Kerry's hunting/firearm stance and his voting record.

[JayS]

Lunabush, will you delete this if it is too strong? I would like a good discussion on it as it keeps coming up in my area but it is forbidden to discuss it on Kerry's website.


Please discuss, seriously, how Kerry's voting record on firearms and hunting can be reconciled with his voting record and the political groups that support and rate him. You may have to explore the websites of some of the groups if you are not familiar with what they do and stand for. Please keep it civil, you losers! :)

******************************************************************
SOURCE: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Crime+Issues

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues


2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.






Gun Issues


2003 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2003 in the House and 1991-2003 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a 10

2002 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

1999-2000 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

[billbuckhead]

1. Sounds like a candidate that the majority of Americans would agree with

:D

[JayS]

2. It depends on where you live. Here it does not sit well at all...

...with much of the population. If Kerry does not develop an adequate defense, one that goes beyond simple soundbytes and lame press releases, he will take a lot of heat when people realize that they are being lied to.

[Dont Hurt Me]

3. I think JayS

has it right. Kerry seems similar to Gore. They both take the stance that they hunt and they are cool with shoguns and rifles. This is probably enough for most democrat gun owners. A lot of other gun owners are probably bigger gun nuts (like me) and Kerry is not pro gun enough. Interestingly Bush is also not being thought of to highly by gun owners, especially with his apparent support of the AWB.

[billbuckhead]

20. No national politician can be seen as a stooge for the gun crowd

Suburban women will punish them far worse than NRA could ever. That's why Bush only plays footsie with the NRA crowd. If the 2000 election would have been legitimate, the shoe would have been on the other foot and the gun whores would be on the run.

[JayS]

22. You don't have to be a "stooge for the gun crowd" to support...

...both Second Amendment rights and be strong on gun control. The politician just has to be politically astute enough to be truthful about what Second Amendment rights means to him/her and what gun control means to him/her. You can be liberal on both interpretations and still have a message that will resonate with the suburban women.

And Al Gore ran against someone that, to be kind, is a mental midget. The vote should have never been close.

[library_max]

65. US v. Miller established that the Second Amendment

applies only in the context of citizen militias and the common defense of the US as a nation, not to purely private ownership of weapons.

[JayS]

66. You might want to go over U.S. vs. Miller again. n/t

n/t

[library_max]

68. Went over it. Read it. Quoting it below.

From US v. Miller:

"In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length," which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 (26 U. S. C. 1132c), has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said that the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision." (bolding for emphasis mine)

Also from US v. Miller:

"The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

From A Practical Companion to the Constitution, University of California Press 1999 (a standard and authoritative reference book on the US Constitution):

ARMS, RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR The right "to keep and bear arms," which appears in the SECOND AMENDMENT, is one of the most enigmatic rights in the Constitution. By itself, the right might seem to be absolute, since the Second Amendment says that the right "shall not be infringed." But the phrase does not stand on its own; it is qualified as necessary for securing freedom through a "well-regulated militia." In the only case it has considered directly under a Second Amendment challenge, the Court upheld the National Firearms Act, requiring registration of sawed-off shotguns because there is no evidence that sawed-off shotguns have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument . . . Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." The Court has also upheld a federal ban on convicted felons' ownership of firearms shipped in interstate commerce.

[JayS]

73. Yup, you are misreading the same part that everyone else does.

[library_max]

80. Ah. Me and the authoritative reference on the Constitution I quoted

in the third quote, we're the ones "misreading" it. Perhaps you have an authority on the Constitution to quote with a "correct" reading.

[JayS]

86. I'll make it real simple for you.

If Miller was the end all and be all of Second Amendment issues, would we even be talking about it today?

[library_max]

91. Miller is the law of the land regarding the Second Amendment.

Maybe that's why we're talking about it today.

Also, Miller was decided in 1939. Haven't you noticed how careful the NRA and other gun groups are not to argue Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court? It's for the same reason Ken Starr didn't charge Clinton with perjury - he knew it was legal nonsense and he'd just get laughed out of court. By avoiding actual litigation, he and the NRA are able to pretend that they still have a legal argument, when in fact they don't.

[JayS]

98. The Supreme Court decides what cases it wishes to hear, not...

...the NRA or any other entity. I am sure that the Court would be quite happy if a Second Amendment case never comes before it.

[library_max]

104. Every time the Court refuses to hear a Second Amendment case,

it tacitly reaffirms Miller. But I find it more interesting that there have been so few cases brought by the NRA et al arguing that the AWB or some other gun control measure violates the Second Amendment. They argue it enough in the media and the literature, you would think that they would argue it in court once in a while.

[FeebMaster]

106. Why would the NRA want the Supreme Court

to decide any case on Second Amendment grounds? They lose either way.

[library_max]

150. If they really thought that the Second Amendment guarantees

private citizens the right to keep and bear arms, wouldn't they want the Supreme Court to confirm it? The AWB and a whole bunch of other laws would be unconstitutional in that case. But as it's legal nonsense, they stay out of the courtroom with it.

[Columbia]

158. Why would they want that?

They'd be out of a job in an instant. No more money and no more influence. Instant obsolescence. The NRA thrives on, no, NEEDS gun control to survive.

[library_max]

160. This is conspiracy-theory reasoning.

Nobody in the NRA needs the gig, at least not the people who actually call the shots. The NRA doesn't make money, it costs money. The big bucks come from the weapons industry, which would very much like to be as laissez-faire as, say, the garment industry.

This is like saying that the Republicans want to lose the White House and both houses of Congress in 2004 because it would help them raise money.

[FeebMaster]

200. No conspiracy needed.

The NRA needs new gun laws to get new members and their sweet, sweet donations. It's the same with all the gun grabbing groups. Why don't they push a plan like mine and actually try to get guns banned? If guns were banned they'd have no support at all, so they push for the useless assault weapons ban that didn't ban any weapons and cry about AK-47s and Uzis being back on the streets come September.

