only three months to erase the years of promises and pontificating they've done, trying to convince American voters, and particularly the nation's 90 million gun owners, that they are not the party of gun control...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Comment By mike, 3-24-07

Craig,

The explanation that I got for the situation described in your "news report" was a little different. As it was explained to me, the support for full DC voting rights and representation in Congress was done at the behest of, in coordination with, and on behalf of the local DC population and local elected government. It was essentially trying to do what the GOP and rightwing have been touting for years, which was to transfer more rights, more control, and more voice downward to the local level. Again, as it was reported to me by those on the scene, the amendment attached by the GOP would have constituted a federally mandated overturning of regulations and controls that were voted into place by that local DC population and their local representation, thus essentially putting the Democrats into the position of doing what the GOP says it is against and thus constituting a cheap political trick on the part of the GOP. The Democrats thus rightly delayed the question to at least provide enough time to consult with the local DC folks, the local government that was voted in by the local population to give them that local voice before the vote, which is again the kind of deference to the local level that the GOP has been "saying" that it favors.

In this context, I believe that Alan Gottlieb's spin on the situation in his report is, at best, imprecise to the point of inaccuracy and, at worst, another example of the dishonesty that the NRA, the GOP, and the gun nut community have been displaying for many years. As for you being so helpful in passing the gas along, I continue to be disappointed in your tendency to dance all over that ethical map. Argue your points and I'll argue mine, but not with this kind of disinformation. The majority of the people who read these blogs don't have the time to go back and research the truth. It is unhelpful to post misinformation and, in this case, unethical to post outright disinformation.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-24-07

Mike, as you know both parties attach ornaments to bills to satisfy certain constituencies. Just look to all the pork Pelosi loaded up in the Iraq bill. To claim "foul" by democrats or by you personally criticizing me only points out the disingenuousness of the claim. Bill's point of his column was that democrats should lay low on gun rights to protect public lands. Democrats can't seem to get that done or hide that they are the party of gun control. Up to 2004 they were more overt, but when they failed to make gains they pulled back. Now they are emboldened again. The 2nd Amendment is not open to local referendum. The Bill of Rights were specifically intended to prevent the tyranny of government or the majority against the minority. "Bans" seem to fit the unconstitutional shoe.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/03/from_cq_today_gunrights_gambit_1.html

>>>>>>>
A GOP-backed effort to curtail District of Columbia gun-control laws blew a hole in Democrats’ plans to give the city’s representative in Congress full voting rights and create a new seat for Utah.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, offered a motion to recommit the voting representation bill (HR 1433) and instruct a House committee to add language repealing the District’s ban on semiautomatic weapons and prohibiting other local gun-control laws.

The strategy forced Democrats in an uncomfortable box and pushed the bill off the Thursday floor schedule.

A portion of the majority caucus backs gun ownership rights and would have a difficult time opposing the GOP motion. But should the motion succeed, the bill would be sent back to committee and Democrats would be denied the chance to follow through on casting what Speaker Nancy Pelosi just minutes before had lauded as a historic vote.

“This is a happy day,” Pelosi, D-Calif., had said. “It is an historic day. It is a day when the people of the District of Columbia will finally have their voices heard and represented.”

The voting representation bill was set aside while the Democratic leadership regrouped.

Before a vote is rescheduled, a leadership aide said, the Rules Committee will be asked to produce a new rule for
consideration of the bill that would prohibit the GOP from incorporating gun language...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Why do democrats trust people with the vote but not with 2nd Amendment rights?

Comment By mike, 3-24-07

Thank you, Craig, after your initial cussing and spitting, your second quoted passage does indeed set the record straight. The Smith amendment, the amendment in question, truly does seek to repeal "the DISTRICT'S ban on semiautomatic weapons and prohibiting other LOCAL gun-control laws." The situation is not just about gun control; it is about the federal government overturning local control over their own lives and that puts a horse of a different color into the herd. The two issues must be kept in mind.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-24-07

Mike, where did I cuss as spit as you suggest??? No matter. The District's "ban is unconstitutional no matter that it reflects the majority. That's what I was saying. Democrats had a huge opportunity to recognize that injustice and allow the whole bill to come to the floor. They did not, thereby reaffirming their long history of hostility to 2nd Amendment rights. What happened here is strikingly similar to Senator Testor. He voted against two pro-firearms measures in the Montana legistature but yet he maintains he is pro 2nd Amendment. He also dressed up in hunting clothes for a politcal ad eventhough he hadn't owned a license in 15 years according to MSSA. The ethics of the posers are the ones you should be questioning

