MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

There's Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole

NEWS: Mary McFate was a prominent gun control activist. Mary Lou Sapone was a freelance spy with an NRA connection. They are the same person. A Mother Jones investigation.

July 30, 2008


Related Articles

TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


This is the story of two Marys. Both are in their early 60s, heavyset, with curly reddish hair. But for years they have worked on opposite ends of the same issues. Mary McFate is an advocate of environmental causes and a prominent activist within the gun control movement. For more than a decade, she volunteered for various gun violence prevention organizations, serving on the boards of anti-gun outfits, helping state groups coordinate their activities, lobbying in Washington for gun control legislation, and regularly attending strategy and organizing meetings.

Mary Lou Sapone, by contrast, is a self-described "research consultant," who for decades has covertly infiltrated citizens groups for private security firms hired by corporations that are targeted by activist campaigns. For some time, Sapone also worked for the National Rifle Association.

But these two Marys share a lot in common—a Mother Jones investigation has found that McFate and Sapone are, in fact, the same person. And this discovery has caused the leaders of gun violence prevention organizations to conclude that for years they have been penetrated—at the highest levels—by the NRA or other pro-gun parties. "It raises the question," says Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "of what did she find out and what did they want her to find out."

Using her maiden name, McFate, Sapone began posing as a gun control activist in the mid-1990s. Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, a grassroots gun control group, recalls first meeting her in the summer of 1998. The NRA was holding its annual convention in downtown Philadelphia, and the event drew the usual bevy of protesters. Among them was a middle-aged woman then living in Pennsylvania who made a point of introducing herself to Miller. In the following years, Miller would remember this encounter well, as he watched McFate rise from a street protester to a figure known nationally within his movement. She became a leader of Pennsylvanians Against Handgun Violence and later a board member of Ceasefire Pennsylvania. According to staffers at several gun violence prevention groups, she worked on the Million Mom March in 2000, when hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in Washington, DC, to demand stricter gun laws. She joined the board of Freedom States Alliance, a network of nine state-based gun control organizations. At States United to Prevent Gun Violence, a nationwide coalition of anti-gun groups, she was the director of federal legislation, an unpaid position that placed her in charge of the outfit's lobbying efforts in Washington. In that role, she collaborated with national organizations including the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center.

In 2005, McFate ran for a board position at the Brady Campaign, which would have placed her in the inner sanctum of the nation's most prominent gun control group. On her ballot statement, she described herself as a "community activist and motivational speaker," "a former presidential scholar," and a recipient of the "Public Service Council's Community Champion Award in 1999." And she pitched her credentials for the position: "I believe my volunteerism over 30 years to nonprofit organizations with disparate program goals has given me practical insights on what strategies are most effective…My experience with broad coalitions working together for societal change has proven to me that our organization is on the right track to make our neighborhoods safer and to give our children their full life potential."

McFate lost the election, but she did not give up. Several months ago, she told Paul Helmke that she was interested in an appointed board position for the Brady Campaign. (Helmke recalls that he was concerned about placing her on his board because she was already deeply connected to other groups. "I didn't push the idea," he says.) In 2007, she attended a summit convened by the International Association of Chiefs of Police that aimed to develop a strategy for reducing gun violence. As an advocate working with both state and national groups, she was privy to the gun control movement's community's internal deliberations and in a position to know what was happening throughout the movement. "She's been active in everything and involved in every single major gun violence prevention organization," says Barbara Hohlt, executive director of States United to Prevent Gun Violence.

Despite her supposed commitment to the cause, her friends and colleagues in the gun control community considered McFate something of a curiosity. Among other things, she had a tendency to drop in and out of contact, explaining away her absences by saying she had been vacationing aboard luxury cruise liners. When the Brady Campaign's communications director, Paul Hamm, occasionally asked her to talk to the media about gun issues, she adamantly refused. "I would say, 'Please, Mary.' She would say, 'No, no, no, I don't want to.'"

Looking back, gun control advocates who worked with McFate can now see what might have been faint warning signs. A few weeks ago, Hohlt says, she had what she considered an odd encounter with McFate when the pair was making preparations to take part in a conference call with other gun control advocates. Rather than face a long-distance charge for the call, McFate, who lives in Florida but was in New York City at the time, insisted on dropping by the offices of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence to participate in the discussion. Given that McFate appeared to be well off financially—she was always offering to travel to meetings and conferences, including NRA conferences, with no concern for cost—Hohlt couldn't understand why she was demanding to come to this office for the call just to save a few bucks. Nor could she fathom why McFate often pushed to share a hotel room with other gun control advocates at conferences and events when she seemed able to afford accommodations of her own. Hohlt also thought it unusual that McFate served on the boards of several organizations simultaneously, since there was, as Hohlt puts it, "a certain amount of competition between all the groups." But she never doubted McFate's devotion to gun control.

Next page: "She had access to all the legislative strategy for every major issue for years."

Photo from Mary McFate's blog.


 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

Gun Control's "True Believers" are easily duped.
They already had been, long before Mary came along to rub their easily duped noses in it.
That's why they believe what they believe in the first place, and nothing like Facts will ever make a dent in "The Faith".
Posted by:It's Perfectly ObviousJuly 30, 2008 12:44:42 PMRespond ^
Firearms are a necessary check-and-balance against tyrannical governments.

Our Constitution is hanging by a thread under the Bush/Cheney regime. This is certainly no time to be blathering about gun control! Wake-up!!!
Posted by:TruthJuly 30, 2008 12:58:40 PMRespond ^
["The McFate operation, says Miller, "would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules, no question of fairness or honesty."]

Just as the Bruce Falconer "Semi-Automatic For the People" aka: "Bush to Cops - Drop Dead" article proves the same about the gun control lobby.

At least Mary wasn't passing off misinformation, hyperbole and downright lies to the public, calling it "Journalism".
Posted by:Look Over There, Not HereJuly 30, 2008 1:06:33 PMRespond ^
There is are two very large questions unanswered by the piece:

Did she do anything (demonstrably) illegal? Can these gun control groups file criminal or civil charges?
Posted by:And then???July 30, 2008 1:08:44 PMRespond ^
Well done!
Posted by:allJuly 30, 2008 1:09:37 PMRespond ^


When was the last time civilians with guns won their "freedom" from a tyranical government?
Posted by:Only Gunmakers ProfitJuly 30, 2008 1:10:03 PMRespond ^
One of the first things Hitler & other dictators did was disarm the public. You know what happened after that.
Posted by:TruthJuly 30, 2008 1:15:11 PMRespond ^
["When was the last time civilians with guns won their "freedom" from a tyranical government?']

Happened in the USA as recently as 1946.
Read and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Posted by:Citizen's ProfitJuly 30, 2008 1:15:15 PMRespond ^
Actually, it's not "only gun makers" that profit. The gun-control industry does quite well too.
Posted by:TruthJuly 30, 2008 1:19:02 PMRespond ^
A question more to the point would be when was the last time a well armed population was subjected to anything like the Nazi's death camps, or the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot & his communist regime?
Posted by:A Better QuestionJuly 30, 2008 1:20:44 PMRespond ^
IS there no legal issues either criminal or civil which the gun control and animal rights group can use to expose the intelligence gathering for what it is.