This is like saying that the Republicans want to lose the White House and both houses of Congress in 2004 because it would help them raise money.

The Republicans don't have to lose to make money. All they have to do is say give us money or the Democrats will win and take your guns.

It's not really that the NRA or the gun grabbing groups want to lose, so much as they don't want to win completely. It's better for both sides if we stay pretty much where we are. The NRA can oppose any new legislation, which is bound to be unpleasant to gun owners since all of the real good stuff has been regulated since 34, 68, and 86, not that the NRA ever cared about that stuff anyway. The gun grabbing groups can cry about the assault weapons ban expiring and how they have to renew it, or expand it, or ,probably soon, restore it. Fortunately they've got the gun show loophole too and the other occasional issue like that lawsuit bill that got shot down a while back.

[JayS]

161. I'm not entirely convinced that the NRA and the Brady Bunch...

...are not the same organization. :)

[MrBenchley]

179. Turns out the NRA knows perfectly well

the difference between fact and the gibberish they ladle out to their ignorant members.

What does it say when somebody doesn't put their money where their mouth is?

[MrBenchley]

9. Exactly so...

The only folks who have a problem with it are the Randy Weaver Fan Club....

[Lefty48197]

4. Gun Owners of America is a right wing nut group. They make the NRA look

liberal. Who the hell cares what those nuts think?

[Columbia]

5. 300,000 people nationwide do

"Who the hell cares what those nuts think?"

Who the hell needs votes anyway?

[Lefty48197]

12. Face it Columbia, the gun nut vote is solid Republican

just like the KKK, the militia, and the skinheads, those people will be at the polls in November, and they will be voting Republican. To pretend otherwise, is a bizarre fantasy. There's only 300,000 people in the Gun Owning Nuts of America? Geez, there's 80 million legal gun owners in this country, yet these supposed protectors of freedom and the constitution can only attract 1/3 of a million? Holy Cow, that's only about 1/3 of one percent of the gun owning population, and about 1/10th of one percent of the entire nation's population. Sounds like a miniscule minority to me.

[Columbia]

14. Sadly, it usually is

And considering that gun control has not been proven to prevent or deter crime (CDC 2003) and that we lost the 2000 election by about 500 votes (Florida recount), it is even more sad that we continue to endorse such a nonbeneficial and election losing issue.

[JayS]

17. "80 million legal gun owners in this country"

That is the number you should consider. The number of people that feel strongly enough about an issue to actually join an organization that shares their views is never all that high but the number of people that will change their votes is.

[billbuckhead]

21. Any link to the 80million figure that's not a NRA estimate?

:nopity:

[Columbia]

23. Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-gunpolitics13apr13,1,2467557.story?coll=la-center-elect2004

"About 75 million to 80 million Americans own firearms, with at least one gun in roughly 40% of households nationwide, according to several studies by gun-rights and gun-control organizations. Though most gun owners cast their ballots based on a range of concerns, some estimates put as high as 10 million the number who vote mainly based on gun-rights issues.

Large percentages of gun owners live in such swing states as Oregon, Arizona, Missouri, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Arkansas. And their participation is likely to be vital to both parties in what is expected to be a close election.

Gun groups are known for their political activism mainly in local and congressional races, but their support for or opposition to candidates can have broad reach. During the 2000 campaign, the NRA spent nearly $18 million to back mostly Republican candidates, making it one of the party's five largest independent donors. It spent more than $1 million on ads to support Bush and to attack Gore.

Many observers credited the effort with tilting the election to Bush, mainly by persuading blue-collar, gun-owning Democrats to abandon Gore in such swing states as West Virginia and Tennessee."

[iverglas]

31. that many and more

... legal car drivers in your country, I should think.

And undoubtedly every single one of them - or at least a number of them worth pandering to - thinks that there should be no speed limits in school zones. Right?

The number of people that feel strongly enough about an issue to actually join an organization that shares their views is never all that high but the number of people that will change their votes is.

What does gun ownership (that 80 million figure) have to do with a person's position on various firearms control measures? What, exactly, do you base this alleged equivalence between gun ownership and opposition to various firearms control measures (and thus, supposedly, to John Kerry) on?

Seems to me that I've seen facts and figures that pretty much rebut any such allegation. That is, there is not some overwhelming majority of firearms owners who oppose most of the firearms control measures in issue.

And the likelihood that those who do would vote Democrat in any event -- if John Kerry stood on his head and spat bullets -- would be pretty low, I'd think.

Do you have some actual estimate - claim, with facts and argument in support - as to the number of votes likely to be lost because of the, uh, interpretation (of the facts that you presented in the initial post) that some voters might be persuaded to accept as an accurate representation of Kerry's position? That is, votes that would otherwise have been Democrat and could be expected to be lost if they accept that Kerry's record/positions are what you're portraying them as, even if your portrayal isn't accurate?

Though most gun owners cast their ballots based on a range of concerns, some estimates put as high as 10 million the number who vote mainly based on gun-rights issues.

And if the candidates' positions on "gun-rights issues" were equal, how would we expect those people to vote? Isn't that kind of important to know, before standing on one's head to make them happy?

[JayS]

47. Again you miss the point. The groups that I listed represent...

...a more extreme view, pro or con, on each issue I listed. If you can't see how this does not jibe with Kerry's public stance on each issue, I can't help you.

[iverglas]

58. stop trying to "help" me

And address the issues. That would be real help.

The groups that I listed represent a more extreme view, pro or con, on each issue I listed.

And the questions are:

who cares what *they* think of John Kerry?

what would have to be done to make those groups happy with John Kerry?

what would be the price of doing it?

would that price be so high as to make buying those groups' votes uneconomical (i.e. would the price of their votes be many times more votes lost)?

if those groups have the power to sway others against John Kerry, by misrepresenting Kerry's positions -- and/or by persuading those others that their (the groups' in question) positions reflect those others' own interests better than Kerry's positions do -- what is the best way to counteract that effect?

is the best way to counteract it to adopt the misrepresentation of Kerry's position and demand that he "admit" that he is the one who has misrepresented his position?

