Why So Silent, NRA?

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.

It seems that this issue is reduced to a Chevy vs Ford argument in the minds of many (We won you lost). The pro-gun lobby labors to paint ANY regulation on guns, types of ammuntion etc. as a fundamental infringment of the 2nd amendment. It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby is blatantly schilling for the gun industry - Guns are a consumer product. Your 'right' is reduced to the 'right to choose'. Some confuse the 'freedom of consumer choice' with the freedom ascribed by the constitution to participate in their government and society. Why does any sportsman care if assualt rifles or high capacity magazines are banned? The argument is about consumer rights versus public good.

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.

If a dealer is selling guns without background checks, he isn't dealing legally, and is therefore, by definition, not a 'legal' dealer.

My likelihood of being accosted by a criminal who purchased a gun through a licensed dealer is about as great as that of beind hit by a meteorite.

Maybe David should do a story on an organization that contributes directly to the deaths of thousands of Americans each year, one that is a lobbying arm for gun manufacturers masquerading as a gun safety organization. This organization managed, after the sniper incidents a few years ago, to try to convince Americans that the answer to wackos getting their hands on assault weapons was to pass legislation giving gun shop owners immunity from lawsuits, much like contractors in Iraq who go on killing sprees. In the state of Maryland, a gun shop owning board member of this organization " lost " hundreds of handguns which were traced to scores of killings in Baltimore. His name is Sanford Abrams and even though his license was revoked, his mother continues his carnage. Perhaps if the legitimate hunting, target hunting gun enthusiasts would like to start their own organization that truly represents them instead of being a prostitute for the gun manufacturers, then we could have an honest dialog. In the meantime, the NRA reflects the upside down morality and twisted world view that epitomize Bush world, one in which the carnage caused by the
" right " to bear arms is more important than the fact that in the civilized world, which we drift further from each day, countries do not inflict such horrendous carnage on their citizens and claim to be safer for it. I would suggest that any organization that advocates for the continued carnage resulting in the deaths of twenty to thirty THOUSAND Americans each year is no different than a terrorist organization. Even at a low estimate of twenty thousand gun deaths per year, since 9/11 that is ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND gun deaths, which is the price we pay for the misguided obsession to own guns. The statistics regarding who gets shot paint an even sadder picture. Many yawn when they read of another drug related gun death, but when the statistical reality that guns in the home are far more likely to be used on family members or in suicides than than in self defense, the true measure of our dysfunctionality sets in. It really is wacko to insist that society continue to bear the carnage. I sincerely hope that none of those who so zealously proclaim their " right " to bear arms never have to go through the tragedy of gun death that I have. Hopefully we can evolve beyond the knuckle dragging culture that the NRA epitomizes.

The argument is about consumer rights versus public good.

So, it's whether to give up Rights for some perceived 'public good'? And who's going to define what's for the 'Public Good'?? The Brady Bunch?

I'll stick with Ben Franklin on that question every time.
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain security deserve neither, and are likely to lose both."

Hey Bill...
Spell much?

Looks like 'Robert' picked up on the tip...

Folks, this site can be an absolute FONT of 'accurate' information on firearm issues, firearms and their capabilities.
Consider these excerpts:
What gets me is how it's legal to "appropriately" defend oneself by firing off one's 357 magnum, ect.

Like your bullet isn't going to pass right though the armed assailant, though the wall, through the house next door, ect.--these weapons are powerful enough to shoot through an engine block!!!

In CA the cops were on TV going on about how this politician didn't vote to ban assault rifles--telling everyone these rifles are powerful enough to shoot through two engine blocks!!!
...
The US Supreme Court is about to hear a case that revolves around the right to bear arms... I think they're going to outlaw guns...
From this discussion in February:
www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7240_another_school.html

Quite a knowledgable lot around here, sometimes.

WW shows he didn't even read the SCOTUS decision as it didn't cover 'bazookas' in any way, shape, or form. It's much easier to make ridiculous strawmen and ad hominem claims than to present any facts in the way of an argument.

I bet not a single anti here can tell me what an "assault rifle/weapon" is or how it differs from any other firearm.

"immunity from lawsuits"?

Care to explain then how there are numerous lawsuits against various firearm dealers if they are "immune"?

