Smalltime gun distributors agree to restrictions than face lawsuits in CA

And if it doesn't? Well then it must be because we need even MORE gun control :eyes:

"Not sell firearms at gun shows;"

What effect will this have? ZERO! There is no difference between a transaction at a gun show than at a dealer's store. NONE!

At least sanity remains intact in San Diego County.

BTW one more post and you're out of the 700 Club. Congratulations!

"Maintain electronically all firearm trace requests conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and provide that information, upon request, to gun manufacturers and distributors, which would enable them to monitor the conduct of the dealers who sell their firearms."

- Are they suggesting keeping the names on file of the people they had to check?

It's a way of proving they are complying with the law.

Pharmacies have to maintain a record of every controlled substance transaction they conduct, in considerable detail, usually for at least three years, so that state and federal inspectors can inspect such records to assure compliance.

Dirk

the government can't keep track of people who attend political protests, but they should be able to keep track of people exercising their 2nd amendment rights?

B

you have to first believe in the NRA's dishonest revisionist view of "second amendment rights"...

Sorry about Bench's interruption. So, what do you think about my response.

feel free.

But don't be surprised when you get called on it.

you have to first believe in the NRA's dishonest revisionist view of "second amendment rights"...

No, that would be YOUR view where "the people" somehow doesn't mean the people and where you conveniently ignore the fact that the militia is composed of the people.

my view, the courts' view, the Founding Fathers' view and the sane view.

Now go cry about it to somebody who is dumb enough to buy NRA propaganda.

You've now expanded your totally eronious claim further than even before. Why don't you spend a few days and gather up your very best proof of your bullshit claim so I can spend 2 minutes once again proving you to be totally wrong.

I guess your public spanking in your beloved general discsussion forum on this very subject didn't hurt badly enough.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So far I've shown what a pantload the RKBA claims are.

Gee that's not a regular JPS RKBA poster whacking you with the truth about US v Miller now is it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057#171989 (post 66 & 95)

no matter who slings it.

Does it hurt?

You have yet to prove your version of reality is anything close to the truth, now get back up to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=5446&mesg_id=5446 and get your proof out. If you have any that is.

Most recently right here. Now go snivel about it to somebody who gives a crap. Try the right wing loonies over at highroadrage.com.

Been there, done that Most recently right here

You must be using invisible text because there sure isn't any proof in this thread either.

I'll make it easy for you which post number is it in?

You can type two numbers can't you?

I would assume that 99.999% of every person in the USA would agree that the men that wrote the following know more about the constitution than you will ever know.

There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."
Moreover, the Constitution's text likewise recognizes not only the difference between the "militia" and "the people" but also between the "militia" which has not been "call forth" and "the militia, when in actual service."

Our view of the meaning of "the people," as used in the Constitution, is in harmony with the United States Supreme Court's pronouncement in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060-61 (1990), that:

"'he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.'
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of people who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

Several other Supreme Court opinions speak of the Second Amendment in a manner plainly indicating that the right which it secures to "the people" is an individual or personal, not a collective or quasi-collective, right in the same sense that the rights secured to "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments, and the rights secured by the other provisions of the first eight amendments, are individual or personal, and not collective or quasi-collective, rights. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2805 (1992); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1937 (1977);(26) Robertson v. Baldwin, supra (see quotation in note 17 supra); Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 450-51, 15 L.Ed. 691, 705, 719 (1856). See also Justice Black's concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1456 (1968).

It appears clear that "the people," as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans.

GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUDGES

The primary purpose of maintaining such records would be to monitor compliance by the gun dealers, not keep tabs on citizens. Governments have a compelling interest in seeing that gun dealers comply with existing law, and there are surely some who don't 100% of the time. I understand your objection to having such a record exist, but I think the parallel with pharmacies is very appropriate. And also note that it's the gun dealers themselves who maintain the records individually, not any government agency. The data is not there in any central database any time some bureaucrat wants to nose around in it. If such a system were put in place, I would have no problem providing the same kind of confidentiality protections that medical records currently enjoy. Pharmacy records are closely guarded from all except law enforcement.

