- ‹ previous
- 2672 of 8811
- next ›
Why So Silent, NRA?
Why won't the NRA speak? The National Rifle Association is not known as an organization run by people who are shy with the media. Yet the most powerful player in the gun lobby--and one of the most powerful political organizations around--still won't say anything about Mary Lou Sapone (a.k.a. Mary McFate).
Last week, Mother Jones broke the story of Sapone, who for about fifteen years was a gun lobby mole within senior levels of the gun control movement. Sapone was a self-described "research consultant" who had also penetrated the animal rights movement and environmental groups. But none of her operations--as far as is known publicly--were as extensive as her infiltration of various gun control organizations. And for at least some of the time that Sapone (as Mary McFate) worked at various gun violence prevention groups she had the NRA as a client, according to the deposition of a former business associate (as we explained in our story on her). Other evidence suggests a years-long relationship between Sapone and the NRA or gun rights advocates connected to the NRA.
So shouldn't the NRA have to address this? Before our story was posted, we called the NRA several times, explaining what we were going to report. Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the NRA, promised she would get back to us. She never did. Other media outfits pursuing the Sapone tale have also received the brush-off. The Philadelphia Inquirer published a front-page piece two days after our expose and noted that its reporter had contacted the NRA, extracting no comment from the influential lobby. The same thing happened when ABC News did a report on Sapone. The ABC News team even found more evidence of the Sapone-NRA relationship: her neighbors in Sarasota, Florida, said that she "often spoke about working for the NRA."
Can anyone push the NRA to respond to the Sapone story and explain its involvement in this 15-year-long penetration of assorted citizens groups? Congressional Democrats these days are not too eager to be IDed with the gun control issue, but perhaps one of them in Congress--paging Chairman Waxman or Chairman Conyers?--could send the gun lobby a note asking a few pointed questions.
The NRA has been holding its fire on this one, obviously hoping that it can duck the story and that the Sapone mess will fade away. But maybe not just the media but the NRA's own members (and board members) ought to ask why the lobby was spying on its political foes, who at the organization authorized this covert activity, how much money was spent on it, and, perhaps most important of all, was Sapone its only agent, past or present.
"Oh Mr. Selfish" might care to actually read the opinions of the SCOTUS Justices regarding their view of the Second Amendment and personal self-defense.
Just portions of one:
In order for the District's measure to be disproportionate with the Second Amendment's demands, one would first have to consider the Second Amendment protects self-defense related interests.
Page 1 (page 114) of PDF) of Breyer's dissenting view
"The majority's opinion was wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS-namely, that the Second Amendment protects Militia related, not self-defense related interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would have necessarily allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are - whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense ? the majority's view cannot be correct unless they can show that the District's regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms."
"This the majority cannot do"
Page 44 of Breyer's dissenting view
"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime ridden urban areas."
"For these reasons I conclude the District's measure is a proportionate, not a disproportionate response to the compelling concerns that led the District to adopt it. And, for these reasons, as well as the independently sufficient reasons set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS, I would find the District's measure consistent with the Second Amendment's demands."
------------------------------
In Breyer's view, in order for one to even consider the District's measure to be disproportionate with the Second Amendment's demands, one would first have to consider the Second Amendment protects self-defense related interests separately and alone from militia related interests. Breyer is clear in his opinion on that thought and that it is NOT in the interest of an individual right to self-defense.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Federalist #28
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
In short, according to Hamilton, if there were a move by a singular central government to usurp and there were no militia, only a bunch of citizens with handguns and a mixed bag of training with those handguns as well as little or no training together to fight in concert or with a system, the following would likely would occur:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
--------------
As a result:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo."
-----------------------------
And:
----------------------------
"In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
------------------------------
Federalist #29
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
------------------------------
U.S. Code
TITLE 10 - Subtitle A - PART I - CHAPTER 13 - § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age
who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are?
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Charter of the Army National Guard:
http://www.arng.army.mil/constitution.aspx
Proposed new DC gun legislation based on Heller decision
The proposed legislation has four main components:
1. Continues to ban handguns in most places but creates an exception for self-defense in the home. The handgun ban remains in effect, except for use in self-defense within the home. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles are still prohibited.
2. Requires the Metropolitan Police Department to perform ballistic testing on handguns and makes such testing a registration requirement. The Chief of Police will require ballistics tests of any handgun submitted for registration to determine if it is stolen or has been used in a crime. Also, to serve as many residents as possible, the Chief will limit registrations to one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law.
