AT LEAST WE HAVE EQUALITY
Brady Campaign and NRA Agree, Give Obama “F” on Gun Issue
Has any President ever gotten the lowest possible grade from both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies?
By Bill Schneider, 1-18-10
I’ve been writing about the gun issue for a long time, but I never thought I’d live long enough to see the Brady Campaign for Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association agree on anything, nor would I see any President get an “F” from both groups.
Well, believe it or not, it just happened.
This morning, January 18, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke was on MSNBC blasting President Obama and calling him an “abject failure” for not showing any leadership on the gun issue. “It’s been a very disappointing year for us,” Helmke said, “They (Obama and his fellow Democrats) made the political calculation to run away from the issue.”
Helmke went through a list of violent crimes and then strongly criticized the White House for staying silent in the aftermath of each. “The biggest disappointment was his failure to speak out,” he said.
The interviewer countered with the fact that violent crime went down in 2009 and not just a little bit, but to the lowest level since the 1960s, but Helmke said that was still too much gun violence and insisted the country needs the “common sense” gun laws Obama supported during his campaign.
Helmke backed up his claims with a 21-page analysis of Obama’s first year. On the first page, the nation’s top anti-gun organization gave the President--the same President the group supported during the 2008 election--a “Report Card” with an “F” in every listed category--Brady Background Checks, Gun Show Loophole, Gun Trafficking, Guns in Public, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Standing Up to the Gun Lobby and Leadership.
As you may remember, the NRA also gave Obama an “F” and did not support his election--not hardly! Instead, the NRA spent somewhere around $40 million to “defend freedom and defeat Obama.” Wonder if the NRA now thinks that was a good use of their money?
My favorite part of the exhaustive report, which is called “Failed Leadership, Lost Lives,” is the conclusion where the authors state: “He (President Obama) not only failed to voice any support for--much less sign--any new gun laws to close dangerous loopholes, but has actually signed repeals of more federal gun polices than President George W. Bush did in both of his terms.”
Another favorite part of this report covers the national park gun amendment to the so-called MasterBlaster Bill, another issue I’ve written about frequently. According to the Brady report authors, Obama opposed the national park gun rule during the campaign, but once elected, he reversed his position and had his justice department “mount a vigorous defense” of the rule’
When the Brady Campaign won an injunction against implementation of the national park gun rule, pro-gunners in Congress attached it in the form of an amendment to a credit card reform bill. The report gives a blow-by-blow of this process, pointing out that President Obama could have passed credit card reform without the amendment, but refused to do it. Even more frustrating to the report’s authors, “The White House did not voice any opposition to this guns in parks amendment.”
Once again--yeah, I know you’re tired of hearing it--all of the above makes me more comfortable that I made the right bet when I said the NRA has won the war for the Second Amendment and Democrats have given up on the gun issue.
[End of article]Wrong conclusion, Bill.
Think about it: The F from the NRA is for intent. The F from the Brady Bunch is for execution.
The intent still exists within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party seniority roster. You heard the egregious BS about the Mexican gun "issue" from the usual suspects, including Chuck (ie Schemer) Shumer, Dick Durbin.
Then there is Frank Lautenberg's bill to have people on the terror watch list be denied firearms. It's OKAY with him, and with eight other senators, including usual suspects Feinstein, Mikulski, Levin, Schumer, Lieberman (the "independent moderate) and, golly gee, former NRA-A rated Kristen Gillibrand. Again, here we have intent versus execution.
The House counterpart sponsor? Peter King NY R, along with "thing that folds up" gun expert Carolyn McCarthy and rewilder Maloney from the rewilds of Manhattan.
Let's consider the watch list...have these people been convicted of anything, much less arrested? And it's OKAY to infringe a constitutional right without trial? In their America, it sure is, just wait until they "have the votes."
Never mind in Illinois the "R" candidate for Obama's old seat, Mark Kirk, is a co-sponsor of a bill to reinstitute and expand the old EBR ban AND King's little pet project.