Why does Mary Lou hate America so much? Snark, snark
I just really fail to understand how business can consider themselves ethical and/or good for this nation and its people if they do thes type of things just to protect their bottom line. It would seem to me that the issue really lies in the power with which groups and business who hire the likes of Mary Lou feel they need to use operatives to gather information which keeps them in business. IF Americans want change and we ask our businesses and communites/governments to change then what does it mean to the public to find out that all of our efforts were for not because some intelligence gathering and back room meetings decided the future that we will have ot live with.
Posted by:joshquasimotoJuly 30, 2008 1:23:43 PMRespond ^
I'm not big on guns, but I think the American Revolution is a good example of an instance where civilians with guns ousted a "tyranical government". Anybody that thinks that being able to buy assault weapons without any documentation in a crime-ridden city is essential to America's "freedom" didn't think things through properly though. Gun Control is some places in the united states is more reasonable than in others. Perhaps an issue this contencious is best left to the state and local governments to decide.
Posted by:CaleyJuly 30, 2008 1:24:38 PMRespond ^
And if we had any guts, we'd have already eliminated the greatest threat to our freedoms -- Bush and Cheney.
Posted by:Freedom LoverJuly 30, 2008 1:25:47 PMRespond ^
Seven shootings in Washington on Monday night -- three dead. Possible connection with Supreme Court ruling?
Allow people to buy all the guns they want. Make ammunition illegal.
Posted by:DuckJuly 30, 2008 1:28:02 PMRespond ^
Come on! The Nazi's death camps, & Cambodian genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot are modern history, many people from which are still living today. (It's not like they happened in 2000 B.C. or something, if that's what you're trying to imply.)
Posted by:TruthJuly 30, 2008 1:32:03 PMRespond ^
["Allow people to buy all the guns they want. Make ammunition illegal."]

Sure.
It's bound to work at least as well as making heroin & marijuana illegal.
Work well at making millionaires out of criminals willing to deal in an illegal article, that is.

Prohibition ALWAYS works.
Just not the way the proponents BELIEVE it's going to work.
Posted by:Making Crime PayJuly 30, 2008 1:32:36 PMRespond ^
["Seven shootings in Washington on Monday night -- three dead. Possible connection with Supreme Court ruling?"]

If you can illustrate that the seven shootings (or even ONE of them) were committed with guns legally bought and held in DC AFTER the S.C. ruling, I'll eat my pistol grips.
Posted by:Got Any Proof?July 30, 2008 1:35:05 PMRespond ^
"...It's not like they happened in 2000 B.C. or something, if that's what you're trying to imply."

What I'm trying to imply is that the Nazi death camps and Pol Pot's reign of terror do NOT happen to generally well armed populations.
Posted by:Pause a minute, TruthJuly 30, 2008 1:37:44 PMRespond ^
I've had an experience of a spy infiltrating a group that I belong to. It was just last month and that gentleman is still in the hosptital. And I put him there. I'd do the same thing to this old broad. These people are bullies and cowards and the only thing they understand is violence. Well the Army trained me well and I'm more than happy to use it.
Posted by:Fed UpJuly 30, 2008 1:51:13 PMRespond ^
Anonymously threatening violence against a grandmother! And on an internet message board, no less!

I AM impressed!

If you see her, go ahead and try it.
I'm bettin' she's packin'.

And I'm bettin' you're a big-mouthed panzy hiding safely behind his keyboard and monitor.
Posted by:Oooohhh, Tough Guy!July 30, 2008 1:55:22 PMRespond ^
now THIS is real reporting. We need more reporting and less commentary. Great job!
Posted by:ceekayJuly 30, 2008 2:00:05 PMRespond ^
Florida. A hive of spies and villainy.
Posted by:ObiwanKenobiJuly 30, 2008 2:03:19 PMRespond ^
LOL!
What gun do you have to stand up to the US military? That is a complete joke.
Only 992 years till Y3K!

"Firearms are a necessary check-and-balance against tyrannical governments.

Our Constitution is hanging by a thread under the Bush/Cheney regime. This is certainly no time to be blathering about gun control! Wake-up!!! "
Posted by:rbJuly 30, 2008 2:09:10 PMRespond ^
You can't stop people like this. No matter how much violence you promise them!
The people who hire them must be stopped. These are the people who make more money than God, and nothing is beyond their ability to pay for anything they want. Ethics is for suckers.
Posted by:Pheed YirhedJuly 30, 2008 2:19:36 PMRespond ^
"At meetings, activists would later say, Sapone advocated taking illegal or violent action to advance the movement. "

All the pro gun comments here are idiotic, Its Perfectly Obvious et al are just proto Jim D. Adkissons, looking for some gay unitarians to beat up on.

And the guy threatening violence needs to be banned.

PS they cant confiscate your guns, the supreme court ruled on it, so stf about hitler.
Posted by:fecklessJuly 30, 2008 2:22:43 PMRespond ^
Maybe if she had gone with McLovin instead of McFate, whe would never have been found out.
Posted by:MarkJuly 30, 2008 2:30:54 PMRespond ^
Battle of Athens (from the citation in the Wikipedia article) -
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.


So they used National Guard weapons and ammunition. How does this bolster your argument?
Posted by:READ to LEARNJuly 30, 2008 2:33:43 PMRespond ^
right wing fascists have no trouble lying, cheating and stealing in order to have control over you and impose their will upon you - this gash is no different
Posted by:radiiJuly 30, 2008 2:36:06 PMRespond ^
For "Only Gunmakers Profit":

I'd refer you to that cause celebre of the left known as the Spanish Civil War. Sure, Franco won in the end - but it took him a while. It would have been a lot quicker with sticks and stones though.
Posted by:VicenzoJuly 30, 2008 2:40:35 PMRespond ^
So she "penetrated" gun control organizations. Whats the big deal? Whats the big secret? We all know their agenda is to repeal the second amendment. I would think they have nothing to hide.

Me, protecting my family and home is paramount, as I know in civil insurrection (riot), the government will not be there for me. Any one who believes otherwise is a fool, who didn't see what happened in the Watts riots.

And yes a few handguns will do that job nicely.
Posted by:yodaJuly 30, 2008 2:48:18 PMRespond ^
An astounding article. Thank you so much. Moles are everywhere! Wonder how the NRA will be without her.
Posted by:Ann HardmanJuly 30, 2008 2:50:58 PMRespond ^
At least the anti-civil rights, anti-choice crowd finally admits the NRA is the American people, distinct from the firearms manufacturers:

"Shocked to learn that McFate was a spy, gun control advocates have pondered the obvious questions:...To whom in the gun lobby did she report? The NRA? The firearms manufacturing industry?"

Posted by:J. GarciaJuly 30, 2008 2:54:51 PMRespond ^
1876?
Posted by:John D.July 30, 2008 2:56:30 PMRespond ^
The 'New' licensing requirements have not yet gone into effect in DC, so in fact your posts is more evidence of what we know, MORE GUNS=LESS CRIME
Posted by:J. GarciaJuly 30, 2008 2:58:26 PMRespond ^
["So they used National Guard weapons and ammunition. How does this bolster your argument?"]

Do you recall what the original question was?
"When was the last time civilians with guns won their "freedom" from a tyranical government?"

It didn't stipulate that all the guns used had to be owned by those who used them against tyrants.

They were "short of" guns, not "without" guns. So they went and got more and did what needed doing.

Our Revolution against England found us short of guns, too. So we took a lot of them from the Brits.

It's still citizens with guns, overthrowing tyrannical government, any way you slice it.
Posted by:Citizens ProfitJuly 30, 2008 3:02:43 PMRespond ^
Sounds like she worked for both and fought against both. An entirely modern US woman.
I think this supports the difference between the right and left. The left tends to be honest and work within the system while the right tends to use extremes, deceipt and violence.