Why So Silent, NRA? All rats are silent until they are exposed for what they are!
Unfortunately, when they are exposed for what they are, they can only resort to childish namecalling (the AP news article on Yahoo news called MoJo a "muckraking magazine" for exposing NRA's potentially illegal tactics).
Keep up the good (mudraking) work, David!!!

"All rats are silent until they are exposed for what they are!
Unfortunately, when they are exposed for what they are, they can only resort to childish namecalling "

Anyone else see the irony in that statement?

Funny Stuff...I think (if it is true) it is great. Big honking deal if she did. Its not like she was in some secret society - the gun control groups are open membership right?

As for WW...your post are too funny as well. The liberals dont want to take guns away...LOL. Huummm, ever heard of any of Obamas remarks when he was running at the state level on gun control up in the Socialist Republic of Chicago.

You go smoke your weed at your house and I will chill with my pistol in mine.

Thank GOD the NRA is fighting fire with fire. You left-wing lunatics will not hesitate to lie, cheat or steal if you think it would further your fruitless cause.

I hope there's a dozen more just like her; this ranks second only to getting judges with lifetime appoitments in office who are strict constructionists.

No more judge shopping you buncha losers.

Consider that Al Quaeda pointed out the US as a place to obtain guns because of the ease in doing so. The fact that many police have been killed in Florida in the past year by " assault " weapons, and that police organizations are almost universally against them speaks volumes, but perhaps the gun nuts are smarter than the police whose job it is to clean up and prevent the carnage. There is a serious disconnect between the " law and order and liberty crowd " and law enforcement. Regarding immunity from lawsuits, thank god the Congress was smart enough not to buy that insanity ( see " try to convince ") The most laughable quote is from Franklin, who in his eminent sensibility would be nauseous to find that some half wit was quoting him to try to defend the right to carnage. Liberty is the operative part of the quote, the type that many are willing to sacrifice as the government spies on us, but unwilling to sacrifice as they fly through red light cameras endangering us all. Sounds familiar! At the end of the day, gun nuts have no leg to stand on. We kill each other at rates far higher than the rest of the civilized world, and we do it with guns, handguns to be specific. Their answer is that this is an acceptable price to pay for liberty but any sane person would reject this as stupid. Guns turn a potentially harmful situation into a fatal one, so don't give me the BS about knives. I don't see statistics about twenty to thirty thousand knife deaths each year.

Dr. Gary Wintemute clandestinely took photos at a gun show for an anti-gun 'research' paper.

NY Mayor Bloomburg hired people to entrap out of state firearm dealers.

VPC Exec Josh Sugarmann has an FFL license in order to attend firearm industry functions.

Seems both sides have been playing the "spy" game.

"Consider that Al Quaeda pointed out the US as a place to obtain guns because of the ease in doing so. "

Sorry Tim, you're FOS. That "al quaeda' manual was put out by a crappy little publishing company in the UK.

"Police Organizations" being the politically appointed leadership, not the rank and file members.

Can you even tell me what an "assault weapon" is? Seems that none of the anti's here want to actually answer any questions.

Nice that you CAN'T explain how earlier you claimed that dealers had immunity and now that they don't. Are you now saying the bill DIDN'T pass? Can you show evidence that it gave "immunity"?

I also see the traditional meme of the "civilized world". I guess your definition of "civilized" only includes white Western Europeans and the Japanese.

At the end of the day, all you have are debunked talking points and emotional diatribes.

It would appear the NRA IS responding based on the responses found under this article and the one about Mary Lou Sapone. Imagine the responses if the NRA had been found to be infiltrated by a mole for gun control groups.

It seems that this issue is reduced to a Chevy vs Ford argument in the minds of many (We won you lost). The pro-gun lobby labors to paint ANY regulation on guns, types of ammuntion etc. as a fundamental infringment of the 2nd amendment. It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby is blatantly schilling for the gun industry - Guns are a consumer product. Your 'right' is reduced to the 'right to choose'. Some confuse the 'freedom of consumer choice' with the freedom ascribed by the constitution to participate in their government and society. Why does any sportsman care if assualt rifles or high capacity magazines are banned? The argument is about consumer rights versus public good. It seems that this issue is reduced to a Chevy vs Ford argument in the minds of many (We won you lost). The pro-gun lobby labors to paint ANY regulation on guns, types of ammuntion etc. as a fundamental infringment of the 2nd amendment. It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby is blatantly schilling for the gun industry - Guns are a consumer product. Your 'right' is reduced to the 'right to choose'. Some confuse the 'freedom of consumer choice' with the freedom ascribed by the constitution to participate in their government and society. Why does any sportsman care if assualt rifles or high capacity magazines are banned? The argument is about consumer rights versus public good.

