NRA leaders far more recalcitrant than gun owners in general
December 10th, 2009 at 01:55pm Pat Cunningham
-
It says HERE that the folks who call the shots (pun intended) at the National Rifle Association are out of touch with gun owners in general.
-
Why am I not surprised?
-
UPDATE: HERE’s the column by E.J. Dionne that’s mentioned (without a link) in the piece to which I linked in the first paragraph.
-
Entry Filed under: National Rifle Association
18 Comments Add your own
1. dave | December 10th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Recalicitrant is a pretty big word there Pat. It means defying authority which is not what the NRA does, nor is it a word that defines gun owners. What does define us is that we are a nation that has the Bill of Rights, the second amendment states that we have the “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. I don’t know any other way to interpt that other then what is states in plain english.
McDonald Vs Chicago will be heard by SCOTUS this coming March. The far left and that describes you Pat are shaking in their boots because McDonald will win. Chicago will have to allow Americans to have thair rights, Daley will resign in shame and Illinois will join the other 48 states and allow legal citizens their right to protect theirselves and family by passing LTC laws. It is coming and will happen. The fear mongering that citizens will be having shootouts hasn’t happened in the 48 free states that allow LTC. In fact Pat, crime does drop when criminals realize that their intended victim might well be armed.
Now you can go back to your dictionary and study other big words use and amaze yourself and others that would tear at the foundation of this country.
2. Pat Cunningham | December 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Dave: Get a grip. Nobody’s going to take away your toys. What we’re talking about here is reasonable controls on guns. The courts have never said the government has no authority to impose any controls on firearms — and the courts never will.
Read the poll to which I linked, Dave. It was conducted by a conservative supporter of the NRA.
3. Pat Cunningham | December 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
One other thing, Dave: Your weird rant wrongly assumes my position on gun control. It might interest you to know that I agreed with the Supreme Court in its ruling last year in the Washington, D.C. case.
I won’t be shaking in my boots no matter how the court rules in the Chicago case.
4. Pat Cunningham | December 10th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
By the way, Dave. Are you one of those bedwetters who believes the NRA’s paranoid nonsense about Barack Obama wanting to disarm the citizenry?
5. Pat Cunningham | December 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Dave: Still one more thing. My dictionary defines “recalcitrant” thusly: “obstinately defiant of authority or restraint.” That describes the fearmongering leaders of the NRA perfectly.
6. Critical Reading Skillz | December 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
As far as I can read this, this article is one blogger quoting another blogger quoting what looks like a small-time and unscientific poll of “gun owners” (including some NRA members), not NRA members specifically, as implied.
Big deal.
7. Pat Cunningham | December 10th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Critical Reading Skillz: The “small time” poll, as you called it, was conducted by Frank Luntz, a professional pollster who frequently works for conservative Republican clients and for Fox News. When the poll is released in the next few days, let’s see how scientific it was or wasn’t.
8. NurseGloria | December 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
My late mother drove around with a bumper sticker that said, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.”
My mother never owned a gun. Neither do I own a gun. But I have a gun card. I will buy a gun if I believe I need one.
9. Pat Cunningham | December 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
For more on Frank Luntz, the guy who conducted the poll at issue here, check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
10. SNuss | December 11th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Pat, your Messiah, B. Hussein Obama, stated to author John Lott: “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347690,00.html
How much clearer does it have to be?
BTW, the following is a perfect example of the bumper sticker: “When seconds count, the police are minutes away”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml
11. Pat Cunningham | December 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Snuss: Two things:
1) The Obama administration doesn’t want to take away your guns, so don’t be such a paranoid weenie. Gullible suckers like you will believe anything those liars with the NRA tell you. You’ve been had, Snuss, and you don’t even know it.
2) The only people who refer to Obama as a “messiah” are you right-wing nitwits. Ironically, it was George W. Bush who considered himself anointed by God to be president.
12. SNuss | December 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I don’t consider him MY messiah. That is all those gullible fools who thought B.H.O. would pay their rent, buy their gas, and give them free money.
Obama has never voted against ANY gun control measure, that I can find.
And he supported D.C.’s gun ban, before the Supreme Court rejected it, as un-Constitutional. See it come out of his own mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFO6COAMCY
13. Pat Cunningham | December 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Snuss: Show me evidence of Obama’s plan to take away people’s guns, which is what the paranoid bedwetters are always shaking in their boots about.
It’s just like the crap you wingnuts have peddled about Obama and the Fairness Doctrine. You gullibles hear that kind of nonsense and you go crazy.
14. Pat Cunningham | December 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Snuss: I have a few questions:
Are you opposed to ALL forms of firearms control?
Do you think Americans should have an unfettered right to keep and bear any and all weapons, even bazookas, rocket-launchers and such?
If you don’t oppose laws against certain kind of weaponry (and you’re downright insane if you don’t), then you’re like the overwhelming majority of Americans. Almost all of us favor SOME forms of gun control. The political argument should be over where the line is drawn — not over whether there should be any line at all.
15. dave | December 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
shall not be infringed
I am a legal law abiding, veteran, voter and citizen and covered by the Bill of Rights. I can’t wait till incorporation takes place. Most people are totally unaware that some of the Bill of Rights are not incorporated to all the states.
Thus McDonald vs Chicago will guaraentee that the states are covered by the Bill of Rights which right now doesn’t.
16. Todd | December 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Pat –
The pollster had no access to NRA membership lists so any claim of what NRA members support or don’t support by them is suspect. The poll relied on a self certifying question as to NRA membership and if they owned any guns.
Since the NRA has 4 million members, but over 10 million regularly claim membership, it’s not improbable that more than a few fudged the answer to the poll.
The poll also had misleading questions about what some of the bills would actually do as oppose to how they want to frame the public policy sound bite to the media.
Lastly Obama did vote to ban and confiscate guns as a state senator. I was there when he did so. He and his AG have said they would seek a new and permanent ban on semi-auto firearms despite the Supreme Court’s ruling(s).
As for arms controls, you and many like minded always want to toss out the “bazooka” argument in the debate. By my account it’s like the nazi rule for debating, you’ve already lost. Bazookas and such are explosive devices that fall under a category of weapons that are beyond the “small arms” the average person would own. Rifles, shotguns, handguns are what the debate is about. Not atomic weapons or hand grenades. If you want a rational debate or discussion about that then stick to the facts and the issue at hand. Otherwise, you’ll be just as irrelevant as the rants of DC since the Court has spoken.
17. snuss | December 11th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Pat sez: “Are you opposed to ALL forms of firearms control?”
Answer: No, there are reasonable restrictions and responsibilities associated with ANY of our Constitutional Rights. For example, your First Amendment Rights don’t allow you to incite riots. But as long as a law-abiding citizen owns and uses a firearm in a manner which doesn’t endanger other law-abiding citizens, and accepts the responcibilities that gun ownership entails, they should not be subject to any further restrictions.
18. snuss | December 12th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
BTW, Pat, owning FULLY-automatic firearms has been illegal (without a special Federal permit) since 1934. Since then, the number of homicides committed by LEGAL owners of “machine guns” is TWO, and one was by a police officer.
See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091002085916AAGkj65
As an example of concealed-carry laws, Florida issued over 1.6 million permits, from 1987 to 2009. in that time, there have been 167 permits revoked for improper firearm usage. That is a .0001% rate.
See: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
Also, check the posts at this site: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×155031#179226
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed