[Preacherman]

From http://www.boomundo.com/dean/nra.htm:

Help Gov. Dean Get The NRA's Endorsement!
(Suggested by Mrs. Kelly Jacobs)

Gov. Dean is the only Democrat running for President to have received an "A" rating from the NRA. Dean's position on sensible gun laws should merit the NRA's endorsement of him for the democratic nomination. If the NRA, and it's 5 million plus members, were to endorse Dean it would bring a windfall of support. As Gov. Dean says, there are many people who have been voting Republican for the past 50 years - what do they have to show for it? Their children don't have health insurance either. If the gun control issue was a non-issue in the 2004 election, many NRA voters would then feel as though they could make a choice that would ACTUALLY benefit them and their families.

The NRA under CEO LaPierre has been known to mis-report its own ratings in campaign mailings when it is beneficial to the GOP; for example, in the 1998 Illinois U.S. Senate race between Carol Moseley-Braun and Peter Fitzgerald, the NRA sent postcards to voters which claimed that Fitzgerald had an "A" rating as a state legislator, when, in fact, he had only a "C." Gov. Dean, however, has widely publicized his "A" rating, and an attempt by LaPierre to distort this fact would likely backfire. If Republicans can't portray the 2004 election as a referendum on gun rights, it's unclear whether the NRA would be able to turn out such impressive numbers for Republicans as they did in the 2000 election and in the mid-term elections of 2002.

_________________________________________________________

They go on to give contact details and a sample letter to the NRA requesting their endorsement. First time I've seen a far-left Democrat (well, his supporters, actually) request an NRA endorsement! :eek:

[Mike Irwin]

The candidate "Grade" rankings, and NRA's use of them, is a :cuss:ing travesty.

When I worked there I was appalled at some of the shenanigans that went on regarding those "grades."

That's all I'll say about that. :cuss:

[TallPine]

And of course the NRA supports enforcement of "all existing gun laws" :barf:

[jsalcedo]

Give me a break.

There are very few folks that have headed executive branch in the last
35 years that weren't some kind of gun grabber when given the opprotunity.

Johnson:
GCA 68 worst piece of gun control legislation ever passed in the US
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon: supported GCA 68

"Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15. ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter
Lent vocal support to brady bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reagan FPA 86 (machinegun ban)

See 137 CONG.REC. H2847 (daily ed. May 8, 1991) (statement of Rep. Atkins) (announcing that he is proud to support legislation that is also backed by former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon); id. at H2844 (statement of Rep. Roemer) (noting that Brady bill had support of former Presidents Reagan and Nixon).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush (41)

Import ban on certain semi autos 1989

Resigned his lifetime NRA membership when a NRA rep called
Govt agents jack booted thugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton
Brady bill, AWB 94

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush (43)
Opposes arming airline pilots and is directly responsible for Mineta's
foot dragging and sandbagging the process

Has supported backround checks and has vowed to renew the AWB in its current form.

[Jim March]

I dunno. I'll wait and see how the so-called AW bill does (sunsets or not) and I'm also interested in what turn civil liberties/Ashcroft/"Patriot" horsecrap takes.

But lemme tell ya: if Ashcroft continues to run around totally off-leash, if Cheney keeps on doing his best immitation of Emperor Valentine, and Dubya doesn't seem able to stand up to 'em...well, Dean is at minimum going to get a very hard look from me. And if he goes far enough with promises not to get involved in Federal gun-grabbing, AND declares which SANE person he's going to nominate for AG (hint: the last two have been nutcases of the first order!) then he's liable to get my vote.

Now, it's not too late for Bush to regain my support. Dump Ashcroft, fix these crazy Haliburton deals, apologize for the Patriot Act idiocy and for dangsure let the sunset happen, and I'll gladly vote for him again.

[Mark Tyson]

I'm with you, Jim March. Dean says he thinks gun control should be a state matter. Though he says he supports the AWB he doesn't sound too enthusiastic about pushing anything new through. If we can keep Congress scared of messing with our gun rights, I think we'll be in good shape. The antis have already come out against him - he owes them nothing.

There's a lot of other issues on the agenda right now. If their hands are tied up with other matters, it will be hard to bring an unpopular issue to the front, especially if they think it's a dangerous loser.

If the ban sunsets, I'd advise everyone to buy as many full capacity magazines as you can quickly, if you're so inclined. The enemies of freedom never sleep...

[greyhound]

I dunno, Dean is a leftist Democrat overall. From a personally selfish POV, saying "leave it to the states" does nothing for me, as I live in MD.

Yet I don't see Bush as doing anything for my 2A rights, either.

I just can't help thinking that Dean is full of it and will toe the Democratic/leftist line of taking away all guns once elected. Remember that Vermont's unique firearm laws are in their Constitution and are not something a Governor could change even if they wanted to.

IMHO, the NRA should refuse to endorse ANY major candidate, on the grounds that NONE of them promote their goals. If they have to choose one, make a statement and back the token Libertarian candidate.

[rock jock]

Yet I don't see Bush as doing anything for my 2A rights, either.
Well, if you lived in Texas, you'd feel differently. I can carry a concealed handgun in this state because of this man, and I still appreciate that seven years later. I would also add that, despite the criticism of Ashcroft that has become somewhat of a daily exercise on this board, he is the only AG in recent memory that has affirmed the 2A as an individual right.

[Jim March]

What it means for the PRESIDENT (or candidate) to say "leave it to the states" is that HE doesn't want any part of signing new gun control.

Since the Prez cannot sign new gun control for the states (or block it at the state level, for that matter) the actual plea to have the states decide gun control is meaningless babble meant to shift attention away from the core position:

"I won't sign new gun control bills."

