Kerry faces opposition from NRA members

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shooter 2.5

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
476
Kerry faces opposition from NRA members
AP | 5/21/04 | NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) — John Kerry owns a shotgun and a rifle, has taken time from the campaign trail to go hunting and relied on firearms during the Vietnam War. But the Democratic presidential candidate's fondness for his guns will not save him from a political assault by the National Rifle Association.

The 4 million-strong NRA could be an obstacle in Kerry's bid for the presidency, not simply because of the size of its membership but because of the significance of the states where those people live. About one-fourth of NRA members live in West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania — all battleground states with 101 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

The NRA says it doesn't matter how many guns the Massachusetts senator owns or how often he hunts because he nearly always votes against gun rights in the Senate. Kerry supports extending the ban on assault-type weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows. He opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits.

"His anti-firearms record is among the very worst in American politics," said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. "It's not a stretch to say that the worst thing that could happen to the Second Amendment is for John Kerry to be elected president."

Kerry called that claim "the phoniest argument I've ever heard in my life." He said he has been hunting since he was 12 and invited LaPierre to come along and see for himself.

"If he wants to come hunting with me one day, as long as he agreed not to turn the gun on me, I'd be happy to," Kerry said in an interview this week with reporters and editors from The Associated Press.

It's unlikely Kerry and LaPierre will become hunting buddies anytime soon.

In the May edition of "America's 1st Freedom," the magazine for NRA members, LaPierre wrote a lengthy article criticizing the Democrat.

The cover photo shows Kerry giving a thumbs-up, standing with fellow Senate Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts after they passed a 10-year ban on assault weapons. The cover reads, "John Kerry to Gun Owners: STICK IT!" and notes that Kerry's vote on the gun bill was one of only a few he's cast during the campaign this year.

The article portrays Kerry as a rich man who doesn't care about regular hunters and gun owners, but was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has an heiress wife who gives to charities that support gun control.

All this comes before the NRA has even endorsed President Bush and begun its most intensive election-year campaigning. The organization backed Bush in 2000 and reports spending more than $12 million to help him defeat Democrat Al Gore.

In that election, roughly half of voters were from gun-owner households, and they voted for Bush by 61 percent to 36 percent, according to exit polls. The voters from non-gun-owner households, voted for Gore, 58-to-39.

Gore's aides acknowledged the organization's advertising, mailings and get-out-the-vote rallies hurt him, especially among pro-gun union members in swing states. Kerry's campaign is bracing for a similar fight.

"We're confident that John Kerry is a lifelong hunter, gun owner," said Kerry adviser Tad Devine. "It's going to be very difficult to paint him in the same kind of corner into which Al Gore was painted by the NRA."

Kerry made the same point on a campaign stop in West Virginia last month.

"If you told me today was the first day of turkey season, I would have been out hunting," he told mine workers.

LaPierre said the NRA will make an another endorsement in September, and made it clear that it would be for Bush despite the organization's disagreement with his support for the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. "I don't think there is any mystery about it given that John Kerry is the alternative," LaPierre said.

Kerry suggested it is the NRA that is out of touch, noting that Bush's father resigned from the organization when a fund-raising letter signed by LaPierre referred to federal agents as "jack-booted government thugs." And, Kerry said, while law enforcement supported the assault weapons ban, the NRA opposed it.

"I reject this notion that you cannot be reasonable in America with respect to the responsibilities that go with gun ownership," Kerry told the AP. "I support the Second Amendment, and I have no intention nor do I know anybody who's trying to undo it."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Nedra Pickler covers the presidential campaign for The Associated Press.
 
"I support the Second Amendment, and I have no intention nor do I know anybody who's trying to undo it."

Translation: But don't pay attention to the fact that I left Super Tuesday in order to vote in favor for a renewal of the AWB and an amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition.

Have some walnuts, Mr. Kerry.
 
"We're confident that John Kerry is a lifelong hunter, gun owner," said Kerry adviser Tad Devine. "It's going to be very difficult to paint him in the same kind of corner into which Al Gore was painted by the NRA."