Define Assault Rifle, if you can.

Ain't it just like social conservatives to send a woman to do a man's job.

Why is the NRA silent when their typical modus operandi is the scortch earth--blast the enemy with a megaton of political firepower in TV/Radio ads, tons of press releases and the obligitory FoxNews/Drudge Report talking points.

The NRA are a bunch of pussies, most of whom have never laced up boots for their country.

So "Toting":

Do YOU have any evidence to back up your assertions? Can YOU define an "assault weapon/rifle"? Or are ad hominem attacks all you have?

Apparently 4 out of 5 SCOTUS justices are "anti-gun liberal lefties".

What is occuring now is a rush to the courts to test all gun control laws as "infringments" upon an individual's right to self-defense. A case is being made for felons who have done their time for their crime, but still have a right to self-defense.
The DC case was only the tip of the iceberg regarding the tests to the 2nd Amendment and as the dissenting SCOTUS justices pointed out in their opinions, the court system will be overwhelmed with cases to drop gun control laws.
I believe what we'll see is a court decision that will end up with the court having painted itself into a corner based on interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to self defense instead of individual self defense coming as a result of keep and bearing arms as part of the rasison d'etre of "A well Regulated Militia. Since definition of Militia in the U.S. code includes all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 and all women in the National Guard, I'm not sure what the huge problem is regarding interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as 4 of 5 SCOTUS justices interpret it. That is beside the point currently, since the vote was 5-4 to interpret the 2nd Amendment as an individual right regarding firearms for selfdefense in DC. Not much has changed in DC as far a gun control goes, EXCEPT that handguns are now allowed in the home for use in self-defense. There are still a lot of restictions remaining. When those are tested in court, further decisions will have to be made regarding the definition of "infringed" and if any gun control law could be construed as being an infringement by the insecure "I need a gun to feel brave or safe" fanatical crowd. I'm not sure why, but they seem to feel that the solution to a volatile situation is to add more volatility. When there's a danger of kids playing with matches in the house, the logic of this groups seems to suggest the solution to such a problem is to put more matches in the hands of more kids.

What the NRA wants is total freedom to purchase ALL guns with no criminal background checks...period!

The NRA wants to enrich gun manufacturers for the years of donations made to the NRA

The NRA doesn't care about people, it cares only for profits for gun manufacturers!

What definition of "assault weapon" are we using?
Based on the 1994 Crime Bill.

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIG4.html#Appendix

Well I would imagine that the dictionary definition of 'assault rifle' is type of small arm with selective firing capability used for military operations. But since the 90's it is (popularly or unpopularly) used to describe a type of rifle that has the looks and characteristics of military weapons (detachable magazine, folding stock, high muzzle velocity, closed bolt, etc.) that have become popular with quote/unquote "enthusiasts" and "collectors" - Why is this the only part of what was written that you focus on? - semantics. Similar to many of the posts on previous story where many of the pro-gun comments focused on the 'preposterous' statement that a .50 cal rifle could take down a jetliner.

To further what "we're all selfish" is saying, Consider the 1963 Wainwright decision as a precedent - if you can't afford a gun, one shall be afforded to you by the state at no cost. A right not enjoyed [due to economic hardship] is a right infringed! What manna from heaven that would be to the gun industry...

A seagull or a goose could take down a jetliner depending upon the circumstance. So can hand held missile launchers or kids with laser pointers amongst how many other possibilities?

One of the keys to defining a semi-automatic "assault weapon" versus other semi-automatic weapons is the LCAFD. While you might do quite a bit of damage with a 10 round clip, you may not want to venture out to assault an opposing military force without a LCAFD or unless you have a ton of 10 round clips on you. A revolver holds six shots, thus four more is not a huge difference. My concern is these weapons in the hands of people that are not required to have training in them.