Now, had he said THAT, would y'all be more in support of Dean?

Instead, he says:

"Leave gun control to the states."

:scrutiny:

Look again, guys: those are the SAME statements, or at minimum will have the identical effect if honestly pursued by the *President*.

[El Rojo]

To sum that idea up: NO!

[Mike Irwin]

Let's remember what FPA 86 did for gun owners, though, and not just say that Reagan = Evil for signing it into law.

Had FPA 86 failed, we'd still be signing our names for every stinking box of ammo we purchase, and we wouldn't have the vast flow of surplus firearms that we do today.

The machine gun ban was slipped in at the last minute by Democrats desparate to make it seem as if they were being tough on crime. Given how a line-item veto wasn't an option for the President at the time, it's a rock and a hard place type thing.

It unfortunately came down to a situation where what benefitted the most people the most, and it was really a Catch 22.

Sign it, and have machine gun enthusiasts gibbering about what a gun grabbing fasicommienazi a-hole bastard anti-American prick the president is.

Veto it, and have everyone else, and likely a large segment of the MG owners, gibbering about what a gun grabbing fasicommienazi a-hole bastard anti-American prick the president is.

Take no action on it, and let it come into law a priorie (I think that's the term), and everyone is gibbering.

Why don't people put the blame where it REALLY belongs?

On the :cuss:hole Democrats who attached the machine gun ban at the last minute, knowing, and hoping, that if the sponsors pulled the bill from that session it likely would NEVER see the light of day again?

Remember, the President isn't a dictator who rules by fiat. That bill got through 535 other people before it got to him for a signature.

[Standing Wolf]

If the NRA, and it's 5 million plus members...

People who don't know when to use apostrophes shouldn't attempt to masquerade as journalists.

This site seems to have gone back into extreme slow motion.

[Monkeyleg]

Look, here it is in black-and-white: Bush came from a pro-gun state where he signed CCW legislation. Now that he's president of a country divided--but not as divided as the media would have us think-- on gun issues, he's taken a "moderate" to hands-off approach. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, and knows not to tick off gun owners.

Dean also comes from a pro-gun state. Problem is that, like Bush, he will be beholden to certain factions in his party. Bush needs the NRA. Dean needs the wacko left, including the Brady Bunch.

If Bush did indeed sign a renewal of the '94 AWB ban, does anyone for one split second think that Sarah Brady would endorse him? Conversely, does anyone seriously think that Sarah will campaign against Dean?

Regardless of their pronounced stances on the issues, the feminists will run to Dean, the abortion-rights groups will run to Dean, as will the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and every other group whose leaders lean Democrat.

Likewise, the NRA will run to Bush, as will the right-to-life groups, the conservative Christians, the foreign policy hawks, and every other group whose leaders lean Republican.

Years and years ago, it was possible to vote for a pro-gun Democrat, or a pacifist Republican. The issues and the parties have become so factionalized now that it's near impossible to do either.

[Bigjake]

the day the NRA endorces a liberal dem is the day they stop receiving any and all of my support.

[ARperson]

Originally posted by Jim March:
What it means for the PRESIDENT (or candidate) to say "leave it to the states" is that HE doesn't want any part of signing new gun control.

Maybe. But's it's the right thing to say, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

Something about an amendment to the Constitution that says if it (the Constitution) doesn't specifically grant a power to Congress, then it automatically belongs to the states.

While gun control is wrong, wrong, wrong wherever it orginates, it should NEVER come from the federales as they have no jurisdiction over it. That being said, in an ideal world, were the states to try to pass this crap, the appeals process should land it in the U.S. Supreme Court where it should be smacked down so quickly.

But we're not in a perfect world, are we? :mad:

[WvaBill]

Yet I don't see Bush as doing anything for my 2A rights, either.


I for one do not relish the impact an appointment of any Democratic President to SCOTUS will have on my 2A rights. The Senate elections should focus on the need to get Justices for ALL Constitutional Rights. If he does nothing for or against 2A but appoint 1 or more of the ilk of Justice Thomas, he will have done something significant for 2A.

I do not mean to say that any appointments will be pro 2A. If anyone has listened to Thomas speak, compared to Ginsburg, it is obvious which is preferable for those who belief that the Constitution is a forthright document without alot of nonsense (right to abortion, right to place vulgarity in public, separation of Church and State) between the lines.

Many are beginning to reconsider Patriot. Legislation passed in the heat of 911. Where have I heard that decisions based on emotions are often flawed?

[Dan from MI]

Dean is on record as supporting the AW ban, supporting the ban on private sales in gun shows, and is opposed to stopping frivolous lawsuits against gun makers.

He's not our friend. He's not a John Kerry, DiFi, or Klintler, but he still sucks.

Bush sucks too for that matter on this, but at least he said he'd sign a bill stopping frivolous lawsuits. If he signs the AW ban though, I won't vote for him. If he doesn't sign it, I'll vote for him.

-----

Lastly, as to the NRA ratings. Mike Irwin - I know firsthand, especially with one particular individual from my state. That's all I'll say.

[fallingblock]

By an old buddy from my University days.
He's a dedicated environmentalist these days, and likes Howard's
pro-green stance:eek: .

Dean is not our friend...there is no way he would be able to prevent new gun-grabbing with the Democ-rat party demanding it, and they will demand it.:mad:

[Mark Tyson]

Conversely, does anyone seriously think that Sarah will campaign against Dean?

The Brady Bunch and the Million Moms have already come out against Dean. He doesn't owe them squat.

the day the NRA endorces a liberal dem is the day they stop receiving any and all of my support.

Even if a liberal democrat supported the right to bear arms more than a conservative republican?

[greyhound]

Now, had he said THAT, would y'all be more in support of Dean?