No, the war is still on. The only good part is that the battles over supposed AGW and health care by these social-engineering kooks have diverted resources away from gun control.
Finally, I must say I find your constant "The NRA Has Won, Don't Worry" storylines somewhat Machiavellian.
Bill, I enjoyed your article. Thank you. But the winner of the most excellent analysis award goes to Dave Skinner.
Spot on, Dave!
Democrats have not given up on the issue. It's just not on the front burner right now.
Comment By Wes Leahy, 1-19-10Did Obama take your guns?...NO
Dide he ban assault rifles?...NO
Did he give gun owners names to the FBI terror watch list?...No
why did he recieve an F?
hmmmmm
The Obama administration and the Democratic congress has been way more pro gun that the previous President and his party's congress. Look at the facts. The current leadership of the NRA has its own agenda and it has nothing to do with the reality of gun ownership. What would I know? I have been a Life Member since 1964.
Comment By Sam, 1-19-10Obama recieved an "F" for his rhetoric and choices for cabinet positiions from the NRA and another "F" for failing to act on that rhetoric from the other clowns... Makes sense. What I find interesting is that even with no action from the White House, guns and ammo sales have been through the roof ever since the election. Hey, atleast the guy is responsible for some economic stimulation.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-19-10Wes,
Clearly you must realize that 'tis far better to make sure bad law never gets made rather than to repeal it. Perhaps you do, but like bad laws.
Let me reverse your obviously rhetorical inquiries:
Would Obama take my guns? Yes, if he had the votes.
Would he ban "assault rifles?" Yes, if he had the votes.
Would he like to place gun owners on a terrorism watch list? Yes, if he had the votes to register guns, their owners, and then could get the votes to authorize their addition to a watch list. Yes he would, but so far...No He Can't.
Dave I have a hard time believing Obama or let alone anyone is going come take your hunting rifles or your side arm. And remind again why someone would actually need (not want) an assault rifle.
Comment By Carl from Chicago, 1-19-10jonathan:
I'm not Dave, but allow me.
First, do you mean real assault rifle, as in the military weapons capable of select fire? Or do you mean the self-loading single-shot rifles that the media and gun control advocates falsely, but continuously and purposefully label "assault rifles?"
Someone would need either rifle for:
1) Fulfilling the lawful citizen militia purpose of the second amendment, which obviously exists, and
2) Fulfilling the lawful defense of self, family, and others, another purpose of the second amendment that obviously exists.
Someone would need the self-loading single shot "assault rifle" for purposes 1) and 2), but also for the purposes of:
3) training for the above purposes,
4) to participate in competitive shooting sports,
5) for hunting, or
6) for collecting.
All of the above "purposes" are among the "lawful purposes" that the second amendment was enacted to protect, and is in force today to protect as well.
If your argument is a "need vs. want" why don't they ban everything but food, water, and shelter. I'm sure GreenPeace would love that.
Now I understand that's a drastic comparison, but that is my point. Where is the line and who gets to draw it?
Thank you for chiming in, Carl.
I've never needed an assault "weapon." Nor a full-auto, for reasons that make perfect sense. Nonetheless, I've got a couple of, um, derivatives. I'll just add that when someone actually needs an, um, er, ah, Evil Black Rifle is the time they most want one, or several.
Jonathan,
Let me say I find it kind of comical that the biggest effort in the gun ban wars has been over handguns, the least effective class of firearms. They are of use only when the bad guys are really, really close, and I try real hard to stay away from bad people.
I think if the typical gun-hating politician knew how accurate my "hunting rifles" happen to be, they would want to take those away, too -- you know, the hooey about "sniper weapons" now being shamelessly bruited about by the same numbskull who pulled the "assault weapon" canard out of his butt.
By Bill Johnson, 1-19-10:
"If your argument is a "need vs. want" ... Where is the line and who gets to draw it?"