[JayS]

62. Answers...

who cares what *they* think of John Kerry?

The people who subscribe to their views obviously do. Although these groups represent a more extreme view, they are not terribly too far out there. There are a lot of people behind each group but aside from dues paying members it will be hard to judge just how many, or how much influence they will have. From past elections it is obvious that the pro-2A people have a lot of power and Kerry is attempting to cater to them somewhat...but is doing a poor job of it.

what would have to be done to make those groups happy with John Kerry?

Not very much. For starters, start telling the truth. His lies are so transparent that they are an embarrassment. It would also help if he quit trying to play both sides of the field. Most important would be pushing a better brand of gun control. He needs to focus on the criminal instead of pushing feel-good legislation.


what would be the price of doing it?

If it is sold well, it should not drive away that many voters. I'm sure the gun ban groups will be up in arms but they don't have the numbers they once did. Perhaps Rep. Dingel is the best example of a Democrat that "changed sides" on the issue. He is respected and still in office. It will be a gamble, but not much of one...but it has been a long time since we had a lot of risk-takers in the party.


would that price be so high as to make buying those groups' votes uneconomical (i.e. would the price of their votes be many times more votes lost)?

It is all going to come down to the marketing and it is pretty much too late for this election. Kerry already has the cards he wants to play on the table. He could tone down the rhetoric; that would help some.


if those groups have the power to sway others against John Kerry, by misrepresenting Kerry's positions -- and/or by persuading those others that their (the groups' in question) positions reflect those others' own interests better than Kerry's positions do -- what is the best way to counteract that effect?

Sadly, they don't have to misrepresent Kerry's position; his position is bad enough as it is. He can start by being honest about his views and being a little more open-minded about other types of gun control.


is the best way to counteract it to adopt the misrepresentation of Kerry's position and demand that he "admit" that he is the one who has misrepresented his position?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[iverglas]

69. crap and more crap

From past elections it is obvious that the pro-2A people have a lot of power

I have very specifically addressed the "HUNTERS' RIGHTS" aspect of your claim. I have been presented with materials that purportedly address HUNTERS' RIGHTS.

I am not talking about "pro-2A people". I am talking about the EXTREMISTS who are REPRESENTING Kerry as being anti-"hunters' rights" BASED ON his positions on certain things, which positions apparently include opposition to trafficking in captive exotic animals for hunting, support for enforcement of existing animal welfare legislation, and support for strict controls on the importation of polar bear "trophies" from Canada.

THOSE are the only things that I have seen any solid EVIDENCE of -- Kerry's non-support for things that few normal, decent people would think of supporting.

It appears that BASED ON his support of things that a vast majority of normal, decent people would support, and his non-support for things that few normal, decent people would think of supporting, HE IS BEING PORTRAYED as anti-"hunters' rights".

For starters, start telling the truth. His lies are so transparent that they are an embarrassment.

Have you yet IDENTIFIED one of these "lies"? If so, I seem to have missed it, and I apologize most sincerely, and I most humbly request that you draw my attention to it.

It would also help if he quit trying to play both sides of the field.

Supporting free speech, but advocating measures to prohibit and punish perjury, could certainly be called "playing both sides of the field".

I'm afraid that I just don't have any idea what you're talking about, again.

Kerry has supported measures that restrict "hunters' rights" in ways that normal, decent people unquestionably regard as JUSTIFIED.

You can call that "playing both sides of the field" if you're so inclined. I would call it weighing private interests and public interests and concluding that the importance of the public interests at stake justify the entirely trivial interference with the exercise of those "rights". Who REALLY believes that the "right" to hold cock-fights should prevail over the public interest in protecting animals from entirely unnecessary, intentionally-inflicted suffering?

Most important would be pushing a better brand of gun control. He needs to focus on the criminal instead of pushing feel-good legislation.

That would appear to be your personal opinion. Do feel free to criticize Kerry for not agreeing with you, if that is the case.

Unfortunately, it's entirely irrelevant to your claim that Kerry lies.

If it is sold well, it should not drive away that many voters.

Well I'll tell ya. You would find it difficult to the point of impossibility to "sell" ME on the idea that cock-fight organizers should not be prosecuted, trafficking in captive exotic animals for hunting should not be banned, and the US (were I a USAmerican) ought not to carefully scrutinize other countries' standards for permitting the hunting of certain species before allowing the trophies from such hunts into the country.

Even if Kerry could take those positions kinda on the sly like, without most people knowing about it -- and even assuming that most people, normal and decent as they may be, really won't reject a presidential candidate based on his support for cock-fighting -- I'm just seeing a slippery slope. The one that you folks tend to warn about.

If it's okay to abandon positions of principle -- here, that unnecessary suffering ought not to be inflicted on animals, or that exotic animals ought not to be captured and trafficked to be shot like fish in barrels -- because a majority of people aren't going to care, then who and what are next? If the majority's unconcern is to be our yardstick, I can think of a lot of things we could do that might not really be nice.

Sadly, they don't have to misrepresent Kerry's position; his position is bad enough as it is. He can start by being honest about his views and being a little more open-minded about other types of gun control.

You're straying awfully far from the discussion that you purportedly wanted to have. You started out with a presentation of groups that endorse and reject Kerry, and what appeared to be a claim that those endorsements demonstrated that Kerry is lying.

I have yet to see you establish that claim -- that the endorsements in question demonstrated anything at all about Kerry that was inconsistent with anything he himself has said.

Nonetheless, you continue to claim that Kerry lies, that he is not "honest about his views". I see not a shred of evidence in support.

I see demagoguery and nothing else. Insinuation, allegation, difference of opinion misrepresented as dishonesty, suggestions that voters be "sold" on ideas that are to be adopted purely to pander to extremists. And I'm pretty disgusted.