Still no. He's still a leftist, and would likely raise my taxes so high I couldn't afford any of the guns he's not signing bans for.:D

I think Monkeyleg's post explains it well. Maybe I was a bit hard on Bush overall, but playing the moderate doesn't help those of us in ultra anti states. Though to be sure, most of the change has to come from us throwing the elite leftist out of the state legislatures.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Note that the only thing being asked is that the NRA support Dean in the Democratic primary. Knowing most Democrats, this could actually be a ploy by a Dean hater to sink his campaign rather than help it though.

Dean has already acknowledged his A-rating as Governor of Vermont and when the media asked him if that meant the NRA would support him over Bush he answered that no, the NRA would go with Bush over him. This was a long time ago, so Dean knows the score there.

Frankly, I think it is absolutely in our best interest to make sure that the most pro-gun Democrat is the one who wins the primary. Dean may not be pro-gun by our standards; but you don't see Dianne Feinstein cheering him on either.

The more we can encourage Democrats to stand up for us, the less we will have to worry about the Republicans backstabbing us on some critical legislation like the AWB.

[MrAcheson]

In 1992, I remember Bill Clinton being championed as a "moderate" as opposed to the "ultra-conservative" Bush, Sr. 11 Years later we now know that while Clinton did pass some conservative legislation after he lost congress, he was hardly moderate.

I think we will find that Dean is similar. Its possible that Dean could be a democrat in the same way that TR was a republican (DINO as opposed to RINO), but I doubt it. Since he supports the AWB, he obviously doesn't think that gun control is only an issue for the states. Its just an issue he doesn't want to deal with because he knows he can't win on it. "Issue for the states" is a convenient way to duck it.

[Bill Hook]

And of course the NRA supports enforcement of "all existing gun laws"

And few more will "exist" after Dean gets in as President (God, no!).

Wasn't Comrade Gore an "A" list candidate for the NRA? That proves it's a worthless designation right there.

[Jim March]

Well...there's a HUGE difference in Gore's case.

Gore changed so much between 1988 and 2000 it's just pathetic.

As one example: by 2000 Gore was the darling of the Liberal Elite for, among other things, his widely professed support for gays.

But in his failed 1988 run for the Dem presidencial primary, his Kansas campaign manager was a guy name of Fred Phelps.

Yes, THAT Phelps. The one that runs a bizarre cult misleadingly termed a "baptist church" and hangs out outside of the funerals of AIDS victims with signs reading "GOD HATES FAGS" with his extended family/"congregation"/victims.

It's not just the gay issue - Gore's flip-flops over a SHORT time period are just startling, a clear sign the man has NO moral compass and never did have one.

Yes, Gore did at one time vote reliably pro-gun. He's from Tennessee fer Chrissakes, he'll vote whichever way he thinks will lead to a win to keep feeding at the trough.

Sorry, but, I see NO evidence of that utter lack of moral compass in Dean. On the contrary, I don't agree with the guy on a lot of points but I do respect him.

But Gore?

:barf:

[Bigjake]

Greyhoud said

Still no. He's still a leftist, and would likely raise my taxes so high I couldn't afford any of the guns he's not signing bans for.

That sums it up for me. he is still a leftist, end of story

[Master Blaster]

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws


Dean had this in a longer form on his front page a month or two ago.

The original sounded like Sarah Brady, and Chuckie Schumer wrote it.:barf:

Its now been edited in half, (removing the part about Malvo using an assault weapon among other things) its also been hidden. This makes him a LIBERAL LIAR.

The bottom line is he just wants to close a few loopholes, in Federal law, pass the assault weapon ban (which version????), and then

LET THE STATES DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

Its funny because I thought that the Bill of rights and the constitution applied to all the states, not just the ones that want to follow it.

NRA endorsement NFW,

about the time the NRA endorses Hillary Klintoon for president.:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Master Blaster]

Sensible Gun Laws:


Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States. During my 11 years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont or Wyoming, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.


Which 20 of the 22 major laws have the feds been ignoring??????

You mean the Feds have not been searching everyone accussed of domestic abuse via no knock raids???????

[Sam Adams]

Would Howard Dean really be a friend of gunowners and the 2nd Amendment? I tend to think not, no matter his past record. Why? Because he had a little thing called the Vermont Constitution standing in the way of his very liberal views, and behind that a fairly conservative (at least regarding guns) electorate. So, this very liberal politician didn't touch an issue that only could have burned him - not exactly a principled stand, just a practical one.

Now, let's look at a possible Dean administration. He's a big Lefty, remember? So who are going to be his closest advisors, and who is he going to appoint as cabinet officials? The obvious answer is: almost all people who think just like him. Who is he going to be beholden to the most? Almost certainly the big Lib organizations like the NEA, the ACLU, the enviro-wackos, etc., all of whom are rabidly - RABIDLY - anti-gun. Who do you think that he's going to appoint to the Supreme Court, activist judges or strict constructionists? 1000:1 odds on the former. When a Dem-controlled Congress (which, if Dean actually wins, is likely) sends him an anti-gun bill - or 5 of them - is he REALLY going to veto? If you think so, then you also believe that there's no bag limit on the year-round season on flying pigs. Bottom line: Dean will be a disaster for gun rights, not to mention almost all other areas of our society. He is only pointing to this part of his record to show Dems that he is a viable national candidate, one who can disarm (pun intended) the Republicans on the gun issue. It is a crock'o'shiite, and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it.