Precisely. And that is the simple, understandable beauty of "rights." Such rights are not granted on arbitrary bases of "need" or "majority will." They are protected by a bright line, and in this case, that bright line is "shall not be infringed."
Where is my previous comment? it was civil and to the point.
first, obama does not want to get involved in this frivolous, highly polarized argument right now. he has two wars, an economy and an election to work right now.
if he pacifies the brady people, he gets flack from the fear mongering NRA. If he pacifies the NRA, they always cry, "no, all or none." this is a no win, no future situation for obama. give him an "F" for "Freeing" himself from the polarized nation.
my last trip to idaho resulted in meeting, at a warm, happy party. the man i met, a racist, formerly of detroit, who ranted about the fear he had in detroit. And while in a typical drunken stupor insisted on revealing to me his loaded "conceal and carry pistol." that he does not need to have in Idaho, since he is surrounded by friendly caucasions, but if he needs to protect his family, he can settle this now. what a standup NRA argument. drunk at a party showing his loaded pistol. that huge fear he had in detroit must have crossed the rockies with him. along with several of his friends.
in the meantime, where i teach now, kids at below the legal age, can buy "a strap" for less than $100. and shoot each other at a devastatingly fast pace. it is for respect, drug turf, hood pride and numerous other minor excuses.
so, when obama does confront this issue, he is going to confront the devastating convoluted effects of 400 years of gun freedom, gun power and gun self rightousness. he stands to gain another F for entering this fray. let's hope the "f" stands for full blown and committed to one way. that is the way it is going to have to be. that is the way the NRA makes it every time and the Brady Bunch, I am sure, will do the same. jw.
Skinner
Wes is correct. your just a bigoted gun nut.
I thought Obama signed a law which allows anyone to pack heat in national parks. Not good enough for you?
WTF is wrong with you idiots? Is it still the black guy thing?
YOU ARE JUST LIARS!
Nope, not good enough, not until we have the same amount of laws as applied to all the other rights will we be satisfied. Just another 19,999 to remove.
Then again you have massive proof a piece of paper prevents violence and crime? Of course we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008 that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994. We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons. We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.
We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source? We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows.
Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys at 90% in today’s numbers. Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws. We are waiting to on your stunning expose on the massive legal system reform programs to eliminate all this inconsistency and liberal BS that allows convicted killers and career criminals, those responsible for 70-80% of all violent crime to go loose, again, and again.
You have the proof that of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in 2008 FBI UCR that removal of guns will also eliminate those 1 million not involving a gun or the 4.8 million not reported as per USDOJ Victimization report 2008?
So is seeing the facts idiocy, or drinking too much of the government supplied prozac koolaid the idiocy? Trust me, there are SOOOO MANY more facts, all supplied by the government, plus many studies which the ANTI's cant refute to present. Care to get a data beating, just respond with more emotionally useless diabtribe and it will be applied equally as truth knows no racial barriers.
Jarhead,
Can you save me some time and link or name the book to that info ? That's awesome. Thanks, and well done.
Jarhead 77 to 90.
OOOHHHHRRRAAHHH RATTLER!
This web site apparently considers government links as spam as any attempt to place here has been rejected.
I have sent the note to the "moderator" to ask specifically why it seems I cant post abbreviated links. Will get back to you when they respond.
Here is a joke, the anti's will love it, but it is appropriate to how they want to operate!
I am on fire !!!
________________________________________
Ok....I'm still not totally calmed down yet but this was crazy......let me explain...
Out riding last nite, I stopped to fill up my motorcycle's gas tank. When I released the filler lever, it didn't shut off. Panic sets in!! I'm beating the thing around to get it to shut off, while trying to keep the nozzle in the tank, but, soon gas is shooting up in the air all over the place. Finally, I jump over to the pump and hit the on/off lever. Phew!!! What a mess. They had one of those "emergency spill kits" there, which is basically kitty litter that you must spread around, so I do all that. I wipe the bike down as best I can and figure it'll air dry, 'cause gas evaporates so quickly. I got some on the arm of my leather jacket, but figured it'll evaporate while I'm riding..