[JayS]

75. Answers...

THOSE are the only things that I have seen any solid EVIDENCE of -- Kerry's non-support for things that few normal, decent people would think of supporting.

You are reading way too much into it, especially by focusing on one single item. Think trends.


Have you yet IDENTIFIED one of these "lies"? If so, I seem to have missed it, and I apologize most sincerely, and I most humbly request that you draw my attention to it.

We have been talking about this in this very forum since Kerry first came on the scene. Remember all that stuff on the assault weapons ban, the number of police killed by assault weapons, the AWB applying to machine guns, etc?


Supporting free speech, but advocating measures to prohibit and punish perjury, could certainly be called "playing both sides of the field".

You are playing both sides of the field when you pretend to be the gunowner's friend but are clearly not.


That would appear to be your personal opinion.

Actually it is my opinion and that of the NRA, one of the groups listed. GOA supports something similar.


Well I'll tell ya. You would find it difficult to the point of impossibility to "sell" ME on the idea that cock-fight organizers should not be prosecuted, trafficking in captive exotic animals for hunting should not be banned

Same here. I'm glad it is not an issue.


I have yet to see you establish that claim -- that the endorsements in question demonstrated anything at all about Kerry that was inconsistent with anything he himself has said.

You were on the right track a minute ago. Can you back up to where you left off?


I see demagoguery and nothing else. Insinuation, allegation, difference of opinion misrepresented as dishonesty, suggestions that voters be "sold" on ideas that are to be adopted purely to pander to extremists. And I'm pretty disgusted.

If I tried hard enough I could see Elvis, I am sure. It is not rocket science to understand this stuff. I know you understand the marketing concept of product endorsements.

[iverglas]

79. cute it isn't

You are reading way too much into it, especially by focusing on one single item. Think trends.

If you have something to say, feel free to say it. I've done with trying to read your apparently inscrutable mind.

We have been talking about this in this very forum since Kerry first came on the scene. Remember all that stuff on the assault weapons ban, the number of police killed by assault weapons, the AWB applying to machine guns, etc?

I asked you to identify a lie by Kerry. You appear to be unable to do so.

Shall I expect that, nonetheless, you will continue to allege that he lies?

You are playing both sides of the field when you pretend to be the gunowner's friend but are clearly not.

Hey, it's raining here. How 'bout there?

Actually it is my opinion and that of the NRA, one of the groups listed. GOA supports something similar.

Oh, well, that makes it PROOF that Kerry lies, right? I mean, that was what it was apparently offered as.

Have you considered, maybe just once, addressing a point instead of going off on a tangent?

Same here. I'm glad it is not an issue.

Well gosh, too bad, but there you're wrong. THEY ARE two of the issues on which Kerry's voting record corresponds to a position taken by those animal protection groups whose endorsements you find so problematic (more funding for enforcement of animal welfare legislation, prohibition on interstate commerce in captive exotic animals for hunting).

You seem to have a large foot in your mouth.

I know you understand the marketing concept of product endorsements.

Gee, could you explain it to me?

Yup. Britanny endorses Earl Grey Tea, people who like Britanny and hear that she drinks Earl Grey Tea will be persuaded that they should drink it. It's a moronic basis for choosing a brand of tea, but there you are.

The Humane Society endorses John Kerry, people who like the Humane Society will be persuaded that they should vote for John Kerry.

So plainly, the Humane Society is trying to mislead people who oppose, let us say, deer culls, into believing that John Kerry opposes deer culls and that they should therefore vote for him. Have I got that right?

No, wait. They're trying to mislead hunters into believing that John Kerry is opposed to everything they do and are, and that they should therefore vote *against* him. Hmm. To what end, I wonder?

And now maybe you can tell me -- this demonstrates that JOHN KERRY HAS LIED HOW?

I have yet to see you establish that claim -- that the endorsements in question demonstrated anything at all about Kerry that was inconsistent with anything he himself has said.
You were on the right track a minute ago. Can you back up to where you left off?

I guess someone in your entourage finds this behaviour attractive.

[JayS]

83. Do you skip over answers on purpose?

We have been talking about this in this very forum since Kerry first came on the scene. Remember all that stuff on the assault weapons ban, the number of police killed by assault weapons, the AWB applying to machine guns, etc?

I asked you to identify a lie by Kerry. You appear to be unable to do so.

Did you notice that I answered you there?



No, wait. They're trying to mislead hunters into believing that John Kerry is opposed to everything they do and are, and that they should therefore vote *against* him.

This is just bizarre! How in the world do you reach that conclusion?

[iverglas]

93. don't think so

We have been talking about this in this very forum since Kerry first came on the scene. Remember all that stuff on the assault weapons ban, the number of police killed by assault weapons, the AWB applying to machine guns, etc?
I asked you to identify a lie by Kerry. You appear to be unable to do so.
Did you notice that I answered you there?

Nope. Could you maybe cut 'n paste it again, and underline the "answer" part?

Or hell, you could just answer.


No, wait. They're trying to mislead hunters into believing that John Kerry is opposed to everything they do and are, and that they should therefore vote *against* him.
This is just bizarre! How in the world do you reach that conclusion?

Hey, in the absence of any straightforward statement by you, I'm just guessing wildly.

You're the one apparently claiming that a group's endorsement of John Kerry MEANS that he supports all of their policy positions.

I'm just trying to figure out why, if that is true, the groups would do this.

One would think that if a group has endorsed a candidate, it would kinda want that candidate to get elected. If it intends its endorsement to be some sort of proof that a candidate endorses every one of its policy positions and thus that if s/he says that s/he doesn't, s/he is lying, and if some of its policy positions that the candidate does not in fact support, or the candidates' "lies" about them, are likely to lose the candidate votes, why the hell would the group publish the endorsement???

Me, I know that the endorsement is based ONLY on the candidate's position on SELECTED issues, in particular issues that came before a legislative body in some form. (In the case of the groups that worry you so; in the case of your pet groups, the endorsement seem to be based on the somewhat more subjective/wide-ranging instrument of a questionnaire.)

