I was in Charlotte on Friday to debate Alan Gura, the lawyer who brought the Second Amendment cases against DC and Chicago, at an event sponsored by the local chapter of the Federalist Society. As it happens, there was a somewhat bigger event in town at the same time: the NRA Convention. Every year at this event, we hear more of the same fear-mongering: "your guns are going to be outlawed; your guns are going to be confiscated; hunting will be banned; you won't be able to have a gun in your own home". The politicians, celebrities, and NRA leaders say these same self-serving things every year because they ignore the facts - guns haven't been banned in this country and the Constitution, as well as politics, makes it clear that they won't be banned next year, or any year.
The most popular speaker for the NRA this year was apparently former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Associated Press article summarized her talk: "Palin says Obama would ban guns if he could." Her version of "the sky is falling" (after briefly acknowledging that President Obama hasn't done anything to push common sense measures to reduce gun violence) was this statement: "Don't doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment".
Now Palin, of course, failed to mention why President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else is unable to ban guns. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case District of Columbia v. Heller that total gun bans violate the Second Amendment's individual right to own a gun in the home for self-defense. Justice Scalia, quoted approvingly by Palin in her speech, did make it clear in Heller, however, that this right, like all other rights in the Constitution, "is not unlimited". Despite Palin's scare tactics, gun bans and confiscations are out of the picture, but the common sense gun laws that I, and the Brady Campaign, promote- like background check on all gun purchases, being able to stop suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, and cracking down on illegal gun trafficking as a way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people - are perfectly acceptable.
This is not just a problem with Palin's speech, of course, because all of the NRA speakers followed the same script. As they did last year. And the year before.
What's even more ridiculous is the fact that the public, gun owners in general, and NRA members disagree with the NRA leadership and their politician buddies with regard to the common sense gun laws mentioned above. This is why they have to raise the specter of mythical gun bans and use scare tactics to ensure they maintain their financial and membership support.
Lake Research recently conducted a poll for the Brady Center that found a majority of Americans oppose people carrying loaded guns openly in public. Rasmussen conducted a poll on the same topic, and found similar results. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns conducted a poll in December that showed 69 percent of NRA gun-owners support requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct Brady background checks of the people buying guns, and that 82 percent of NRA gun-owners support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
So when will the NRA's leaders admit that no one is coming to take away their guns? Never. How could they raise money to pay their big salaries otherwise? There is no appeasing them. They're not happy even though they can now carry guns into our national parks. They aren't content now that they've destroyed the District of Columbia's latest chance at getting an elected representative in Congress. They aren't even satisfied with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense.
Tennessee State Legislator Joe McCord recently spoke out against an NRA bill to allow people to carry guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and summed up the problem as follows: "The NRA is not right here, and we're not standing up to them... It makes me wonder, what line will we not cross for the NRA? I'm just curious. At what point do we say this is too much?'"
Our elected officials in the White House, Congress, and state legislatures across the country need to stand up to the NRA bosses now and take steps to reduce gun violence in this country. If they don't, then the deaths and injuries will continue. The lines being crossed because of their quest to get more guns in more places are making our world more dangerous everyday.
"Issue Advocacy and Message Development
The right message to the right audience wins the day. LRP is one of the most reputable firms in providing issue advocacy organizations with research that shapes the debate and leads to winning policy outcomes. LRP’s research goes well beyond telling us where the public is, providing a path on how to get to where our clients want to go. Our research methods help develop a vocabulary and messages that are thoroughly tested, that resonate with the public and decision makers, and that stand up to the opposition. "
http://www.lakeresearch.com/services/index.asp
Nice try Paul, but we have google. Maybe you've heard of it?
What is amusing is that Harry Reid--who may well lose his race in Nov.--will be replaced by Sen. Chuck Schumer. I'm guessing Schumer will be a bit tougher on assault weapons than Reid.
Well, this is what the NRA gets when it joined up with the Teabaggers.
Kind of like when he claimed there were more deaths by meteorites in the US than justifiable homicides with firearms.
Or that Chicago is bigger than New York City.
Not only will the White House not make good on candidate Obama's promise to revive the ban or Holder's announced decision to do so, it won't even talk about the assault weapons ban. Not a word. The reason is obvious: Obama and his aides don't want to spark a backlash from the NRA and voters who cling to their guns—especially as Democrats ride toward a difficult mid-term election. On this dicey topic, Obama cares most about ducking a political bullet.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/obama-puts-silencer-assault-weapons-ban
Seems O really was upset about that 'F' the BC assigned him.