Anyway, I ride away, and next thing I know, my right arm - the one that had been holding the filler nozzle, is on FIRE!! Must have been a spark from the engine or something. Ever notice how sometimes life goes into 'Fast Forward', well, in this case, it went into Slow Motion!! Surreally, I'm trying to slow down and get the fire out, and as I pull to the side of the road, I notice a police car's red/blue lights flashing in my mirror. I rip my jacket off and jump up/down on it to get the fire out - fortunately that and my heavy riding gloves prevented a major burn. I notice the officer walking up to me.
He says "Sir, step away from the motorcycle"; I'm thinking this is a little weird, but I do it.
Then I notice his hand resting on the handle of his duty weapon, and I hear "You're under arrest".
WHAT, it's illegal to be on fire in this state?!?!?!
So I ask, "what for?!?!?"
He says………………………………………..>
"For driving with an unregistered firearm"…..
LMFAO, duly noted. SNAFU as usual.
I always ask the anti gunner folk if they would rather be shot dead or beat to death with a nail bat..
Blank stare. ha ha.
Then the Constable knocks on the door and hassles me for making threats..
Oh well, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc. etc. Which psychopath makes the list next..
Did you know Ted Bundy was a liberal dem.. And he hated guns.
It's sad to see commentary devolve into such useless and subjective foolishness. And here, it seems both "sides" of this issue are playing.
How do I unsubscribe to these comments?
Democrats, welcome to hell.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-20-10Back on TOPIC, sort of, Jarhead is correct about the puny number of Brady denials actually prosecuted. I seem to remember that in the first two years only about 7 people were actually put in the slammer for trying to buy a gun. The theoretical punishment is something like 10 years in jail and 100,000 in fines, and you've written on paper...how hard can it be to prosecute? But ATF doesn't.
Carl, next time you comment, make sure you uncheck the "notify me" right above the Submit button. In any case, this thread should peter out in a couple of days.
Jack W,
I merely want to point out that in Chicago (home of Gun Control Central) it was noted that 300 some "students" killed each other or were killed last year. Shot. I don't know if that's active, registered students, school-age dropouts or whatever, but the truth remains that there's a cultural problem going on when so many homicides (with illegal, not legal firearms) occur in such a concentrated area. Never mind the kid (honor student, no less) that was beaten to death with a two by four, watched by a crowd, while NOBODY with a cell phone called the cops...it was left to the ADULTS to do that. Genovese syndrome, youbetcha.
By the way, Lesley, I challenge you to prove your allegation. Even better, to my face.
I bet the ammo and gun makers give obama(with lots of help from the NRA propoganda machine) an A. The fear the NRA instilled in their gun lovers has driven ammo and gun prices to record highs.
Comment By Frank, 1-20-10No kidding, prices are friggin ridiculous!
Comment By Carl from Chicago, 1-20-10By Dave Skinner, 1-20-10:
"...about the puny number of Brady denials actually prosecuted. I seem to remember that in the first two years only about 7 people were actually put in the slammer for trying to buy a gun. The theoretical punishment is something like 10 years in jail and 100,000 in fines, and you've written on paper...how hard can it be to prosecute?"
__________________
I have long pondered this issue. The Brady Campaign boasts that "Since 1994, the Brady Law has stopped 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers (citing US DOJ, 2009)."
That is a great many denials of prohibited persons ... persons enganging in federal felonies. Ostensibly, there have been very few prosecutions. Now, if I had a dollar every time the Brady's touted such denial numbers, I'd be wealthy. But I have yet to hear them discussing ways in which these federal laws can be enforced.
Now, it seems wholly incongruent that a group so driven to pass federal gun legislation is so silent regarding prosecutions on that very same legislation.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that the Brady's care far less about affecting criminals than about affecting law-abiders. In other words, they are more concerned about frustrating average gun owners than they are about thwarting criminal misuse of arms.
