Gun control has so completely disappeared from debate that John Rosenthal, founder of the Newton, Mass.-based Stop Handgun Violence, told me this week before the Aurora shootings: 'I’ve never seen more spineless cowardice and lack of national leadership. Can you imagine the outrage if instead, 83 Americans a day died from hamburgers?' ”
From Open Secrets:
"National Rifle Association goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, background checks for gun owners, and registration of firearms. NRA’s influence is felt not only through campaign contributions, but through millions of dollars in off-the-books spending on issue ads and the like. Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the NRA supported proposals to arm airline pilots with guns.
Between 2001 and 2010, the NRA spent between $1.5 million and $2.7 million on federal-level lobbying efforts.
During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level -- messages that advocate for or against political candidates. These messages primarily supported Republican candidates or opposed Democratic candidates."
National Rifle Assn: Lobbying
Check out where and to whom the NRA sends all its blood money:
National Rifle Assn: Totals
Recipients: The GOP is the NRA's BEST FRIEND.
Money to Congress: 2012 Cycle
| Dems: |  | $67,550 |
| Repubs: |  | $438,596 |
| Others: |  | $0 |
| Incumbents: |  | $477,796 |
| Non-Incumbents: | | $28,350 |
NRA-led gun lobby wields powerful influence over ATF, U.S. politics
Gun money pushing some Democrats to vote against Holder?
By Keenan Steiner
Jun 28 2012
Three Democrats who have said they plan to break party ranks in a historic rebuke of Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday are among the members of their party in tight races who have received the most money from the National Rifle Association's political action committee (PAC) over the course of their careers.
The National Journal reported Wednesday that Democratic Reps.
Jim Matheson of Utah, John Barrow of Georgia and Nick Rahall of West Virginia have said they will vote with Republicans to find Holder in contempt of Congress because the attorney general has not released all the documents that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested on the gun-running "Fast and Furious" case. The influential and well-heeled NRA, along with a smaller but more aggressive Gun Owners of America, have signalled that they consider Thursday's vote a key one on gun rights, one that could determine which candidates will draw the groups' support -- or opposition -- in November
.
In a letter sent to Congress last week, NRA Executive Director Chris Cox cited the attorney general's "anti Second Amendment advocacy" as a reason the organization "does not admire" him. The Gun Owners of America, a smaller but more aggressive gun-rights group, is urging readers of its website to email their members of Congress in support of the contempt resolution.
Congressman from Aurora Urges Congress to Address Gun Laws
"...the NRA’s lock on our gun laws is so strong it would be foolish to think we could actually get movement on this issue, especially in an election year.
Not only does the NRA throw money against candidates it perceives as even considering pro gun regulation, but just take a look at state laws like Stand Your Ground, which were funded by the NRA and the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). According to The Wall Street Journal, these state laws “have resulted in an average 50 percent increase in “justifiable homicides” in the years after their passage, while other states experience little or no change.” But we still can’t have a real discussion about policy because the NRA scares our Congressional members into silent complicity.
[skip]
Though the NRA is a non-profit 501(c)(4) lobbying group, they are thought to be the most powerful lobbying group on the country. In a 1999 Fortune survey, lawmakers and congressional staffers said they considered the NRA the most influential lobbying group. In 2008, the NRA spent $10 million on the Presidential election circulating widely discredited accusations against President Obama.
Former President Bill Clinton wrote in his book My Life about the NRA’s successful take down of congressional targets, “The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you’re out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.”
However, Ed Rendell recently called out the cowards in Congress on failing to stand up to the NRA. Jason Easley pointed out in that article that the NRA has lost much of its influence since it became a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, violating its own principles in order to support Republican candidates:
What members of Congress don’t comprehend is that the NRA’s power is vastly overstated. Since the organization became nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, they have lost a great deal of their influence.They welcomed Mitt Romney and his record of limiting gun ownership to their convention with open arms. The NRA supported John McCain in 2008, even though McCain has never been shy about his anti-gun positions.
How hypocritical has the NRA become?
With the NRA controlling Congress, gun laws are impervious to fact. The NRA’s stance seems to be that the rights of gun owner come ahead of public safety. While in reality, even members of the NRA favor some gun regulations, the organization itself refuses to broker even the smallest nod to public safety concerns. The New York Times reported:
In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.
Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.
