Neocron--you posted 2 attempted "gotchas"--namely a snerty "who would Jesus shoot to 'protect the children'(tm) and a not really relevant portion of the Sermon on the Mount and claim that as a non religious person you are not trying to play gotcha with religous gunowners (and then run away). You seem to forget that "leading by example" per the Sermon on the Mount and passive resistance as exemplified by MLK jr and Gandhi only works when you are opposed by people with scruples and a tradition of law; these same techniques do not work with the predatory and sociopathic tendencies of most violent criminals. What works with these sociopathic predators is that you are a sufficently agressive domesticated predator (like the shepherds, Rottweillers and similar breeds bred to protect the flocks and herds) to make it worth the criminals time to run away.
Sen. John McCain: The NRA's 'C-plus' Valedictorian
Sen. John McCain spoke to the National Rifle Association in Louisville last Friday, and the reaction seemed mixed. I had a few thoughts of my own after watching his speech, which was very similar to the address he gave the organization in September in Washington, D.C. when he was trying to draw distinctions between his record and those of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
First, featuring Sen. McCain at their convention as their potential endorsee for President shows how tough a political year the NRA is facing in 2008.
'A' rated candidates like Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Fred Thompson dropped out of the Republican race long ago, and former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr - an 'A-plus' rated NRA Board Member and possible Libertarian nominee - doesn't seem to be getting much respect from the NRA leadership. Instead they seem to be settling for 'C-plus' rated Sen. McCain, someone they once called "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment."
Making a 'C-plus' student the NRA valedictorian shows how much they're really 'grading on the curve' this Presidential election year.
Second, while I was happy to see Sen. McCain reaffirm his support for closing the gun show loophole, if he truly wants to work on issues on a bipartisan basis (as he said in his speech in Columbus, Ohio last week) and show some leadership, he should give a speech on the Senate floor like the one he gave in 2004 on the gun show loophole. With support from Senators Clinton and Obama on this issue, were McCain to cosponsor the legislation and help take the lead - and especially bring along the NRA - the gun show loophole could be closed this year.
Third, while Sen. McCain talks about fighting terrorists abroad, he proposes little to help keep us safe at home. He opposes bans on military style weapons, waiting periods, and legal accountability for negligent gun manufacturers and dealers. Instead, other than closing the gun show loophole, all he proposes is 'self-reliance.' Is that all he can suggest to communities facing more and more gun violence?
Finally, Sen. McCain's critique of "activist judges" who frustrate "the will of the people" sounds a little strained after he highlighted his support for overturning the will of the DC voters and elected officials regarding the District of Columbia's gun restrictions. Judicial activism can cross ideological, partisan and issue-based lines. Sen. McCain needs to be clear on why some judicial activism is bad and some is good - or whether it just depends on what he thinks of the result.
It is too early to tell whether he will ultimately garner the NRA endorsement, but it is clear that both Sen. McCain and the National Rifle Association make for strange bedfellows.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obviously, dj has been drinking or English is not his mother tongue.
First, a "predator" is defined as something that preys or destroys or plunders. Basically, dj is advocating that we all become criminal in nature.
Second, NRA cultists aren't Christian. They may claim to be and may attend Church and go through the motions--but attending church doesn't make one religious any more than walking into a gym makes one an athlete.
Further, the NRA believes it is one of the world's major religions; see Warren Cassidy's quote. It has blacklisted the Catholic Church and has spread lies about various Christian denominations such as Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Quakers, etc. It has also spread vicious lies about the Jewish faith; so much so the NRA has been rebuked by a number of Jewish organizations.
Jadegold: "It has blacklisted the Catholic Church"
I think that I have found what Jadegold is referring to -- the NRA has a page of "National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies: The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations." Among them is "United States Catholic Conference."
So including the "United States Catholic Conference" among "organizations (that) have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations" is (according to Jadegold) having "blacklisted the Catholic Church." That is Jadegold deceit in all its glory.
Aside from the deceit of the "United States Catholic Conference" being called "the Catholic Church," here's Wikipedia: "A blacklist is a list or register of entities who, for one reason or another, are being denied a particular privilege, service, mobility, access or recognition." & "it implies that someone has been prevented from having legitimate access to something due to the whims or judgments of another."
And the Jadism's just get stupider and stupider.
SInce canines are either the top predators or share that honor with some combination of bears and big cat--domesticated wolves (canis familiaris (domestic dogs)) are still predators (and if you had ever dealt with a pissed herding dog, bull breed, mastiff or hunting dog you would have understood the analogy) since one of the best ways of dealing with any predator is to pull rank in no uncertain terms. Also in terms of arguing ethics--with your documented history on this blog alone of lying and other unethical behavior--any claims that you make that person X is unethical makes a good first step toward arguing that they are indeed acting in an ethical manner--to borrow from Vespasian1--hie thee hence to the lowest ring of hell foulest troll
"Further, the NRA believes it is one of the world's major religions; see Warren Cassidy's quote. It has blacklisted the Catholic Church and has spread lies about various Christian denominations such as Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Quakers, etc. It has also spread vicious lies about the Jewish faith; so much so the NRA has been rebuked by a number of Jewish organizations."