Anyone have relevant thoughts?
You really have to give President Obama credit. Many of us were concerned about his liberal views and what little record he had. Now he has offended both sides of the political spectrum including the middle. The only way I can judge him is by his appointees and like everyone else wonder what this guy is all about. Meanwhile sportsmen and gun owners continue to stockup waiting for the Brady bunch to make ther move.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-21-10The Washington Post did an article on the stockpiling. Something like five billion extra rounds (over the average of 10 to 7 billion a year) were sold in 2009. How does that shake out? Pew did an identity poll, lib, mod, con, which had respondents breaking 20, 40, 40. Now, libs don't buy ammo. Conservatives do. Moderates might, but probably not at the same rate as cons, and probably won't actually use it until the battle is almost over. Bottom line is, in one year alone, each conservative added 32 rounds per liberal to their stockpile. No wonder Josh Sugarmann is so upset.
Comment By matt, 1-22-10Common sense gun control is well overdue, or at the very least the rules in effect should be enforced. This is evident with the deaths and injuries inflicted on victims by the gun slingers, as well as the brutal actions by poachers. There will come a time...........but it will happen by your own reluctance to police your own. We the public are disgusted these actions, and you refuse to protect yourselves by getting the guns out of the hands of these lawbreakers. So be it........... I don't think there's an agenda in washington to take anyone's gun rights, at least if you are a sane individual. There are so many things going on in this country right now so much more important that the gun issue falls to the bottom of the list for most of us, however I do realize that for some this is an obsession.
Comment By Jarhead1982, 1-22-10Well Matt, not to beat my head against the wall, but just what is common sense gun laws obsession of yours? Those that only affect the law abiding, or those that actually address the criminals?
Do you know much about the real facts, much less Judicial precedent?
Go see Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968. A n 8-1 decision in favor of Haynes that no one was required to follow any law that violated their 5th amednment right of not to self incriminate themselves. So any registration, documented logging or tracking component of any gun control law does not apply to felons.
Based in this ruling and the 5th amendment alone, please again explain what is "common sense". Something that does NOTHING to affect the criminals, or SOMETHING that only affects the non criminals?
Amazing how "common sense" gun laws will automatically stop a suicidal person from committing suicide eh Matt? Lets see the scientific and medical background to support how "common sense" gun laws affect how a person feels or thinks? It doesnt exist!
Is it common sense to continue to do the same useless activity Matt?
Is it common sense to ignore that up to 80% of all violent crimes reported are from gangs/carreer criminals?
Is it common sense to project your fears onto someone else who in no way had anything to do with a crime?
Is it common sense essentially to make another person get the points on their license and pay the fine for your speeding ticket Matt?
Lets see that application of "common sense laws" as applied in Australia, Canada, & England. Especially England, since 1997 they have gone from 445k violent crimes reported to 1.4 million in 2008. Their murders didnt decrease, their crimes involving firearms didnt decrease, but violent crime sure did increase. Canada & Australia stayed the same or increased 30%, same results.
What about our data, in the US we have dropped from 1.76 million to 1.36 million reported violent crimes during the same time. Murders and crimes involving firearms down. All whil gun ownership increased as well as concealed carry from 8 states to 49.
Matt, you neither have a rational definition of what common sense is, much less any evidence to support ANY claim that so called "common sense" gun laws reduce violence in any shape or form.
As for policing our own, are you serious? First our own infers that we are the same as the criminal elements. So frankly you can kiss my crusty white arse as we gun owners are not automatically "felons", psychopaths, murderers, or any of the 9 categories of people not qualified to exercise their rights without due process you pinko commie fag. How do you like being classed like that without any evidence or due process? Lest you forget the governments and antis claim that is vigilanteeism and only THEY are qualified to exercise judgment or action.
