NRA Bush Endorsement Not Certain

NewsMax ^ | 8/10/04 | Dave Eberhart

[El Gato]

If the NRA endorsed kerry, there would be no NRA within a week.

True, but not endorsing Bush is not the same as endorsing Kerry. They did it to GHW, then can do it GW as well. I sincely hope they don't have to withhold the endorsement, but if he signs an AWB renewal, they should and I hope will. Bush I also put forth an AW ban, just on imported firearms, a ban which was first done by executive order and then made permanent by law, all under Bush I.

[Oztrich Boy]

So saying I don't want to buy an Uzi makes me a liberal?

No but trying to characterize the AWB as "keeping Uzis off the streets" does.

Exercise:

AK-47 (full auto)

WASR-10 Semi-Auto Rifle, Cal. 7.62x39mm

Daewoo DR300 7.62x39 Sporter

SKS 7.62x39

CZ 527 Carbine 7.62x39

-------------------------------------------

Line is currently set to "liberal" position, where would you move it to?

[mbennett203]

Someone's got a thing for the M43 Soviet, eh?

Ah she's a beaut. Smacking my shoulder so nicely. Mmmmm. Glad I went to the range today.

Also the nice poster someone posted in the Target Holder Storage Room of Schumer, Feinstein, Kerry and Kennedy all jovial, smiling and such after (IIRC) signing the AWB. In big letters something to the effect of:

What's so damn funny about taking our rights away!?

Hit it off with an oldtimer serving as a rangemaster. Both of us not too fond of the folks pictured. Also the "swimmer ted" joke.

Gee, do ya'll think I sound like a gun nut? :D

[supercat]

But it still begs the question, why no endorsement of Bush 41 in 1992 or Dole (I can basically understand this one)?

Actually, the NRA gave Dole a quasi-endorsement in 1992; the Lautenberg Abomination passed very soon thereafter by an absolutely shocking margin. I don't think that was purely coincidence.

[supercat]

Look at the ban--it's NOT unconstitutional because nowhere in the second ammendment does it say "you can't ban any kind of gun" or "anyone has the RIGHT to a particular gun", so even though I am 100% against the ban, the very reason I'm against it is the reason why I appreciate it's meaningless--it's a tiny percentage of the weapons sold, and one can basically get the same firepower easily.

So if Congress were to pass a statute that forbade any civilian ownership of any firearm whose barrel had an inner diameter of over 0.25", an outer diameter of less than 3", or a length of less than 48", would that be or would that not be an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms? If that would be an infringement, why would the AWB not be?

[supercat]

So saying I don't want to buy an Uzi makes me a liberal? Saying I don't care abut your ghuns because I've got my own makees me a liberal?

Let me ask you a simple question: what level of firearms restriction would be "too much". Is there any way that you could quantify any level of firearm restrictions such that any further restrictions would be unacceptable?

If the Second Amendment does not forbid government from restricting the right of all free persons to keep and bear without restriction, on their own property and on public rights of way, any and all artifacts that would be suitable for use as arms in the context of a well-functioning militia, what exactly does it forbid government from doing?

[Darkwolf377]

So saying I don't want to buy an Uzi makes me a liberal?
No but trying to characterize the AWB as "keeping Uzis off the streets" does.

Exercise:





Your exercise is meaningless because I was talking about what I WANTED or did not WANT to buy, not what I thought should be legal or illegal.

The reason I'm not replying to these questions is because not one of you folks has responded to what I wrote; you've created an imaginary gun-control advocate and given him my name. But it ain't me.

(I repeat again--I'm AGAINST the ban, okay, AGAINST the ban, one more time AGAINST the ban.)

If you want to argue with a liberal who wants to ban guns, go find one. You keep painting me as one, and then wonder why I don't respond like one. The reason is...'cause I ain't one. And that none of you folks can even grasp that is why i won't waste the time talking to you about a position I don't hold.

Go on and call me a liberal now. Oh, and P.S. I'm AGAINST the ban.

[dmc8576]

I think that the Republican party does much more for gun owners than Democrats do for blacks. Am I crazy for thinking that?

[Oztrich Boy]

Your exercise is meaningless because I was talking about what I WANTED or did not WANT to buy, not what I thought should be legal or illegal.

No it goes back to your:

Preventing certain kinds of weapons from going on the market is not infringing on your right to bear arms.

I'm trying to establish what level of "certain kinds of weapons" you see the prevention of as "infringing"

[supercat]

I think that the Republican party does much more for gun owners than Democrats do for blacks. Am I crazy for thinking that?

Many Republicans won't do any more for gun owners than they have to. If gun owners support RINOs who stab them in the back, they'll find that such betrayals will become more common. Most Republicans haven't yet come to regard gun owners the way Democrats regard Blacks, because too many gun owners will balk at such treatment.

[Shooter 2.5]

Conservatives can't get elected in Liberal states. That's why we have RINO's. The RINO's allow us to have a majority in the Congress and the Senate.

[Angry Enough]

Great. So these NRA clowns think they'll get a better deal with Kerry?! C'mon!