Pharmacies maintain very private and detailed information about people on an ongoing basis--information that is vastly more sensitive than whether you own a gun or not--and law enforcement (LE) agencies have the right to see that information in the course of their legitimate duties, but *only* in the course of those duties. If LE had an investigation of a crime involving a person and their ownership of a gun, I don't see a problem with LE having access to such records. Also, such records would be expunged after a period--three years, two years, something similar to pharmacies; that varies from state to state, with a federal minimum (I forget now how long that is, it's DEA regulations).

I think this is a reasonable accommodation that potentially would assist LE and discourage *some* illegal activity by gun dealers. I believe that lots of activities that are generally considered "rights" are subject to such limited forms of record-keeping--marriage, for example.

Dirk

Supply these records to "maufacturers and distributors"? Uh, I agree--why would you want to do that? So these records are *already* available for *gov't* inspection? Duh...sorry. My ignorance is showing.

I might advocate requiring the gun dealers to keep these records electronically instead of in a "bound book". I wonder if the relevant BATF laws and regs have kept up with cyber reality...? I know the DEA was very slow to address things like e-mail and computers in pharmacies, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Dirk

only with much additional red tape. Their reasoning is that it's much easier to tamper with electronic records than with a bound book.

It seems to me that this:

Maintain electronically all firearm trace requests conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and provide that information, upon request, to gun manufacturers and distributors, which would enable them to monitor the conduct of the dealers who sell their firearms.

means that the information about what dealer sold the firearm would be provided to the manufacturer and distributor of the firearm in question. I assume that manufacturers and distributors sell to dealers, not individuals, normally. Manufacturers and distributors would therefore not be interested in, and would have no legitimate interest in knowing, which individual was found in, or at one time had, possession of a particular firearm. How would knowing the individual's name enable a manufacturer or distributor to "monitor the conduct of the dealers who sell their firearms"? All the manufacturer or distributor needs to know is the circumstances in which the firearm became problematic to the point that the Bureau needed to trace it.

The Bureau of whatsits would obviously have to maintain records of firearm trace requests (i.e. responses to requests, I assume) so that it had the dealer information available for this purpose.

That's certainly my interpretation. My tendency is to assume that a public authority is acting for a legitimate purpose unless I have some reason to think that it isn't. I don't see any reason here to infer that the information would be either retained or disclosed for improper purposes.

"I think it is unreasonable
the government can't keep track of people who attend political protests, but they should be able to keep track of people exercising their 2nd amendment rights?"

Okay, maybe I'm being naive ... again. But you originally asked:

"Are they suggesting keeping the names on file of the people they had to check?"

Um ... why would they have "had to check" people? Perhaps, not because those people had "exercised their 2nd amendment rights", but rather because they'd exercised them in some sort of (allegedly?) non-rightful acts?

Does a "trace request" necessarily involve individuals at all? I thought you guys didn't have firearms registration -- so if the Bureau of whatsit finds itself in possession of a problematic firearm, can it even identify the person who purchased it in all cases? Is the trace not in fact going to show the dealer who sold it, but not necessarily the person who bought it? I dunno ... if dealers do have to keep track of that, haven't you already got the beginnings of firearms registration? Would the trace lead to an individual, who could then be queried as to how the firearm got into the problematic hands it ended up in? Seriously; I don't quite understand the issue here.

.

the only difference is that in the case you point to, that's the GOVERNMENT doing it. The gun companies already have to do that for the government, except that it's for 20 years instead of 3. Now they'll have to open their records to companies. I wonder what THAT will result in, besides a decrease in privacy.

Dealers already have to keep the 4473 form that is filled out on every sale for 20 years after the date of the sale or disposition. In addition they are required to maintain a "bound book" that has the receipt and disposition of every firearm the buy and sell in it.