Of course you do not see any risk in the multiple states bills for gun control laws, that thereby set precedent for future rulings. Maybe you should do a search and count how many anti gun legislative bills are introduced every year.
After all there are only 20,000 plus gun control laws versus how many laws for all the other rights combined?
Are the key people in Obams adminstration pro-gun or anti gun by record and by disposition?
Not to mention where does this blind trust and infatuation you seem have that the government really freaking cares about what happens to the citizens?
When you actually study all the facts and review, then get back to us Matthew on this issue and see 1) whether you can prove your position or 2) feel the same way!
"Did you know Ted Bundy was a liberal dem.. And he hated guns."
Yep! And Timothy McVeigh was a bleeding heart Liberal also!
"I thought Obama signed a law which allows anyone to pack heat in national parks. Not good enough for you?"
Obama did this to try and trick NRA members. He wants us to become passive. He's a tricky one! Whoooo Rah!! Yeeeha!!
"Go see Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968. A n 8-1 decision in favor of Haynes that no one was required to follow any law that violated their 5th amednment right of not to self incriminate themselves. So any registration, documented logging or tracking component of any gun control law does not apply to felons."
Don't be fooled brothers. Obama was behind this decision also! Yep, way back in .. 1968! He did it the same way he doctored his birth certificate. He used a super secret government TIME MACHINE. Whooo Rah!
Superjarhead ...
It's nice this website doesn't have a relevancy filter attached to the comments function.
Or a troll filter. Go try the Daily Kos or something ...
Ya know I'm pretty sure Doctors are more dangerous than guns are..
Comment By the real mike, 1-24-10...and rattlers are always way more dangerous than even the worst doctor.
Comment By Gun Lover, 1-24-10I'm actually in favor of U.S. citizens right to bear arms. I've never been against it. I think that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of Americans.
What confuses me about this blog string is "whom?" Who exactly is trying to take away our guns. Who? I love watching Cable news and listening to NPR. I've yet to hear a credible enemy to our guns.
I'm NOT an Obama lover! I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Liberal! I consider myself a very rational person. I don't see any evidence of this America trying to take away our guns. Can someone show me where I'm wrong.
Someone help me with this, please?
Whom is a large and complicated answer as such an activity is akin to eating an elephant, one bite at a time as truthfully, that is the only way it could occurr without instantaneous revolt and open civil warfare. It has been a developing process, with pretty much every law being enacted upon the actions of a few, and the fears of those enacting the laws.
Gun control has been practiced by the elitists and governments prior to the US existence and in fact such an act was what sparked the Concorde incident, igniting our revolutionary war.
In addition to federal gun laws, most states and some local jurisdictions have additionally imposed their own firearms restrictions. That to the tune where when counted with federal firearms laws, they number over 20,000 laws concerning gun control.
If such an activity were succesful, then violent crime shouldnt exist, yet it does. This is self evident in the FBI UCR databases.
Why then does these people knowingly continue to re-implement such useless legislation. The facts is crime is big business what with what we in the auto industry refer to as "smoke stacks" or fiefdoms of control and power.
These fiefdoms are the DEA, FBI, prisons and the supporting functions of lawyers and the legal system, drug and alcohol rehab, most notably the government, the list goes on. Review the budgets on the federal and state level for these activities involved supposedly dealing with crime and you have an economic part of the economy in the trillions of dollars value.
Now who would want this to continue, those who are in charge of these profitable endevours, I would.
Then you have those loveable special interest groups.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Issues_and_Causes/Firearms_Policy/Gun_Control/Organizations/?skw=gun+control+organizations
There are 23 such organizations recognized at the Yahoo address, and most advocate gun control of the masses. This doesnt even include such organizations as The Joyce Foundation, The Penn University, known for its connection with the Joyce Foundations continued purchase of slanted studies in support of gun control. The inappropriately named Mayors Against Ilegal Guns, the list is quite numerous when one includes all the so called academia and academic institutions also involved in those studies. Lest we forget the main stream media, just look at the owners and leaders of those empires, and they belong to the anti gun cabal. This only involves those organizations based in the US, go outside the US and start counting.