**********
"Every country has, along with its core civilities and traditions, some kind of inner madness, a belief so irrational that even death and destruction cannot alter it. In Europe not long ago it was the belief that 'honor' of the nation was so important that any insult to it had to be avenged by millions of lives. In America, it has been, for so long now, the belief that guns designed to kill people indifferently and in great numbers can be widely available and not have it end with people being killed, indifferently and in great numbers."
62 comments:
"Fix reason firmly in its seat... " , Thomas Jefferson. Great advice then and great advice now.
It is good that there is an organization defending our second amendment and the rights therin guaranteed.
It is also the 21st century, populations have exploded, the sophistication of firearms has certainly changed, the realities we live in today have changed etc.
"Fix reason firmly in its seat... " I may be mistaken but it seems to mean if the divergent views look at reality outside their chosen box, and use reason, improving public safety against wanton firearm violence and continuing to insure the right to bear firearms can (and should) both be possible.
Besides has anyone advocated banishing the right to firearms on this site? If they have I missed it.
Sure, there are some real loonies no doubt that hold that view. But I'm guessing there aren't many. After all, unless I'm seriously mistaken, liberals hunt and target practice too. I know my liberal brother -in- law and his friends in New York do. So do their sons.
But none to my knowledge have semi- automatic AK -15's with 100 round drums to hunt with.
Both Mr. Romney and President Obama have said they would sign the reinstatement of the ban on assault rifles. Neither have done so, or even advocated for it.
That's the evil power the NRA has over our politicians. That's the glaring truth, of gutless politicians.
We have abdicated our role as civic minded citizens, that have control over what our politicians do; to the money and power of special interests groups.
It is government by special interests groups, for special interests groups.
If Jefferson, being a very rational man, could see the senseless killings by guns in today's America, he would be the first to sign a ban on these killing machines.
Since he wrote the second amendment, he would be the first to chastise present day Americans, for distorting and abusing the second amendment.
A GOP Rep. said yesterday, that the second amendment gives Americans the right to have automatic weapons and 100 round clips. Really?
How could a strict constructionist of the Constitution agree with that statement? Most strict constructionist being conservatives, Republicans.
Obviously the FF's were talking about their day's weapons, a single shot musket, for reasons other than killing each other.
So lets be strict constructionists, let any American buy a single shot musket.
If that sounds absurd, I refer you back to that GOP's comment, nothing is more absurd than that statement.
And according to the second amendment the right to own a gun is to be used to form a militia for the defense of America, so only members of one of our armed services has a right to own a gun.
According to a conservative blogger, an AK-47, is a varmint weapon. I had a visual of him blasting away at a raccoon with his multiple shot AK-47, funny but sad.
Absurdity abounds in this issue, so do lies and irrationality.
If Americans can't apply their good common sense to gun laws, then we must live with mass murders.
The Constitution has an amendment process, and we have amended many of the articles in the Constitution.
It's past time that the second amendment was amended to make common sense gun laws.
How else do we adjust a right that is killing to many Americans, certainly not the intention of the FF's when they wrote the second amendment.
So all you gun nuts out there, please explain to me how the FF's intended a gun right, to be the cause of so many American deaths, or that the FF's would accept such a deadly situation based on their second amendment?
Steve,
How can Romney sign any legislation he is not in office, yet. Saint Barry could sign legislation but will wait until after the election then, if he wins, his opinion on gun control will evolve, as did his stance on gay marriage and illegals.
You seem to blame the GOP for everything but you must admit it was the the leftists who have expanded poverty. Obama is not at fault for this fact but can take credit for establishing a record.
U.S. Poverty About To Hit Highest Level In 40 Years
After stealing trillions from the taxpayer, the great society has failed to offer much hope or change.
Lets ban insanity instead of guns, it would actually accomplish something.
Right, change the issue to poverty. Spoken like a true gun nut.
When Romney made that statement he was Gov. of Mass. and was stating what he would do if president. Google the video. I know, that's to hard for you.
I blamed the GOP for EVERYTHING? take your meds.
The trillions of debt, is not caused by SS, or food stamps, but the unfunded spending of the GOP. 5.8 trillion alone from the last Republican administration.
You obviously cannot talk about guns (the point of this post) so grab your AK-47 and go shoot a raccoon.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
The second amendment, was just that, an amendment to the Constitution. It was not included in the original Constitution, but a part of the Bill of Rights, adopted later.
The language is clear, the right to bear arms was to facilitate forming a militia, to ensure a free State.