Upon discontinuance of their business the dealer has to forward the 4473s (they will go back at least 20 years if the dealer has been in business that long) and their bound book(s)(acquisition/disposition records)to the BATF(E).

and nothing else.

How tragic that the corrupt gun industry should be held to the standards of other industries...

regardless of who is doing it.

Think it will be 6 more months until this kind of lawsuit is prohibited?

Your side of this issue is giving the Repukes ammunition to use for their push for tort reform. In case you didn't know it, that's a BAD thing for Democrats, and the American people. I hope you're proud of yourself.

"Think it will be 6 more months until this kind of lawsuit is prohibited?"
Hell, I know the GOP is trying to push through that disgraceful immunity bill for the corrupt gun industry. But then they ARE the scum of the earth...

"Your side of this issue is giving the Repukes ammunition to use for their push for tort reform."
Gee, can't wait until the next time Faux Noise Nutwork starts wailing about unnecessary lawsuits.....

"I hope you're proud of yourself.
"
I am...I'm not pimping to let a corrupt bunch of thugs sell guns to criminals...

You've got SO much to be proud of. because of people like you, the Democratic Party is seen as being "Anti-gun". Of course, that's made hundreds of thousands of people who normally vote Democratic either vote against us or not vote at all. Would you say that we've won or lost power since Brady in 1994? Think carefully...

" Of course, that's made hundreds of thousands of people who normally vote Democratic either vote against us "
Not even close to true....but it's nicce to see RKBA fantasy is thriving.

In 1994, we controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Now we don't control any of them. What's YOUR theory of why that happened?

A big part of that was the corrupt gun lobby spendinng millions on the corrupt Republican party.

In 1992, gun crime was at an all time high....since then, thanks to the Democrats and the Brady Law it's fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s.

I don't know why RKBA "enthusiasts" don't just join the Republican party, since they admire its corruption and hate so much...

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

A big part of that was the corrupt gun lobby spendinng millions on the corrupt Republican party.

:tinfoilhat:

I'd like to brush this off and tell Benchley to believe it at his or her own risk, but we're talking about an attitude that puts the Democratic Party's future prospects of ever regaining power in this country at risk.

Sounds like your tinfoil hat is working perfectly...shutting out any actual facts and letting the foolishness in...

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

Between 1990 and 2002 the corrupt gun industry gaved the Repubs nearly $15 million bucks. The NRA boasted that they'd have an office right in the White House.

"an attitude that puts the Democratic Party's future prospects of ever regaining power in this country at risk."
Sort of like the stand against the Viet Nam war, or the stand for civil rights, or the stand against Chimpy's illegal invasion of Iraq....

It's a mystery to me why some of these nuts don't actually join the Republicans...they sure seem to hate every Democrat they've ever heard of....

Political-action committees

Contributions to Political Action Committees (PAC) increased dramatically in the last election cycle. According to figures compiled by the Federal Election Commission, Political Action Committees raised $604.9 million during the 1999-2000 election cycle. PAC contributions to federal candidates for the 1999-2000 cycle totaled $259.8 million (FEC May 31, 2001.)

http://www.donationdepot.com/government/index.asp#E

Here's a nifty search tool to see who got how much money from whom:

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/fecimg/srssea.html

BTW money isn't everything. During the 1999 - 2000 election cycle Al Gore accepted $132,804,039 (net) all from individual contributors and still managed to end up not serving as President.

And here's a really fine source for campaign contribution data:

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Looks like "Gun Rights" groups gave about 85% of their contributions to Republicans. If they're so determined to take over the Republican party then why did they make any contributions ($2,579,187) to Democrats at all?

The NRA ranks 23 overall, trailing way behind trial lawyers, the tobacco industry, teachers, and big labor unions to mane a few. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A

Peddle it to someone dumb enough to believe it.