Uh yeah, the populace needs guns to keep check on the government. Are you kidding? Do you have any idea what the US military and the US police forces have at their disposal? Have you seen the latest developements in crowd control? We wouldn't stand a chance if the military was used against the populace. The Zulu's had it better against British (or was it the Boers? don't remember). The point is the best weapons we could come up with wouldn't stand a chance against our current armed forces.
I believe in the right to bear arms. But the reason of standing against a corrupt or tyrannical government just doesn't work anymore.
Posted by:nakisJuly 30, 2008 3:03:11 PMRespond ^
Posted by:Pheed YirhedJuly 30, 2008 2:19:36 PM
You can't stop people like this. No matter how much violence you promise them!
The people who hire them must be stopped. These are the people who make more money than God, and nothing is beyond their ability to pay for anything they want. Ethics is for suckers.

-Pheed Yirhed,

You would not be talking about the small / marginally profitable businesses that manufacture firearms, Would you?
Posted by:J. GarciaJuly 30, 2008 3:04:12 PMRespond ^
the insurgents in iraq seem to be doing pretty well against the US Military.
Posted by:damnyourebelsJuly 30, 2008 3:07:43 PMRespond ^
This despicable subterfuge undercuts the principles of Democracy. The right should be more outraged by this then the left, but they have largely devolved into the Rove/Maciavellian concept of winning is everything, regardless of how you do it. I'd love to see which face she presents to St. Peter.
Posted by:i hate liarsJuly 30, 2008 3:08:34 PMRespond ^
Wow! this artice just inspired me to make another donation to the NRA. I'm real glad that they are using the money we give them to hire spy's to monitor what the panty wetters are up to next. Too bad Mary got caught.
Posted by:NRA money well spent!July 30, 2008 3:09:52 PMRespond ^
"Firearms are a necessary check-and-balance against tyrannical governments.

Our Constitution is hanging by a thread under the Bush/Cheney regime. This is certainly no time to be blathering about gun control! Wake-up!!!
Posted by:Truth"

Yes, because your glock and a few rifles are going to do anything against a FREAKING TANK and BOMBERS. Idiot.
Posted by:JasonJuly 30, 2008 3:16:41 PMRespond ^
You see here the two americas....one is volunteer and people based, the other is Money and Corporation based.

The reason why they can infiltrate OUR ranks is that we need volunteers and have open meetings, and because they have tons of money to throw at these things.

On the other hand, The People do not have extra time and money laying around to throw at covert operations....AND you cannot get into their world. There is no volunteering, no open meetings. There is only Assassin's Pay for the unconnected. For the connected there is the patronage system and nepotism.
Posted by:DickTaterJuly 30, 2008 3:27:09 PMRespond ^
"Yes, because your glock and a few rifles are going to do anything against a FREAKING TANK and BOMBERS. Idiot."
Posted by Jason

Right. Like the men and women in the US Airforce are willingly going to bomb Omaha.
As if the US Army's tank divisions are going to flatten their parents homes in Cleveland.
Moron.
Posted by:Spoken Like An AmericanJuly 30, 2008 3:29:16 PMRespond ^
Its all fair game. Ask Josh Sugarmann, Exec Director of the Violence Policy Center (anti-gun group) why he needs a license to deal firearms (FFL). He said it was for "research."

Posted by:Molon LabeJuly 30, 2008 3:29:18 PMRespond ^
So many idiots; so many guns... Every day children are killed playing with their parents guns - something else the NRA are proud of I guess.
Posted by:It's not importantJuly 30, 2008 3:29:35 PMRespond ^
Good for her! Gun control organizations are conspiracies to deprive people of a basic civil liberty. This is no different from the SPLC having moles in the Aryan nation.
Posted by:Brett BellmoreJuly 30, 2008 3:33:34 PMRespond ^
Women Prominent in Defense Movement
Seventh in a Series: The Rise of the Counterinsurgents
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/women-prominent-in
Posted by:annoJuly 30, 2008 3:36:07 PMRespond ^
Liberal gun-owner again...

Gun control is an idiotic notion. Whatever laws get passed serve only to control and limit those of us who purchase firearms through the proper legal channels. It accomplishes nothing for those who seek to obtain weapons illegally.

It's just more short-sighted political posturing that does nothing but waste time and money.

We have far bigger problems facing our nation than gun control. Please get off this soapbox and focus on something relevant!
Posted by:MichaelJuly 30, 2008 3:38:12 PMRespond ^
["So many idiots; so many guns... Every day children are killed playing with their parents guns - something else the NRA are proud of I guess."]

According to Bill Clinton's Justice Department, 108,000 times each year, armed citizens protect themselves from crimes. (though they admit that other studies yielded considerably higher estimates)

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Their statistics:

108,000 times per year.

296 times per day.

12 times per hour.

Once every 5 minutes.

But I guess that isn't important.
Posted by:1 Sided Story All The WayJuly 30, 2008 3:39:24 PMRespond ^
Mary committed fraud. You have to be honest about who you are when your on any board of directors.

The conservatives in this thread are defending a criminal. Typical. Easily duped by George Bush all these years and they still refuse to see the light.
Posted by:Mother Jones RocksJuly 30, 2008 3:45:25 PMRespond ^
LOL! The gun control groups are such clueless idiots. No wonder they loose every time.
Posted by:Paul RevereJuly 30, 2008 3:45:39 PMRespond ^
What's the big deal?
Are the Gun Banning groups afraid they might get caught doing something illegal?
A little sunshine is good for them.
This spy, as you call her, has done nothing illegal. She joined some group and reported what she found. There is nothing against the law in that.
How many McCain volunteers are really Obama spies?
Probably lots of them.
This is a non-story, except it is fun to read about these groups trying to get a leg up on the other. I'm sure Sarah Brady reads the NRA's monthly magazine and goes to their website regularly. If she doesn't, she's a fool.
On second thought, maybe she doesn't read their magazine.
Posted by:smg45acpJuly 30, 2008 3:48:53 PMRespond ^
Who cares? The anti-gun organizations have members join pro-gun groups. The author acts as though this is some kind of new tactic.
Posted by:BozoJuly 30, 2008 3:56:27 PMRespond ^
U.S. Institute of PEACE
Peacebuilding: A Global Imperative

It is essential that the United States, working with the international community, play an active part in preventing, managing, and resolving conflicts. Fragile states, ethnic and religious strife, extremism, competition for scarce resources and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction all pose significant challenges to peace. The resulting suffering and destabilization of societies make effective forms of managing conflict imperative. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is dedicated to meeting this imperative in new and innovative ways.

Montgomery McFate

http://www.usip.org/specialists/bios/archives/mcfate.html
Posted by:annoJuly 30, 2008 3:58:15 PMRespond ^
p0wn3D! LOL

Posted by:CTDJuly 30, 2008 3:58:18 PMRespond ^
Yeah, Anno.
Nationbuilding, the way the US Gov't thinks your nation ought to be.

Bill Clinton ought to love it.
Posted by:So What?July 30, 2008 4:02:20 PMRespond ^
Gun control groups have "secrets"?
Posted by:GarandFanJuly 30, 2008 4:06:43 PMRespond ^
The 4 parts of the US government are; the executive, the congress, the supreme court, and the NRA. Talk about "checks and balances".
Posted by:Jerry F.July 30, 2008 4:07:22 PMRespond ^
One more cheer for this great woman. Question for the intrepid "reporters," though: What, exactly is "unfair" about her actions? She mislead a group of self-absorbed, gullible, un-American half-wits to counter their program to undermine the basic freedoms of the Bill of Rights. Congrats on a job well done, Mary.
Posted by:Huray for MaryJuly 30, 2008 4:08:15 PMRespond ^
Suicides are much more successful with a gun than by any other means. Most most killings are of someone the gun owner knows. A kind of Darwinian thing I guess.
Posted by:grinninglibberJuly 30, 2008 4:08:47 PMRespond ^
Attention all posters who are denigrating the Bush administration: Please report to your re-education centers within 24 hours or you will be forceably interned. Habeas Corpus has been suspended by executive order.