3. Clarifies the safe-storage and trigger-lock requirements. The legislation modifies existing law to clarify that firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner's home. The bill also includes provisions on the transportation of firearms for legal purposes.
4. Clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home. Residents who legally register handguns in the District will not be required to have licenses to carry them inside their own homes.
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/os/section/2/release/14303/year/...
See any possible "infringements" there? The Heller case was just the beginning of this whole issue, not the end and it will be gun advocates that will be the ones uncovering the rest of the iceberg under this tip. It may become evident in the end what the 2nd Amendment intended and that may come as a result of a defense to a challenge to a gun law based on it being an "infringement" to personal self-defense. The SCOTUS difference in the D.C. et al vs. Heller appeal was one vote. When all the challenges to all the existing gun laws as "infringements" to a individual rights to personal self-defense hit the courts, one of them is likely to present a challenge to DC et al Vs. Heller, especially those being tested in "states" versus DC.
Few people if any are arguing a right to self-defense, the debate is about forms of self-defense and whether that "delf-defense" is taken to mean a common defense or an individual defense without regard to a common defense.
The 2nd Amendment speaks to the keeping and bearing of arms, not self-defense.
"Oh Mr. Selfish" might care to actually read the opinions of the SCOTUS Justices regarding their view of the Second Amendment and personal self-defense.
Just portions of one:
In order for the District's measure to be disproportionate with the Second Amendment's demands, one would first have to consider the Second Amendment protects self-defense related interests.
Page 1 (page 114) of PDF) of Breyer's dissenting view
"The majority's opinion was wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS-namely, that the Second Amendment protects Militia related, not self-defense related interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would have necessarily allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are - whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense ? the majority's view cannot be correct unless they can show that the District's regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms."
"This the majority cannot do"
Page 44 of Breyer's dissenting view
"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime ridden urban areas."
"For these reasons I conclude the District's measure is a proportionate, not a disproportionate response to the compelling concerns that led the District to adopt it. And, for these reasons, as well as the independently sufficient reasons set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS, I would find the District's measure consistent with the Second Amendment's demands."
------------------------------
In Breyer's view, in order for one to even consider the District's measure to be disproportionate with the Second Amendment's demands, one would first have to consider the Second Amendment protects self-defense related interests separately and alone from militia related interests. Breyer is clear in his opinion on that thought and that it is NOT in the interest of an individual right to self-defense.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Federalist #28
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
In short, according to Hamilton, if there were a move by a singular central government to usurp and there were no militia, only a bunch of citizens with handguns and a mixed bag of training with those handguns as well as little or no training together to fight in concert or with a system, the following would likely would occur:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
--------------
As a result:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo."
-----------------------------
And:
----------------------------
"In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
------------------------------
Federalist #29
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
------------------------------
U.S. Code
TITLE 10 - Subtitle A - PART I - CHAPTER 13 - § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age
who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are?
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Charter of the Army National Guard:
http://www.arng.army.mil/constitution.aspx
Proposed new DC gun legislation based on Heller decision
The proposed legislation has four main components:
1. Continues to ban handguns in most places but creates an exception for self-defense in the home. The handgun ban remains in effect, except for use in self-defense within the home. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles are still prohibited.
2. Requires the Metropolitan Police Department to perform ballistic testing on handguns and makes such testing a registration requirement. The Chief of Police will require ballistics tests of any handgun submitted for registration to determine if it is stolen or has been used in a crime. Also, to serve as many residents as possible, the Chief will limit registrations to one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law.
3. Clarifies the safe-storage and trigger-lock requirements. The legislation modifies existing law to clarify that firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner's home. The bill also includes provisions on the transportation of firearms for legal purposes.
4. Clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home. Residents who legally register handguns in the District will not be required to have licenses to carry them inside their own homes.
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/os/section/2/release/14303/year/...
See any possible "infringements" there? The Heller case was just the beginning of this whole issue, not the end and it will be gun advocates that will be the ones uncovering the rest of the iceberg under this tip. It may become evident in the end what the 2nd Amendment intended and that may come as a result of a defense to a challenge to a gun law based on it being an "infringement" to personal self-defense. The SCOTUS difference in the D.C. et al vs. Heller appeal was one vote. When all the challenges to all the existing gun laws as "infringements" to a individual rights to personal self-defense hit the courts, one of them is likely to present a challenge to DC et al Vs. Heller, especially those being tested in "states" versus DC.