I've provided links with hard numbers. I'd welcome some well-reasoned discussion, but you don't seem to be willing to participate.

If you want to pretend the corrupt gun industry DOESN'T support the Republican party, you can play "let's pretend" with somebody else.

"I've provided links with hard numbers."
That have nothing to do with the question at hand.

That has to be the most feeble strawman argument you have presented yet this week. Keep it up, I know you can do better.

"I've provided links with hard numbers."
That have nothing to do with the question at hand.

They have EVERYTHING to do with the issue you raised.

Contributions by pro-RKBA groups are dwarfed by those of largely pro-Democratic groups like trial lawyers, teachers, retired people, and blue-collar workers. That is a fact that you seem to be intent on ignoring. Democrats are losing power and it's not for lack of money; the problem is lack of VOTES.

Shame on you for broadcasting propaganda from an organization that makes no secret of its goal to ban handgun ownership for ordinary citizens: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/. That message is guaranteed to result in one anti-Democratic vote for every pair of handgun owners' ears it falls on. Have you ever tried to figure out WHY the gun lobby would contribute almost $3 million to Democratic candidates? Has it occurred to you that the gun lobby might actually be what it appears to be, i.e. a single-issue constituency, rather than part of the VRWC?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

"Shame on you for broadcasting propaganda from an organization that makes no secret of its goal to ban handgun ownership for ordinary citizens: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/. That message is guaranteed to result in one anti-Democratic vote for every pair of handgun owners' ears it falls on. Have you ever tried to figure out WHY the gun lobby would contribute almost $3 million to Democratic candidates? Has it occurred to you that the gun lobby might actually be what it appears to be, i.e. a single-issue constituency, rather than part of the VRWC?"

Excellent!!!!!!!!

But thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy"....

That's a pretty esoteric "gun nut" term. You SURE you're not running a false flag operation?

what the hell is that supposed to mean? Some kind of reference to a midget waterskiing team?

"A big part of that was the corrupt gun lobby spendinng millions on the corrupt Republican party.
I'd like to brush this off and tell Benchley to believe it at his or her own risk"
And you added that little tinfoil hat cartoon....

"Contributions by pro-RKBA groups are dwarfed by those of largely pro-Democratic groups like trial lawyers, teachers, retired people, and blue-collar workers."
And what the hell does that have to do with the issue at hand?

"Shame on you for broadcasting propaganda from an organization that makes no secret of its goal to ban handgun ownership for ordinary citizens: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/. "
Hey, slack...that's YOUR site, not mine. My site, which I clearly referenced in #27, was

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

And for the record, I don't see a damn thing wrong with that proposal.

"And for the record, I don't see a damn thing wrong with that proposal (to ban handguns)" (parenthetic expression added by slackmaster).

The blood of the Democratic Party's chance to regain power will be on your hands, Benchley. If you reject gun owners completely you write off up to 80 million potential voters.

Don't say we didn't warn you.

"The blood of the Democratic Party's chance to regain power will be on your hands, Benchley."
What a pantload. In fact, more voters favor gun control than not, and have for years.

A majority do NOT favor banning handguns and never have. In California there was once a ballot initiative to do just that. It lost by about 75% - 25%.

A majority favor registration of owners and guns. A majority favor restrictions on ammo sales. A majority favor background checks. A majority favor a waiting period. A majority favor the assault weapons ban.

Let's see the cites, but I'll bet for every survey you can produce someone can produce another one that says something different.

I'm glad you finally unmasked yourself as a gun-ban advocate. That revelation makes it easier to understand your emotional hype and rhetoric. Unfortunately your radical fringe ideas do not play well in most of the USA, and to have them associated with Democrats does us all a disservice. I would hate like hell for this country to decline into single-party rule.

And you know it as well, with all the sniveling you've done about the Joyce Foundation.