Comment By mike, 3-24-07

There are more than enough "posers" out there. My support for Tester only goes as far as he was/is, on a few specific issues of importance to me, an alternative to Burns. I am outcome-driven and a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. Even my opposition to the NRA and the gun nut crowd is based on the practical impact of the broader outcomes they drive in today's world rather than on ideology. Most of the people involved in the debate from an supposed indeological standpoint, on both sides, are not intellectually capable nor have they even tried to invest the intellectual capital to understand more than a few slogans. To feed these poor dogs ideological milkbones based on broad interpretations of the intent of tersely worded tidbits from two centuries ago and then expect my support is either a deliberately manipulative game or a fool's errand. I work on real outcomes.

Comment By Dean, 3-24-07

Mike, you are somewhat of a master of words that say nothing. Looks like Hillary has one solid vote there.That is how she 'rattles off' as well and say's nothing. Wouldn't she be a big advocate of sport hunting and and the money from sport hunting under the PR Act of 1937 that supports wildlife management by fish and game agencies? Now Oma another dandy, he wouldn't know a deer from fence post. What politcal party do they represent? Oh that's right.. the deemmmo-cccrratssss!!!

Comment By kldimond, 3-24-07

Ah, gee, Craig, it looked to me like a couple of trees were about to put the "sex" back into the title.

I mean, "Douglas Fir" and "Spruce Engelmann"? Kinda weirded me out there... :>

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-24-07

Sex between trees? Now that would make the bark fly and some roots curl. I hope they practice safe sap like Miss World.

Comment By mike, 3-24-07

Dean, you're exactly the kind of fellow I was talking about when I decried those who want to strut their stuff and be involved in the debate, but "are not intellectually capable nor have they even tried to invest the intellectual capital to understand more than a few slogans." Try working yourself up to the Oscar Meyer jingle for starters.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-24-07

Mike, personally trashing commentors here only leaves the issues choking under a dust cloud of diversion. The issue remains that democrats are the part of gun control as evident by the statements of Hillary and Obama, pushing HR 1022, and now the fiasco over the DC voting rights bill because it contained wording affirming 2nd Amendment rights over the tyrrany of the majority against the minority. Sleeves off their vest and they blew it.

Comment By kldimond, 3-24-07

I remember an incident where Ms. Outdoorsy Hillary talked about duck hunting with a rifle. Yikes.

Mike,

You're a trifle confused. Your "source" is spouting the rhetoric of the Democrat anti-gun pseudo-Left.

I always laugh when most of the wonks talk about "ideology." They wouldn't know ideology if it walked up and bit them on the mass. And I would suspect, Mike, that you are of the same ilk. In today-speak, when they refer to ideology, all they mean is, "the guy's a party hack." The same criticism also applies to "Left" and "Right" and "liberal" and "conservative."

With the exception of a few avowed socialists, a couple of near-libertarians and one actual libertarian, U.S. politics is about nothing but political expediency and party politics--in that order. It's a cynical marketing game, with only the slightest impact from something as vaunted as ideology.

Mike, you say you are only interested in results. Well, then, you should be all ABOUT the Constitution and its plain meaning. Its results, if anyone would ever adhere to it, is a cohesive society, an overall prosperity mindset, and peace.

Another thing you're confused about is that the District is under the direct control of Congress; it is only a concession to allow "self-rule." I would oppose the Districts' getting a representative with voting rights. I don't even think it should have a representative at all, because it undermines the whole point of such a District. It was supposed to apolitical, and to make sure of it, it was a political island.

Mike, if you're interested in what works, quit spouting the nonsense of either party, start looking at history and what it says about psychology and sociology (it's significantly out of tune with the pronouncements of the modern "sciences" by those names), and start recognizing what the species is about.

We have our worst social disasters when we ignore the fundamental nature of the species, of social intercourse, and of living things in general. What I see about the would-be elites is exactly this kind of error, which can and does lead to nothing but misery.

Comment By Ron, 3-24-07

"Right now, the dems can bank on losing the votes of hardcore gun owners, but with H.R. 1022 in play, that loss could easily double or triple and give the 2008 election a Red Party."

The gun controllers don't care. They are incrementalists. They know they'll get any RINO/Blue Dog votes back during future elections on other marxist/socialist issues, once their massive gun ban acts are assimilated into society.