How about a real source, Jade?
Look who's talking about spreading lies! Hey, why don't you see if you can dig up some tasteless comment made by muffinman1, and pin it on me?
Paul Helmke: An idea that should be pursued.
http://prorev.com/idguns.htm
Right now, NRA cultists wish for everyone to bear the costs of their zealotry. They are getting a free ride.
Let's make 'em accountable!
Why should we be accountable when you so called 'progressives' won't keep them in jail? You should be accountable, when they are released early and they go out and commit more crimes.
An interesting concept.
As long as the concept is not initiated as a form of punishment and the rates are based on reasonable actuarial data, and as long as there is a provision offered for "uninsured user" coverage to protect the owner from frivolous claims, or claims that are truly beyond the control of the owner (similar to uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage) I don't see why this concept should not be tried.
(Notice I said tried, and not forced on the gun owning public.)
In Chicago (the city that Jade claims has a population of 9.7 million) 97% of the homicides this year to date have been committed by people w/ prior records. Should we make the judges and lawyers accountable for letting them out since they weren't rehabilitated? Howabout we make people convicted of crimes get insurance against them committing more?
I'll bet we won't see Jade, Kelli, or Marsha supporting that idea.
Now that's a good idea. It could be covered under their malpractice insurance (lawyers get sued for malpractice too).
No, green rocks will not support that idea. It is a lot like Kelli objecting to plans to keep the violent criminals off the streets on a permanent basis. If the criminals were locked up on a permanent basis, they would not be able to commit crimes. Then green rocks would have no reason to complain.
Jadegold: An idea that should be persued.
Prosecute violent criminals to the full extent of the law.
What utter tripe! Criminals aren't going to insure their guns, Jade. So once again, you want to punish law abiding gun owners, whose guns aren't causing any problems at all.
'Feel good' tripe.
Note--Stoner has a problem with the proper sentencing of violent felons (let them stay in prison at hard labor until they are very old men or women).
Seems the cost is being paid higher in places that follow your and the Brady Campaign's advice.
"In April of this year there were 47 murders in Chicago, the highest monthly total in 10 years, and 80 percent of the murders this year involved guns." But, but....
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/chicago.gun.violence.2.728895.html
Considering how successful gun control has been in DC and Chicago, it is amazing to me that the Brady Campaign and JKM are still trying to shove gun control down our throats
As usual, the gun ban advocates are claiming we need to license firearms dealers. I have news for them, firearms dealers already are required to be licensed, by the Federal Government.
For the naysayers..."Ministers ordered the publicity blitz after deciding that mothers hold the key to tackling the surge in knife offences." Looks like after the gun ban in the UK, the weapon of choice became the knife. (I know this isn't new news, but bears repeating) Turns out that the mindset itself might play a part in deterring crime, not the tool(s) used in said crimes.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1021271/Mothers-targeted-fight-teenage-knife-crime.html
What a tool! That's about a marketing campaign, out to curb violent crime in general. They mention knives - and guns!
I guess they do mention guns, as gun crime is also on the rise in the UK. Uncannily, it is apparently on the rise in Chicago, and DC. I mean, who'd a thunk it with all of those highly effective gun bans in place?
Tadees: Stop embarassing yourself.
Ministers are politicians--they react to their constituencies. Sometimes these reactions are silly. Witness in our country programs such as abstinence-only sex ed which every study has shown not only doesn't work but may actually be harmful. Or the fence on the border. Or the ethanol scam. We sink billions into such programs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/13/ukcrime.boris
{{According to the British Crime Survey, knife-enabled crime (any crime involving a knife) over the past decade has remained stable at around 6-7% of all crime, comprising 30% of all homicides.
In fact, the most recent crime survey by the Metropolitan police showed that knife crime has actually dropped by 15.7% over the past two years, from 12,122 to 10,220 incidents.}}
The same survey that doesn't include under 16 year olds. Kind of conflicts w/ this statement from your link:
Also notable is the increase in violent crimes committed by 15 and 16-year-olds. According a survey compiled by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), violent offences committed by 16-year-olds rose from 17% in 2004, to 25% in 2005, while those perpetrated by 15-year-olds climbed from 20% in 2004, to 26% in 2005.
Related to this is the increased number of young people arming themselves with knives. The YJB survey reported a 12% increase in the number of teenagers carrying knives since 2002, with the proportion of girls carrying knives rising sharply in recent years, from 15% in 2004 to 21% in 2005.