"I'm glad you finally unmasked yourself as a gun-ban advocate."
Gee, slack, I've said all along there's no reason for assault weapons to be on the street.

"Unfortunately your radical fringe ideas do not play well in most of the USA"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre.....

And you know it as well, with all the sniveling you've done about the Joyce Foundation.

You are tragically mistaken. Until this post I have never mentioned the Joyce Foundation on DU forums.

The Joyce Foundation is the group that sponsors fake studies in an attempt to ban firearms.

So Benchley is so blinded by hatred that he or she can't tell the difference between you and me.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

Our evil plan is working..............:freak:

"Has it occurred to you that the gun lobby might actually be what it appears to be, i.e. a single-issue constituency, rather than part of the VRWC?"
Who the hell are you trying to kid? Remember we're talking about the Tim McVeigh/Ted Nugent crowd.

ARE you seriously trying to tell us that crap like this is NOT just the same dreary puddle of right wing pus:

"Senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Diane Finestein are among the most eager to ban guns, and they are among the most socialist of our national politicians.
In the House, a dedicated opponent of firearms ownership and self-defense is Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, an avowed socialist. This can be said because she is a member of the House Progressive Caucus, which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which is affiliated with Socialist International.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry1.htm

""People can't expect President Clinton to sit there in front of a camera and say, 'Tonight I have declared martial law,'" Pratt said. "You'll just find out about it when you try and get on the main highway and there's a humvee with a soldier who says, 'Turn back.' And when you ask why, he puts his gun into ready position and says, 'I'm only following orders. Please turn back.' "

http://www.newdaynews.com/thenews/index.cgi/noframes/read/309

http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws0109.htm

"Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/11.html

"I say, if anyone’s going to lose freedoms, make it the illegal aliens. "

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/cpac0202.asp

Charlton Heston: "Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or—even worse—Evangelical Christian, Midwest, or Southern, or—even worse—rural, apparently straight, or—even worse—admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning or—even worse—NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or—even worse—male working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. ...I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual-rights fund-raisers but boycott gun-rights fund-raisers... and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved."

http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/speech.html

I've managed to make my points without stooping to guilt by association. Without that and your frequent subject changes, goalpost moves, appeals to emotion, etc. you have nothing.

And yet another "fact flare" for Slackmaster.

RKBA-2 Gun-O-Phob-0

Remember? You were on here just yesterday sniveling about "RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"

just having fun with gun-o-phobes and bigots.

Tell us again....

just having fun with gun-o-phobes and bigots.

Please tell us.

Let's show them how asinine they can be activist.
Thanks for donating.

See YA!!!

Who was that trying to pretend Roy Moore and the Brady Foundation were linked?

Who was that posting "RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"

Who is it trying to peddle "More guns., less crime" rubbish?

You want to pretend the RKBA crowd aren't 99% right wing imbeciles, fine with me. But it's hooey and you know it.

Who was that trying to pretend Roy Moore and the Brady Foundation were linked?

Who was that posting "RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"

Who is it trying to peddle "More guns., less crime" rubbish?

You want to pretend the RKBA crowd aren't 99% right wing imbeciles, fine with me. But it's hooey and you know it.

None of the above were posted or supported or even responded to by me. You're the one obsessing over them.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Too too funny...

"RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"

Drop trousers, un-twist panties.

Someday you'll realize when your being played, until then, everyone else will enjoy the aftermath.

"Someday you'll realize when your being played"
Gee, someday you'll realize what a lame response that is.

Can't face facts, I wish you all the luck next time, then again you will probably get baited in and played again even if holding a four leaf clover.

None of those thread titles interested me enough to spend any time on them.

Get money from the NRA. The vast majority goes to Republicans as more Rs vote with the NRA than do Democrats.

Stop pretending that Democrats are not also supported by the NRA, because they damn sure are.

Enron gave a piddly amount to Democrats too......which didn't mean dick either.

If the gun lobby was really intent on supporting just one party it wouldn't give a red cent to any other party.