One bite at a time of a big crap sandwich is what it comes down to us being fed. Stick a frog in boiling hot water, and it will attempt to jump out. Stick a frog in cool water, and slowly bring it up to a boil the frog will slowly cook without jumping out.

Comment By Irwin Horowitz, 3-25-07

It's interesting to see that no one here has commented on why this issue is so important to Rep. McCarthy. I happened to grow up in the neighboring congressional district on Long Island back in the 70s and early 80s, before I moved out west. For those who don't know her personal back story, in December, 1993, her husband was killed and her son was severely wounded during a shooting on the Long Island Railroad in which six died and 19 were injured. She was actually a Republican who decided to embrace the gun control issue after this tragedy, and ran as a Democrat against the Republican incumbent who voted against a ban on so-called assault weapons.

The idea that gun rights/gun control is a Rep/Dem issue is ludicrous. James Brady certainly isn't a Democrat. Carolyn McCarthy remained a registered Republican until 2003 (though she has served as a Democrat in Congress since her election in 1996). Yes, in general, Democrats tend to be more in favor of certain limitations on gun rights, while Republicans tend to be less in favor of those, but it is by no means an absolute. I used to be strongly in favor of strong gun control legislation (prior to moving to the mountain west in 1993), but have modified my views on this issue to a certain extent. I do still believe that there is some middle ground on this issue whereby both sides give a little, in which the desired goal is to avoid tragedies like the shooting in 1993 or Columbine or other instances whereby someone with a loaded gun and a bad temper manages to kill a bunch of people in a short period of time. Just recently, there was the tragedy in Amish country in Pennsylvania late last year. Is there some way to prevent these from happening, short of taking away all of the guns (which I don't advocate)? Or do we simply accept these events as the price we pay to ensure that gun rights maintain some sacrosanct status in our society? I would really like to know. And for the gun rights activists who argue that everyone should be armed to avoid these instances, I doubt that is a truly viable solution to this problem, and would more likely lead to a greater number of tragedies instead, given the level of animosity we currently experience towards one another in our society (hey, just look at the emotion displayed in some of the comments in this thread alone).

A number of years ago, when I was living in Pocatello, my closest friend was a hardcore gun rights advocate. Columbine had recently occurred, and I was curious to know how he would avoid a similar situation involving his young children. I never received a truly satisfactory answer to that question. Once some messed up teenager shows up to school and kills your kid, doesn't much matter what happens to the killer, your kid is still dead. How do we prevent it from happening in the first place?

Comment By Rose Mary, 3-25-07

HURRY!

SCROLL BACK UP THE PAGE AND READ THOSE COMMENTS POSTED HERE BY HAL HERRING ON 3-22-07!!!

THANK YOU HAL!

YOU SAID IT *ALL*!!!

Comment By jrt, 3-25-07

"And really, boys and girls, if the government ever truly wanted to subdue you, your pitiful arsenals would only slightly prolong the amount of time it took to pry the weapon from your cold, dead, hands. So it's a fantasy then, right?"

Might want to ask the Iraqis about that. Or maybe the Viet Cong.

Or get a time machine and ask the colonists with 'pitiful arsenals' that stood up to the most powerful military force in the world at the time.

Comment By T, 3-26-07

What side of the "gun control' jump rope is flipflop Romney?
As a Massachusetts candidate, he was for gun control. As a presidential candidate, he joined recently joined the NRA and is now against gun control. Where will he jump or flip tomorrow?

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-26-07

Irwin, I welcome your reasoned comments on any issues. I must disagree with your perspective that gun control is not a partisan issue. First, any legislation by its very nature is partisan. That is the system we have. Second, look at 2nd Amendment rights advocacy funding. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/

"If lawmakers are guilty of tiptoeing around gun control issues, it is because the NRA and other gun rights groups wield an enormous amount of influence in Washington. The source of that influence is money. Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Nearly $15 million, or 85 percent of the total, has gone to Republicans. The National Rifle Association is by far the gun rights lobby's biggest donor, having contributed more than $14 million over the past 15 years. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94 percent went to Democrats."

The $$$$$ are spent to achieve a result through political means.

I am very sorry for Carlolyn McCarth's loss. I do not fault her or the Brady's lashing out at the instrumentalities of their stolen lives.