So I would never dream of portraying the endorsement as MEANING that the candidate supports all of the other policy positions of the endorsing group.

And yet you apparently do ...

And I just can't figure out why -- why you would falsely portray the endorsements as meaning something they don't mean, or why you would think that the meaning you attribute to them is remotely credible.

'Cause after all, if the endorsements meant what you portray them as meaning, they don't seem to be much help to the candidate being endorsed ...

[JayS]

102. I know you followed the discussions we had about the...

...following because I saw you posting there. Does it make sense now?


We have been talking about this in this very forum since Kerry first came on the scene. Remember all that stuff on the assault weapons ban, the number of police killed by assault weapons, the AWB applying to machine guns, etc?

You're the one apparently claiming that a group's endorsement of John Kerry MEANS that he supports all of their policy positions.

No one here is claiming this. Take that as a given.

[iverglas]

109. sense?

Does what make sense? Are you pretending that something you said is an answer to my question, or just thinking that by repeating the non-answer it will look better?

I ask for evidence that Kerry is lying about something -- YOUR CLAIM. The thesis on which this entire thread was based. And you offer no evidence whatsoever.

You say:

We have been talking about this in this very forum since Kerry first came on the scene. Remember all that stuff on the assault weapons ban, the number of police killed by assault weapons, the AWB applying to machine guns, etc?

Well, like I said, it's raining here. How 'bout there?


You're the one apparently claiming that a group's endorsement of John Kerry MEANS that he supports all of their policy positions.

No one here is claiming this. Take that as a given.

Well you should have complained earlier, and I would have qualified what I said.

You're the one apparently claiming that a group's endorsement of John Kerry means that he supports policy positions taken by that group that were not the subject of the legislative measures that he sponsored or supported and on which they rated him.

And if you aren't doing that, please, I beg you, what the fuck ARE you doing?

[JayS]

118. "what the fuck ARE you doing?"

I was trying to explain something to you that is obvious to me, and since it is so obvious to me, it is hard to communicate it to you.

[iverglas]

121. obvious ... simple ...

Whatever.

If it is so obvious that John Kerry lies, and the reasoning that leads to that conclusion is so simple, I'd have thought you could have

(a) cited the statements you call lies; and

(b) demonstrated their falsehood

by now.

Oh well.

[JayS]

124. I did. You just didn't listen or I didn't say it well enough.

[MrBenchley]

141. It's hilarious to see

Jay desperately trying to pretend that the Humane Society and the ASPCA are extremist groups and that nutcase Larry Pratt's little klavern isn't.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JayS]

6. You miss the point. People that like to...

...fish and hunt are going to wonder why Kerry is endorsed by groups that don't want people to fish and hunt. People that support the Second Amendment are going to wonder why Kerry is getting such high marks from groups that clearly don't.

These issues may be of no importance to you but how would you feel if you found out that a candidate's record does not reflect what he/she is telling you. Would you not want an explanation?

[Lefty48197]

13. I fish and hunt and I disagree with you

why are the gun nuts always trying to tell other people how I feel? Could it be that they feel so insecure in their position that they have to fabricate support?

[JayS]

18. How you feel is your business but the fact remains that there...

...are still a lot of voters out there that are not strongly committed to either candidate and to have a large segment of this population find out that they are being sold a bill of goods is something to be concerned about. Then there are some voters that could care less about hunting or fishing but will reconsider their views on a candidate when they are given proof that he/she is lying.

[library_max]

67. Well that makes it easy, then.

Bush having lied about Iraq, 9/11, taxes, and just about everything else in sight, this business about gun control groups shouldn't have all that much resonance.

Why are you making a big deal out of it? Are you planning to vote for Bush because of Kerry's voting record on guns?

[JayS]

71. Come November we will have had four years of one...

...liar in the White House. I'm not too thrilled about four more, regardless of who wins.


Why are you making a big deal out of it?

It does not bother you to see a candidate that wants your support being so brazenly dishonest and so totally unaware that things are different in the Internet age? If not, that explains the poor state of affairs in politics these days.


Are you planning to vote for Bush because of Kerry's voting record on guns?

I'll not be voting for Bush and, at this point, not for Kerry either.

[library_max]

82. Okay, Kerry votes for gun controls but likes to hunt and fish.

In whose eyes other than yours does that make him "brazenly dishonest"?

Good to know, though, whose side you're on (or not on) here at Democratic Underground.

[iverglas]

85. amazing, isn't it?

One might even say "brazen". If, of course, one could be sure that the person saying it was actually cognizant of the utter illogic of it.

Okay, Kerry votes for gun controls but likes to hunt and fish.
In whose eyes other than yours does that make him "brazenly dishonest"?

Probably not in the eyes of the huge numbers of other people who also hunt and fish and also support those firearms controls, which have little to no effect on their hunting activities.

[JayS]

92. "those firearms controls"

Which firearms controls?

[iverglas]

94. hey, it's your thread

Why don't YOU try specifying what you're talking about?

I've been trying to get you to do it for a while now ... here's another chance ...

[JayS]

105. I already did. n/t

n/t

[JayS]

88. Have you actually looked at anything put out by the...

...Kerry campaign? Have you ever been to his webpage?

[library_max]

151. Yes and yes.

Your perception just is not widely shared. Maybe the problem is that you're trying to sell Republican spin on Democratic Underground.

[JayS]

155. Maybe your time would be better served trying to convince...

...everyone that Nader is the only reason that Al Gore is not in the White House? Going by volume alone, that seems like important work. I'm sorry you don't see the importance of dealing with tomorrow's problems today; I do. And yes, my perception is widely shared and is one of the views that will be used to paint Kerry as soft on crime, an elitist (alternative meaning of word), a man not to be trusted, and on and on. I'm seeing it here now and the race has not even formally started. It's too bad my fellow DUers don't want to discuss any plans to counter these views but that is okay. If Kerry loses we can all kick back and talk about how Nader screwed everything up.