Note that we will find you even if you are wearing your aluminum foil beanies.

That is all.
Posted by:Internet PoliceJuly 30, 2008 4:09:41 PMRespond ^
"Everyday children are killed playing with their parents' guns". I guess that means at least 365 kids killed a year. Show me the figures that support that. I think you are making things up.
Posted by:Robert ConsidineJuly 30, 2008 4:17:25 PMRespond ^
Recently it was revealed that information (spying) branch of Securitas sent a woman to spy on the activities of Attac in Vevey, Switzerland. Who paid for the spying? Nestlé and the police knew about the affair but they did not inform Attac. Were are we heading?
Posted by:A. HauksJuly 30, 2008 4:19:13 PMRespond ^
yea baby
Posted by:Neocon OneJuly 30, 2008 4:25:41 PMRespond ^
["The 4 parts of the US government are; the executive, the congress, the supreme court, and the NRA. Talk about "checks and balances".'"]

I love it when whiners show up to pizz & moan about how the 4 million members of the NRA consistently outvote the other 142 Million voters in America.
Or that the 4 million members wield such enormous influence in government that the other 142 Million American voters can't overcome it.

Give that crap a rest. It just exposes you for the fools you are.
Posted by:Poor Little UsJuly 30, 2008 4:26:00 PMRespond ^
["Suicides are much more successful with a gun than by any other means."]

If it's worth doing, then it's worth doing right.


["Most most killings are of someone the gun owner knows."]

Gee... Wilbur, I wonder if most people murdered with knives aren't murdered by someone they know???
Or: I wonder if most people who are murdered aren't done in by someone they know???

All of Which proves All of What?
Posted by:Duh!!July 30, 2008 4:31:23 PMRespond ^
The gun murder rate in DC is way up since guns were banned over 30 years ago. If gun bans worked you would think murders would be down. In Great Britain there is an almost total ban on guns. Knife attacks and murders are way up. There is now talk of banning knives in G.B. Soon you will be enjoying a nice romantic dinner in England eating steak with plastic spoons.
Posted by:bannorhillJuly 30, 2008 4:33:39 PMRespond ^
An armed population is no defense against tyranny, say some posters here, because the government has tanks and fighter aircraft at their disposal. What chance do we have with our meager firearms?

All our tanks, APCs and aircraft do little to defeat a lightly armed enemy in Iraq. Relatively small groups have routinely prevented our armed forces from asserting control over villages and cities, forcing our withdrawl.

In 1994 Rwanda was a "gun free zone". Did that help to protect the Tutsis?

It's 1960 and you're a poor African-American family in the South. Would you trust the local sheriff to protect you?

It's 1935 and you're a Jewish family in Poland... would it be it a good idea to leave your family's defense to the armed forces of your country?

Don't say it can't happen again. It can't happen here. We're safe now. Our freedome is complete and permanent. Liberty requires vigilance, because the forces that would crush it are always hungry.
Posted by:Will SterlingJuly 30, 2008 4:34:46 PMRespond ^
Some thoughts:

1. I'm less worried that the NRA worked with this woman and more worried that corporations are hiring spies. Corporations are fast becoming more powerful than the government, something Abraham Lincoln and other national leaders of the past warned us against, and it seems like the right-wingers don't even care. Except they do, if you read their literature, as long as corporate attention is not focused on *them.*

2. Count me as another gun rights supporter and a... liberal? progressive? left-winger? I'm not sure what I am anymore, the libs are embarrassing me more and more. But here's the thing. A little consistency please. You think drug prohibition is a bad idea but you're for gun prohibition. You're for safer sex but you're not for teaching gun safety. I come from a rural family that taught its kids from an early age how to deal safely with guns. Look at the reports of gun violence between kids or just the accidents and you'll find a staggering majority of them happen among suburban and city kids. HM.

3. As for you gun nuts out there from the right wing: Want to know why I don't side with you? Because you use sexist slurs to describe people who want to ban guns. Excuse me, I'm a woman and pro-gun. You just alienated me. Great job there, troglodytes. This is why liberal men get laid and you don't. Try a little respect next time. Respect doesn't kill people. Irate armed feminist women kill people. But not as often as crazy armed men do.
Posted by:Dana SeilhanJuly 30, 2008 4:42:47 PMRespond ^
Once again, we debate in absolutes, rather than considering the fact that there are very few black and white issues in this world.

The second amendment says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the preservation of the Free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The states have a responsibility to regulate gun ownership. Everyone in the U.S. should be born with the right to own a gun, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they get to keep that right. Gun ownership is a right AND a privilege. If you demonstrate irresponsibility, you should be stripped of that right.

Ex.: A child accidentally kills someone or themselves with their parents' gun. The parents demonstrated a lack of responsibility, so the state they live in has the right to take away their guns. Fair is fair.
Posted by:J.C.July 30, 2008 4:44:55 PMRespond ^
Correction:

"Corporations are fast becoming more powerful than the government, something Abraham Lincoln and other national leaders of the past warned us against, and it seems like the right-wingers don't even care. Except they do, if you read their literature, as long as corporate attention is not focused on *them.*"

That last sentence should read, "Except they do, if you read their literature, if corporate attention is focused negatively on *them.*"

Because the right-wingers could use a little logical and ethical consistency themselves, y'know? Right or left, we're all Americans here, and none of us benefit when corporations control our lives.
Posted by:Dana SeilhanJuly 30, 2008 4:45:20 PMRespond ^
that woman is an absolute piece of [deleted]. she's old, a liar, secretly financed by lobbyists, pro-violence - no wonder folks from the right are so quick to defend that walking sack of dogcrap.
Posted by:nmcJuly 30, 2008 4:48:14 PMRespond ^
Because if Bush and Cheney keep doing things you don't like you're going to kill them with your 9mm?
Posted by:To Truth:July 30, 2008 4:48:30 PMRespond ^
If you want to use guns, bigger than a hunting rifle, Uncle Sam has a job for you.
Posted by:GUNS!July 30, 2008 4:55:17 PMRespond ^
I'm sorry, but, um, "McFate" is the fakest last name I've ever seen. The only worse thing I could think of would be "McGunLover", I guess that would have been too obvious. But really folks, let's use our brains about these things.
Posted by:OncelerJuly 30, 2008 5:00:22 PMRespond ^
In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, gun ownership was actually encouraged. But it was hardly a bulwark against tyranny.
Posted by:astocktonJuly 30, 2008 5:10:17 PMRespond ^
I have been saying for years that this is the MO of the right-wing and Republican Party.
Start with checking some of the top dogs in the Democratic Party in Florida and you will find a Republican posing as a Democrat.
Posted by:youngharryJuly 30, 2008 5:13:38 PMRespond ^
This type of activity is nothing new for the rightwing in this country. Ever since Nixon and his 'dirty tricks' group, the right has always believed that this type of unethical behavior is acceptable. The RNC has brazenly run illegal activities out of it's offices in the last two elections such as the jamming of the New Hampshire Democratic phone bank. And then you have the last two elections rife with all types of voter suppression techniques being used as well as the questionable voting machine tallies. During the 2000 election it was discovered that the webmaster for the Yahoo Democratic discussion site was an "undercover" rightwing plant who was changing and deleting posts as a sort of "operation chaos". It ended up this guy was also a big NRA true believer who threatened to shoot anybody who showed up at his house. The list of this type of behavior goes on and on from the ideologues on the right. These folks, as you can see from their posts here, are very comfortable with any dishonesty as long as it allows them to maintain power.