Then all one has to do is trace the money from those organizations from overseas (The UN etc) and from the moneyed elitists, led by George Soros, totaling 70 very influential billionaire/millionaires. Research this globalist activists activities on how he has meddled in US and world politics.
What are the combined annual budgets of these organizations and activists? What influence do they have on the political scene and whom are involved?
Now start counting the legislative bills that are put forth each year, for each state and on th federal level and identify the initial sponsor, co-sponsors.
All these activities while piecemeal, do add up to attempted bites out the elephant they intend to eat, the second amendment.
Of course some will claim conspiracy theories and such as the reasons for all this activity, but if one truly looks, the funding and the debts owed for being funded come from a very small, well monied group of individuals who have sponsored an anti gun agenda.
So, how is it paranoia to see all these baby steps at control and recognize WHOM is responsible. George Soros is pretty secretive, but his ally Mayor Bloomberg, founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a narcisist clamoring for the spotlight. Trace his activies, gets the names of those he meets and you will find him with those 70 billionaires/millionaires.
It's called an over active imagination and paranoia. The sky is falling
Comment By Bill, 1-25-10I don't consider it paranoia to think that some governments want gun control. Many nations around the globe have strict gun control laws. I like being able to own firearms and consider it a right.
Comment By Jarhead1982, 1-25-10Funny thing, all the supposed paranoia Matt claims as fantasy, and the facts mentioned above actually occurred, and he cant prove otherwise other than a pathetic petulant childlike emotional and useless reply.
Comment By Gun Lover, 1-25-10Okay, to summarize: Many small special interest groups are funded by larger oversea and domestic corporations that profit from our governments legal reaction to them. Got it!
My last question. In the last 9 years, what have the two presidents done to attack our gun freedom? Or has it all been Obama?
If only all you gun nuts were really about protecting our freedom and stood against the true attacks against it like the patriot act.
Oh wait he's a republican...he can take away ALL our freedoms as long he does'nt take our guns.
Pathetic right wing hypocrites.
Tom Moron,
The Patriot Act passed congress with flying colors, from both parties. Check your facts.
This is not to say I support the Patriot in it's entirety, but the republicans didn't pass it by themselves, unlike your attempted health care bill.
If you don't like it, write your senator.
Actually, Maroon,
The Patriot Act is a shining reason not to give up one's firearms to the decrees of those on the Hill. If you read the Congressional Record, you will find that the Patriot Act debate in the Senate was closed in order to move on to the vital, critical issue of local TV station access to satellite providers. There are priorities, and there are Priorities.
Gun nuts have proved time and time again
you can do whatever the heck you want as long as you dont take my guns
dirka dirka doo
So that's how its going to be?
Well, Libtards have proved time and time again
You can do whatever the heck you want, as long as I dont have to work for it
(what are gun-nuts all Arab? Is that what Dirka Dirka is?)
dirka dirka doo
laughable these right wing crazy claims that liberals dont have jobs. At least come up with a sterotype that has some foundations thats just baloney.
I guess thats why i'm making comments from work
but dont hurry to scold me for wasting work time when it's only my break i'm wasting.
Come on Obama does'nt deserve an "F" he has been less restrcitive than clinton whom did'nt recieve an "F" rating.
Pure Racism
dirka dirka doo
they'll take our guns.
Hey Bill
why are you commenting on your own page?
libatard? thats very insulting to mentally challenged people. Neither Bert nor I resorted to name calling; but hey when you take a right wingers guns away they're just pouty, whiny wimps who hurl insults that are neither sensical nor relevant.
I'm actually not a liberal, am more an libertarian who is sick and tired of the gun issue being the end/all issue for libertarians/republicans.
How about the underlying issue realted to this article.