Let's face it; 7 out of 10 Americans view Palin as "unqualified" to be either President or VP. She quit her office as Gov. of AK for no other purpose but to enrich herself.
And who enriches her? Who supports Sarah Palin? It's the low-information voter. It's the voter who doesn't blame Palin for being unprepared and confused by even the most basic current events--but blames others for Palin's inability to give a coherent or nonabsurd answer. It's the voter who believes slogans are a valid substitute for actual policy.
Basically, the NRA leadership is telling its membership they are Sarah Palin's audience. The low-information voter.
A pretty standard response from OE; he will claim that he --and several unnamed others--have thoroughly researched the issue and have found no evidence. Of course, this "research" apparently consists of OE and several of his cats looking into the bottom of an empty Cheetos bag.
On Oct 9, 2009, Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project Website announced "Two Exceptional Nights with Jerry Kane" where callers would get "valuable" advice on avoiding foreclosures and credit card payments.
IOW, what I said was true.
Glenn beck may have some helical fastners which aren't tightened to the correct torque specs and I wouldn't mind some really good dirt on him to shut him up, but if people want to castigate him they really should use some actual verifiable facts.
As usual.
It wasn't an advertisement in the sense that Kane paid to run it. In point of fact, Beck's 9/12 website doesn't accept paid advertisements. Additionally, Beck's website is moderated--so if someone wanted to discuss what a moron Beck is, that would disappear down the rabbit hole.
They delete it because they don’t know it’s there, because they’ve never actually read the primary documents of America’s founding. They can only parrot what degenerates tell them. So what’s Antonin Scalia’s excuse?
LOL... Looks like you need to go back to the drawing board and re-read what the amendment actually sayd, since your quote is most definitely not correct.
Quite simply, they can't because of people like myself and the NRA. If you or the others like you had your way, they would be able to. Remember, you and your friends filed against Heller and argued that the 2nd does not protect an individual right.
i am not impressed with Obama. he has kept many of the Bush policies in place, and is moving too slow for my taste to change them (if he ever plans to).
1. So, you only want the Constitution to protect the firearms that you find applicable for your own personal usage (hunting). Way to demonstrate the arrogant elitism that your side is characterized for.
2. You ( and possibly your husband and your son) are too ignorant of firearms to be hunters. For one, the most powerful ammo used in "Assault Weapons" (the 7.62x39 round of the AK47) has roughly the same ballistics of the common 30-30 round (1800 ft-lbs of energy), and has over 1000 ft-lbs of energy less than the energy of the common 30-06 round (3000 ft-lbs of energy). Also, there are numerous hunting rifles on the market that use the same "semi-automatic" operational design as "assault weapons." Secondly, there are a number of hunters out there that DO use handguns for hunting. To suggest otherwise further demonstrates your ignorance of hunting.
.
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm#Gun_Control
Your attempt at dishonesty rests on the assumption that your audience is composed of idiots. We heard what the President said when he was campaigning for his present office. Did Sarah Palin make him say it?
Those of us here in Illinois also have our memories of state Senator Obama's sponsorship of gun bans, plus his comments in committees where Mayor Daley's water-carriers were trying to push bans through. I sat in the committee room and listened to Obama explain that he was sure that an "assault weapons ban" that would have banned deer hunters' shotguns and required the arrest of police officers and National Guardsmen for carrying AR-15 rifles on duty could be made to work out for everyone if we could all just compromise. His suggestion was to add an exception for "legitimate collectors to own these machine guns." Of course, the bill had nothing to do with machine guns, but he couldn't be expected to know that; he'd have had to read the thing ahead of time.
I sent an email to Plouffe mentioning that the AWB had nothing to do with full-autos to which he replied that it did. I then replied and offered a $20,000 donation to Obama's campaign if he could show me any text of the expired AWB that mentioned full-autos. I never heard back.
Of course that was quite awhile ago. Haven't heard a peep out of the Messiah since he got elected.
If you want to crack down, crack the eff down, and sew up your bleeding hearts for all the poor disadvantaged gang mothers that are feeding guns into the hands of their thug whelps.
What's cumbersome about licensing and criminal background checks? I want guns taxed.