It's all really kind of wierd, because nobody seriously wants to disarm the American people. Their are plenty of Dems, like myself who own guns and support a reasonable interprtation of the 2nd Amendment. But yuou can't talk to any of these one issue folks. The irony is that if any American government tries to take away our liberty all indications point to it being a rightwing administration such as Nixon or Bush.

The problem with the Democratic leadership is they are too fainthearted to stand up to Republican bullies such as Bush and Cheney. Look for another stolen election.
Posted by:Cary JonesJuly 30, 2008 5:13:54 PMRespond ^
Good. The gun lobby will do anything to protect our RIGHTS, not profits.
Posted by:blumax14July 30, 2008 5:15:05 PMRespond ^
God bless this woman who defends our rights!
Posted by:Patgrick BJuly 30, 2008 5:17:26 PMRespond ^
Will Sterling, "It's 1935 and you're a Jewish family in Poland..." how many guns and how much ammo would it have taken for a Jewish family to resist the entire German army? How long could you hold out if the U.S. government wanted to haul you in and threw the entire army into the battle? I will never understand why the gun nuts don't realize how ridiculous they sound when they talk about fighting back against a tyrannical government.
Posted by:astocktonJuly 30, 2008 5:19:52 PMRespond ^
So what? Al Gore is an environmental activist. And a global warming profiteer. But David Corn would gladly teabag his testes in a minute.
Posted by:BoBoJuly 30, 2008 5:20:17 PMRespond ^
Isn't it a crime to falsify identity.
Posted by:peterJuly 30, 2008 5:20:40 PMRespond ^
Support the NRA! www.smallarmz.info
Posted by:mrreynoldsJuly 30, 2008 5:20:47 PMRespond ^
Some other fun gun statistics:

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. (to be clear, the offender was armed)


Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. (that's around 420,000 incidents)


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

According to the CDC:
In 2005, 30,694 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.7 percent of all injury deaths in 2005.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf

Also that 108,000 number cited earlier, beside being a decade old, was cherry-picked out of the study. Researchers said the use of guns as protection is generally over-stated in surveys because of false-positives. Please read the study.
Posted by:Concerned ReaderJuly 30, 2008 5:23:46 PMRespond ^
astockton states: "I will never understand why the gun nuts don't realize how ridiculous they sound when they talk about fighting back against a tyrannical government."

"Gun Nuts" know American history, and they know that is exactly how we came to BE America, and not the western edge of the British empire.
By standing up to the most powerful military machine the world had ever seen, with guns, and sending the surviving tyrants back to England.
Posted by:The Gun NutzJuly 30, 2008 5:26:37 PMRespond ^
Is there any evidence that Sean and Montgomery McFate ever used the names Sean Sapone and Montgomery Sapone? The articles states it as fact, but it doesn't seem consistent with publicly available documents. Maybe Sean's name is and always has been "Sean McFate" and his mother married/remarried and changed her name later to Sapone. The reporting seems a little sloppy on this front, especially given the wide availability of information about Montgomery McFate (Wired & SF Gate articles) and quite a bit of information about her husband as well. They don't seem to be trying to hide and avoid publicity like what was attributed to "Mary McFate" in avoiding acting as a spokesperson or speaking with the press.
Posted by:GJuly 30, 2008 5:31:48 PMRespond ^
That 108,000 number WAS cherry picked out of the study! It was picked as the lowest possible number they could possibly get past the public. It was Bill Clinton's Justice Department, and they were NOT going to inflate the numbers of citizens defending themselves with guns!

I've read the study. Maybe you should.

Their comment about the 108,000 number was that DGU's (defensive gun uses) were "rare indeed", at 108,000 per year.
Their claim was that OTHER studies overstated the DGU's. But NOT Theirs!

If you've got more recent figures from the Justice department or FBI on Defensive Gun Uses anually, feel free to present them.
Posted by:Concerned Reader is RIGHTJuly 30, 2008 5:34:02 PMRespond ^
To answer your question, I would submit Iraq from 2003 to present.
Posted by:Wayne PerkinsJuly 30, 2008 5:35:10 PMRespond ^
Societies with high levels of gun ownership have high levels to gun violence.

Thanks for playing!

**
Posted by:Mark GreeneJuly 30, 2008 5:41:29 PMRespond ^
Writing that from Switzerland are we, Mark Greene?
Posted by:Oh Really?July 30, 2008 5:44:20 PMRespond ^
Thank you, Mary. You are a true patriot and hero.
Posted by:Jefferson MildotJuly 30, 2008 6:07:01 PMRespond ^
One word..Scum..a family full of filthy scumbags, Now that is the true American valued family concept the Neo-coons love to see.
Posted by:LibrealRebelJuly 30, 2008 6:08:56 PMRespond ^
We are a nation of sheep when it comes to believing that people we elect, who bring us news, and associate with are truthful. Turns out they're out to lie to us and rob us. I'm getting a gun. But then, what on earth will that do for my grandkids?
Posted by:Out House Out BackJuly 30, 2008 6:09:50 PMRespond ^
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Posted by:MarkJuly 30, 2008 6:12:25 PMRespond ^
Is mother Jones aware that the Violence Policy Center holds a federal firearms license, the ATF license that allows one to traffic in firearms?
Josh Sugarmann, the head of the Violence Policy Center's FFL number:
1-54-000-01-8C-00725


Mother Jones should call ATF and verify if they don't believe it.

His FFL is current, recently renewed- if the VPC/Brady group is so worried about dishonesty, then why do THEY have a federal firearms dealer's license?
Have they disclosed this information to their members? I just got done looking through their website and have found nothing mentioning this at all.
Also, one of the requirements of having an FFL is that you MUST conduct business with it- you can't simply get one then sit on it or use it for personal firearms.
This means that Josh Sugarmann must, by law, be engaged in the business of trafficking firearms. He is the leader of a non-profit, tax exempt organization, yet is legally bound to traffic weapons for a profit.
Mother Jones, how about some REALLY fearless journalism- check into the VPC's dealer license. Why are they, whose leader holds a gun dealer's license and is legally bound to engage in business with such license (call the ATF and ask them if you don't believe it, or check their web page on type 01 FFL's) trying to restrict citizens from owning weapons? Why do they have an FFL, and why do they hide this fact on their website?
Those who support this article and the VPC- how's that for hypocrisy? If he does NOT have the FFL for purposes of business, he is in violation of the laws governing federal firearms licensees, which falls under illegal gun trafficking. If he IS a practicing gun dealer, hiding that fact and leading the VPC/Brady group, then...how is that not deceptive on a very, very high level?





Posted by:Tsm002July 30, 2008 6:16:25 PMRespond ^
Here is an older scan of a returned FFL EZ check scan on the VPC's ffl. It has since been updated and is (if I'm not mistaken) valid until 2011, will try to track down a current scan. Mother Jones could easily do this if they wished.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a79/dritchie/SugarmannFFL.png
Posted by:Tsm002July 30, 2008 6:18:07 PMRespond ^
Are you serious? You wingnuts are delusional if you think your little popguns will protect you against a "tyrannical government" that has helicopter gunships, bomber planes, a half million heavily armed soldiers plus another half-million reservists and National Guard, all with combat training. Oh,and did I mention the nuclear bombs?
Yeah, your hunting rifle or magnum 44 can defeat all that!
Posted by:LindyJuly 30, 2008 6:20:44 PMRespond ^
Yeah, that's why the VPC needs an FFL to deal in such items. :P

Go to a local pawn shop and have them run the FFL number I posted above through the FFL EZ-Check system and see what pops up.