Few people if any are arguing a right to self-defense, the debate is about forms of self-defense and whether that "delf-defense" is taken to mean a common defense or an individual defense without regard to a common defense.
The 2nd Amendment speaks to the keeping and bearing of arms, not self-defense.
You have only hit the tip of the iceberg about Mary Lou McFate. She is active in the local DAR chapter here in Sarasota, Florida. After a conversation with her for a short period of time, you realize that what she is saying does not make sense and is illogical.
After the first election in Iraq she tried to convince the ladies of the DAR, that it would be a good idea to go to Iraq to show support for the women of Iraq. Boasting that she could get them into the GREEN ZONE and transportation would be provided by a military plane.
I was at that meeting and later contacted a long time friend who was in Iraq at that time. His response about her was she was NUTS and having non-military "women" in the city was a disaster waiting to happen.
McFate was incensed that anyone would question what she wanted to do and HOW DARE you contact anyone.
The trip never happened.
I bet that teh reason that you have not heard from the NRA on this issue is that, they don't CARE what YOU think..!!! It is NOT aginst the law to have one of yoru memebers infiltrate your opposing orginazation, now is it..? The cops do it ALL the time before demonstrations, jsut to know what they need to be on the lookout for..huh?
I am GLAD that this woman kept an eye on the anti gun lobby, since they are trying to do ANYTHIGN to take our guns, and remeove freedom from the American people.
You people need to get a life..:-)
Bill
When I heard about this I renewed my lapsed membership in the NRA. I'm pleased they infiltrate whacko lefty groups!
I want the NRA to infiltrate my whacko group! Do they do parties? Is there an NRA donkey that could come to my bachelor party and make doody on the Constitution except for that one part about bears and their arms? Probably wouldn't be a donkey, though, huh? Elephant makes more sense anyway because they have their own gun named after them!
Other evidence suggests a years-long relationship between Sapone and the NRA or gun rights advocates connected to the NRA.
So shouldn't the NRA have to address this?
"Suggests...", "NRA OR people connected to NRA." You mean like NRA members who could easily have acted on their own?
No, they don't Have To play ball with you if they don't want to. Particularly if nothing you reported in connection with them would have been against the law.
If you believe Crimes were committed, I suggest you turn your evidence over to the appropriate presecutor's office and let them do what they are supposed to do when a crime occurs. Or hand it off to the Brady Bunch and let their staff of lawyers go for the big win in court.
Face it. To NRA, Mother Jones may be no more to bother about than a fly is to horse.
My feeling is...so what?
Personally, I'm really glad that the NRA had a "mole" in the anti-freedom outfits.
One question...id the situation were reversed, would you be upset that the NRA had been infiltrated???
I don't think so!
Gun control organizations have nothing to hide. All the activities and information that Mary was a part of, was involved with - was also open to the public. The worst damage she did was actually HELP gun control organizations by being so actively involved and so helpful with getting the message out.
She may be sleazy and a bit insane, but she certainly helped us waste the NRA's time and money (she used the NRA's money to renew her membership to various gun control organizations - money that was all put towards stronger gun control - ironic, no?). Looks like their dumb plan backfired. Thanks, NRA! :)
Hey me,
NO, it didn't backfire, it worked great...:-) She gained the confidence of the loony anti-gun left, and she learned what the weak points are, from their point of view...:-)
And by the way, the cost of one of yoru little memberships is not even as much as a box of shells for my 30 .06
Your groups have failed and you will go down in history as a bunch of wrong thinking, un-American people.
Bill
"So shouldn't the NRA have to address this?"
No. Why should they have to? It's not illegal. It's not even out of the normal for what gun control advocates do. Remember Michael Moore joining the NRA to make a movie about guns in America? Where was your "expose" then?
The difference is that the only reason a group would have issues with this is if the views given to the public are different than the internal goals of the group.
That means to me that the NRA not minding Moore joining to make a hit piece is because the internal goals and the published goals are similar to the same. That also means that this is such a big deal because the publically stated goals of the gun control groups are different than the internal goals.
It does show which side is more open and honest about their goals.
Perhaps the NRA is not responding as they view Mother Jones as the insignificant tripe that it is? Perhaps?
What makes you so sure she was the only one?