Oh, and BTW, Master Blaster's quote from Dean shows just where he stands: He's in favor of everything now on the books and in strengthening the "Insta-check" system. Can you say "Registration?" He'll go full steam ahead with that, all the while claiming that he's never banned a single gun. The next Dem elected after him will have a full listing of every gun purchased or transferred for at least Dean's term, and probably for that of any Republican elected after Dean. Plus, of course, all those that have already been illegally registered. Remember, Hitler was able to ban guns because the Weimar Republic happily registered all of the legal guns and gun owners. Dean will be, AT BEST, the US equivalent of the Weimar government in this regard.

If the NRA endorses him then its leaders are either fools, crooks or both (which they may be anyway, but they're smart enough not to show it). Dean ain't the Dem for the NRA to pick to break from the Republicans - someone like Zell Miller might have had a decent shot at it, IF he had decided to run. Of course, if he had decided to run, he'd never get have gotten more than 5% of Dem votes in the primaries because he is so relatively conservative, but that's a different issue.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Once again, they aren't asking NRA to endorse Dean for President, they are asking NRA to endorse him for the Democratic nomination i.e. Dean instead of Clark, Kerry, Lieberman, Sharpton, Gephardt, Sneezy, Dopey and Doc...

So wailing about Bush vs. Dean is premature and there is no chance the NRA would ever pick Dean over Bush. However, if you see a more pro-gun candidate than Dean in the Dem lineup, speak up!

[Jim March]

Mr. Roberts gets a ceegar!

Look guys, we have to influence the primaries in BOTH major parties into a pro-gun direction.

By Democrat standards, what was posted on Dean shows that he's a wild-eyed gun nut.

So yes, absolutely, I want to see Dean win the Dem primary.

That ALSO means he'll be a serious threat to Dubya and for God's sake, guys, is that such a bad thing? Facing a serious challenge from a relatively pro-freedom Dem, what is Dubya gonna do?

I'll tell you what he'll do. He'll fire Ashcroft, he'll take freedom more seriously in general - IF he wants to win.

This is a bad thing?

[fallingblock]

Sure, a good thing all-round.

But I sure wouldn't want Howard Dean in the White House:eek: .

Wouldn't it be nice to see the folks at DNC squirming over an
'almost pro-gun'? democ-rat:D

[pittspilot]

Originally Posted by Jim March

Sorry, but, I see NO evidence of that utter lack of moral compass in Dean. On the contrary, I don't agree with the guy on a lot of points but I do respect him.

On Wednesday, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the former Vermont governor his opinion on whether Israel should be assassinating Hamas leaders.

“I think no one likes to see violence of any kind. That’s why the United States is involved. I will say, however, there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war,” Dean said. “Therefore, it seems to me, that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war.” (http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/71491.html)

And then there are his statements of neutrality on the Isreali conflict. I don't want to get into it, but anyone who is "neutral" between the PA and the Israeli's, IMHO lacks a moral compass.

[glocksman]

Ummm....


There are a lot of Americans who are just plain sick of financing Sharon's Eretz Israel.

The West Bank isn't legally part of Israel. Those 'settlers' have no more legitimacy than the German 'settlers' did in 1942 Poland and are just as much a legitimate target as the Germans in Poland were to the Polish Resistance.

Put it this way. If the Israelis stole my land, bulldozed my home, and killed some of my family, I'd probably pick up an AKM and go and kill a few Israelis myself.

If Israel doesn't want to be a constant target, they need to get out of the West Bank.

Dean's right. America should be neutral, not a cheerleader for the Likud party's imperialist ambitions. Judea and Samaria, my a$$. :rolleyes:

[jsalcedo]

The West Bank isn't legally part of Israel. Those 'settlers' have no more legitimacy than the German 'settlers' did in 1942 Poland and are just as much a legitimate target as the Germans in Poland were to the Polish Resistance.

Those are occupied territories captured when Israel was attacked by
5 Arab countries bent on its destruction.

Those are not palestinian territories. the palestinians have no home land because they have been chased out, subjugated and attacked by every other Arab government that caught them trying to settle in their country.

The Israelies allowed Plaestinians to settle in the occupied territories,
gave them running water, sewer systems, electricity, jobs and health care.

The "evil" Israelies were paid back by suicide bombings, murder, and demands that the areas captured from Israel's sworn enemies be given to palestinian state terrorists.

[glocksman]

Those are occupied territories captured when Israel was attacked by 5 Arab countries bent on its destruction.

Ummm... They were captured during the 1967 war, when Israel attacked first. The 1973 war was when Israel got blindsided by the Arabs.

Besides, we captured Japan and Germany over 50 years ago. Did we annex them as US territories and 'settle' Americans in Bavaria or Honshu with the intention of keeping it?

Those are not palestinian territories. the palestinians have no home land because they have been chased out, subjugated and attacked by every other Arab government that caught them trying to settle in their country.

Ummm.. the West Bank has had Palestinans in it for hundreds of years.

The Israelies allowed Plaestinians to settle in the occupied territories,
gave them running water, sewer systems, electricity, jobs and health care.

Only as a byproduct of building up infrastructure for their 'settlers'.

The Palestinans were already there, so it's 'generous' of Israel to 'permit' them to stay on their own land, eh?

[pittspilot]

My statement was not meant to spark an Israeli-Palestinian debate. That would be hijacking the thread.

[Bigjake]

just as its generous to let the native americans stay on our land?? give me a break. they lost it fair and square, and now can't play nice over it. :cuss: 'em

[cordex]

The West Bank isn't legally part of Israel. Those 'settlers' have no more legitimacy than the German 'settlers' did in 1942 Poland and are just as much a legitimate target as the Germans in Poland were to the Polish Resistance.
Better example (as I've said before):
Those settlers have no more legitimacy than the defenders at the Alamo. Israel has no more right to claim ownership of those conquered lands than the US has claim to a vast chunk of the southwestern states.

But that's off-subject.