Kelli-- is it weak to defend the U S Constitution (which McCain has done at great personal cost at the Hanoi Hilton and in his years of public service since (in a bipartisan manner unlike Pelosi, Reid and Hilbama). I will also take a C+ on the second amendment than a lecturer on con law that has a hard time understanding what the term "right of the people" means (per Tribe and Volokh--it means just what plain English indicates--not a state power). And if Paul/BC were so inspirational at influencing people--why does 75% of the population agree with me--also why was the 1994 AWB not renewed and HR1022 not gone anywhere? Also--if gun bans were such a big seller, why do 39 states have laws require law enforcement to issue CCW to all adults that apply that pass a similar background check that you go through to buy a gun from an FFL. Don't worry Kelli--I know you not only won't answer, but you are so ill informed on the topic that you CANNOT answer.
Paul H./BC -- I agree ... they do make for pretty strange 'bedfellows.'
And it appears Sen. McCain is attempting to march arm & arm with the U.S. gun lobby in order to win the presidency. But, there are many Americans who feel that neither the NRA nor Sen. McCain is particularly appealing or has anyone's best interests at heart when it comes to guns/firearms.
After McCain declared his weak position on the GOP campaign trail (ie., 'no gun controls' ...), it was apparent he lacked the necessary moxie & integrity to effectively lead our country. Moreover, the proverbial rabbit which McCain tried to pull out of his hat then -- in order to please concerned voters -- was to add, that he still supported better checks on firearm purchases by dangerous individuals. As a voter, I would ask: What more will you do, McCain, to keep our communities & educational institutions, etc., safer from gun violence? Checks, in & of themselves, are not enough of a proposed solution. (It's worth remembering that former rival, Rudy Giuliani, displayed more wisdom on this heated issue.)
McCain will undoubtedly secure the GOP nomination; however, I don't believe that voters will give him the White House ... not with such a weak gun control stance.
Have a safe Memorial Day weekend, Paul/BC. Good to see your views too, Jadegold.
"I would ask: What more will you do, McCain, to keep our communities & educational institutions, etc., safer from gun violence? Checks, in & of themselves, are not enough of a proposed solution."
The majority of educational institutions are Brady Gun Free Zones already. Not safe enough for you Kel? Why? Could it be all the shooting and dead bodies?
Checks, Kelli, are not a "proposed solution". They have been in effect for decades. But no, they are certainly not keeping guns away from criminals.
So what do you suggest; a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms, or magic dust, or what?
Gee, muffinboy, have you been paying any attention? There are many measures that could be taken, short of an all-out ban. Let's see: 1) microstamping, 2) smart-gun technology, 3) resigning the AWB....perhaps you should reread some of Mr. Helmke's prior blogs before you immediately dismiss them.
That is how we find a solution, being open-minded and seeking common ground. Not attacking one another "cause it makes you feel like more of a man!" (Although that shouldn't surprise anyone now should it?)
Kelli:
If you think a weak position on gun control is a loser then you haven't studied history. Bill Clinton attributes the loss of Democratic control of the House to his signing the 1994 AWB (it is in his book). Also, if gun control is so popular, then why did it take the cooperation of the NRA to get the improvment in the NICS background check passed. Even Paul acknowledged the importance of their cooperation in his blog. (The fact is that it would not have passed without the NRA...John Dingell said as much.) Gore's stance on gun control is believed to have cost him several critical states in 2000.
If gun control is a winner than why are both Hillary and Obama avoiding the issue as much as they can? In fact, Hillary has taken the oppostie tack and said Obama will take away our guns while she will do a better job of protecting them.
If John McCain doesn't win (care to make bet on that?) if won't be because of gun control.
Michael
I do not see myself voting for McCain, based on civil liberties issues across the board. As I mentioned earlier, I think a McCain presidency would institutionalize warrantless surveillance, the administration's secret blacklists (which the Brady Campaign has supported), and other civil liberties violations. If McCain were pro-civil-liberties across the board, he might be a tempting choice, but he is not, in my opinion.
Congress is now about as pro-choice on the gun issue as it has ever been, and the Protruding Rifle Handgrip Ban is *DEAD* and will stay that way. The original "assault weapon" non-ban in 1994 passed by 1 vote in the House, with some of the "yea" votes thinking (wrongly) that it covered automatic weapons, and many more thinking (wrongly) that it covered fringe firearms that gun owners didn't care about. Now, of course, gun owners are much more politically active, there is much more information out there about the issue (such as the FBI UCR rifle stats, showing that rifles are involved in far fewer murders than even shoes and bare hands), AND more people now own "assault weapons" than hunt. So no, the AWB, and your pre-1870's magazine capacity restrictions, are dead.
If I believe that Mr. Obama will leave the gun issue to the states, I will likely vote for him in the general election; if not, I may sit out this one and concentrate on supporting pro-gun Dems in the congressional and state races.
And all the while Kelli ignores the fact that every single one of the candidates have changed their message to supporting more firearm rights while not a single one has tightened them or fought for a BC endorsement.
Why would that be?
Silly tirdpower - that's called "politics" - even you must know they pander. And it's the most ignorant of the bunch that falls for such pandering...Makes sense now why they're seeking the pro-gun vote.
Posted May 20, 2008 | 02:12 PM (EST)