Any other gun nuts want to talk about the second amendment, or just opine about poverty and blame Democrats for all the ills of America?
Great comment Anon., a perfect example of the irrationality surrounding this gun issue. Talk about anything but guns.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well Steve I guess only the militia (military and police) are people in your view then?
How scary is that?
I guess you just want to forget about the first part of the sentence. I wonder why the FF's started with militia and not the people.
I guess your high education doesn't allow you to read properly.
The only reason people have a right to arms, is to be able to have a militia, to keep the State free.
For the most part it is not law abiding gun owners who do the shooting except in a case of self defense. Why not push for enforcement of our existing laws and tougher sentences for offenders.
@ Steve... Just for informational purposes, it was the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson wrote.
Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Conversion nor did he sign the document.
You can check out who wrote the 2'nd amendment.
All you gun nuts love to forget about the first part of the sentence.
Your interpretation is not the way it reads, but the way you want it to read.
Now it's time for you to go back to SF and reassure yourselves, that only you two have correct answers to everything.
@ Steve, - Judging by your idiotic remarks it is apparently you who lacks education (judging from your grasp of history as I noted above) as well as common sense.
You said Steve... "I guess your high education doesn't allow you to read properly."
Really? Well is you professor who lacks logic as well as common sense.
You also said... "The only reason people have a right to arms, is to be able to have a militia, to keep the State free."
The state free? Free to do what?
Isn't it the people who have a right to be free? Does the state NOT answer to the people?
Oh, and apparently people just started hunting, and target practicing.
I guess you're just another good goosestepping hidebound statist. Rather than look for workable solutions that insure the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed and at the same time improve public safety. It can be done.
Dudes like you really just want it one way. The way you believe is right. Totally.
You are every bit as screwed up as you think the NRA is. And I do not disagree with you in regards to the NRA's political influence being too great. However, the NRA is not evil as you profess.
@ skudrunner, you said... "For the most part it is not law abiding gun owners who do the shooting except in a case of self defense. Why not push for enforcement of our existing laws and tougher sentences for offenders."
Bingo my friend. In fact we have 100's of firearm laws that are not enforced and certainly sentencing should get much tougher for heinous crimes such as Aurora and other mass killings of innocent souls.
Just wondering Steve, what's you're position on enforcing existing gun laws effectively and tougher sentencing guidelines?
Steve said...
All you gun nuts love to forget about the first part of the sentence.
Your interpretation is not the way it reads, but the way you want it to read.
Now it's time for you to go back to SF and reassure yourselves, that only you two have correct answers to everything.
1) I am not a gun nut. I do not own a firearm. Haven't since I sold my last one when I was 27. When I stopped hunting.
2) Yes, my interpretation IS the ONLY way it reads. You sir, are the one interpreting it to SUIT the way toy want it to read.
3) Silver and I do not agree on everything. If you were to read everything I have written and everything he has written we obviously aren't comparing notes.
I do plead guilty to hating statism and finding its proponents very distasteful indeed.
Steve, sadly it is you who thinks they have all the answers, not I. But at the end of the day it does not have a damn thing to do with the cost of bread and milk in MA.
All good stuff, but you should bash the Gun Owners of America as well. They have the same agenda, and you're short-changing them!
Thanks for that egotistical rant, and proving me correct.
What you accomplished Steve is to prove your egotistical tendencies.
What gun laws are not being in forced?
Open Secrets covers GOA HERE.
All of GOA's political contributions go to Republicans.
Wow in 2012 they have contributed all of about $4,000. That is truly a game changer. Lobbyists buy politicians for their special interest be it save a tree or save a gun because that is their job. There was a candidate for president that was going to put a halt to lobbying in his administration, won the election, then hired a few ex lobbyist and all is back to normal.
JC - I will assume that was a rhetorical question about which laws are not in forced since it carries a different meaning than enforced, but you knew that.
Let me ask the question correctly this time. Which gun laws are not being enforced? Going to avoid answering again?
I still like reading the posts here, but the comments section has just devolved into everyone fighting with Les, Silverfissle , and is just degenerating into "I know you are, but what am I?" Letting them and to a lesser degree skudrunner hijack your comments section is just too bad.
Of course Tim you would not mention your buddy Steve as a hijacker,must cove the idiocy of your own in liberal land mustn't you?. Typical leftist.
Ya know Shaw, I'll give you credit for "allowing" not to be confused with "encouraging" differing views. But since your staple intellectuals like Steve and Tim find views they don't fully agree with or like offensive I think maybe I'll leave you with this...