Because we all know that the 2nd Amendment is only about hunting.:barf:

JFK would take ALL your guns, of any sort, away so fast your head would spin, if given the opportunity. Don't look at what he is SAYING during the campaign, just check his voting record -- 100% approval rating by the anti-gun groups. He has never seen an anti-gun rights law he didn't like. His record as an anti-gun rights politician is so much worse than Al Gore's that it is not even funny. At least ol' Al was semi pro gun-rights until he became Clinton's stooge. JFK has always been, and always will be, a hard core enemy of the 2nd Amendment.

Think on this before you decide who to vote for in November.
 
The Great Pretender

"If he wants to come hunting with me one day, as long as he agreed not to turn the gun on me, I'd be happy to," Kerry said in an interview this week with reporters and editors from The Associated Press.
...
"I reject this notion that you cannot be reasonable in America with respect to the responsibilities that go with gun ownership," Kerry told the AP. "I support the Second Amendment, and I have no intention nor do I know anybody who's trying to undo it."


He pretends to be a responsible gun-owner. Responsible gun owners, however, don't joke about shooting others.

He's a wannabe. His voting record speaks for itself. He's no friend of responsible gun owners.
 
You know, I'm all for the NRA having a large membership, but you'd think there'd be at least a little quality control. Yes, Bush the elder resigned publicly from the NRA; And he only had the chance to make that guesture because the leadership ignored all the members who were demanding that he be expelled.
 
Do you kick the guy out of your church because he's a sinner or do you keep him in order to convert him?

Every single gun owner should join a gun group. I don't care if it's the NRA or not but they are the most effective gun group in existance.

Every single gun owner should do everything they can to kick the dem party from office. They haven't the ethics to be dogcatchers.
 
"We're confident that John Kerry is a lifelong hunter, gun owner," said Kerry adviser Tad Devine. "It's going to be very difficult to paint him in the same kind of corner into which Al Gore was painted by the NRA."

What is that guy smoking? Because it must be good stuff...

Hell Diane Fienstein is a lifelong gun owner. I don't see too many gun owners trusting Mrs. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." or the chucklehead she got her picture taken with on March 2, 2004.

Next in the news: Hitler faces opposition from Warsaw Jews.
 
Kerry supports extending the ban on assault-type weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows.

Doesn't the NRA support "background checks at gun shows" - otherwise known as the "gun show loophole"?
 
That letter traces back to the 1999 post-Columbine debate, rick. Don't you think context would be useful in this discussion? The NRA proposed their bill as an alternative to several bills that were just a bit more punitive in nature.

Has the NRA ever reintroduced such a bill? No.

I've got no grudge with anyone pointing out what the NRA has supported in the past; but I think it is unfair to strip it of the Columbine context and imply that the NRA is actively trying to pass such laws.

I'm quite familiar with the usual arguments about principles, no compromise, etc. so unless you have something new to add on that front; let's just agree to disagree.
 
Over 4 years ago, the NRA supported a piece of legislation that was proposed as an alternative to a horrible pice of legislation. Predictably, the legislation was killed, but having killed what looked to many to be a reasonable solution, the Democrats lost support for their own version. This was merely a legislative tactic and does not represent the NRA's actual current view of such legislation.
 
Ok - if I'm reading the replies correctly, it appears that the NRA view on such legislation changes with respect to context and time. While I find this enlightening - what is their current view of such legislation?
 
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=150

McCain-Reed Gun Show Bill: All Trick, No Treat


Introduced, appropriately enough, on Halloween, the McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman gun show bill--S. 1807--masquerades as reform but imposes bureaucratic restrictions aimed at eliminating gun shows. It is based on the McCain-Lieberman bill (S. 890) from the 107th Congress, and like its parent, fails to address gun owners` most significant concerns and fails to fix real problems of the national instant check system.

S. 1807 is not about closing a "gun show loophole"--there is no "gun show loophole." Existing laws apply at gun shows just the same as any other place guns are sold. A tour of any gun show demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors selling a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority. If someone claiming to be a gun collector is actually operating a firearms business and does not have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), he is guilty of a federal felony--every separate gun sale constitutes a separate federal felony.

S. 1807 is about eliminating gun shows. It would give any Second Amendment-hating Attorney General the power to effectively shut down gun shows, invade the privacy rights of American citizens, and impose many other restrictions that have nothing to do with conducting background checks on firearms purchases.