"The NRA" isn't a group of talking heads telling NRA members what to think. The NRA is a club with over 4 million members who care more about gun safety and marksmanship than we do about wasting time responding to such things.
If the ladies and gentlemen at HQ decide to respond to you, that's their business. As a simple member, I hope they don't.
You're just trying to use a hot-button topic, "The NRA", to get more readers. It works, apparently, because I'd have never read "Mother Jones" if you hadn't posted this.
You managed to get the attention of a lot of the membership, but I sincerely hope HQ continues to ignore you.
I think Mother Jones is just upset that the NRA isn't bothering w/ them while the 'infiltrated' anti-gun groups don't have much else to do except whine and complain. Perhaps they don't want to talk to a bunch of reporters that regularly repeat their anti-gun mantra's that have been handed to them by the Brady Bunch et al.
it already struck me as being rather odd that there were so many pro-sapone, pro-nra comments in the original story.
do all these people read motherjones.com? i hardly doubt that.
so i would say the nra is already responding, not in open comment, of course. it is responding sapone style.
With the exception of Bill Nigh, I don't see any of the plethora of commentors who post only on gun-related issues ever making comments about other stories posted here on MJ. Why is that?
...In other words, I second Germaine's comment above.
Why would you expect the NRA to respond and what would you hope they would say? They have nothing to gain by either denying or confirming they had a spy for so long. If they have others, why would they risk compromising them by providing any information?
Hey germaine,
I don't thik you read MJ very much, becaue i have been posting here for a lng time..!! We true Americans are sick and tired of you libs thinking you can say and do whatever you want, with no one to dispute your lies, well NO MORE..!!! I post aginst all that you people are doing to cause our country to decay from the inside out...
Bill
Robert writes: I don't see any of the plethora of commentors ... ever making comments about other stories posted here on MJ.
How would you know?
Given that MoJo lets you use whatever name you feel like for each and every post? Hell, I could have posted this message using the name "Robert" if I wanted, and the system wouldn't even hick-up.
You can even tailor the name you're using to the subject matter at hand, which I happen to love.
As a so-called "Loony anti-gun lefty," I must admit I did not know that an NRA membership costs only as much as shells for a 30.06. However, they both seem like a waste of money to me.
Which is not to say that if a loony pro-gun rightie wants to join a gun club and keep his rifle warm I'm opposed to the idea. It's his Constitutional right to do so. I'm not out to pry that right away from his cold dead hands.
But does he really need an AK-47, a missle-launcher, or boxes of hand grenades? And if he does, what does he need them for?
I have no desire to take your rifle away Bill Nigh. So why all the paranoia? Just because I have no desire to kill animals or waste my time shooting targets doesn't make me a "Wrong-thinking Un-American" does it?
If I can tolerate your gun club and your 30.06, can't you in turn tolerate my lack of interest in them? And could you manage to do so without the name-calling? That would be nice.
Germaine/Robert,
Or maybe the fact that the MJ article has been linked to on nearly all the anti and pro-gun sites and the pro-gun members outnumber them 100:1 or more.
I'ld never even heard of "mother jones" until it was posted on Huffington Post.
JQP,
You have every right not to have any interest in firearms nor does that non-interest make you un-american. However, nobody (except for a miniscule minority) is talking about real AK-47's, missile launchers, and grenades. The anti-gun groups and the politicians they support DO try and take away those 30.06 rifles and close the "gun clubs". Where you aware that Sen Kennedy proposed legislation that would have banned said ammunition in 2004 as "armor piercing"? It was supported by then DNC candidate John Kerry.
I did not know that an NRA membership costs only as much as shells for a 30.06
Brush up those reading skill, John Q.
Bill was saying that membership in one of the ANTI organizations cost less than .30-06 shells. ["..one of YOUR little memberships.."]
Personally, I load my own.
I couldn't even by a copy of Mother Jones with what I have invested in a box of 20.
John Q. Citizen asks: But does he really need an AK-47, a missle-launcher, or boxes of hand grenades? And if he does, what does he need them for?
So a lack of a preceived, immediate need should be reason to prohibit?
Who NEEDS a 1,000 Watt car stereo? And given it's ability to damage hearing, cause distractions and traffic accidents resulting in deaths, among other undesirable effects, maybe we should outlaw them.
I don't see any Right to a powerful stereo mentioned in the Bill of Rights, either.
I applaud McFate - she infiltrated organizations dedicated the eradication of a foundational American Freedom.