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear... Full Qoute, Thomas Jefferson
This is something far too many neo-cons and liberals fail to do.
See Ya...
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/07/finnding-right-tone-right-discussion.html
Enjoy...
Les, I get it. I'm not a traffic cop here, I just try to keep people from calling each other juvenile names.
People should be able to debate the issues on the merits.
I read your last link in your recent post.
We've sunk to this in America:
Trying to figure out the appropriate way to report our ongoing disgrace--mass gun killings.
Silverfiddle's discussion devolved into a childish "My State Has Fewer Gun Deaths Than Your State! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!" As though that somehow wipes away our national shame. It doesn't.
I stated in my first post on the subject that this is a national problem.
One of SF's commenters even wrote that we just have to accept that we'll continue to have mass gun killings, and just hope we or someone in our family isn't killed in one.
Talk about waving the white flag of surrender to the NRA. They've accomplished what they set out to do:
Make this country a nation of mewling cowards in the face of evil.
Shaw,
Mass killings are rare but I would be more concerned about the break-in or errant bullet from a drive by. From what I have read, few of the shooters are NRA members and for that matter few bought their guns legally.
Leftists hate the NRA, got it, so lets punish the millions of gun enthusiasts who never break the law so we can show we are doing something.
Lets give law enforcement the tools they need to take illegal guns off the street and get serious about enforcing the laws that exist.
skudrunner, you're right about one thing: I hate the NRA. They are a bunch of venal pigs.
They have promoted the arming of America with automatic weapons and massive gun clips. They have managed to put 300 million guns in the hands of the American people--criminals and noncriminals. And they are the strongest lobby in the country, threatening weak-kneed lawmakers in every state and in Washington DC.
They are the personification of evil.
I don't think I said "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!" ;)
But, yes, I bring statistics to the table, as you do, to make a point that lots of guns does not automatically mean lots of crime.
And I do give you a big pat on the back, Shaw, for maintaining an open forum.
Unfortunately, not too many of your liberal friends comment anymore, and that's a shame.
Shaw,
I never remember the NRA putting guns in anyone's hands or selling any firearm. They are a lobby organization to protect the rights of gun owners not a retail store.
Lobbyist cost the country billions by bribing our for sale politicians. Maybe someday we can elect a president who will stand up and say enough of the corruption, on second thought that probably won't happen.
There are term limits for the president, what we need is term limits for real crooks in the house and senate.
We already have term limits. Any congressperson can be voted out of office every two years, and any senator voted out every 6 years.
Want to make it easier to vote them out? Enact public financing laws and get business money (both corporate and union) out of it. Make our representatives beholden to us, not to big business and organization donors.
It is that simple.
JC
"It is that simple"
That is funny. Didn't someone come out with campaign finance reform a few years ago. Seems like it has mostly been thrown out.
Trying to get congress to change anything is like trying to get a trial lawyer to vote for tort reform, not gonna happen.
I meant the solution was simple. Implementing that solution not so simple. But then it has become virtually impossible to get anything through congress that benefits the majority of people.
@ Jerry who said... "Want to make it easier to vote them out? Enact public financing laws and get business money (both corporate and union) out of it. Make our representatives beholden to us, not to big business and organization donors.
It is that simple."
While having dinner with my almost 80 year old father (a executive in a national corporation as well as running his own business with my mother for years before retiring from both) this past weekend this very discussion came up. My father who is more conventionally business conservative than even I said EXACTLY the same thing.
I was late in my realization that Citizen United was in fact bad law. It happened only last year.
People are entitled to the right of freedom of speech and making political donations with in reason (say $1,000), corporations are not people and therefor should be restricted from making ANY political donations.
Lobbyists should be on the unemployment line looking for real jobs that produce something tangible. As say opposed to influence peddling.
RN,
Your father is a wise and honorable man.
It took you a year to figure out what "Citizens United" was doing to elections?
WOW
R.N., good to see something we can agree on wholeheartedly. There's hope after all. ;)
From the post: "During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level -- messages that advocate for or against political candidates."
This makes clear, for anyone who's been misled, that the NRA is first and foremost a self-perpetuating racket that knows how to make the rubes more paranoid than they normally are, the better to extract money — lots and lots of money — from them. Wayne LaPierre makes a princely sum, as do other organization poobahs. The bulk of what's left goes to serving the Republican Party and candidates. The NRA is basically a subsidiary of the GOP.