I guess that spending just over 21% of their PAC expenditures on Democrats from 1989 through 1998 is a piddly amount.

21% is not piddly it's a considerable percentage.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

Between 1990 and 2002 the corrupt gun industry gaved the Repubs nearly $15 million bucks. The NRA boasted that they'd have an office right in the White House.

If the gun industry wanted to support only one party then WHY DID IT GIVE ANY MONEY AT ALL to another party?

Oh, yeah, that was Charlton Heston, spokesperson for the gun industry.

said Sarah Brady, spokesperson for the anti-gun-owner lobby :eyes:

But Heston did call for a lynch mob to string up Gore.

So by default you agree your entire argument has been shot down.

"Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/11.html

"Consider who are the most ardent gun control advocates in America. Senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Diane Finestein are among the most eager to ban guns, and they are among the most socialist of our national politicians.
In the House, a dedicated opponent of firearms ownership and self-defense is Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, an avowed socialist. This can be said because she is a member of the House Progressive Caucus, which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which is affiliated with Socialist International. "

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june_2003/gun.htm

Swell lot of playmates you got, slack.

(edited for spelling and highlighting "the important part")

Regardless of Heston's support of GWB, making things up about what he said only undermines your own credibility.

Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, (Al Gore is) saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper.

Heston is obviously commenting on Al Gore's (supposed) duplicity concerning his political stance on firearms ownership, and what would have happened in PAST eras in American history and presently IN OTHER PLACES if a politician was caught lying to a person's face.

Stick to the important parts, please. You know, the "NRA for Bush" part.

HE was advocating harm against a sitting vice-preseident. The Secret Service should have thrown Chuck's, cold, dead ass in the kilnk.

Amazing what the RKBA crowd here will try and make excuses for, isn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If the gun industry supports only the Republican party, why did it give 15% of its donations from 1990 - 2002 to Democrats?

...........they gave 85% of their donations to Republicans, right???

It's a very simple question. One guy here says the NRA "only" supports Republicans. Someone else pointed out that wasn't true. And the first guy then starts talking about non-existent "lynching threats."
:eyes:

Another day in the 'dungeon.

And MrBenchley continues to pretend that the gun lobby supports Republicans exclusively.

So if you're a Democrat and you financially support a group such as the NRA, you are actually working against yourself.

The few Democrats supported by the gun lobby are the exception to the rule.

to saying that if you're a pro-choice Republican you shouldn't give money to Planned Parenthood.

Interests do not equal party affiliation.

...it's rather counterproductive to support them if you belong to the opposition party.

And the old saw about "if we go along with them, they'll support our candidates, too." Yeah. When pigs fly...........

For me, party affiliation is one of the LAST things I consider in my decision matrix. I care about it only to the extent that the overall makeup of our legislative bodies matters. Party affiliation per say doesn't mean much to me.

I care about many issues, about character, and about qualifications to do the work entailed in holding an elected office. If I was a single-issue voter and cared only about gun issues I'd probably vote Republican about 85% of the time. But I'm not, and I only rarely vote for Republicans because usually the issues that matter most to me direct my vote elsewhere, be it a Democrat, independent, Green, or whatever person seems to best represent my needs for a particular office.

I think of the gun lobby just as any other lobby: A single-issue constituent that has a significant amount of money but only loose control over votes. I value its input but that does not drive my votes. I'd like to see more Democrats showing support for gun owners' rights. Unfortunately we have some extremists like MrBenchley who are bound to get quoted and cited as representative of the mainstream Democratic Party, even though they clearly are not.

YOU in fact, CO Liberal, seem very close to the actual Democratic Party message on gun control.

....even CONSIDER supporting groups like the NRA that do nothing except spread lies about our party?

And far be it from me to say its the same reason they write so admiringly of Orrin Hatch and quote Newsmax and the Washingtom Times...

