Posted on 02/27/2007 11:33:50 PM PST by NormsRevenge
A little-noticed oddity of the 2008 presidential election field is that the three leading candidates for the Republican nomination have, at one time or another, gone to war with the NRA and its allies on the gun issue.
After six years of thumb-twiddling boredom – the issue has been off the radar in elections and in Congress – the gun lobby must have been a bit shocked when they realized what they faced: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, all once proud champions of sensible gun laws, are the odds-on favorites to carry the GOP banner.
Consider their histories:
McCain was the lead sponsor of federal legislation to close the gun show loophole. In 2000, he appeared in television ads in Colorado urging voters to pass a ballot initiative closing the loophole there.
Romney signed a state ban on assault weapons into law as Governor of Massachusetts. And as the Boston Globe has reported, he said during a debate in 2002 that he supported his state’s tough gun laws and vowed that he would not “chip away at them” because they “protect us and provide for our safety”
Giuliani aggressively went after illegal gun traffickers when he was mayor, and he filed a lawsuit against a bunch of major gun manufactures and dealers. He’s on record supporting tougher gun laws, including the assault weapons ban.
Now, the gun lobby is not subtle in responding to perceived threats. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre gave a speech six months after 9-11 comparing our old organization, Americans for Gun Safety, to al Qaeda and our founder to Osama bin Laden. LaPierre concluded, not without some hyperbole, that we were “a far greater threat to your freedom than any foreign force”.
So it’s no surprise that the NRA responded to this problem with overwhelming firepower.
First, they attacked John McCain, slathering his caricature on their magazine covers and calling him “one of the premier flag-carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.” McCain buckled like he was gut-shot – he has stopped talking about guns (despite the fact that the gun show loophole remains open in most states), and he just brought on James Jay Baker, once the NRA’s lead man in Washington, as a strategist for his “kitchen cabinet.”
Then they took on Mitt Romney. After getting peppered with criticism for his gun positions, Romney, who does not own a gun, now calls himself a “proud” NRA member. He even toured a gun show with the NRA’s chief lobbyist Chris Cox, (the guy who took over for McCain’s kitchen-mate Baker).
Most recently, they trained their sights on Rudy Giuliani. In a press release this week, an NRA ally called the National Shooting Sports Federation warned: “Giuliani No Friend to Gun Owners.”
How Giuliani will respond is not yet clear – as the NSSF notes, there are conflicting signals out of his camp about where he stands today on guns.
But if Rudy Giuliani is anything, he’s tough. We hope that he treats these thugs the way he treated them back when he was cleaning up New York one turnstile-jumper at a time.
Our advice to Rudy: tell the NRA and its minions that you will not be cowed, and stick to your guns: you are a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. But rights come with responsibilities. And anyone who isn’t responsible about owning, selling, or using their guns should lose those rights.
Those folks do not view the world through your spectacles so I am unconcerned about turning them off by posting truths.
Tell that to President Gore.
look I typed that one quicker than I should have and have been pummeled for it.
When you find yourself in a hole; the first rule is to stop digging!!
What does Gore have to do with anything under discussion?
The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, nor collecting, although most people did have their arms mounted over the mantel, or in the corner near the door (gasp horrors of horrors - where their kids could easily get their hands on them), nor even self protection, although that's a given.
As you may or may not know, our government was designed with a series of checks and balances to keep government in check. The final checks on that power lay squarely in the hands of the people where the founders wanted it.
Free speech, election of government reps, and the 2nd amendment. The last one being the final check to alter or abolish (by force of arms if necessary) a government run amok. And military arms were precisely the kind of arms the founders had in mind when they penned the 2nd.
If it weren't for Tennessee gun owners, Gore would be President right now.
You can believe that if you like but Tennessee didn't like Gore much for any reason after he joined Clinton.
you've bought into the obvious sound bytes on Rudy brought to you by the liberal MSM.
***That video was OBVIOUSLY put together by someone at CPAC. How far off can you be?
At least read the last two pages of his book and you'll see what I'm talking about.
***At least read the transcripts of the video and you'll see what I'm talking about. The more I see of rudy, the less I like. The more I see of Hunter, the more I like. Rudy doesn't deserve to be supported as a republican. He may be more popular right now (just like Dean was last time around) but it doesn't translate into a healthy republican party even if he wins.