It's telling that the NRA spent so much in 2010, when there was no gun-control legislation of any consequence (if there was any at all) being advanced in Congress or in the states.
SW
You state "the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level"
Small amount compared to the Union expenditure. Both groups corrupt our easily corrupted politicians. How does the union spending 393 million more on corruption sit with you? I don't remember you up in arms about them.
"According to AP, unions will spend “more than $400 million to help re-elect President Barack Obama and lift Democrats this election year.”
"my interpretation IS the ONLY way"
Spoken like a true jackass.
Hey Shaw, seems you attracted another jack ass troll, Republican Racist. Gee, I wonder who that might be?
I've been here many times before.
I'll excuse you for not knowing, given your large intake of alcohol.
I have to admit that public financing is alluring, but we'd have to address some inherent flaws.
The power of the incumbency would loom even larger. Could candidates spend unlimited amounts of their own money?
If a corporation were savaged by a candidate during the campaign season, could that corporation buy air time a fight back? Or would it be considered campaigning?
I'm not saying it won't work, but there would be a lot of issues to work out.
RN,
A true egomaniac.
What he says is correct, and everyone else is wrong, " my interpretation IS the ONLY way."
You come on a liberal blog, spout your insulting, dismissive, condescending garbage, and like a typical egomaniac can't imagine there is more than one who thinks you are full of it.
No I am not RR, or the other two anon's you insult; who know like I do, you are mentally ill.
I read your post. It's incredible you think that anyone expressing their sexuality publicly, is a political act. What garbage.
I agree with Tim, it's sad you and SF have taken over Shaw's comment threads, your goal in attacking a liberal site.
Steve,
RN doesn't bother me. I find he's wrong 50% of the time, and the other 50% he hasn't read my comment or post properly.
His protestations about being neither a liberal nor a conservative are laughable, since I've seen nothing on his blog to back it up.
He and Silverfiddle are typical of the conservative right: They are the true believers; so everything they believe is true.
Shaw: You say that about me even after reading my latest comment?
You know my views on gay rights, and I am pretty liberal when it comes to what to do with illegal immigration.
You can call me a lot of things, but a Rushbot is not one of them. I like Rush, but don't get a chance to listen much, and I never watch fox, because I never watch tv.
I think out my positions and philosophy, and I change them based upon facts. I had to issue a correction just the other day.
In fact, after the big donnybrook with you and your friends at that Sponge Bob place, I did research and learned that economic mobility was indeed decreasing slightly here in the US.
Of course, there are various factors besides "Ronald Raygun" and "Trickle Down economics," but I've blogged about it.
So call me mean, nasty, a rightwinger, but please don't accuse me of simply being a propaganda vector.
Shaw: Honest question: When is the last time you ever changed your position on something based upon what you read or a debate? And changed it to a more "conservative" direction?
What are the mindless democrat senators thinking voting for a massive tax increase on the middle class and small business. Did they do this to support the president who is just trying to punish success.
I didn't think they were stupid enough to force thousands of small business to close and lay off thousands of workers just to support a NPD president.
I watched C-Span, live. What they passed was an extension of the Bush tax CUTS, except for the rich. The poor babies.
I switched to FOX noise, and saw Tucker (it's fine to interrupt a live presidential statement) Carlson and turned it off.
"Shaw: Honest question: When is the last time you ever changed your position on something based upon what you read or a debate? And changed it to a more "conservative" direction?"--SF
Probably as often as you did when it concerned a liberal position that you embraced.
I have no problem with looking at ways to cut back spending in government on pork and useless studies that cost the tax payers millions.
There are many legitimate ways of saving tax payers' money--the Pentagon Budget is one. We could start there. And then the excessive perks that come with serving in Congress.
And we could have done a better job in the health care reform, but no one wanted to cooperate.
Another example:
Your acceptance of the overturning of DADT and gay marriage is tentative, since your subsequent posts on gay culture are less then convincing. "Homosexuality is a Sin" is the title of one of your posts. You clearly are NOT comfortable with the gay community and anything associated with it.
As you've said, acceptance is a done deal, but you don't like it. Of course you don't have to "like" it, no one is forcing gay life on you, but you clearly are contemptible toward the whole change our culture is undergoing.
I'm getting weary of the back and forth that accomplishes nothing it seems and having to take the abuse from those I give no abuse to.