You ask what can be done. The court in the DC case left open the door to regulation which would include registration, licensing, and required firearms training. Restrictions could be imposed on the access, possession, and behaviour relating to both the firearm and ammunition. Bans are unconstitutional. Advocacy of restrictions would itself be political, but for those that want to attack the "cause" of bad behaviour and the availability of the instrument to create terrible consequences that's where I would start. There are constitutional means to support the 2nd Amendment and address the social issues.

Comment By 6degrees, 3-26-07

Craig,

Part of the point I was trying to make was that there are Republicans who favor some forms of gun control, such as Rep. McCarthy (until she dropped her party membership in 2003) and former Reagan Press Secretary James Brady. Meanwhile, there are clearly Democrats who support the positions of gun owners. The impassioned arguments seen in this thread alone demonstrate a "black & white" mentality on this issue by many with regards to partisanship and I was merely trying to point out that it is more of a gray area, while acknowledging that indeed, in general, there is a predisposition on the members of each party to pursue a particular side on this topic.

Let me ask others, who are passionate supporters of gun rights, if removing the word "ban" from legislation would make you supportive of efforts to license gun owners, register their firearms and encourage training in their proper use and safety? If you are concerned about the government having access to such records, would having a third party, not associated with any gov't organization, maintaining these records be any more palatable?

Under such a scenario, the only way the authorities could gain access to specific information in that database would be via a court order/warrant. Could this type of solution possibly work and be agreeable to both sides on the debate? Of course, the implication would have to be that failure to be properly licensed or to properly register your firearms would be a punishable offense, ranging from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of any crimes involved.

Comment By Bill Schneider, 3-26-07

Craig--I can do that. I did send the column to Representative McCarthy's office, but no response. Gun control is not a partisan issue, even though democrats are more likely to favor more restrictive gun laws and regs. This is why they should seize this opportunity to proof they do not represent the "anti-gun party" and squash H.R. 1022.....Bill

P.S. I'm not blue, only half-blue.

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-27-07

Bill, whatever happens with HR 1022, there is still the fiasco on the DC voting rights bill with the gun rights amendment. Now, what could be done with this clear indication of antipathy to 2nd Amendment individual rights? Bring the bill back with the republican rider and add a democrat rider that focuses on firearms training certification. Sleeves off their vests, affirm the individual 2nd Amendment rights, and demonstrate societal requirements for responsible gun ownership. Perhaps the question should be "Why isn't gun rights a political issue? Look at the numbers I quote above: 57% want strong regulation while 91% want modest regulation. Isn't there political gold in these numbers?

Comment By Bill Schneider, 3-27-07

Craig--This is sort of a "man answer," but I see two possibilities. First, the numbers are wrong. Second, the remaining 9 percent makes so much noise that it sounds like 90 percent--or perhaps that 9 percent is concentrated in western districts key to winning Congress or the White House. We've seen a little of that noise-making in these comment sections of late. Sort of like the one guy wiht a lot of hats; puts them on rocks surrounding the wagon train; then runs around taking a shot from each hat, pretending like he's a whole army....Bill

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-27-07

Bill, like the guy using the hats on rocks, I thought it was only democrats that vote after they are dead.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=13539

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Americans Favour Stricter Gun Laws
October 21, 2006

Many adults in the United States would like to enact tougher regulations for firearms, according to a two recent public opinion polls. In a survey by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News, 61 per cent of respondents favour stricter gun control laws in their country...

Comment By kldimond, 3-27-07

The deadliest and most dangerous weapon known to man, short of the ones that only Ma Nature can (as far as we know) deploy, is government.

It's useful to keep this in perspective when we're talking about the right of self-defense and its associated weapons possession rights.

In fact, it's useful to keep it in mind anytime we think about government as a solution.

George Washington said that government was like fire; a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. He was right. Let's keep that in mind when we ask government to make rules, establish restrictions, deploy programs, and carry out enforcements and appropriations.

It's what the Framers did, and why they protected weapons ownership in the broadest terms available.

On the gun issue, the only concession I might be inclined to make--and only if the terms were specific and concrete and done by amendment (not statute), is to restrict those weapons that impact, say, an entire section of land in one detonation, with a kill or critical injury rate on humans of something like 80%.

On that matter I am heretical in some circles, but so be it. I just don't find those weapons useful in the kind of conflict the Framers anticipated, whether it be to thwart tyrannical government or invaders.

By the way, for anticipating these kinds of conflicst, were the Framers "nuts"? It's one of a very few things they actually seemed to be in pretty good agreement about.