[library_max]

163. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

What I meant is that your perception that Kerry is soft on crime, an elitist, and a man not to be trusted is not widely shared by Democrats. Not widely shared here on DU. In fact, a lot of us resent cheap attacks at our nominee, especially over matters that are past and cannot be rectified.

So. What are your plans to counter these views that you are using to attack our candidate? Seems like in 61 posts you could have got around to that earlier, if that was really your intention.

[JayS]

168. It may come as a shock to you but...

...all those campaign dollars that Kerry is spending is not for the purpose of attracting Democrats; their vote is by and large in the bag. This money is being spent to attract those whose mind is not made up. That is where the fight is. If it is not plain to you that there is going to be a problem with some of Kerry's endorsements there is nothing I can do.

As to what I am going to do to counter these views....absolutely nothing. If Kerry starts caring about this perception I'll be happy to help him deal with it. If not, oh well. I'd rather spend my energy on a little problem we are having here with people in jail for petty stuff.

[library_max]

172. So you're just here to cheap-shot our nominee. Thanks ever so.

[JayS]

175. No, I was looking for some rational discussion. I didn't find it and...

...I've lost all enthusiasm for the current nominee.

[library_max]

180. Rational discussion to which you yourself refuse to contribute.

It's really hard to credit you with good intentions.

[JayS]

186. It is really hard to figure out what people are not getting. What...

...takes a few words to get a transfer of meaning in my neck of the woods seems to take a novel elsewhere.

[iverglas]

164. "any plans to counter these views"

It's too bad my fellow DUers don't want to discuss any plans to counter these views but that is okay.

It surely does seem to be okay by you.

Given how you haven't actually mentioned any possible plan to counter those views yourself, and all.

I keep asking what basis there is for the view that Kerry is anti-"hunters' rights", I keep getting no answer other than the fallacious guilt-by-association assertion that if he's endorsed by "extremist" animal welfare organizations then he must be lying about his policy positions.

Me, I'd think that time would be much better spent explaining to anyone who is so deluded as to accept that false reasoning, or who otherwise believes that false claim, that they've been misled.

[JayS]

169. If Kerry was endorsed by the...

...American Nazi Association of Anti-Abortion Advocates...would you look into it in more detail?

[library_max]

174. Oh yeah.

The Humane Society, the ASPCA, the American Nazi Association of Anti-Abortion Advocates, same thing.

:eyes:

[JayS]

176. You missed the point also.

[library_max]

177. It is helpful to learn the distinction

between people who don't understand what you are trying to say and people who don't agree with it. The two cases are not the same.

[JayS]

182. I know the distinction...just not sure what it is people don't get.

[iverglas]

185. and the corollary

It is helpful to learn the distinction between people who don't understand what you are trying to say and people who don't agree with it.

It is wise, when one has presented an argument, to address the arguments presented in response rather than simply to characterize them as a failure to understand it.

In a situation in which one does actually believe that the other person has failed to understand, this involves identifying the point that the person has failed to understand and explaining it.

In a situation in which one believes that the other person has understood but has failed to address the argument made, this involves identifying the point that the person has failed to address and explaining how the person has failed to address it.

Of course, in a situation in which it is apparent, to the sincere, honest person of good will, that the other person has understood and addressed his/her argument, it is wise, and civil, to address that person's argument in return. Reiterating one's own argument (or worse, simply characterizing the counter-argument as a failure to understand or as non-responsive, let alone responding with sarcasm or insult) is just so, well, rude.

And of course, since democracy depends on the honesty, sincerity and good will of those involved in its processes, all of those responses are simply anti-democratic.

[JayS]

189. I did answer your questions yesterday and tried to apply...

...what we have been discussing here for so long to what I was trying to discuss in this thread.

[iverglas]

178. "look into it in more detail"

If Kerry was endorsed by the American Nazi Association of Anti-Abortion Advocates...would you look into it in more detail?

Indeed I would!

And in fact that is EXACTLY what I have done in the case of the Humane Society, for instance. Columbia was kind enough to post those pages of an article stating the extremist opposition to the measures that both the Humane Society and Kerry supported -- and giving no indication that Kerry supported the "extremist" animal welfare positions that you think some people might be persuaded, by this endorsement, that he holds.

If he were endorsed by the American Nazi Association and I looked into it and found that they had rated candidates solely according to their position on the Patriot Act, and that because the ANA opposed the Patriot Act they had endorsed Kerry (and given Bush the thumbs down), I might be surprised and even a tad dismayed, and perhaps suspicious of the ANA's motives in selecting the rating criteria. But I would not leap to the conclusion that Kerry is a Nazi, and I would present the facts to anyone who did and urge them to use their own critical thinking skills, if it seemed necessary once the facts were plain -- and of course to consider what the result of basing their vote on this irrelevant fact would be.

How'm I doing?

Want my assessment of how you're doing?

[JayS]

184. Good, at least you would look into it from an objective...

...standpoint. Now contrast this with the statements that Kerry has made that he supports "reasonable" gun control with the statements he has made that are straight from the playbook of the Brady Bunch, as well as his endorsement from the Brady Bunch itself.

[iverglas]

190. you really don't get this, do you?

(Gosh ... am I being facetious?)

Now contrast this with the statements that Kerry
has made that he supports "reasonable" gun control
with the statements he has made that are straight
from the playbook of the Brady Bunch ...

This is not a classroom, and we are not playing by the Socratic method. I am not here to learn at your feet; I am here to discuss issues.

You have presented a thesis, all muddled and unclarified as it is.

If you want to discuss it, as you persist in saying that you do, then it's long past high time that you do that.

If you want me to contrast something with something else, and reach the conclusion that you reach, then YOU have the onus of presenting the material you wish to be taken into consideration.