The full Amend is: "A well regulated milita, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The subject of the sentence is, "the right" The verb is, "shall not be infringed." The adjective phrases describing the right are, "of the people", and "to keep and bear arms". They describe hte right. The leading clause has the effect of a whereas, it does not describe the right in any way. It is not the govm't's right, it is the people's right, not the militia's right, or the sheriff's right.
It's clear from what all the founder's wrote, and their own actions, that they intended to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to enable the people to effectively challenge tyranical acts of the govm't. They intended the people to be able to kill soldiers of the king's army, or any other army, or nband of criminals acting to deny Freedom. Note the people as individuals are the militia, not some State, or fed org. Note the intent is to protect Freedom, a Free State, not simple the state, but a "Free state. Authoritarian rule and socialism didn't fly with the founders, Freedom did. They respected and honored their fellows that had supported Freedom, and those tht would in the future by penning the Amend. Note the promise of the Bill of Rights, is why folks supported the signing of the US Constitution in the first place.
The arms protected were those necessary and sufficient to oppose the tyranny of the govm't. They assumed, as is reasonable and prudent, that no one in their right mind would ever deny a man's ability to mount an effective self defense against murderers, road agents, rapists and all those various unenumerated scumbags that exist.
Your fellow Americans are not child murderers, or bad guys. The do not assault schools, rob folks, plot to overthrow the govm't, and kill kill folks for no reason. They are not closet bad guys. They are not to have their rights denied by prior restraint, as if they are all closet scumbags and equal to the least common denominator of heinous murderers.
"I doubt the founders had any idea of the type of weapons that would be available in this day and age. I wonder how we are interpreting "a well regulated militia?" What does "well regulated" mean? What does "Militia" mean?
The full Amend is: "A well regulated milita, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The subject of the sentence is, "the right" The verb is, "shall not be infringed." The adjective phrases describing the right are, "of the people", and "to keep and bear arms". They describe hte right. The leading clause has the effect of a whereas, it does not describe the right in any way. It is not the govm't's right, it is the people's right, not the militia's right, or the sheriff's right.
It's clear from what all the founder's wrote, and their own actions, that they intended to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to enable the people to effectively challenge tyranical acts of the govm't. They intended the people to be able to kill soldiers of the king's army, or any other army, or nband of criminals acting to deny Freedom. Note the people as individuals are the militia, not some State, or fed org. Note the intent is to protect Freedom, a Free State, not simple the state, but a "Free state. Authoritarian rule and socialism didn't fly with the founders, Freedom did. They respected and honored their fellows that had supported Freedom, and those tht would in the future by penning the Amend. Note the promise of the Bill of Rights, is why folks supported the signing of the US Constitution in the first place.
The arms protected were those necessary and sufficient to oppose the tyranny of the govm't. They assumed, as is reasonable and prudent, that no one in their right mind would ever deny a man's ability to mount an effective self defense against murderers, road agents, rapists and all those various unenumerated scumbags that exist.
Your fellow Americans are not child murderers, or bad guys. The do not assault schools, rob folks, plot to overthrow the govm't, and kill kill folks for no reason. They are not closet bad guys. They are not to have their rights denied by prior restraint, as if they are all closet scumbags and equal to the least common denominator of heinous murderers.
You need to educate yourself before making such stupid statements; that is if you want to be taken seriously.
Would you know the difference if an AK-47 or an SKS bit you in your dumb a$$? They are two different weapons and it would take a special license to buy and keep a "combat" AK-47. Once again get over your irrational unfounded fears. If all the teachers had been armed how many kids would of died?
You're welcome.
Does anyone here think the NRA is going to say anything about Rudy?
You just showed you don't understant the 2nd Amendment.
wonder how we are interpreting "a well regulated militia?" What does "well regulated" mean? What does "Militia" mean?
And prove even further that you don't understand the 2nd Amendment.
I lived in California in 1989 when a nutjob from Sandy, Oregon shot up a school yard full of children with an AK-47. My small grandson when to that school and I can still feel the panic of not knowing whether or not he was safe. He was, as it turned out, but 5 children were shot and killed and 29 were wounded and some of them spent months in hospitals. My 6 year old grandson spent several weeks in counseling to deal with the trauma of seeing his classmates shot dead. I have a paranoid dislike for any type of combat styled military weapon in the hands of a sicko who can spray a school yard and kill or wound dozens of small kids. I see no use for these type of weapons at all, outside the military.
It's hard to tell you apart from a Brady Center shill. Someone packing a pump Mossberg could have caused just as much carnage - probably more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.