I also feel that if all able bodied males between age 17 and 45 were required to train in firearms and together periodically for short periods of time, for a "common defense" of their small communities or the nation, there would be a lot less division and polarization about firearms possession, but as it is now, each side has its fanatics and each side is using fear and ignorance of the audience to sell their agendas. Having said that, anyone in the audience who might stop to think for a moment, might take an objective look at the basis of each of the opposing motivations. As with most things, money is at issue and the battle is often about general welfare of the people versus profits, the convenience and pleasure of a relative few.

What a gay article! Liberals really ARE tards these days!

Mary Lou Sapone: don't you belong in the kitchen? Know your true role in life!

Who cares?! Why would anyone even waste time writing this garbage that nobody wants to read?

Organizations like yours have been trying to destroy the second amendment to the constitution for years. Media bias on this issue has supported a monopoly of lies and disinformation for decades about firearms technology, hunters and shooters. Gun control groups have enjoyed a significant advantage in their rampage to destroy the second amendment because of media bias on this issue (you, again). The NRA used guerrilla tactics against you and you're pissed. Gun rights folks have a significant disadvantage in this debate because you of the media are not truth-seeking. Maybe we need to take a look at some reasonable and common sense controls that will ensure balanced, and fair coverage by the media.

Those of you who believe that you need a gun to go hunting during hunting season and that there is an appropriate amount of firepower for that task, I'm with you.

Those of you who think you need it to protect the government from stealing your rights, you need to seek medical attention from a psychiatrist. That includes those of you who believe you must own one because you interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean you have the right to own one.

The 2nd Amendment was written in the day when people were members of well-regulated militias. You needed a weapon to participate. That's what the 2nd Amendment says, and wishful thinking by a passel of right wingnut talk show junkies doesn't change the meaning of those words, which are plain as day to anyone with common sense.

So keep lawyering up, you're going to need it. The gun control people are going to keep coming after you until one needs a license to own a gun, until communities are allowed to declare gun free zones, and until weapons designed for the battlefield are banned from consumer ownership.

And this will continue no matter how many "moles" you put into the mix.

-Wexler

As others may have pointed out, anti-gun people infiltrate pro-gun organizations (see: http://thereadyline.blogspot.com/2008/08/antis-shocked-that-pro-gun-mole-worked.html) -- that's the way the game is played.

What I find curious is that you complain both about the lack of response from the NRA and about NRA members coming to this discussion to ... respond. True, the NRA isn't telling anyone to do that; there are some websites run by individuals which post news links that readers send in that pertain to the right to keep and bear arms. (One motivation for the creation of these sites is to propagate local paper news stories about successful self-defense, which major newspapers are reluctant to pick up).

Many readers interested in the issue choose to follow those links. Nobody pays us to do that. These boards are not afraid to point us to anti-NRA articles -- they know there's nothing in them that the pro-gun arguments haven't already countered. The anti-gun people cannot use this tactic, because the effectiveness of their rhetoric depends upon listeners not hearing the other side.

By the way, it's not the profit of the gun manufacturers that the NRA seeks to protect, as is often claimed. (The boycott by NRA members and others practically destroyed the profits of Smith and Wesson when that company broke ranks ten years ago.) Rather, the concern is to protect the profits of every Mom&Pop small business by making sure they have the means to deter and stop armed robbers, rioting looters and arsonists. The NRA seeks to help workers protect the profits they make from the sale of their labor, by ensuring their ability to deter and stop muggers and carjackers. (Aside from protecting profits, the NRA seeks to protect women's right to control their own bodies by deterring and stopping rapists.)

The gun companies merely provide the means.

Turd:
If you read what I wrote, it says that the NRA tried to convince Congress to grant immunity; it does not say that such immunity was given. I suppose that " rank and file " police, those that in Florida are being gunned down with assault weapons, are all for more such lethal weapons? It is curious that the main point that twenty to thirty thousand Americans are killed each year is not debatable. I take it then that gun nuts think this is an acceptable level of carnage; acceptable until the statistical inevitability that the weapon will harm one of their own family comes to pass. Sadly it will be a wife or child and not the knuckle dragging gun nut whose obsession with guns makes 9/11 seem like a drop in the bucket EVERY SINGLE YEAR. TWENTY to THIRTY THOUSAND DEATHS FROM GUNS every single year, year after year after year. Ten years, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD PEOPLE. This is not debatable; this is a fact. The organization that fights any and all attempts to reduce this horrific level of carnage is the NRA. This is insane. Perhaps we can round up all of the gun nuts and put them in a fenced in location and they will kill each other so the rest of us don't have to bear the loss of TWENTY TO THIRTY THOUSAND deaths per year.