I'd support Dean through the primaries just like I'd support a pro-gun Republican through primaries.

[glocksman]

Would you roll over and play dead in that situation? Or would you fight back?

Frankly, as long as Israel occupies the west bank and gaza, my sympathies are with the Palestinians.

Those settlers have no more legitimacy than the defenders at the Alamo. Israel has no more right to claim ownership of those conquered lands than the US has claim to a vast chunk of the southwestern states.

Different era, different standards.

The Israeli 'settlers' are being put there by the Israeli government in much the same manner that Himmler used to settle his 'racial Germans' in Poland.

The US southwest was not settled in that manner.

[cordex]

So do your sympathies lie with the Native American nations and with the Mexican people from whom your government so rudely stole land?
The Israeli 'settlers' are being put there by the Israeli government in much the same manner that Himmler used to settle his 'racial Germans' in Poland.

The US southwest was not settled in that manner.
1. Neither the Israeli 'settlers' nor the government that allows them use the same tactics as Himmler. Stating that they do shows a vast lack of knowledge on the tactics used by one or both of the parties invovled.
2. Much of the US Southwest was settled at the point of a gun. When we wanted to expand our territory, we'd provoke the owner into a war and take what we wanted.

[MicroBalrog]

West Bank has had Palestinans in it for hundreds of years.

NO!

Over 80% of the "Palestinians" migrated into the region in the 1930's. They were not there for "hundreds of years".

[AZLibertarian]

Dean may be the most pro-RKBA Democrat, and he may have done enough as Governor to warrant some standing with the NRA, but he'd never get my support, either in a primary, or at the general election. He's a leftist nutcase still out for HillaryCare, and bent on increasing the reach of the already intrusive fed.gov. And as others have said, he'd be surrounded by other socialists who would see that any pro-RKBA inclination he might have would be drowned out by the NannyStatists.

With that said, Bush's domestic decisions haven't set well with me either. Patriot Act, Dept of Homeland Security (couldn't they have found a name less nazi-like?), trade issues, the largest fed.gov we've ever had, AWB, and on a personal point--the utter failure of the TSA and his continued obstruction of a viable program to arm airline pilots--all lead me to question his re-election. However, in the War on Terror, he has been absolutely magnificient, IMO.

Last month I wrote the NRA and let them know that they'd be losing a Life Member if they go squishy on the AWB next year. Their stance thus far has been good, but they've disappointed me in the past, and I won't continue to be used as a source of funds if they don't stand firm on this one.

But back to the original point...NRA endorsement of Dean? Nahhhh.

[Cosmoline]

As much as I dislike Dean's left-wing message, getting him in the fold on gun rights is well worth it. We have to support pro-gun politicos from both camps. Moreover, if we insist on "pure" candidates, we'll be restricted to a few fringe choices.

But while I think the NRA should endorse him (or Clark) as the best choice for Democrats, I won't be voting for him. And I remain in amazement that any American can continue to support the folks over in the Gaza Strip who danced with glee when news of 9/11 came out. Personally, I will never forget or forgive that.

[Sam Adams]

Ummm... They were captured during the 1967 war, when Israel attacked first. The 1973 war was when Israel got blindsided by the Arabs.

You should get your facts straight. Israel was about to be attacked by Egypt and Syria, and Jordan was gearing up. Nasser made repeated threats to "push the Jews into the sea" and to "annihilate the Jews," and had kicked the UN "peacekeepers" out of the Sinai desert in preparation for doing just that. The French, Israel's only arms supplier at the time, had cut off all deliveries of new equipment, spares and ammo when the crisis started in mid-May of '67, while the Soviets dramatically stepped-up deliveries to Egypt & Syria. Israel was the size of New Jersey, and a tank division could have cut Israel in half after about a 1/2 hour ride (it was 9, count'em 9, miles wide at its narrowest point). I'd say that the Israeli leaders not only did the only intelligent thing, but that they conducted the most moral of wars, one for survival. Ask yourself how long the US would have waited before launching a pre-emptive attack if at that time the Soviets had deployed 50 armored & mechanized divisions on the Canadian border and the Chinese a similar force on the Mexican border. Israel's '67 action was simply a pro-active defense. Kind of like us invading Iraq BEFORE it became too well armed with WMD's, since Hussein (like Nasser in '67) had proven himself to be a butcherous meglomaniac.

Besides, we captured Japan and Germany over 50 years ago. Did we annex them as US territories and 'settle' Americans in Bavaria or Honshu with the intention of keeping it?

First, there's a bit of difference between settling people several thousand miles away from your homeland on territory that has never been owned or claimed by your people (kind of like the Spanish and English colonized the Americas), vs. putting people on land conquered from an aggressive nation, land that used to belong to your people but was stolen by the Romans, Arabs, Turks and English over a 2,000 year period. Second and more recently, the Balfour Declaration gave all of the "West Bank" AND WHAT IS NOW JORDAN to the Jews in gratitude for Jewish help vs. the Turks in WW1, but the Brits did their usual thing and revoked a solemn promise when the big money (i.e. Arab oil) objected. The Israelis had every right to take that land PLUS all of Jordan even in the absence of the '67 threat to their survival, but they did the moral thing and only attacked when there was a choice between that and utter defeat, including a 2nd Holocaust (which Nasser promised to the glee of Egyptian audiences).

The West Bank isn't legally part of Israel. Those 'settlers' have no more legitimacy than the German 'settlers' did in 1942 Poland and are just as much a legitimate target as the Germans in Poland were to the Polish Resistance.