And, if they were right for their times, then they were right for forever; human dynamics (forget about technology--it only speeds the action of human dynamics) haven't changed since then, folks. They haven't changed for ten thousand years and won't for a good, long time, unless we actually evolve into the change--thus, not by thought but by mutation.

I do fault the Carolyn McCarthy's and Bradys of the world. It's irrational to blame the instrument. It's narcissistic (read: "sick") to want to ban all of them everywhere because of some misuses, however serious those misuses may be.

If a serial murderer took a wrench around and managed to kill your spouse and children, would you want to outlaw wrenches? Come on, let's make sense.

The ratio of good guys to bad guys (we'll define good guys as those folks who would never use a weapon for malicious or self-enriching crime) weighs enormously in favor of good guys. The bad guys are intimidated by the prospect of good guys with guns.

If the bad guys can make the law-abiding deal with them, having to use only impact and cutting weapons (fists, clubs, knives), then the bad guys have the edge, because they are accustomed to dealing at this level.

If the bad guys (in this case, those psychos who want to lash out at anyone at all) can go into a mall and just start shooting, knowing that the good guys have obeyed either the law or mall policy and left their guns at home or in their cars, they will take advantage of that.

And we see the proofs of these last two paragraphs every day.

It's time Americans turn the "ban everything" movement around. People need to think better, be freer, be more accountable.

To 6degrees: No. A duck is a duck is a duck, no matter how many times you call it an alligator. A ban is a ban, a tax is a tax, and bad government is bad government, no matter what you call it.

Bill: As I said before, I sympathize with your wish to assure beautiful vistas, peace and quiet, hunting and fishing opportunities, etc. But be blinking careful with that ax known as government. It's the one tool that really does have a mind of its own.

Comment By Bill Schneider, 3-29-07

Over the past year, I have written frequently about rights of hunters and gun owners, claiming that habitat loss threatens hunting more than gun control. By supporting efforts to destroy roadless lands, such as we have seen frequently from our current administration, gun owners support the end of hunting. By supporting the repeal of the roadless rule, for example, the National Rifle Association has become an anti-hunting group.

Such talk was not sweet music to gun owners because most don’t hunt. After reading hundreds of comments on these postings, I learned that many gun owners consider hunters an adversary because sometimes hunters don’t pile on to every effort to defeat more restrictive gun laws. (Check it out here, here, and here.)

The point of it all has gotten lost in the uproar. Basically, hunters need quality habitat to continue their tradition, and gun owners and their parent organization, the NRA, endorse habitat destruction with their support for anti-environmental politicians and policies. Now comes an intriguing article from David Lien of Colorado chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers explaining why gun owners must defend hunting and what makes hunting possible if they want to defend the Second Amendment.--Bill Schneider

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/defending_wilderness_and_hunting_defends_our_right_to_bear_arms/C85/L41/

Comment By Craig Moore, 3-31-07

As pointed out on another NewWest column, the Montana legislature is considering new concealed carry without a permit legislation. This is the position of the Montana Democrat party: http://www.montanademocrats.org/

"Today law enforcement officials and firefighters from across Montana held a news conference to announce their strong support for five Democratic legislators who where attacked by the Montana Republican Party for their opposition to HB 340 the so-called “stand your ground bill.”

House Bill 340, which was opposed by all Montana law enforcement organizations does nothing to limit the gun rights of Montanans, rather, it serves only to protect criminals, not lawful citizens.

As advocates in the Montana Legislature for law enforcement and emergency personnel and their families, these Representatives have demonstrated the kind of support that is needed in the legislature to ensure the safety of Montana families.

The Republican Party is distorting the truth about HB 340, the so-called “Stand Your Ground” bill being pushed by extremists.

This bill does not change your gun rights. It protects violent criminals from prosecution:

HB 340 is opposed by all of Montana’s law enforcement community, and law-abiding citizens.

HB 340 actually shields violent criminals and meth dealers from being prosecuted. HB 340 would put your family and police officers in danger.

Montana Democrats support your gun rights. We oppose HB 340, and we stand with local sheriffs, police officers and gun owners to keep our community safe from violent criminals."

Without revisiting the merits of this legislation, which are discussed on the other NW column, gun control again appears politicized.