If you want me to contrast the statements that Kerry has made that he supports "reasonable" gun control with the statements he has made that are straight from the playbook of the Brady Bunch, then YOU

(a) present those statements, preferably verbatim; and

(b) offer your analysis of them and the conclusions that you reach from that analysis.

The statements that you have then presented, i.e. proved, will be the givens, the facts, in our discussion. So far, we don't even have them.

Your analysis of those facts, and conclusions from that analysis, will be the argument that anyone disagreeing will need to counter.

At this point, all you have done, after all this time, is allude to things that you claim support your conclusion. You have not proved the facts you claim to be relying on, and you have not offered valid, sound, persuasive argument to show how those facts support your conclusion.

All *I* have done is point out that you have offered nothing that requires a response.


Now contrast this with the statements that Kerry
has made that he supports "reasonable" gun control
with ... his endorsement from the Brady Bunch itself.

And here we are back to the other point. (And I do wish you'd keep in mind what I said way back at the very beginning, anyhow -- the *I* have been addressing the "hunters' rights" aspect of your claims.)

Again, we are without givens.

YOU need to present the statements that Kerry has made, and YOU need to present the criteria on which he was rated and endorsed by the organization in question.

And YOU need to demonstrate the inconsistency that so far you have done nothing but claim.

Then, and only then, does anyone else need to say a single bleeding thing.


If you want to DISCUSS something, as you claim to want to do, you need either to use the skills you have for that purpose, or to learn some of those skills quick-like.

If, on the other hand, you want to play kindergarten games, in which you are the repository of knowledge and your audience needs not only to have the knowledge you have but also to be taught how to acquire and analyze that knowledge, you should maybe go teach kindergarten.

Of course, it may be that what you need to do is look into your heart and see whether there is some sincerity, honesty and good will that you're not yet bringing to the discussion and that might serve you well if you did.

That would be: if what you really want to do is discuss an issue, and not smear a candidate.

[JayS]

193. All this has been done already. If you didn't get it the first time...

...around there is no point in trying for a second.

[iverglas]

196. give me a road map!

All this has been done already. If you didn't get it
the first time around there is no point in trying for a second.


WHERE IS THIS FIRST TIME?

Give me a post number. Give me something. Anything.

THE ONUS IS ON YOU.

If YOU have presented and defended a thesis and someone else can't figure out where or how you did that, YOU HAVE FAILED.

And if you refuse to try again, there is no point in talking to you.

You've lost. You presumably had an objective, and you have failed to achieve it. You have failed to persuade anyone to your conclusion. In this instance, you have failed to achieve even the interim objective of engaging a discussion of something, in order to persuade someone to your conclusion about it, because you have failed to even persuade your audience that there is something to be discussed. And it just doesn't matter how thick or misguided or ill-intentioned you think your audience is, YOU HAVE FAILED.

If you were indeed speaking to an audience of five-year-olds, this would not be your fault. (Of course, if you were speaking to someone who already agreed with your conclusion, because of whatever disability in the realm of reasoning s/he might suffer, or had already accepted whatever unproven or false premise you were starting with, his/her agreement would not actually be evidence that you had succeeded.)

Given that you are speaking to a rather more sophisticated and knowledgeable and interested audience, your failure seems to be no one else's fault but yours at all.

And it just isn't any skin off anybody else's nose.

[JayS]

197. I've failed to reach someone that spends more time typing...

...than reading. If you had read what I typed instead of working on your next novel then it may have made more sense to you. I could have tried harder...but you can't vote here anyway so why bother?

[iverglas]

199. oooh -- the ad personam argument!

I've failed to reach someone that spends more time typing than reading. If you had read what I typed instead of working on your next novel then it may have made more sense to you.

Attacking the messenger and ignoring the message.
Always a good response.
Never seems to go out of vogue.


I could have tried harder...but you can't vote here anyway so why bother?

Well, one easy answer would be that you apparently need the practice.

[JayS]

202. At least your answer was short.

And I don't mean this in an offensive way, but listen to what a person is trying to tell you. When you go off half-cocked it is hard to figure out what you want to know.

[iverglas]

25. what??

People that like to fish and hunt are going to wonder why Kerry is endorsed by groups that don't want people to fish and hunt.

People who are that prone to "misunderstanding" the things they read have no business voting.

The ratings refer to "the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation <name of group> considered to be the most important".

Undoubtedly there are some people somewhere who think that the legislation that the Humane Society considered to be most important was a big bad (and secret??) bill to end hunting in the USofA.

I don't know what the legislation in question in the US might have been, but up here it would have been something like the bill to put some teeth into the Criminal Code provisions against intentional cruelty to animals. Might I be warm, in the case of the US?

Voters with a brain might realize that no serious political candidate in the US federal elections, let alone John Kerry, is proposing to end all hunting in the US.

There's just no accounting for the brainless voter, but hey, there'd be no harm done if someone wanted to explain to him/her what it was that John Kerry voted for that the organizations in question supported.

Gosh, that might even be more productive -- from the standpoint of getting votes for John Kerry -- than insinuating, or suggesting that there is any credibility to the insinuation, that Kerry supports banning hunting.

[JayS]

26. You miss the point. This is not about one specific vote on...

...any issue. There is no way that someone that purports to be for hunter's rights and for Second Amendment rights would be endorsed so favorably by some of these organizations. Period! You will note that some of these trends are cumulative or cover a long period of time.

And yes, I pulled plenty of bills to take a look beyond each group's bias and I can see why each group voted the way they did.

[iverglas]

28. what the hell

-- exactly -- are "hunter<s'> rights"??

Hunters ... an historically victimized, stereotyped, oppressed minority, struggling for equality ... not.

There is no way that someone that purports to be for hunter's rights ... would be endorsed so favorably by some of these organizations. Period!

And here endeth the second lesson in demagoguery.

Me, what I'd be expecting in this kind of discussion, from someone who makes assertions like that, is for the someone to point to the measures that Kerry sponsored/voted for that somehow violate "hunters' rights", whatever the hell they are.