Why did Obama recieve an undeserved "F"
Also
i'm not for any gun-control but am against undeserved "F's" and racism.
1) Oops, didn't mean to get confused for the author, I am not Bill Schneider, sorry about that (other) Bill!
2) Bert, I used my stereotype to highlight how ridiculous yours was.
"Gun nuts have proved time and time again
you can do whatever the heck you want as long as you dont take my guns"
This statement is factually equivalent to saying liberals don't like to work. I.e. False! So, you need to come up with an argument that has some foundation.
3) Tom,
"Libtards" used in response to gun-supporting republicans "gun-nuts durka durka doo". I dont see how you can be offended by what I said, when you started using offensive slang first. If you cant take it, dont dish it.
4) Racism?... what does race have to to with gun-rights? To me, at least, it has nothing to do with it.
"By Tom Maroon, 1-27-10
Also
i'm not for any gun-control but am against undeserved "F's" and racism."
I agree with this. I understand why he got an F from Brady, because of what they expected from him, but the NRA should not have given an F in my opinion.
Isnt the right to defend yourself self explanitory? It is more instinctual than political, or atleast that is how I believe the founding fathers saw it. With that said, recreational use of firearms is simply a biproduct of a mans basic right... To defend himself / practice the skill of firearm use for that purpose. Deal with it.
Again, Obama recieved an "F" from the NRA because his rhetoric is the opposite of our (2nd ammendment fans) agenda. Read an NRA publication and you will find that all political candidates are graded based on their stated positions on various issues having to do with gun control. He deserves F's from both sides because as Dave points out in the first comment "The F from the NRA is for intent. The F from the Brady Bunch is for execution."
I can see where Tom and Bert are coming from though, dragging race into the discussion provides them an opportunity to save the world one minority group at a time. You simply jumped the gun here guys (pun intended). Tom and Bert, y'all can wear your bleeding hearts on your sleeves here, I understand that some Americans are fearful of guns... and thats ok. It doesnt make you less of a man, it just means that you and I will have different responsibiliies if we ever have to form a "well armed militia" to defend ourselves and our country. Are y'all good cooks by any chance?
Go for a walk or pikc up a book, folks. Guns are not religion. Find something more worthwhile.
Comment By Sam, 1-27-10Mike,
If guns were a religion then Obama wouldnt have accused some Americans of "clinging to guns AND religion". C'mon buddy, they're two different things... like pacifism and patriotism.
Links attached if you need them...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pacifism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/PATRIOTISM
Sam
I stated i'm not for gun control so how does that imply i'm afraid of guns.
Your militia talk is laughable and conducive to the gun nut/religion stereotype.
thanks Sam you've said sooo much.
Sam
I've got guns and i'm gonna be the one fighting the govt. when the revolution happnes. You folks who are fearful of guns can be a cook or something. Me and my big gun will do the fighting. I have a big gun becuase something else in my life is very small.
pathetic sam
absolutely pathetic
Sam
I guess i'm just a patriot and you'all who fear guns are pacifists who would let the feds walk all over the citizens of this country. I'll do the fighting and you'all can cook.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!
Sheesh Tom, three postings?!
Your cutting sarcasm leads me to believe you read too much into my comments... When the time comes, I will literally do the fighting if you will cook (and do the dishes).
Haha yeah that's a bit overkill.
Not that there IS ever going to be a revolution, but it's not like it has never happened in any country (ours?) before!
Not saying that they ARE going to take our guns, but why not take appropriate steps to ensure they dont? Other countries' governments have taken civilians' guns.
Ok, so maybe this is a bit paranoid, but I would rather be armed and paranoid, than unarmed and blissfully ignorant.
In all honesty, I have guns because they are fun, I'm not stockpiling in case of a revolution. I do wish full-automatics were legal, but understand that argument against them (though they would be fun to shoot).
Sam
"When the time comes, I will literally do the fighting if you will cook (and do the dishes)."
LMFAO!
ok sam whatever u say RWC.