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.)

Comments

[djkrlsn]

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.

[Jadegold]

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.

[muffinman2]

"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?

[djkrlsn]

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

[Thirdpower2]

And the Jadism's just get stupider and stupider.

[fishyjay]

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."

[Jadegold]

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!

[edutilos]

Excellent point (and post) Jadegold. That certainly seems like a reasonable idea - but I'll bet you "they" will have none of it. I can hear it now, "might as well be a tax on my rights." This is a sensible middle-ground - we'll soon see who the fanatic fringe is (see following comments for further proof).

[Mark0]

I have no problem with the idea, properly instituted, but I have to ask:

Will you be taking out a policy as well?

[fishyjay]

Reasonable idea? Sensible middle-ground? Okay, my first question: If this idea is adopted, will the attempts by you and others at more "gun control" and gun bans stop?

[djkrlsn]

Let see now--gun owners already face criminal charges for allowing minors to access firearms, liability for property damage and true accidents, and things like assault (with or without deadly weapons), murder, attempted murder ,terrorist threats, armed robbery, rape etc are criminal. There is one downside to this requiring insurance as a condition of owning firearms--in a legitimate self defense shooting, the injured criminal (or the family of a dead one) has a major incentive to sue (several million dollar insurance policy since the insurers will take the cheaper alternative (even to paying off a bogus claim if it is cheaper than fighting)) unless the law is sufficently well written to prevent bogus law suits--stoner nice try at back door banning of guns and self defense.

[ladyshooter]

"There is one downside to this requiring insurance as a condition of owning firearms--in a legitimate self defense shooting, the injured criminal (or the family of a dead one) has a major incentive to sue (several million dollar insurance policy since the insurers will take the cheaper alternative (even to paying off a bogus claim if it is cheaper than fighting))..."

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.

[Thirdpower2]

Seems the cost is being paid higher in places that follow your and the Brady Campaign's advice.

[Wilson333]

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.

[djkrlsn]

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).

[Thirdpower2]

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.

[ladyshooter]

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.

[muffinman2]

Now that's a good idea. It could be covered under their malpractice insurance (lawyers get sued for malpractice too).

[tadees]

"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

[ladyshooter]

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.

[djkrlsn]

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

[tadees]

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

[Jadegold]

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.}}

[Thirdpower2]

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.

[edutilos]

What a tool! That's about a marketing campaign, out to curb violent crime in general. They mention knives - and guns!

[vespasian1]

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?

[djkrlsn]

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.

[drurylane]

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.

[muffinman2]

"After McCain declared his weak position on the GOP campaign trail... it was apparent he lacked the necessary moxie & integrity to effectively lead our country." ~drurylane

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".

[Necron99]

WWJSTPTC?

Who Would Jesus Shoot To Protect The Children?

[djkrlsn]

That sounds so much like Kellilane the pole hugging Lake Michigan Fandancer

[muffinman2]

"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."

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.

[Mark0]

"As a voter, I would ask: What more will you do, McCain, to keep our communities & educational institutions, etc., safer from gun violence?"

And what would be ther preferred answer to your question, Kelli?

[Thirdpower2]

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?

[djkrlsn]

Let me guess-- it is because the "will of the people(tm)" opposes gun control and Kelli is too much of a controlling powerhungry elitist (per Marsha Mmimi) to admit it.

[edutilos]

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.

[benEzra]

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.

[djkrlsn]

stones--I must compliment you--you have done what no one else has been able to do--namely keep Kelli quiet for a week (a month ago she asked Huffington Post to delete her account and all her posts because of her 'disgust' with the moderators--she was back in less than 48 hours

[MorgansRifles]

MMimi (macca)

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

[ladyshooter]

I think she is still chewing on her foot.

BTW: People (like macca), who stick their foot in their mouth, some times are exposed to toe-mains.

[BlackjackDavy]

Jadegold- "What NRA cultists fail to understand--due to a lack of understanding of statistics--is that when one deals with relatively low numbers, small changes are very likely to be statistically insignificant."

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).

[ladyshooter]

The quotation attributed to Disraeli and Twain applies to green rocks' arguments.

[djkrlsn]

I know you can easily tell when stones is lying (he is posting--he can not seem to put up a single completely truthful post).