We need MORE McFates to infiltrate and destroy organizations like those to ensure that we have a handle on the insidious agenda of the radical Left in this country.
Hey Bill, you've been drinking again haven't you? Paranoia, alcohol and a 30.06 make a really good mix.
It's obvious if you weigh the relative merits of the comments to this story, there is little question to which side is devoid of an argument.
The gun freak lobby sends its mindless name callers out in force whenever any story regarding guns hits the news. Even when the story is about one of their own who has been cold busted in the act of making them look stupid, paranoid, and a little bit creepy.
They apparently embrace the creepiness, loudly proclaiming that they need to know the devious plan of those "liberals" who would plot to keep guns out of airports, schools, and Disney World. Oh, the "liberal" word, the word that drips off the corner of Rush Limbaugh's snarling, greasy, pig mouth as easily as poop from a goose. Oh, the pain, the sheer agony of being labeled as a "liberal" because we think that it's just plain wrong that a NRA conservative would take a shotgun to a group of church members with whom he disagrees politically.
I had an interesting conversation with a mole just yesterday. I met a gentleman while on vacation who looked like a cross between David Crosby and our old neighborhood pot dealer with the ear stud. I was just checking out and was basically exchanging pleasantries with the guy when I suddenly became immersed in a bitter political argument (real sense, not the Obama sense) with a die-hard Michael Savage/Reagan/Limbo/Faux News junkie. According to this guy, Obama is an empty suit and a "far-left socialist"(har har har), McCain is a bumbling idiot worse than Bush, and all the "liberals" want to take his guns away. Well, he got 1 out of 3.
What I should have said was "why am I wasting my time talking to a moron like you?" Instead we ended up agreeing that since he hardly knew me, I was unarmed, and there were witnesses, it would probably be best for him to leave his .357 in the holster.
But back to the basic point. Liberals, at least this one, don't want to make guns illegal. We just want to take guns away from wakko morons, some of whom live to spam any conversation about guns with crap and nonsense.
One more thing. If you really feel you NEED a gun, get yourself a muzzle loader and join a well-regulated militia.
That's what your 2nd Amendment says.
-Wexler
Ahh yes, this is exactly the vitriolic, judgmental feedback I expected from "the right."
Thank you Mr. Wexler for showing that all the ad hominems and personal attacks are not relegated to one side of the debate as you so claim. I found this site through Topix.com. I guess they are in the employ of the "gun lobby"? Is that your argument?
"My" 2A says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Apparently you didn't read that far in 'yours'.
With an obviously made up last name like McFate how did the anti-gun groups not know something was amiss?
"Who NEEDS a 1,000 Watt car stereo? And given it's ability to damage hearing, cause distractions and traffic accidents resulting in deaths, among other undesirable effects, maybe we should outlaw them."
How about acidental gun deaths? Think maybe they outnumber deaths by 1000 watt stereos?
William W. Wexler: If you believe that the 2nd only protects the Right to a muzzle loader, you must also believe that it only protects your right to free speech in the context of verbal communication, un-aided by any electronics. And that the freedom of the press only applies to hand-operated printing presses turning out newspapers and pamphlets.
By your logic, neither you nor Mother Jones has any protected right to be here on the internet. Don't you agree?
Sorry, but those espousing your view lost in the Supreme Court. Need I quote from the decision for you?
Duncan Bruce: It really doesn't matter which one occurs most, if we're using applying a standard based on what people "Need", or what we Presume they "Need", and whether it's proper to outlaw something we can argue they don't "Need" because it can be dangerous.
And exactly where IS the right to a powerful car stereo protected in the Bill of Rights??
With an obviously made up last name like McFate how did the anti-gun groups not know something was amiss?
Sigh..., here we go again.
McFate: Scottish: Anglicized form of Gaelic MacPhaid, a patronymic from a pet form of the Gaelic form of the personal name Patrick.
www.answers.com/topic/mcfate
Let's stick to the issues, shall we?
Huh?
You're "killing" me with your non sequitur arguments. Apparently in your mind the ability to destroy a million people is equivalent to the ability to communicate with them.
That's why simple logic is so difficult for the gun freak lobby. They keep trying to make the simplest arguments sound so irrefutable, but when it comes right down to it, you're just a damn "liberal" so shut up and besides you already LOST.