"That includes those of you who believe you must own one because you interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean you have the right to own one."

That includes the 75% of the US population that supports that interpretation and the Supreme Court.

And this will continue no matter how much the anti's cry about it.

Poor Timmy, I guess he never heard in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act. Show your evidence that the NRA tried to push "immunity". You won't be able to. I notice you also refuse to answer what an "assault weapon is. Why would that possibly be? Is it because you have no idea beyond what you see on the news? You may also know that over 60% of those "gun deaths" are suicides. The US does NOT lead in those. In fact. Suicide rates are higher in countries w/ strict gun control laws. Not even correlation. Since you can't dispute any of this, you, along w/ your other anti compatriots here, can only resort to insults.

Notice that it's always the anti's that want people to start shooting eachother. Seems there's some projection going on. They're afraid of what they would do w/ firearms so want to restrict everyone else.

LOL dude someone forgot their MOJO didnt they? LOL

JT
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

What the NRA wants is total freedom to purchase ALL guns with no criminal background checks...period!

The NRA has not only not opposed legal requirements that firearms sales from licensed vendors be preceeded by a criminal background check, but they have in fact supported legislation that would make conducting such checks less difficult and that would make the check itself more comprehensive and more reliable.

Why are you making false claims about the NRA? Have you not actually studied their position, or are you willfully lying?

If you read what I wrote, it says that the NRA tried to convince Congress to grant immunity

At what time did the NRA make such an attempt, and in what way was such an attempt made? Please cite specific references.

The gun control people are going to keep coming after you until one needs a license to own a gun, until communities are allowed to declare gun free zones, and until weapons designed for the battlefield are banned from consumer ownership.

Thank you for acknowledging that you are, in fact, advocating wholly unreasonable restrictions on legal firearms ownership.

Can you please explain what, specifically, you mean by "weapons designed for the battlefield", and explain why such firearms should be banned from civilian ownership? Additionally, please explain how such a ban would be enacted. Explain how currently legally owned firearms -- if any currently are legally obtainable by civilians -- would be addressed by such a ban, and explain how current owners would be identified, and how they would be compensated for the government confiscation of their property.

Dimensio....

Does the 2nd allow you to own a bunker buster nuke, a MOAB, a stinger missile, quad 50s, hand grenades, grenade launchers, mortars, etc?

Somewhere between those weapons and a .22 single shot rifle there is a line, and you may call it "unreasonable" all you want but there will be a consensus. I think it's likely to be closer to the single shot rifle than the quad 50s.

Regarding the details of how this is enforced, I will leave that up to the legislators and courts. My personal opinion is that once those weapons are declared illegal for non-military use, they should be confiscated if necessary as discovered and anyone caught with them should face serious legal consequences, such as mandatory prison sentences. This would follow a grace period where people could surrender the weapons for destruction by their local law enforcement.

-Wexler

WW,

Who is talking about Nukes, et al. That's your little strawman. Nor is anyone talking about "quad 50's". Do you realize that the "assault weapons" that are in the news are NOT military grade firearms? Is that what you want to ban? Have you been fooled by the constant regurgitations of "AK-47's" in the mainstream news? Do you even know what the 'consensus' was in the SCOTUS decision?

It always surprises me that the left-liberal anti-gun lobby IS against gun ownership.

Proper lefties do not want the state to have a monopoly on military power - like here in Limey-land - how are we gonna have a revolution if we can't fight all those rightwing nutjobs in the NRA?

While I approve of many things the NRA does, at its core is a bunch of crazy, fanatical people that help balance the crazy, fanatical anti-gun people.

Us in the middle just sit back and hope that neither extreme wins.

By the way, I am pro gun ownership.

Brad,

If you think the NRA core is fanatical. You should check out the REALLY extreme groups. They spend most of their efforts attacking the NRA as being to compromising.

Oh, I agree.

Its just balance I am looking for. I understand with out the passion?? of the core crazies in the NRA America would be a neutered society without any 2nd amendment.