Again, you need to look a lot more deeply at your history, because you are just plain wrong. The Germans in Poland were naked aggressors, and no one but the most rabid racists ever believed otherwise. The Israelis are settling in territory conquered from an aggressor nation (Jordan, which attacked on the 3rd day of the war, despite Israel begging it not to), and for which they have a legitimate historical claim - one could easily argue that the Jews were "away from home" for a while (and on a non-voluntary trip, at that), and during the time they were away some squatters took over their home. They are now merely kicking out the squatters. Oh, and BTW, the squatters have NEVER recognized the right of the homeowners to live there, and despite being given generous terms have always refused to compromise in the slightest - to the point where they literally party in the streets when dozens of innocent Jewish children (hardly what you'd call aggressive imperialists at such a tender age) or old people (many concentration camp survivors) are ripped to shreds by some nut with a bomb. And you identify with them? You need your head, or at least your morals, examined.

Further, the so-called "Palestinians" are fairly recent immigrants to the area. Read Mark Twain - he visited what was then called Palestine in 1867, and wrote that the entire country was desolate, devoid of people. Jerusalem, BTW, was reported by Twain to have had about 40,000 people, mostly Jews. The "Palestinians" of today are simply Arabs whose grandparents and great grandparents came to this area in search of the prosperity that the farms and industry created by the western-educated Jews promised - much as many of the Blacks now in South Africa didn't originate there but are descended from recent natives of neighboring countries. There's a pattern here: the ill-educated neighboring people know a good thing (i.e. a western economy) when they see it, and since they can't create it themselves, they steal it (South Africa) or attempt to steal it (Israel) in the name of "national self-determination" or some such other PC nonsense concept used to justify a massive theft. Oh, and if you can kill a few dozen or hundred or thousand Whiteys or Jews in the process, that's just icing on the cake.

Cordex said: Those settlers have no more legitimacy than the defenders at the Alamo. Israel has no more right to claim ownership of those conquered lands than the US has claim to a vast chunk of the southwestern states.

Cordex is mostly right: the Israelis have AT LEAST AS MUCH claim on the "West Bank" as the US does on the southwestern US. However, it is really MORE of a claim, since the southwestern US was never American territory before 1848 - whereas the "West Bank" IS ancient Israel and Judea. Hence, our self-righteous politicians should put a sock in it when they criticize Israel over its policies - unless, that is, they wish to simultaneously campaign on a platform of returning CA, AZ, NM, CO, NV & TX to Mexico (well, returning CA actually isn't that bad of an idea :D ). Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Regarding Dean - let him get the Dem nomination. He'll be crushed like McGovern & Mondale. Heck, I take back what I said before - it isn't such a bad idea for the NRA to endorse him for the Democratic nomination. The only negative is that such an endorsement might tick off enough Dems to lose him the primaries.

[Moparmike]

From what I hear from my Republican-party employed friends, they WANT Dean to run against Bush, so it will be like Reagan v. Mondale.

I wish the LP would announce a candidate... (sigh).

[glocksman]

You should get your facts straight. Israel was about to be attacked by Egypt and Syria, and Jordan was gearing up.



No less an authority than Menachem Begin has stated the exact opposite.

Begin's address to the National Defense College (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ic90)

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.


There's also a quote from Rabin floating around that I haven't been able to find a direct link to because it's from the French newspaper Le Monde of February 29, 1968.

Rabin was quoted as saying, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."



NO!

Over 80% of the "Palestinians" migrated into the region in the 1930's. They were not there for "hundreds of years".



Got a link?

The BBC history of the Middle East states that the area was under Muslim rule for a thousand years (with the exception of the Age of the Crusades.

From the BBC history:
A few Zionist immigrants had already started arriving in the area before 1897. By 1903 there were some 25,000 of them, mostly from Eastern Europe. They lived alongside about half a million Arab residents in what was then part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. A second wave of about 40,000 immigrants arrived in the region between 1904 and 1914.


Second and more recently, the Balfour Declaration gave all of the "West Bank" AND WHAT IS NOW JORDAN to the Jews in gratitude for Jewish help vs. the Turks in WW1,

The land wasn't England's to give away. It was part of the Ottoman Empire before the war and was merely administered by the Brits as a mandate from the League of Nations. It never was part of the British Empire.

The Israelis had every right to take that land PLUS all of Jordan even in the absence of the '67 threat to their survival, but they did the moral thing and only attacked when there was a choice between that and utter defeat, including a 2nd Holocaust (which Nasser promised to the glee of Egyptian audiences).

We already have a direct quote from an impeccable source of Menachem Begin stating that Israel did not know if Nasser was going to attack. The Rabin quote is even more damning, but I haven't been able to find independent confirmation of it.

They had no more right to steal that land than Italy has a right to lay a claim to all of the lands of the former Roman Empire.


And you identify with them? You need your head, or at least your morals, examined

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I sympathize with their position and I have a glimmer of an understanding of what motivates some of them. I didn't say that I support the evil that they do.

I will say that an IDF trooper who deliberately shoots unarmed civilians or runs over peace protesters with a bulldozer is morally equivalent to a suicide bomber.

Most Israelis aren't thugs like Sharon, though.

Pilots protest in Israel (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3137392.stm)

In their statement, released on Wednesday, the pilots said: "We, veteran and active pilots... are opposed to carrying out the illegal and immoral attack orders of the sort that Israel carries out in the territories."

They added: "We are refusing to continue to attack innocent civilians."

Israel's Channel 2 television reported that the pilots were also refusing to fly ground troops into the Palestinian territories to carry out attacks.

Hundreds of Israeli reserve soldiers have chosen prison over military service in the Palestinian territories during the last three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence.


The situation isn't as black and white as many of you paint it to be. Both sides are guilty of atrocities. Neither side is blameless. Peace will involve compromises on both sides. The Palestinians will have to give up the 'right of return' to Israel proper and the Israelis will have to give up 'Judea and Samaria' and forget about Eretz Israel.