[ladyshooter]

I would like to know when green rocks will start arguing with himself about his assertions.

It will be interesting to see him lose those arguments.

[Melodyl]

Lady, Rocks is not sure what his opinion is. He is waiting for the “Anti-Freedom” Ferries to tell him. As all of the Joyce foundation stooges King Soros will give them their marching orders. “Rocks” is lost with out a daily feeding from the KOZ.

[MorgansRifles]

This is great! Carolyn McCarthy, who wrote the bill, is asked if she know what a barrel shroud is by the interviewer. Needless to say, she doesn't.

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

[Melodyl]

Silly Morgan It's a thing that goes "up" Unlike her I.Q.

[muffinman2]

I saw that happen live. What a classic! It was actually painful to watch. And they call US mouthbreathers.

[vespasian1]

It looks like the Brady Campaign has a sockpuppet of their own. That's unbelievable. This woman wants to put people in jail for owning SOMETHING, she just doesn't know what it is. Who votes for people like this?

[tadees]

Yep! That's a classic one!

[ladyshooter]

One thing is for sure, carolyn mccarthy was totally evasive about the matter. I agree, she did not even know what a barrel shroud is.

[Jadegold]

Another tactic of NRA mouthbreathers is to claim any study or report that they disagree with has "discrepancies" or errors.

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.

[Melodyl]

Stones....... are you still on suppression Therapy? I think that "Stuff" is messing with your head.

[djkrlsn]

My lady, he is still on suppression therapy--it is his intelligence, common sense, integrity, honesty and class that are being suppressed

[Thirdpower2]

Another tactic of the hoplophobes is to be as hypocritical as possible by making regular ad hominems against any report, study, or survey showing that their claim of "more guns= more crime" is patently false yet crow to the sky any report claiming it is w/o ever actually reading it.

[vespasian1]

Another tactic of anti-gun zealots is to claim any study or report that they disagree with has "discrepancies" or errors.

[Wilson333]

Cometboy, have you ever bothered asking how many of us actually belong to the NRA, or doesn't it matter? I do not. I'd bet about half of us don't, at least.

We notice that you have not yet retracted your false statements about vespasian1, and that you have not apologized for falsely attributing someone else's quote to him.

You're a real class act.

[vespasian1]

Don't worry about it my friend. That would require a modicum of character, and it's not in his repertoire.

[Mark0]

"The BCS count of crime includes crimes against people aged 16 or over living in private households in England and
Wales, so crimes against businesses and people aged under 16 are excluded. The BCS also excludes crimes termed as
victimless (e.g. drug offences) and crimes such as murders (where the victim cannot be interviewed)."

Murder is generally thought to be a crime of violence.
The BCS excludes murder statistcs.
The BCS excludes crimes against people under the age of 16.
The BCS caps the number of reports involving the same victim and perpetrator to 5 per year


I answered your question. How about you answer this one:

Is there a discrepancy in the number of violent crimes that actually occur in the UK and the number of crimes the BCS reports?

[tadees]

(3rd try) Interesting Missouri dealership's marketing ploy: Buy a new car and get A) $250 in gas or B) free handgun. 80% choose the handgun. Wonder why?

http://www.kmbc.com/news/16345443/detail.html

[benEzra]

Because a handgun is generally worth a lot more than $250, and will last a lifetime. $250 in gas will last maybe a month.

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.

[Jadegold]

Bear in mind this dealership also caters to rednecks and the not-so-brights.

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.

[Wilson333]

Earlier, crime in the UK was discussed. Here's an interesting article describing how much crime has risen recently, including crime comitted with guns.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

This further demonstrates that gun bans are a farce.

[Jadegold]

Our sockpuppet cites an article many of his fellow NRA cultists probably wish he hadn't.

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.

[Thirdpower2]

They also state that a 5% increase in violence was "not statistically significant".

[Wilson333]

Why oops? Where's your link. I've seen stats posted on this blog from the Home Office, that contradict your claims. I'll see if I can't find them.

I got your sockpuppet.

[djkrlsn]

Stoner--with allies such as yourself, Paul does not need enemies. You have demonstrated that you are a liar, a lowdown noaccount piece of white trash living in a fantasy world. Now is the time for you to prove your case about WMDs, since the only slimeballs supporting civilian ownership of WMD on Huffington post are you and your allies.