I've never said I support the NRA or "groups like" it, whoever they may be. I do value the NRA's input when it comes to candidates' stances on gun rights and gun control issues. And FWIW their assessments are often inaccurate. I'm surprised they would give Howard Dean an "A" rating.

Between 1990 and 2002 the corrupt gun industry gaved the Repubs nearly $15 million bucks.

And from your source they gave Democrats $3 million (your same rounding up method) that's not piddly money.

Notice the position ranking in the top 80 donor industries in any given year; between 55 and 70 (average position is 65).

Note the 94% money to Dems vs 6% to Repubs from Gun Control. (postion 80 in the top 80 donor rankings)

is how DIShonest the RKBA crowd is....

"Note the 94% money to Dems vs 6% to Repubs from Gun Control."
Makes one wonder why the RKBA crowd here keeps trying to pretend gun control is a Republican cause, doesn't it?

Makes one wonder why the RKBA crowd here keeps trying to pretend gun control is a Republican cause, doesn't it?

Arre you disuputing that a major and one of the most prominent gungrabbinggroups is run by Republicans?

If you are referring to the theory that the bradybunch really want to divide the Democratic party in an effort to keep Repubs in power,
it's a shame that the numbers from the source you gave don't do a damn thing to squelch that since guncontrol is dead last in total money given. They can stay on the donor list radar that way and not do any real harm. (Note to self; stay away from general the conspiracy theory threads might start to make sense, Nawwwwwww no way will the whackos who think that ELF really is a governmental plot to discredit the environmentalists up there ever make sense)

And what the numbers do show is that your rabid Pavlovian battle cry of "The NRA is the devil cause momma says so!" is bullsh**.

"And what the numbers do show"
Is that the RKBA crowd is full of shit.. AGAIN.

Keep a spinning

Yeah OK right.

The numbers speak for themselves and the show you to be wrong as the facts tend to do.

The numbers DO speak for themselves, and they show the RKBA crowd and crooked gun industrry are full of crap and overwhelmingly supporters of the corrupt GOP.

The numbers DO speak for themselves, and they show the RKBA crowd and ..... gun industrry ....... overwhelmingly supporters of the .....GOP.

Yet when you are shown (from your own source) that $3 million dollars went to Democrats vs $15 million to Republicans you can't have the common sense to see that they support those you see eye to eye with them on this issue regardless of party affiliation.

How dare anyone do that! :: sarcasm ::

According to you, that's a tie.

The support goes to those they want to support, those who agree with them regardless of party affiliation. You try to spin it to where ALL of their support goes to republicans and that's been plainly and clearly shown to not be true. Three million dollars isn't a piddly amount nor is 15% a tiny percentage.


According to you, that's a tie.
From your version the Cardinals plane crashed on take off because the Cubs shot it down with surface to air heating seeking missile.

It's plain to see from the numbers that they support those you see eye to eye with them on this issue regardless of party affiliation.

How dare anyone do that! :: sarcasm ::

And according to you it's a tie.

"It's plain to see from the numbers that they support" Republicans.

"It's plain to see from the numbers that they support" Republicans.and Democrats who agree with them on this issue.

Why, to use your analogy, are you trying to claim that the Cardinals didn't score their 3 runs?

"Why, to use your analogy, are you trying to claim that the Cardinals didn't score their 3 runs?"

Why are you trying to claim the Cubs didn't score 15?

Possibly for the same reason that the RKBA crowd is furiously trying to pretend that gun control is Republican...although the score there is Democrats 94--GOP 6.

It's a real shame for you that Dems took in more money from progun donations ($2,579,187) than they did from the antigun ones ($1,497,245) though isn't it?


Now tell us again how the NRA ONLY supports Republicans?


Possibly for the same reason that the RKBA crowd is furiously trying to pretend that gun control is Republican

Really? According to you the NRA lies and puts that position squarely on the Democratic party, how does that square with your 94-6 score?