I'm on my way to Martha's Vineyard, to enjoy my family visiting from Texas for a lovely birthday celebration weekend.
I've decided I don't need insults from anyone and I certainly don't want to give any out either.
I'm not going to change anyone's mind. I'm just so discouraged and tired of all the harping and name-calling and nasty digs. I don't need any of it.
Now excuse me. I have a fabulous 9year old grandson who wants to help me make some delicious blueberry cake, after which he and I will do some boogie board surfing in the Atlantic.
"...voting for a massive tax increase on the middle class and small business."
Give it up, skud. It is neither a "massive tax increase" nor "on the middle class and small business. It is a small tax increase of only a few percentage points on a few percent of the top income people and businesses, people and businesses with taxable income over about $250,000, or about a quarter of a million dollars. It will not "force thousands of small business to close and lay off thousands of workers."
JC
It will probably fail to pass the house because they are more interested in creating jobs than punishing people who show a 250,000 profit. The democrats would rather punish hard work and the middle class while curtailing job growth.
Small businesses take risks, work hard and are not union shops so why would the democrats care, besides according to their leader, they didn't work for what they have, it was the government who made them a success.
Start a business and see how easy the government makes it to succeed.
The vast majority of small businesses will get the SAME tax cut from either the republican or the Democratic tax proposal relative to letting the bush tax cuts expire. The difference is that the top free percent of earners will continue to pay the bush tax cut rates with the republican plan while their tax rates will revert to the Clinton tax rates under the Democratic tax plan. The top few percent did very well under Clinton as I recall, and they will continue to again. No one is being punished and the country will come out ahead.
LONDON -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday said many of the weapons obtained by the shooting suspect in Colorado were obtained illegally and that changing laws won't prevent gun-related tragedies.
But the firearms that authorities allege James Holmes used to kill 12 people in Aurora, Colo., were obtained legally.
"This person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney told NBC News in an interview. "And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."
Holmes broke no laws when he purchased an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and Glock handgun, and he passed the required background checks.
Shaw: I believe in putting things in their proper place.
Homosexuality is not compatible with Christianity.
Discrimination against homosexuals is not compatible with our constitution/
How is that hard to understand?
"If a corporation were savaged by a candidate during the campaign season, could that corporation buy air time a fight back? Or would it be considered campaigning?"
If the corporation bought air time to attack one party or candidate, and/or support another, it would be considered campaigning. If the corporation were to air commercials or hold events telling its side of the story, contradicting things said by the candidate who savaged it, and doing that in a politically neutral way without mentioning any candidate or party's name, then no, it wouldn't be campaigning.
This isn't difficult stuff, mostly just common sense.
@ Shaw - "RN doesn't bother me. I find he's wrong 50% of the time, and the other 50% he hasn't read my comment or post properly.
His protestations about being neither a liberal nor a conservative are laughable, since I've seen nothing on his blog to back it up.
He and Silverfiddle are typical of the conservative right: They are the true believers; so everything they believe is true."
I can say exactly the same of you Shaw, Only the wrong percentage for yo is higher than 50%.
Silverfiddle wrote: "Homosexuality is not compatible with Christianity."
You must say that because the Bible is filled with instances in which Christ spoke out against homosexuals and homosexuality, and caused people to shame and shun homosexuals. You know, because Christ himself set an example of encouraging people judge one another, and to cast out first stones.
Or maybe you say that because you got it straight from God or Christ, who wrote the Bible, or at least dictated it, right?
Or, maybe you are just stating your opinion as if it's fact.
"Republican Racism said...
I've been here many times before.
I'll excuse you for not knowing, given your large intake of alcohol."
And I'll excuse you for being an ass.
S.W.:
I said it not to spark a debate on homosexuality, but to rebut Shaw and give evidence that although I am a Bible-believing Christian, I am a libertarian when it comes to our constitution and the public sphere. I'm hardly the typical rightwingchristian she goes on about.
Read SF's blog.
The hate, intolerance, and homophobia is clearly stated.
Read "GeeeeZ" blog (SF's) religious and republiscum buddy, where they promote, that gays should stay in the closet; and the "good" gays do just that.
Denying, of course, their decision to stay in the closet might have something to do with the fear of being discriminated against, beaten or killed.
Republiscums love to live their lies.
They think gays should live a lie, and deny who they are.
Or else!
Regretfully, it takes a little more characters allowed to fully explain why there are 49 reasons the NRA got it wrong
Post a Comment