The VPC holding an FFL and hiding that fact while trying to "crack down" on guns sounds like a helluva lot better story than the one we're commenting on. Dunno about y'all.
Posted by:Tsm002July 30, 2008 6:23:54 PMRespond ^
RE: Hitler and dictators.

Thats right, lets bring the conversation down to Hitler because not allowing people to have fully automatic weapons is so fascist. Having a waiting period to buy a handgun is so fascist. Doing background checks on gun buyers to make sure they're not fellons is so fascist.

Blocking such laws though is all about Freedom..... to kill
Posted by:ConsequencesJuly 30, 2008 6:32:46 PMRespond ^
The gun control lobby has made every clandestine approach to undermining the Constitution that can be imagined, clear down to changing their names so that they sound like they are supporters of the Constitution.( the second amendment was an unnecessary addition to the Constitution ) The truth about them is and has always been that they believe that disarming honest citizens is somehow going to minimize the use of weapons by criminals and that they, as the promoters of the safer society, are qualified to determine how much liberty a free people are to sacrifice for this imagined extra safety. Live free, people! Join the Whig party!
Posted by:Jim BakerJuly 30, 2008 6:32:58 PMRespond ^
Here we go.

Plug this FFL number (Sugarmann's, head of the Violence Policy Center, cited in both this and Bruce Falconer's article)
1-54-000-01-8C-00725

Into this:
https://www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/

And viola! Hypocrisy (and possibly legal issues, since his holding an FFL for business purposes may put the VPC's tax free status at risk) stares you in the face.
Posted by:Tsm002July 30, 2008 6:34:13 PMRespond ^
Lindy,

With all that power, you better hope your government is benevolent towards its subjects! The well intentioned Socialist road to hell, we are now traveling, will lead to government that is tyrannical. There is no other outcome. You bet I will try to overthrow a government that pushes away my liberty to this extreme. You are right, I will probably die in such a fight, but I will have nothing but the burden of government to give to my children by then.
Posted by:Jim BakerJuly 30, 2008 6:42:45 PMRespond ^
"Guns, guns, guns!" - Clarence Bodikker
Posted by:RobertJuly 30, 2008 6:51:48 PMRespond ^
all you nra fanatics, you are just a bunch of losers who hide behind a gun. If the govt decides to, they will kill and your family whether or not you have a gun. I have no problem with trained, responsible folks having guns, per say, i used to use rifles quite often.

However, there must be regulations to keep handguns away from the mentally ill, criminals and excons (and repubs because they are are bat sh_it insane anyway). Get off your self righteous myopic high horses, you just look like complete idiots.
Posted by:nra sucks ballzJuly 30, 2008 6:56:01 PMRespond ^
This flaming liberal Democrat is proud of Mary for what she did. I and other liberals know that gun control is racist, classist, and sexist, and has no place in the Democratic Party. We need more patriotic Americans like Mary.
Posted by:jlbraunJuly 30, 2008 6:56:05 PMRespond ^
you f-ing idiot, do you have a brain in your head? Obviously not. The gun control lobby does NOT want to take the guns of honest responsible, NON CRIMINAL citizens. They do want them out of schools, away from the mentally ill and criminals and excons. WTF is wrong with you repubs thinking that everyone is out to take away your rights, when your own party has done a fine job in 8 years.

Support your rights and civil liberties, vote OBAMA in November.
Posted by:nra sucks my ballzJuly 30, 2008 6:59:01 PMRespond ^
RE: yopic High Horses?

How does it get anymore self righteous than the leading anti-gun group, one cited frequently by MoJo in articles, holding a license to deal in firearms as a business while hiding this information from its supporters AND trying to keep other Americans from getting such an FFL?

Check my posts above for proof.

Sorry, if someone tells me that owning a gun or being able to use one in self defense is a bad idea or that no one needs to be a gun dealer, then..well...why the heck would they hold a license to deal guns WHILE operating as a tax free non profit? Keep in mind that having a type 01 FFL (the type their head has) legally binds you to conduct business with that ffl. You must have business hours, must not conduct transactions solely for personal benefit and a slew of other things that make the VPC's "non proft" status questionable at best.

Who is being two faced and self righteous, given that information?

Posted by:Tsm002July 30, 2008 7:00:52 PMRespond ^
I was an early member of the Million Moms, active in Washington, DC. We knew we'd arrived when the NRA began filling our voicemail boxes overnight with the sound of jackboots coming to get us, Thump thump thump, Th-THUMP, which rolled over onto the next number and the next and so forth. I don't remember Mary Lou, but since she came out of Ceasefire New Jersey, where the Number One Mom, Donna Dees-Thomases originated, she was plenty close to the source. The U.S.A. under Bush sort of reminds you of the Soviet Union, doesn't it? the BIG story is Mary Lou's son's being involved in arms shipments, as the REAL story behind the NRA has so very little do with the rights of hunters and gun owners and everything to do with the munitions industries continuing to arm everyone in the world to the teeth, a truth the the American public is kept continually distracted from observing by the Second Amendment true believers, which is the same kind of single issue nuisance as the Right to Quote Unquote Life....These people care NOTHING about life and ONLY about their corporate bottom lines...
Posted by:Wayne's MomJuly 30, 2008 7:02:31 PMRespond ^
Of the 7 shootings in DC Monday night, how many were done with legal guns?
Posted by:JustaclingerJuly 30, 2008 7:09:45 PMRespond ^
Oh, yeah, the government is really in a position to nuke it's own territory. I suppose they'll assign bomber pilots from Iowa to do Illinois, and visa versa; That will take care of any reservations American troops might have about destroying their own country. Not that it would do anything about the subsequent drop in tax revenues making the government go broke a month later.

I think modern economics and weaponry have made the basic purpose of the 2nd amendment a bit less feasible, but, heck, you could say the same of the 4th and 5th in the face of modern surveillance equipment, and that doesn't implicitly repeal 'em.
Posted by:Brett BellmoreJuly 30, 2008 7:11:55 PMRespond ^
You guys think she is the only one?!?! People who support the RIGHT to bear arms tend to be those who know how to use them too!! So you think she is the only one? OK, you keep thinking that!!!
Posted by:SpearsTexasJuly 30, 2008 7:17:02 PMRespond ^


The more relevant question would be "When will be the next time?" How ironic that the nut jobs with the same mind-set as the NRA are the ones who brought to power the dirt bags we now have to worry about defending ourselves against. Oh, BTW, why do these people believe that we Liberals don't own guns and don't know how to shoot?
Posted by:BerryBkProJuly 30, 2008 7:24:48 PMRespond ^
I support recreational hunting and gun ownership; the gun-control lobby is famous for spreading misinformation too.