S. 1807 creates gun owner registration. "Special firearms event operators" would have to submit names of all "vendors" to the Attorney General both before and after the show--whether or not any of the vendors even sold a gun. A private citizen who enters a gun show hoping to sell or trade a firearm, does not make a deal and leaves with his own gun, would be on file in a U.S. Justice Department ledger forever as a "special firearms event vendor." Copies of the ledgers could be used for any future purpose.

S. 1807 turns casual conversations into "firearm transactions." A person who sees a gun offered for sale at a gun show, decides against buying it, then months or even years later changes his mind and contacts the seller, would still be subject to the background check requirement. This unworkable system would even apply to a gun that was discussed at a show without being exhibited. Any realistic, enforceable background check requirement must be limited to sales at an actual gun show, during the gun show, of guns that are present at the show.

S. 1807 imposes limitless regulations. The phrase "in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General" and similar language occurs throughout the bill. Show operators and vendors would have to comply with unknown regulations that could become as broadly restrictive as any future anti-gun administrator desires.

S. 1807 requires unnecessary new bureaucracy, creating "Special Firearms Event Operators," "Special Firearms Event Vendors" and "Special Firearms Event Licensees." And, there is no deadline for issuing the "Special Firearms Event License." In response to abusive gun dealer license enforcement, Congress has required that FFLs must be issued/denied within 60 days, and that the application may only be denied for a specific list of reasons. This basic due process protection is absent from McCain-Reed.

S. 1807 does not provide for true instant checks, and its "24-hour" wait is a smokescreen. The bill provides that the wait "may" be reduced to 24 hours--if a state applies for the privilege after improving its records. But with no real incentives for states or the federal government to improve records, there is no reason to think that the 24-hour check would ever be achieved. And with a three-business day period still allowed to check out-of-state records, a few large states could drag down the whole scheme for all transfers across the nation.

S. 1807 gives no priority to gun show checks. Gun show checks should be expedited over others, simply due to the temporary nature of the events and the distances both sellers and buyers travel to attend.

S. 1807 makes no instant check improvements. Unlike S. 890, the bill provides no funding for criminal history upgrades.

Most importantly, S. 1807 ignores the facts--multiple federal government studies prove gun shows are not a source of "crime guns."

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2001 report "Firearms Use by Offenders," the largest such study ever conducted by the government, found that less than 1% of U.S. "crime guns" come from gun shows.
A 2000 BJS study, "Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98," found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show.
A National Institute of Justice 1997 study, "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities," reported less than 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows.
S. 1807 isn`t about controlling crime; it is about controlling free speech. The attack on gun shows makes no sense as a crime control measure. It is strictly driven by an anti-gun political agenda. Closing gun shows means shutting down one of the most important venues for Second Amendment activists to communicate with other gun owners. That`s the real goal.


Posted: 11/4/2003
 
Thanks! That's much better. The first search I did on "NRA gun show loophole" popped up that Baker letter.

I think I'll rejoin - it's starting to look like they've found a line in the sand. I found a stack of "American Rifleman" magazines up at the range where I do volunteer work (let's me shoot free) and after reading thru a few of them I was impressed by what I read.

I did it. I'm back in the NRA again.
 
Do you kick the guy out of your church because he's a sinner or do you keep him in order to convert him?

Actually, churches DO excommunicate people occasionally. But it's a lousy analogy. If you take religion seriously, excommunication is essentially tantamount to damning somebody for all eternity. (Or anyway, taking official notice that they are by their own actions.) Kicking somebody out of a membership organization only denies them the opportunity to claim membership.
 
I wish the pope would hurry up and excommunicate Kerry for claiming to be catholic and pro-abortion at the same time. :D

I got nothin against abortion, but make up your damn mind man, you can't have it both ways.
 
"I support the Second Amendment, and I have no intention nor do I know anybody who's trying to undo it." - John Kerry

Not a one? Out of all the Democratic Party members he's met? None?

Why do I find this hard to believe?

John
 
"I support the Second Amendment, and I have no intention nor do I know anybody who's trying to undo it." - John Kerry

Why do I find this hard to believe?

That's easy. The version of the 2nd Amendment Kerry and his fellow travelers use is different than the one published in the Bill of Rights. It reads

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms that we approve of to be used for hunting purposes, shall not infringed."
 
Rick_Reno, you left out part of the clause. It should read ""A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms that we approve of to be used for hunting purposes, and while the people are wearing L.L. Bean clothing, shall not infringed."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top