But if the core crazies in the NRA had their complete way then America would look like an arms bazaar. With the kill factor of someone’s weapon only limited by their wallet.

TP...

Any argument that references the 2nd Amendment as its basis for arms ownership must either limit itself by context to the technology of the late 18th century, or it must make the general argument that all arms available are covered by the Amendment.

There is no in between on this, because to do so is to put thoughts into the heads of the dead people who wrote it.

What they actually WROTE is that the rationale for gun ownership is based on the need for a well-regulated militia. The meaning of that seems to escape many, although it is actually quite clear.

The National Guard could use you, why don't you join up?

-Wexler

Well the well-regulated militia was supposed to help counter any overly oppressive or corrupt central government. It was supposed to be one more safeguard that helps balance the Union.

How well is our National Guard doing in this regard?

Answer: No so well.

WW,

What is the legal basis for your hypothesis? Who makes up the "well regulated militia"? Use sources.

I'm not in the NG because I'm currently in the Reserves. I've also spent 3 yrs in the Guard and 6 yrs active. So that little non-sequitur fails.

I could also show you the federal statute showing who makes up the militia. Would you like to see it? Howabout the statutes from numerous states?

Still won't answer the "assault weapon" question. Shock.

Brad,

I'm glad you support the 2A but I'm wondering which "core crazies" you're talking about. I have issues w/ several of the board members. Could those be the ones you're referring to?

Core crazies does not specify board members. It denotes people that refuse to agree to any limitation or restriction on they type, quantity, etc... of firearms, or weapons. While I do not agree with these people I feel they help balance the Core crazies of the anti-gun lobby that demand total disarmament. If any one here is a Core crazy : ) I'm sorry if I have offended you but pleas know I think you are necessary.

If I was a wordsmith, I could have used a softer phrase than "Core crazies". : )

Brad,

I'm not offended at all. Like I said, I have my issues w/ some of them as well. I'm just wondering which ones specifically you consider such.

Does the 2nd allow you to own a bunker buster nuke, a MOAB, a stinger missile, quad 50s, hand grenades, grenade launchers, mortars, etc?

Explosive and mounted machine guns are not handheld armaments and, as such, do not qualify as "arms" as used in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Somewhere between those weapons and a .22 single shot rifle there is a line, and you may call it "unreasonable" all you want but there will be a consensus.

As of 1934, the federal limitation is upon rifled firearm calibers exceeding .50 (which excludes black powder firearms) and upon firearms that are capable of firing more than one round in succession per trigger pull. If you believe that this limitation needs to be made more stringent, please define the scope that you wish to see set into law and explain why you believe that the limitation that you propose is justifiable.

I think it's likely to be closer to the single shot rifle than the quad 50s.

You have defined a very broad range. Would you say that semi-automatic firing capability is closer to "single-shot" or to "quad 50s"?

Regarding the details of how this is enforced, I will leave that up to the legislators and courts. My personal opinion is that once those weapons are declared illegal for non-military use, they should be confiscated if necessary as discovered and anyone caught with them should face serious legal consequences, such as mandatory prison sentences. This would follow a grace period where people could surrender the weapons for destruction by their local law enforcement.

How would current owners of such expensive devices be compensated for the compelled confiscation of their currently lawfully owned property? Additionally, why do you believe that such a confiscation is justifiable?

Any argument that references the 2nd Amendment as its basis for arms ownership must either limit itself by context to the technology of the late 18th century, or it must make the general argument that all arms available are covered by the Amendment.

Would you argue that those who appeal to the First Amendment as justification for the freedom of expression must limit themselves to technology available up through the 18 century or accept that speech through any medium, including broadcast through an amplifier in a crowded neighborhood at all hours of the day is protected?

TP...

Thanks for your service. It doesn't really change my argument, though.

The legal basis for my argument is the wording of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to provide employment an army of interpretive attorneys. It was to clearly state rights of the people that were not specifically addressed in the body of the Constitution.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, they provided a rationale for the specific right of arms ownership. It was the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

Note that it says "well regulated". To me this states that gun ownership falls under regulation. The necessity of guns is related to maintaining a free state, and it should be done by maintaining a well-regulated militia. To protect the free state.