But the idea that civilians owning weapons is going to stop the government from becoming totalitarian is downright absurd. That's because totalitarian regimes ARE ALWAYS POPULIST! What keeps us from falling into the same nightmares ourselves is our commitment to freedom AND open public discourse. Regimes become evil when they establish themselves based on deceit and fear, rather than open conversation; not when they out-gun the public.
Posted by:Populist IllusionJuly 30, 2008 7:25:49 PMRespond ^
I was an early member of the Million Moms, active in Washington, DC. We knew we'd arrived when the NRA began filling our voicemail boxes overnight with the sound of jackboots coming to get us, Thump thump thump, Th-THUMP, which rolled over onto the next number and the next and so forth. I don't remember Mary Lou, but since she came out of Ceasefire New Jersey, where the Number One Mom, Donna Dees-Thomases originated, she was plenty close to the source. The U.S.A. under Bush sort of reminds you of the Soviet Union, doesn't it? the BIG story is Mary Lou's son's being involved in arms shipments, as the REAL story behind the NRA has so very little do with the rights of hunters and gun owners and everything to do with the munitions industries continuing to arm everyone in the world to the teeth, a truth the the American public is kept continually distracted from observing by the Second Amendment true believers, which is the same kind of single issue nuisance as the Right to Quote Unquote Life....These people care NOTHING about life and ONLY about their corporate bottom lines...
Posted by:Wayne's MomJuly 30, 2008 7:26:22 PMRespond ^
I think that the armed Iraqis have been doing a fairly splendid job of defending themselves against a tyrannical, occupying government.
Posted by:MikeJuly 30, 2008 7:47:10 PMRespond ^
RE: Wayne's Mom

Way to use new material. Double post for the win.
Posted by:Tsm002July 30, 2008 7:50:30 PMRespond ^
Bad-a$$es will always triumph over do-gooders, because do-gooders are DUMB!

With due respect to The Lord Dark Helmet
Posted by:Do-Gooders vs Bad-A$$esJuly 30, 2008 7:58:05 PMRespond ^
Just shows how lacking in morals the gun lobby are. They want to play with their lethal toys, and don't care what harm their policies wreak on our inner cities. Just compare how many people die from gun crime in the US compared to countries like England. Why won't people wake up.
Posted by:JohnJuly 30, 2008 8:08:12 PMRespond ^
["Seven shootings in Washington on Monday night -- three dead."]
This in a place where the lawful possession of operable firearms is limited to the Police.
So tell me how effective disarming law abiding citizens is in preventing these crimes.......
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 8:14:19 PMRespond ^
["I've had an experience of a spy infiltrating a group that I belong to. It was just last month and that gentleman is still in the hosptital. And I put him there. I'd do the same thing to this old broad. These people are bullies and cowards and the only thing they understand is violence. Well the Army trained me well and I'm more than happy to use it.
Posted by:Fed Up"]

So you're a participant in criminal violence then?
One more reason for LAW ABIDING citizens to have the means to defend themselves against criminals.
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 8:21:13 PMRespond ^
Let's see...Sarah Brady bought a long range, high power sniper rifle for her son. Bragged about it in her book.
Sen. Diane Feinststein, a very anti-gun person, has or had a CCW and owned guns, plus has armed guards. Ditto for Sen. E. M. Kennedy (and some of his hired guards were busted in NY for illegal possession of fully automatic weapons). I believe Sen. Schumer has a CCW, and armed guards.

If guns are so evil, then why does just about everyone high in the anti-gun (really, anti-civil rights) industry have guns or thugs with guns? Seems like they should be setting an example by publicly renouncing their right and pledging that they will no longer have guns anywhere around them.

As far as the mole, why is it that leftist moles who infiltrate companies or conservative organizations are praised, but those from conservative groups who infiltrate socialist groups are condemned?
Posted by:subdjoeJuly 30, 2008 8:27:41 PMRespond ^
Good for Mary! These gun control whackjobs are incapable of rational thought. Example, this post, below:

"Seven shootings in Washington on Monday night -- three dead. Possible connection with Supreme Court ruling?"

Makes a lot of sense...to an idiot.
Posted by:Joe GunnJuly 30, 2008 8:36:01 PMRespond ^
Wow! NRA Infiltrates anti-American, anti-freedom, neo-Marxist organizations. . . how disgusting!
Posted by:Douglas SmithJuly 30, 2008 8:36:35 PMRespond ^
["So many idiots; so many guns... Every day children are killed playing with their parents guns - something else the NRA are proud of I guess.
Posted by:It's not important"]

I suggest you campaign against paddling pools, swimming pools & buckets, as "accidental" deaths of children involving these items are many times higher & usually from the same cause: plack of parental supervision.
Or how about deaths caused by motor vehicles?
Now THERE'S a preventable cause of many children's deaths that is many times higher than those caused by firearms.
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 8:42:38 PMRespond ^
Mary Lou Sapone is a heroine who should be honored by those who value thier constitutional freedoms. Thank you for highlighting her her brave and important work, and rest assured I will spread news of her greatc works to all those who treasure thier rights as Americans.
Posted by:MWM1331July 30, 2008 8:42:59 PMRespond ^
McFate was working for the government.

NRA = Not Really America
Posted by:rondoJuly 30, 2008 8:43:54 PMRespond ^
["McFate was working for the government.

NRA = Not Really America"]

Ah; a conspiracy theorist!

The reason the NRA is the most powerful non industry, lobbying organisation in the US is because so many citizens SUPPORT its actions.
That's called Democracy, or don't you believe in the principle?
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 8:50:04 PMRespond ^
Hey Lindy,

This retired First Sergeant Paratrooper recalls kicking in doors in beautiful sunny Haiti and confiscating arsenals from the thugs living on the hills overlooking the lovely putrid city of Port-au-Prince. Remember this after the most ethical administration decided to enact a totally unconstitutional law banning "military style assault weapons." After the confiscated arsenals were turned over to the MPs, we NCO's and Officers asked, "Is this a dry run for operations against Americans?" We all to a man and woman sworn to up-hold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic stated, "That would be an illegal order and we could refuse to carry it out." AIRBORNE!
Posted by:First ShirtJuly 30, 2008 8:53:16 PMRespond ^
The Iraqis were all packing AK-47's under Saddam, and the US too. Guess they were a democracy all along!
Posted by:GunSkepticJuly 30, 2008 9:00:22 PMRespond ^
["all you nra fanatics, you are just a bunch of losers who hide behind a gun. If the govt decides to, they will kill and your family whether or not you have a gun. I have no problem with trained, responsible folks having guns, per say, i used to use rifles quite often.

However, there must be regulations to keep handguns away from the mentally ill, criminals and excons (and repubs because they are are bat sh_it insane anyway). Get off your self righteous myopic high horses, you just look like complete idiots.
Posted by:nra sucks ballz

So you advocate the restrictions of citizens' Rights according to their political allegiance?

How very National Socialist of you....

I suggest you explore some of the 20,000+ laws regulating firearms in the US: There are more than enough aimed at preventing felons & the insane from having firearms.
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 9:06:31 PMRespond ^
["you f-ing idiot, do you have a brain in your head? Obviously not. The gun control lobby does NOT want to take the guns of honest responsible, NON CRIMINAL citizens. They do want them out of schools, away from the mentally ill and criminals and excons. WTF is wrong with you repubs thinking that everyone is out to take away your rights, when your own party has done a fine job in 8 years.

Support your rights and civil liberties, vote OBAMA in November.
Posted by:nra sucks my ballz"]

I suggest you read some of the hyperbole & overstated rhetoric used by the VPC & other anti 2nd Amendment groups if you believe they don't want to disarm EVERYONE.

How about doyen of the VPC, Carolyn McCarthy's "Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in" statement on firearms.

Dear boy: PLEASE do some research before pontificating upon a subject on which you patently have little, if any knowledge.
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 9:15:49 PMRespond ^
I cheered when, during the "Rodney King" Riots, the citizens of Korean decent, brought out firearms to shoot at the Democratic Party Racist Thugs who came out of "The Party's" inner sanctums,to kill and burn the Korean businesses.

Thank you NRA for sticking up for our Civil Rights!
Posted by:James XJuly 30, 2008 9:17:25 PMRespond ^
Do a little research on what the Mujahideen did to the Soviet army in Afghanistan for over 10 years with their "pop guns."