On another matter of who needs who more The Economist has this article: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8864508

"A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters. On the very day of the DC ruling the Police Executive Research Forum, a police think-tank, reported that violent crime, including homicides, had been rising rapidly since 2004. Meanwhile, the NRA is slowly losing one of its most important constituencies: the proportion of Americans holding hunting licences has declined from 10% in 1985 to 6% last year. If both trends continue, more and more Americans will come to associate guns not with healthy outdoorsmanship, as the NRA would like, but with swift and violent human death."

Comment By Bill Schneider, 4-06-07

FYI....Bill

Hunters, Shooters, and PR Money
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/hunters_shooters_and_pr_money/C41/L41/

Comment By Irwin Horowitz, 4-16-07

Well, it appears that today we had a great victory on behalf of gun owners nationwide. Yep, it seems that a staunch 2nd amendment rights activist decided to exercise those rights in Blacksburg, Virginia and rid the world of over 30 namby-pamby college students at Virginia Tech University.

Now, if the above paragraph made you angry (and it should), then perhaps one of you gun-rights activists can come out and say what I stated above, that in order to live in a free society, it means that on occasion, events like today's tragedy are the price we pay. Of course, for the victims of tragedies like today's, this position provides cold comfort as they bury their loved ones.

So, once again, I ask...is there some middle ground that both the gun-rights activists and the gun-control activists can agree on to try to do nearly everything possible to avoid these types of events?

Comment By moorcat, 4-16-07

Boy, that didn't take long. It is Columbine all over again. Just because some nutcase opened fire on a college campus, we are suddenly going to have to "need" gun control?

What I find really amazing about posts like the one above is that less than a year ago, a law was defeated in Virginia that would have allowed students to keep thier firearms. This law was defeated with the idea that "If we don't allow guns on campus, it will prevent gun violence from occuring". I guess they were wrong.

Maybe if a student had his firearm with him, this nutjob's shooting spree would have been cut short.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If you prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, the only ones with guns are the criminals and the gov'ment. Instead of focusing on taking guns away from us, how 'bout we try to figure out why this nutjob was able to gun down 40+ people without any warning?

Comment By Irwin Horowitz, 4-16-07

Yes, and how do we keep the "nutjob" from getting the gun in the first place? If you actually read what I've written above, I am not in favor of "taking away the guns," but I would like to see some thought on the subject of the previous sentence.

As for arming society, as I mentioned above, given the growing anger we see every day, arming the populace will inevitably result in greater mayhem, not less. And it still won't bring back a dead child.

Comment By Rose Mary, 4-16-07

To you, Irwin Horowitz:

Not only is your intent to tie the 2nd Amendment to today's tragedy appalling, it is also insulting to any thinking person and totally devoid of logic.

This tragedy is NOT related to the freedom we are guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment ~ but it certainly might be construed to represent a terrible warning regarding the potential for disaster when law-abiding citizens are denied the right to bear arms and/or to use them for their own protection.

Anyone who thinks "the bad guys" will NOT have guns should any law say otherwise has a serious brain disease.

If you wish to condemn "the system" regarding this tragedy you should look at security measures that were or were not operating at the time. Or the lack of reasonable parenting ~ which is probably Step One.

Weapons are already prohibited in many public areas, including but not exclusive to court houses, schools and airlines ... with a very long list in-addition-to.

You ask: ".....is there some middle ground that both the gun-rights activists and the gun-control activists can agree on to try to do nearly everything possible to avoid these types of events?"

The unwavering and LOGICAL answer to that is NO.

To believe otherwise then you must also believe ~ using your *illogical* thought process ~ that you can stop child abuse by banning pregnancy!

This tragedy and the 2nd Amendment are so totally NOT related that ANY thinking person on ANY side of ANY gun control issue should be insulted by your statements.

moorcat is just exactly RIGHT: "If you prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, the only ones with guns are the criminals and the gov'ment."

To believe otherwise is ludicrous!!!

Comment By Irwin Horowitz, 4-16-07

Rose Mary,

Perhaps you should actually read what I've written above, rather than making unwarranted assumptions based on your own pre-conceived notions about the gun control lobby. In my initial post today, I point out that you should be outraged by my first paragraph, that it was intentionally "over the top," but you should also realize that every time one of these unfortunate tragedies occurs, these sorts of statements are made by the gun-control crowd. I also clearly state that I do not seek to outlaw legal gun ownership.

Perhaps what is most telling about your attitude is that you are convinced that there is no middle ground, no room to compromise on this issue. That pretty much ends the debate right there, doesn't it?