REALLY? What makes you so sure that the Court will not rule someday that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment indeed was to ensure that the 13 fledgling colonies would be able to protect itself from outside threats and that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely no bearing on the the rights of citizens to own weapons of war in their homes in modern times?
I'd say time is on my side on this one. Meanwhile I'll duck, but not from your "arguments", just a few stray bullets when I go to church.
-Wexler
So, as Mr. Wexler continues his tirade of ad hominems and personal attacks, he throws out the classic slippery-slope. Please Mr. Wexler, show us where the decision talked about "weapons of war" that can "destroy a million people". All you can do is put your hopes on a possible future SCOTUS decision. Remember though, the last time it took 70 years.
All I ask for is a little consistency, W.W.
You can pretend I said a whole bunch of things you wish I'd said, so you can take issue with your strawman construct, but the fact is, it was YOUR argument that said only the technology of the Founder's day should be protected.
Either be consistent in applying such 'logic', or drop it.
Where did I say I was sure of anything the S.C. might do in the future? (Strawman)
Did I call you a damned liberal? (Strawman)
Yes, your view DID lose in the Supreme Court. So live with it, or get the 2nd repealed.
Apparently in your mind the ability to destroy a million people is equivalent to the ability to communicate with them.
I think Hitler's use of radio, starting way back in 1933, ought to prove to us just how deadly "communication" can turn out to be.
You know, as a "Un-American Lefty" I come to Mother Jones to read articles that speak to my point of veiw. With this NRA article I was amazed at the number of Right-wing gun freak's hanging out here. It's like going into a nice, clean public restroom and sitting down in a stall next to Senator Larry Craig. Troubling.
History...
absurdity.
Huh?
What you wish you HADN'T said, you mean. You wish you hadn't said that the 2nd Amendment means what you think it does because the SC ruled something about it, which it can always do the next time somebody uses a bazooka on the SAD annual convention because they think Sunday is the "real" day.
TP...
Really... RIF. Read it again, please.
-Wexler
You know, Franklin Grimes, I'm often amazed at the number of times I see people on the MoJo site upset that people who aren't to the left of Mao dare to come here, read, and make comments on issues.
It's like they're afraid to have their views or positions challenged by anyone.
"Let me just plug my ears to any views that don't match my own."
Does that sound like the kind of broad, open-minded thinking the left always believes itself to be applying?
You guys act like you just discovered radium or something. Guess what? Nobody cares, at least no member or supports care. josh Sugerman has an FFL. I'll bet every anti gun organization (and maybe Mother Jones) has a membership to NRA to get the magazine.
No laws were broken. It was a lawful way to keep track of dangerous idiots who would do us harm.
Oh, so now William W. Wexler can tell other posters what they mean? What they wish?
Omniscience must be a terrible burden for a human being to bear.
And history is absurd? I'd say it's essential.
I think the term Pompous A$$ could have been invented just for you, Wex.
Obviously, the NRA has told many of their spelling-challenged members to flood MoJo's web site to rant against good hardworking liberals.
I have been around guns all my life but never have been stupid enough to be a member of the NRA.
Judging from most of the NRA's poster children here, America and Americans have plenty to be in fear of during the next decade as gun use in crimes will certainly increase.
Blame Supreme Court InJustice Anton Scalia when a criminal sticks a recently purchased handgun from a legal gun dealer who didn't have a background check.
Screw Conservatives and screw the NRA.
The NRA is ANTI-American!
"So shouldn't the NRA have to address this?"
No, why should they.
The NRA will gain members because of this and won't have to say a word.
You know, there are a large number of us so-called 'gun freaks' with multiple college degrees, ticket stubs to long-ago Grateful Dead shows and a great love of freedom and libertarianism. Of course, personally I think the Libertarian Party has gone downhill over the past 30+ years, but that's just my opinion.
John
"What makes you so sure that the Court will not rule someday that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment indeed was to ensure that the 13 fledgling colonies would be able to protect itself from outside threats and that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely no bearing on the the rights of citizens to own weapons of war in their homes in modern times?"
The writings of the Founding Fathers. You can look it up, it's widely available and clearly written.
John
So again you come with the Strawman, W.W.?
Without bothering to address the two previous Strawman arguments I brought to your attention (or attempted to bring to your attention) you throw in yet another one, claiming I offered some commentary about what I think the 2nd Amendment means??
SUPER debating skills there, buddy!
No, I don't need to comment on what the 2nd means. I'm fairly comfortable with what the Supremes said it means, even if you aren't.