There's nothing like a good gun kerfuffle to stir the pot and bring out the wakkos. TP, I don't think you're one of them (not that you need my validation). I just think we're going to have to disagree on this. You and I both know that this argument will continue in the courts; the public opinion on the issue goes this way and that, depending on the latest travesty of justice or assault on common decency. If the homeowner would have had a gun they could have defended themselves. How did that insane guy get a shotgun to take after the churchgoers?

Sigh. The US is the murder capitol of the world, and most of the murders are done with guns. The rest of civilization looks at that and sadly shakes their collective head, wondering how a nation that holds itself in such high regard can have such regressive policies. Not only on this, but on torture, world domination, oil consumption, pollution, and others problems. While the debate on guns is a political hot button, politicians from both major parties pick our pockets and try to use it as a wedge issue.

What a bummer. I liked the 20th century a lot more than this one.

-Wexler

"The US is the murder capitol of the world, and most of the murders are done with guns."

Not even close. Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and Brazil, all considered "Industrialized" and members of G8+5 have much higher murder rates than the US. This is true for firearm murder rates and total.

The militia was made up of the people and they were expected to provide their own military grade arms. This has been diluted over the years to restrict full-auto firearms. That is where the line rests today. Anti-gun groups such as the VPC, Brady Campaign, et al want to push that line farther back to include handguns, semi-auto firearms, and even bolt action rifles. This is all documented in their own words.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of all laws or that some couldn't be improved. It was the NRA who led the way on the recent NICS improvement act. Not the VPC or BC.

A little bit of irony was that the recent church shooter used a semi-auto shotgun. A shotgun the anti-gun groups want to ban for the very fact it IS semi-auto. It holds 3 shells. The congregation tackled him when he stopped to reload. Had the anti's managed to ban it, the shooter would have most likely bought a pump-action. They normally hold 6 or more shells.

The US is the murder capitol of the world, and most of the murders are done with guns.

Oh so Wrong!

If you trust Wikipedia (which I don't), we can't even make the Top 40.

If you don't either, try this site:
www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

We move all the way up to #24 on their listing, well behind some of the 'civilized' countries that have a total ban on civilian ownership of any firearm and very draconian penalties for violators.

There's nothing like a good gun kerfuffle to stir the pot and bring out the wakkos.

Got you here for an endless string of posts, didn't it?

Note that it says "well regulated". To me this states that gun ownership falls under regulation.

You are evidently unaware of the usage of the word "regulated" within the context of the Amendment. At the time the Amendment was authored, "well-regulated" was used to mean that the subject was in proper working order, or functioning as expected. It did not indicate the presence of governmental restrictions. This is evident based upon usage of the term in other writings contemporaneous to the authoring of the Second Amendment.

Additionally, even if the term were being used in reference to government regulations, it should be noted that it is the militia that is said to be "well-regulated", not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". All that is said regarding "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is that it shall not be infringed.

You know, you gun banners are wasting an awful lot of bandwidth re-arguing the losing position in the Heller case.

The Professors of English & Linguistics rejected your reading of the 2nd in the Amicus Brief they filed in the case, and so did the Court.
Deal with it.

You could better spend this time, effort and 'brainpower' (IMHO) writing out all your arguments and addressing them to your elected representatives, telling them how they must repeal the 2nd Amendment, or alternatively, lay out very strict limits to it in another Constitutional Amendment.

But it's OK if you prefer to waste your time arguing on message boards.
You'll accomplish just as little either way.

Oops. I should have said

"Gun murder capitol of the western world".

That would have elicited some cricket noises, even from the sweaty-palmed NRA stooge plants with the dogeared copies of NRA talking points in their hands.

-Wexler

Actually, the NRA uses me as an information source. Your claim is true if you limit it to W.Europe and the US/Canada. Even in N. America, you'ld need to limit it to urban population centers. In Illinois, if Chicago were to fall off into the lake, crime rates would drop to levels near W. Europe.

It certainly appears that the main reason Republicans are so "gun-happy", is that guns and violence are the only tool (weapon, mechanism) they have that makes them feel like a man. Without their guns, they are nothing.

Way to stereotype there, Cheryl.

I bet you just love it when someone stereotypes women or some minority. Why, that's a total injustice! (which it is)

But stereotyping of some group YOU don't like is just fine and dandy. (which it isn't)

It certainly appears that the main reason Republicans are so "gun-happy", is that guns and violence are the only tool (weapon, mechanism) they have that makes them feel like a man. Without their guns, they are nothing.