America needs to quit blindly supporting Israel no matter what and concentrate on being an honest impartial broker if we want to help negotiate peace in the Mideast.


Back to Dean. If GWB sells us out on the gun issue and Dean actually talks about restoring sanity to US foreign policy, I'll probably vote Democrat for the first time since I was old enough to vote back in 1985.

[fallingblock]

"Back to Dean. If GWB sells us out on the gun issue and Dean actually talks about restoring sanity to US foreign policy, I'll probably vote Democrat for the first time since I was old enough to vote back in 1985."
***********************************************************

Dean would be surrounded by Clintoon-like foreign policy buffoons who would sit on their hands and wait to be attacked...again.

Dubya is simply unable to 'sell us out' to the extent that a Dean Presidency would:eek: The DNC has NO pro-gun faction, nor do they wish to develop one:mad:

Howard Dean is nothing but bad news for gun-owners if he gets beyond the election, and no amount of wishful-thinking will change that fact:( .

[cordex]

We already have a direct quote from an impeccable source of Menachem Begin stating that Israel did not know if Nasser was going to attack.
Didja hear about this little fight we had over in Iraq not too long ago? How'd you feel about that?
You going to be consistant in your judgement of preemptive attacks?
I will say that an IDF trooper who deliberately shoots unarmed civilians or runs over peace protesters with a bulldozer is morally equivalent to a suicide bomber.
emphasis mine
I fully agree.
But how do you feel about a group whose stated purpose is genocide and ethnic cleansing?
On one side, we've got a group (or leadership, at any rate) that wants the utter eradication of the other group. On the other, a few individual soldiers have committed, and no doubt will commit heinous acts of violence on noncombatants both with and without orders from their superiors (not unlike US soldiers have done from time to time). I don't see the moral equivalance you espouse here.

Are the Israelis perfect? Not by a long shot. Are they anything like the genocidal maniacs in the PLO/Hamas/Fatah/Hizballah/Peoples' Popular Fronts for Destroying This and Freeing That/Islamic Jihad as you claim? Not by an even longer shot.

And would I vote for Dean if he were running against Bush? Nope. Third party all the way. Even if we were to agree on the area of gun control (we don't), he's still far too statist for me to be comfortable with. Then again ... I have to wonder if he'd have given us Patriot I and II ...

[glocksman]

Howard Dean is nothing but bad news for gun-owners if he gets beyond the election, and no amount of wishful-thinking will change that fact

If GWB signs a renewed and expanded AWB, is he any better?

Combine that with this administration's willingness to hold American citizens in Guantanamo as 'enemy combatants' (funny that I missed that exception to the BoR in the Constitution) and the total lack of fiscal discipline, I might as well vote Democrat for the Presidency.

Strangely enough, I also plan on voting Democrat for mayor this year.

The only reason I'm going to do so is because of the current (Republican) mayor's attempt to ram through the building of a 20 million dollar baseball stadium downtown without any public debate or involvement. I voted for the SOB three years ago and I'm not going to repeat that mistake again.


I do plan on voting for my Republican House member (John Hostettler) who is a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment.

The Republicans need to learn that just because they're only a little less gung-ho about gutting the 2nd amendment than most Democrats, it doesn't automatically mean that they'll get the gunowning vote.

Heck, I'd much sooner vote for John Dingell than Lincoln Chaffee, anyway.:)

[glocksman]

Didja hear about this little fight we had over in Iraq not too long ago? How'd you feel about that?
You going to be consistant in your judgement of preemptive attacks?


The comparison doesn't hold water.

We were told that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat to the US, though now I'm seriously beginning to wonder if we were lied to. Absent GWB's claims on WMD I would have opposed the war. As it was, I favored it at the time.

Begin admitted that there were alternatives to attacking in 1967 and Rabin stated that both sides knew that the 2 Egyptian divisions were not enough to attack Israel.

The circumstances surrounding the Six Day War and Iraq aren't even remotely comparable.

On one side, we've got a group (or leadership, at any rate) that wants the utter eradication of the other group. On the other, a few individual soldiers have committed, and no doubt will commit heinous acts of violence on noncombatants both with and without orders from their superiors (not unlike US soldiers have done from time to time). I don't see the moral equivalance you espouse here.

Israel has it's share of fanatics as well.

The Kach Movement (http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=19).

Fortunately the Israeli goverment and public regards Kach as a radical fringe. It's nutcases like this on both sides that keep the fires burning.

Besides, you missed the last part of what I wrote about compromise is necessary on both sides for peace to happen.

[cordex]

On Dean,
If GWB signs a renewed and expanded AWB, is he any better?
Yup. I won't vote for Dean against GWB for the same reasons I won't vote for GWB against Hillary. Neither is a good choice.
The Republicans need to learn that just because they're only a little less gung-ho about gutting the 2nd amendment than most Democrats, it doesn't automatically mean that they'll get the gunowning vote.
Very much in agreement.

On other stuff,
The circumstances surrounding the Six Day War and Iraq aren't even remotely comparable.
Both were preemptive strikes at nebulous threats.
If anything, the threat to the Isrealis was far greater than the threat that Hussein has ever posed to us - even with WMD. The US could survive a nuking or two. Isreal will not survive the first successful invasion by the surrounding countries.

If the Egyptians didn't intend to do a little fighting, why'd they kick out the UN forces just prior to bringing in their troops and sealing the Gulf of Aqaba to the Israelis?

Plus, the Israelis have fought wars with their Arab neighbors about once a decade since they have been a country. There have been numerous attempts to "push the Jew into the sea" before and after the Six Day War. A preemptive strike from Israel in such a situation is hardly less justifiable than a preemptive strike from the US on Iraq because we thought he had weapons we thought were too dangerous.