I can only assume that the statement I make above, that tragedies like today are the price of freedom in our society, is something that you would agree with. Is this so? Would you continue to feel this way if someone close to you is murdered in a similar tragedy.

Given that so many of these incidents seem to occur at schools, and the victims are invariable children, the overwhelming political reality is that more restrictive gun control laws are going to be passed, whether they make any sense or not. As a passionate defender of gun rights, I would think you would want to have some input on at least trying to make the legislation sensible, such that it properly addresses this problem without imposing a hindrance on legal gun ownership. If you don't, then you may end up with no voice when more onerous laws are passed and they come to take your guns away (and again, for all you rabid gun owners out there, I DO NOT ADVOCATE THIS!).

Comment By moorcat, 4-16-07

Your argument makes no sense. You claim that more restrictive gun control laws are going to be passed (assumption on your part, by the way...) whether they make sense or not. You are, in effect, saying that we gun owners have no say in this. In that, you are dead wrong. You are advocating it, by the way, by stating up front that more restrictive laws are enevitable. Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution. If you don't feel that more restrictive laws are necessary, then stop advocating capitulation. If you want more restrictive laws, grow some nads and say so.

You would be far better served by showing somehow that more restrictive gun control laws A) prevent this kind of thing and B) actually work to keep guns out of the hands of the people that use them for criminal activity. Your work is cut out for you, though. The statistics simply don't support that conclusion. All gun control laws do is keep guns out of the hands of those that will use them responcibly. The people that want to commit crimes with them will still have them...

Comment By Rose Mary, 4-16-07

You are absolutely right, Irwin Horowitz. I am convinced that there is no middle ground, no room to compromise when it comes to our Constitution and/or our Bill of Rights. If you think there is, or that there should be, you are placing your kids and your grandkids in a burning wicker basket and kickin' 'em off the edge of The Greatest Nation this world has ever seen.

Yes: I am a compassionate defender of both. And that includes, but is not exclusive to, the 2nd Amendment.

The roots of this Great Nation were planted in soils of discontent by those with enough vision to make every attempt to draft those documents for our protection from the many evils that motivated the creation of all that is good and fair and sound and wise within our shores.

You, too, are the beneficiary of that wisdom. It is such a shame you do not seem to recognize that.

If we do not wake up and recognize the dangers of some of this nanny/pansy crap you spout, and do all we can to stop it in its tracks, we will have helped to foster the downfall of all that is good in the USA! The reason history repeats itself is because memories fail and those who have received the benefits of all that is good forget WHY and HOW that came to be.

It is foolhardy to light the match and expect to ONLY fiddle while the flames grow.

I just fail to understand how any citizen of this Great Nation can not recognize and appreciate the tremendous value and benefit we ALL receive when we defend our Constitution and that Bill of Rights.

To do anything to diminish either is unconscionable ... to say the least.

There is nothing that can insulate you from tragedy in your life, your family, your community, your state, this Great Nation or in any part of the world around us. For a spoiled nation of people to leave nothing but the spoils of ignorance behind would be the greatest tragedy of all.

... or so it seems to me ...

Comment By Irwin Horowitz, 4-17-07

Rose Mary, thank you for answering my initial question regarding the price of freedom.

Comment By Rose Mary, 4-17-07

The only things you'll find in the middle of the road are yellow streaks and dead possums.

It has been rightly said that Democracy is defended in 3 stages: Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box.

"If your most basic right is the right to life, then it seems obvious to me that you have the right to defend your life. Guns are, in this century, the most effective means of doing so - so effective that every genocide has only been carried out against victims who were disarmed by their governments." --- William G. Hartwell

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --- Thomas Jefferson, 1791.

"Eternal vigilance is only part of the price of freedom. The maturity to live with imperfections is another crucial part of the price of freedom. As long as human beings are imperfect, there will always be arguments for extending the power of government to deal with these imperfections. The only logical stopping place is totalitarianism -- unless we realize that tolerating imperfections is the price of freedom." --- Dr. Thomas Sowell

Be VERY careful what you wish for ... it may be a very long time before the next Genie appears. Broken bottles are hard to mend.

Comment By drugstore, 8-24-08

I am Amanda and I just found this site last night, what a good domain for forum - http://www.newwest.net
I think that stay here for a long time

Amanda

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/guns_sex_lies_democrats_and_the_nra/