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.)
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.
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?
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!
Will you be taking out a policy as well?
That is exactly the reason behind 'castle doctrine' laws. To make it impossible for criminals or their survivors to sue in the the case of legitimate self defense. I will emphasize 'castle doctrine' laws do not protect criminal acts.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/chicago.gun.violence.2.728895.html
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1021271/Mothers-targeted-fight-teenage-knife-crime.html
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.}}
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.
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 am a moderately liberal Democrat. I will most likely not support John McCain for President, because I disagree with his stance on the Iraqi Civil War, and a number of other issues.
That's politics. It's just business.
John McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. Did you ever notice the Senator's arms, Kelli? They look the way they do because his captors would bind his wrists behind his back, throw the other end of the rope over a beam, and suspend him there for hours at a time, dislocating his shoulders. Intense pain aside, it's also nearly impossible to breathe that way. They did this to him often, in a vain attempt to get John McCain to denounce his country. He wouldn't do it.
When his captors offered to release him, after years of being tortured and brutalized, HE WOULD NOT GO, until those under him were also released.
John McCain is, in his quiet way, a great man.
There are posters on this forum who believe it is immoral to take up arms to forcibly defend this country against a tyrannical takeover. There are posters here who believe it is immoral to defend the lives of one's chilldren with a firearm.
There are posters on this forum who have no comprehension of the word "moxy".
Who Would Jesus Shoot To Protect The Children?
Delusions of grandeur. McCain won't win the White House because of the war, and eight years of George Bush. It won't have a damned thing to do with gun-control, dreamer. You crack me up.
You certainly have been quiet since you put you foot in your mouth when you said you were an elitist. At least you were honest and confirmed what the pro-civil rights side here has suspected (known?) all along.
Michael
BTW: People (like macca), who stick their foot in their mouth, some times are exposed to toe-mains.
Then your ad-hominem remark would also apply to the Brady Campaign's obsession with 'semi-automatic assault rifles" (rifles of any kind being used in less than 3% of gun related crime-DOJ), and the 'gun show loophole' (gun show purchases being used in less than 2% of gun related crime-FBI).
It will be interesting to see him lose those arguments.
This is so typical of many of the anti-civil rights crowd. Trying to ban something they don't understand.
Michael
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
Case in point, the UK's BCS. You can read about it here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf
The BCS has been in place since 1981 and is considered the gold standard in that country for crime statistics. As my cite notes, it is considered more accurate than crime recorded by police because many crimes go unreported to the police. Additionally, different political factors may influence police recording of crimes.
Take a look at page 8.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/16345443/detail.html
My wife's Glock cost around $450 in the late 1990's, IIRC, and I believe my S&W Ladysmith was around $700. I'd definitely choose the handgun.
Do keep in mind that to receive the handgun, you still have to fill out the mandatory BATFE Form 4473 tracing paperwork, pass the mandatory NICS background check, and felons/underage/mentally incompetent are excluded.
Given the weapon they're "giving" away (and when have you known a car dealer to lose money on a car) is a Kel-Tec .380 which retails for about $200 (probably less with a volume discount), those who choose the gun are losing money.
But as the article notes, most of the mouthbreathers choosing the gun already have guns--it makes the louts look even more foolish.
After all, they will have to put gas in the car they're buying. Of course, it's very likely most who choose guns only have temporary or seasonal jobs given their educational levels and don't have to drive much.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
This further demonstrates that gun bans are a farce.
Malcolm says: {{“And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime [in England] more than doubled.” }}
A small problem: crime didn't double--it decreased. According to the UK's official crime stats (2002):
{{Estimates from the BCS reveal large and consistent falls in violent crime overall since 1995.”
“Longer-term trends in violence overall continue to show significant declines. Comparison of results reported to the BCS in 2001/02 with those for earlier years show a 17 per cent decline in BCS violence since 1999, a 22 per cent decline since 1997 and a 33 per cent decline since 1995, all of these decreases being statistically significant”
“The fall in violent crime may seem surprising, given media attention to violent crime. However, the BCS suggests that violent crime in general has been falling for some time. Although BCS estimates present an average experience of violence, it is possible that the very rare but more extreme incidents of violence have increased at the same time. It is the latter that are more often reported in the media.”}}
Ooops.
I got your sockpuppet.