So my wife wants to feel like a man?

So my wife wants to feel like a man?

Apparently mine as well.
And my daughter.
And my sister.
And my mother.

Well, Cheryl, it sure looks like you've got their attention.

I've always thought the evidence is conclusive that conservatism is a mental disorder characterized by paranoia. I wasn't sure about tool envy but I believe you've hit a soft spot in their argument. So to speak.

-Wexler

Wexler you are a loon. Who, outside of the government whack jobs, has the ability to kill "millions" of people? You say the pro American folks are crazy, but your posts show quite the opposite. As far as communicating with people, haven't you heard the pen is mightier than the sword? You are the one posting non sequiturs, get a grip on yourself man. Realize you have NO right to tell others how to live. Realize that every living being on this earth is born with the right to defend itself and maybe them you will realize how wrong you are. Your posts indicate that you are nothing more than a control freak who wishes to force his views on everyone at the point of a government gun. What a hypocrite!

Well, Cheryl, it would appear that hiding behind an any mouse key board making generalized Ad Hominem attacks on people you don't know makes you feel like a man.

This kind of drivel makes me want to cancel my subscription. If Mother Jones wants to decry constitutionally protected rights it has no place on my coffee table.

I've always thought the evidence is conclusive that conservatism is a mental disorder characterized by paranoia. I wasn't sure about tool envy but I believe you've hit a soft spot in their argument.

Another fine display of the ad hominem approach to debate.

Way to go, Wex!

Right out of "How to Win Friends & Influence People", isn't it?

So it's ok for pro-labor union advocates to infiltrate a company's labor force to further their agenda and not the NRA? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

It certainly appears that the main reason Republicans are so "gun-happy", is that guns and violence are the only tool (weapon, mechanism) they have that makes them feel like a man.

Who you callin' a Republican?

Are you so spun that you don't know how many Democrats and independents own guns?

There are several non-NRA organizations for Liberals created to support gun ownership.
Also:
A several specifically for women.
www.2asisters.org/
www.wagc.com/
www.mothersarms.org/#
..to name just a few. But here's a resource to find even more:
www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/resources.html

One started by Jews.
www.jpfo.org

One specifically for gays & lesbians.
www.pinkpistols.org/

Get educated, & don't pigeonhole people based on your own particular bias or prejudice.

Who cares? Why should the NRA respond to this drivel to ANYONE? MJ is begging for Capitol Hill BS to be front page news when it's better used in the crapper. "Gun-nut" summed up the rest!

This, from the MoJo daily email:

The NRA has been holding its fire on our gun lobby mole scoop. Should Congress push them to report?

Yeah, don't they WISH Congress would 'investigate', and thereby give them the sort of credibility they lack, and crave so desperately!

That's why you guys opened that Washington, DC bureau, isn't it?

Look Mother Jones, if you have EVIDENCE that LAWS were broken, then you'd better turn it over to the appropriate prosecutor's office.
Otherwise You're OBSTRUCTING Justice, not Promoting It!

And trying to pressure Congress into turning you into the new Woodward & Burnstein is just a waste of Congress' time, and OUR money!

Walter....

Conservatives don't have friends and I don't consider them to qualify for personhood.

Seriously.

-Wexler

The gun industry must be scared of how normal people will react the way they try to stifle those who disagree with them. I've seen it happen on so many message boards. Whenever anything unflattering to those clowns is posted they descend like locusts.... locusts who are signed up for rightwing email alerts ----

It's just like the spying. Fighting dirty comes naturally when you have no integrity.

Wexler you are a loon. Who, outside of the government whack jobs, has the ability to kill "millions" of people? You say the pro American folks are crazy, but your posts show quite the opposite. As far as communicating with people, haven't you heard the pen is mightier than the sword? You are the one posting non sequiturs, get a grip on yourself man. Realize you have NO right to tell others how to live. Realize that every living being on this earth is born with the right to defend itself and maybe them you will realize how wrong you are. Your posts indicate that you are nothing more than a control freak who wishes to force his views on everyone at the point of a government gun. What a hypocrite!

Thor help us all from you and your ilk. This pro-American thinks you ought to see about upping your Thorazine dosage.

Are you related to the guy who shot up the church play the other day? Was he "defending himself"?

-Wexler