C'mon, I thought you liked to play with moral equivalance!
Israel has it's share of fanatics as well.
Yup.
So does the US. Ever hear of the Aryan Nations? La Raza? American Nazi Party? The Screen Actors Guild?
I tend to be a bit more judgemental of a people whose chosen leadership's main goal is the eradication of the Jew. Does that mean I give Isreal a free pass? No, sir.
Besides, you missed the last part of what I wrote about compromise is necessary on both sides for peace to happen.
When "compromising" with someone who demands your utter eradication, where is the middle ground?

[glocksman]

If the Egyptians didn't intend to do a little fighting, why'd they kick out the UN forces just prior to bringing in their troops and sealing the Gulf of Aqaba to the Israelis?

Matter of national pride, perhaps?
Having to hide behind the UN's coattails isn't conducive to the establishment of pride.

The point is that Begin and Rabin (if the Rabin quote is accurate) have both stated that the Egyptians in the Sinai posed no real threat to Israel at the time.

The war in Iraq was sold to the American people on the basis of WMD and the threat that Saddam would provide them to terrorists.

If anything, the threat to the Isrealis was far greater than the threat that Hussein has ever posed to us - even with WMD. The US could survive a nuking or two. Isreal will not survive the first successful invasion by the surrounding countries.

Israel wasn't under a real threat, or was Begin lying?

The Six Day War is still a subject of much debate and disagreement. It's obvious that you aren't going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine unless you can refute Begin, Rabin, and Moshe Dayan (Dayan said Israel conquered the Golan because farmers in the northern settlements simply coveted the fertile land).


C'mon, I thought you liked to play with moral equivalance!

The suicide bomber and the IDF bulldozer operator who ran over the unarmed protester are indeed equivalent. Sharon and Arafat are equivalent.

Let's put it this way.

Were I a Palestinian in the West Bank, I wouldn't go strolling down the street wearing a Semtex suit and kill unarmed civilians, but I would pick up the gun and the knife and kill as many IDF troopers as I could.

The various Palestinian groups' main fault is killing civilians in Israel proper and not focusing on killing the IDF troops holding down the West Bank.

The Israelis are occupying a people against their will. How dare the Palestinians resist it. After all, the Bible says the land is Israel's. :rolleyes:


I tend to be a bit more judgemental of a people whose chosen leadership's main goal is the eradication of the Jew.

I tend to be a bit more judgmental about a country that claims to be the only democracy in the region and gets billions in aid from the US every year, yet engages in ethnic cleansing to build 'settlements' in an area that isn't their land to begin with.


So far neither side is willing to compromise at all. Israel keeps adding on to those 'settlements' while Hamas and Islamic Jihad keep on sending suicide bombers out.

[Futo Inu]

Dean's no real friend of gun owners - he's merely politically expedient. He should get a "C" rating at best - still, he's the best among the Dems, so in THAT RACE ONLY, he ought to get an endorsement.

[cordex]

The suicide bomber and the IDF bulldozer operator who ran over the unarmed protester are indeed equivalent.
IF and ONLY if the IDF 'dozer driver intended to kill the protestor. I have to wonder if he had any inkling that she was in front of him.
Sharon and Arafat are equivalent.
Both have done some pretty awful things in their past, but I don't know that I'd agree they are equivalent.
Never heard Sharon advocate the genocide of all Muslims.
Were I a Palestinian in the West Bank, I wouldn't go strolling down the street wearing a Semtex suit and kill unarmed civilians, but I would pick up the gun and the knife and kill as many IDF troopers as I could.
*shrug* I guess I could understand your position in that case.
Would you hide amongst unarmed protesters and fire from behind children so that return fire is either impossible or causes mediagenic (for you) casualties?
The various Palestinian groups' main fault is killing civilians in Israel proper and not focusing on killing the IDF troops holding down the West Bank.
But see, that's the thing. They have this little fault.
"He was a great guy. His only fault was that he tended to murder innocent people from time to time. Other than that, his actions were above reproach"
The Israelis are occupying a people against their will.
So are we. Oh sure, some Iraqis want us there, but there are an awful lot that want us out and want to be back in power.
So are the British. There are quite a few Irish Communists and Nationalists that aren't too happy living as subjects of the Crown.
I tend to be a bit more judgmental about a country that claims to be the only democracy in the region and gets billions in aid from the US every year, yet engages in ethnic cleansing to build 'settlements' in an area that isn't their land to begin with.
Hrm.
"Ethnic cleansing"? Stretching the definition a bit. By that definition, racists in the US were guilty of ethnically cleansing their communities. Heck, from what I hear, there are still cities with "don't let the sun set on you here" signs not too many miles from where I'm sitting. Disgusting, disturbing, and wrong ... but not really my definition of "ethnic cleansing".

How do you feel about settlements that were built on previously unused land?
So far neither side is willing to compromise at all. Israel keeps adding on to those 'settlements' while Hamas and Islamic Jihad keep on sending suicide bombers out.
*laugh*
Does this statement not strike an ironic chord with you?

[Moparmike]

Funny, I dont remember this thread being titled "Bicker and babble inceasantly about Israel, Palestine, and Egypt." Odd.:confused: :confused: :scrutiny:

[glocksman]

Funny, I dont remember this thread being titled "Bicker and babble inceasantly about Israel, Palestine, and Egypt." Odd

Guilty :o

Sorry for the derailment. I won't discuss the issue any more in this thread.

[Mark Tyson]

I agree with the other guys that we shuold support the most pro-gun candidates IN THE PRIMARY. Vote for whoever you want in the election.