While you're at it, why not read the Bill of Rights. We'd all be up in arms (pun intended) if our posts were covered with "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(TEXT CENSORED BY U.S. GOVT.)" yet to deny a fellow citizens natural right to self defense is somehow alright?

Think about it.

Posted by:GunnerJuly 30, 2008 9:23:58 PMRespond ^
["Just shows how lacking in morals the gun lobby are. They want to play with their lethal toys, and don't care what harm their policies wreak on our inner cities. Just compare how many people die from gun crime in the US compared to countries like England. Why won't people wake up.
Posted by:John"]

I'm well qualified to reply to this, as I'm English & live in the UK.

We have DOUBLE the violent crime rate of the US & FOUR TIMES the number of "hot" home invasions on a pro rata basis.

IF banning the lawful possession of handguns is a such a good idea, then why do we see so many shootings using them in the UK?

I throw down a challenge to all the liberals here:
Show me what YOUR policies have done to reduce violence amongst those who support you - the dispossessed, the indigent, those living in inner city ghettoes, drug addicts, illegal immigrants & all the other proponents of the welfare state.

OK; don't bother, because you've done a big fat zero.
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 9:28:37 PMRespond ^
The whole issue is a complete and utter joke. If you don't believe me, go pick up a copy of Guns and Ammo sometime, and just casually flip through and see what they're selling these days. The firearms industry is a 'booming' business to be in, and it won't go away anytime soon, and they'll sell the stuff to just about anybody with 300 bucks and a pulse, so....
Posted by:BertJuly 30, 2008 9:29:03 PMRespond ^
Lot of hate in this world.
Posted by:Nobody R. NothingJuly 30, 2008 9:30:04 PMRespond ^
["The whole issue is a complete and utter joke. If you don't believe me, go pick up a copy of Guns and Ammo sometime, and just casually flip through and see what they're selling these days. The firearms industry is a 'booming' business to be in, and it won't go away anytime soon, and they'll sell the stuff to just about anybody with 300 bucks and a pulse, so....
Posted by:Bert"]

I guess you don't know what a NICS check is, or a Form 4473.

One thing firearms owners DON'T want is violent criminals & mentally unstable citizens having access to guns.
Posted by:Mike the LimeyJuly 30, 2008 9:39:32 PMRespond ^
"When was the last time civilians with guns won their "freedom" from a tyranical government?"

In the US, Battle of Athens TN, 1946. Google it.

Local officals took control of the county government. The NYT went nuts back then.

And if you count Cuba and the South American governments, and Darfur, quite recently :)

Posted by:FredJuly 30, 2008 9:48:46 PMRespond ^
Thanks God there are true patriots around like Mary Lou!
Posted by:JoeJuly 30, 2008 9:51:05 PMRespond ^
Hey, alls fair in Love and War..and that is exactly what this is, a War for our god-given freedom. Gun control advocates would not flinch for a moment to use force, the force of a tyranical government to disarm us, they would in fact advocate killing any gun owner unwilling to lay down their arms..in the name of peace and safety..what a crock
Posted by:HeatJuly 30, 2008 9:52:43 PMRespond ^
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

Emotion in Reading:

The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's re-state the 2nd in another context:

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.

There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
Posted by:ccw4me2July 30, 2008 10:00:44 PMRespond ^
Human nature doesn't change. If a society bans possession of weapons they are leaving not only the society as a whole but also individuals vulnerable to all sorts of bad actions by others. Part of being safe is feeling safe.

Moreover, gun control doesn't work. If it did Washington DC wouldn't be one of the most violent cities in the country.
Posted by:Good CitizenJuly 30, 2008 10:01:26 PMRespond ^
What happened after that? People with weak arguments invoked Hitler and hoped no one noticed.
Posted by:HeraldblogJuly 30, 2008 10:03:58 PMRespond ^
in a tyrannical government you are bound to have 'boots on the ground'. bombers and most tanks are of little use in urban warfare. cities are where you would likely meet resistance if you were a tyrant.
Posted by:jasonJuly 30, 2008 10:08:23 PMRespond ^
You go Mary! Take down them liberals from the inside! JUST LIKE THEY HAVE DONE TO US BY INFILTRATING EVERY FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY!
Posted by:Robert JonesJuly 30, 2008 10:12:48 PMRespond ^
"Since concealed carry permits prevent the criminal from knowing who is armed and who is not, those who are not armed benefit from the general deterrent effect as criminals choose non-confrontational crime rather than risk being shot." - Dangerous Women: Feminism, Self Defense and Civil Rights - Robert L. Barrow and Dr. Gary Mauser

Why are gun-grabbers so sexist?
Posted by:AndyCJuly 30, 2008 10:15:13 PMRespond ^
The NRA has over 4 million dues paying members, and has democratically elected officers. The gun control cabal has 100, maybe 1000 members, and has a politburo style leadership structure, with financing not from members but from the likes of George Soros and the Joyce foundation.

From the third episode of the PBS series "The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow", which chronicles the years from 1917 to 1940: "The NAACP played a major role in civil rights during this time. While Du Bois urged Blacks to fight for their rights, NAACP Executive Secretary Walter White posed as a white man to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan, and Charles Hamilton Houston, the NAACP's first chief counsel, fought battles in the courts to lay the foundation for the historic Brown v. Board of Education case."

I think the analogy of the NRA to the NAACP is clear. Both organizations were fighting extremist groups attempting to suppress the civil rights of their members.

Racists in America no doubt felt that what Walter White did was unfair to the Klan.
Posted by:Chicago ReasonJuly 30, 2008 10:21:31 PMRespond ^
Gun Control isn't about Guns. It's about control.

And do they think they just sent in ONE?

BWHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by:FredJuly 30, 2008 10:33:08 PMRespond ^
Everyone in Iraq owns a gun. Just look at how democracy is working there.
Posted by:george w. buschJuly 30, 2008 10:38:01 PMRespond ^
Contrary to popular belief that everyone owns a gun in Iraq, somehow democracy works there? ? ? Please remember, this country has never respected nor followed the "rule of law" and therefore has a lot of political maturing of the body politik. We value the rule of law and the preservation of our GOD Given Rights to Life, Liberty and Property; and the RIGHT TO PROTECT THEM ALL!
Posted by:First ShirtJuly 30, 2008 10:51:20 PMRespond ^
Why are you people so against guns but have no problem killing babies. I and the majority of gun owners have never killed anyone. How many of you fine upstanding folk can claim that you have not had an abortion? Why do you constantly think that you have the right to impose your will upon others yet, your chosen lifestyles must remain sacrosanct?
Posted by:CarlJuly 30, 2008 11:10:50 PMRespond ^
Consider the shootings that have been in the news recently; What did they all have in common?

That's right! They all took place in "Gun Free Zones." Or more accurately, "Victim disarmament zones",
or "Anti-self defense zones."

So, next time you visit a school, or a mall, leave your concealed handgun at home but be sure to bring your cell phone so you can call 911 if some shooting starts.

then wait...........
Posted by:GunnerJuly 30, 2008 11:13:31 PMRespond ^
Holy Cow - a right wing Daniel Ellsbeg. Who would have thought that a pro-gunner would stoop that low. Yes Mr. Corn, Kim Philby is alive and well.
Posted by:FFJuly 30, 2008 11:15:13 PMRespond ^
And a story published this last week said that Montgomery McFate (the most dispised anthropologist on the take in America) made $400,000 this past year doing no bid contracts for the Pentagon's discredted Human Terrain Teams.

My god, what a fine American family. Time for another breakdown I guess.
Posted by:Saw this comingJuly 30, 2008 11:15:32 PM