And yes, I pulled plenty of bills to take a look beyond each group's bias and I can see why each group voted the way they did.

I'd also expect someone making an allegation of "bias" to identify the bias s/he is alleging, and provide some explanation of what it has to do with what s/he is talking about.

Presumably the Humane Society is "biased" against cruelty to animals. Is it biased in favour of John Kerry? Is that what you're trying to say? That it has secret reasons for its favourable assessment of John Kerry that are unrelated to his record on measures it supports? What exactly is this "bias" you are alleging, and what evidence do you have of it, and what relevance does it have here?

As far as I can tell, no group "voted" on anything. They compared candidates' voting records to their own (the groups') positions on the issues in question and then provided either

(a) a specific figure reflecting the correlation between that record and the positions they support, arrived at by a purely mathematical, unbiased assessment (unless there was bias in the selection of the measures considered, i.e. some measures were improperly included or excluded in order to arrive at a desired result); or

(b) "graded" the candidate (which doesn't sound to me like arriving at a purely mathematical, unbiased assessment - but perhaps the "grade" was in fact the result of such a mathematical operation: ?).

But, if you did examine the bills in question, and you say you can tell why each group "voted" the way it did, why aren't you offering something to substantiate the allegations you're making?

Exactly what did Kerry do -- what measures did he support that could not possibly have been supported by someone who "purports to be for hunter<s'> rights"? Why don't you just tell us?

Or, conversely, if you actually can't identify such measures -- or if the measures in question cannot be called not "for hunters' rights" by anyone but the sort of person who would say that, oh, dropping bombs on wildlife preserves was a hunters' right -- why don't you work on explaining the reality of the situation to those who might need to understand it?

You just do need to define these "hunters' rights" you're on about. I could say that it is a driver's right to drive as fast as s/he wants in school zones and that any attempt to limit the exercise of that right is a violation of it ... but I wouldn't likely bother, since it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that such a limit is justified. Is any attempt to limit the exercise of the right to hunt an unjustified violation of a right? And should anyone really care any more about people who object to plainly justified limitations of their right to hunt than s/he would care about people who object to school zone speed limits?

I mean ... I'd thought I understood that the "RKBA" doesn't have anything to do with hunting, anyhow ...

And then can you just point to any such limit that might be the subject of the measures included in the assessments that so distress you, that might provide some substantiation for this assertion that There is no way that someone that purports to be for hunter's rights ... would be endorsed so favorably by some of these organizations?

[JayS]

48. Please go back and read how Vote Smart gets their...

...information and the cautions against bias they make. It should make sense to you then.

They compared candidates' voting records to their own (the groups') positions on the issues in question and then provided either

Now you are getting it. Keep up this line of thought and then all will be clear to you.

why aren't you offering something to substantiate the allegations you're making?

We have been discussing Kerry's position on many bills here in this forum for quite some time. The websites I provided will give you plenty of discussion on even more bills, the text of which can be gotten through THOMAS.

"hunters' rights"

You are aware that some of those groups do not want any hunting or fishing, right? Not even culling the deer population when it gets out of control?

[iverglas]

59. and now all you have to do ...

You are aware that some of those groups do not want any hunting or fishing, right?

... is point to somewhere that JOHN KERRY has adopted THAT position.


I'm sure you're aware that some of those groups oppose the interstate commerce in captive exotic animals for hunting. And apparently JOHN KERRY has adopted THAT position.

Some of those groups have also called for more enforcement of existing animal welfare legislation. And apparently JOHN KERRY has adopted THAT position.

*IF* you define "hunters' rights" as including the "right" to hunt trafficked captive exotic animals and have immunity from prosecution for engaging in intentional cruelty to animals, THEN you'd be right; John Kerry doesn't support "hunters' rights". Just as, since he undoubtedly doesn't support the right to lie under oath or affirmation in a court, he doesn't support free speech.

I would suggest that a whole lot of ordinary people, who would describe themselves as supporting free speech, also support laws against perjury. And I would also suggest that a whole lot of ordinary people, who would describe themselves as supporting "hunters' rights", also support laws against trafficking in captive exotic animals for hunting, and support enforcing existing animal welfare laws against things like cock-fighting.

And I just can't figure out why you apprarently want to allow the extreme right wing to frame the discourse on this subject.

If the Michigan Militia were attacking Kerry for supporting anti-perjury laws and characterizing him as "anti-free speech" on that basis, and the International Socialists were giving him a good rating for opposing the confinement of political speech to "free speech zones", would you be parroting the anti-Kerry line and saying that Kerry obviously advocates the violent overthrow of the US government??

[JayS]

63. Kerry does not have to adopt the positions that any group...

...takes. He does not even have to know the group exists. The groups will rate him based on how satisfactorily his votes reflect their wishes.

[iverglas]

60. "cautions against bias"??

Please go back and read how Vote Smart gets their information and the cautions against bias they make. It should make sense to you then.

I'm not seeing them.

Project Vote Smart collects performance evaluations from special interest groups who provide them, regardless of issue or bias.

All that means is that the ratings are offered for exactly what they are -- ratings by groups that plainly have some sort of bias.

Duh. How would anyone rate anything if s/he didn't have a "bias"? I'm biased against vanilla. I don't like it. So if asked to rate Sealtest chocolate ice cream and Laura Secord vanilla ice cream, I'm going to rate the Sealtest ice cream a lot higher -- no matter how sweet and creamy the Laura Secord ice cream is. Obviously, no one should use my rating as a guide to which brand of ice cream to buy without knowing that I have a preference for ice cream that isn't vanilla -- I am biased against vanilla.

Obviously, no one should use the Humane Society USA's rating of presidential candidates as a guide to which candidate to vote for without knowing that it has a preference for candidates who vote in support of animal welfare. The issues on which it rates candidates involve animal welfare. Just as the issue on which I rate ice cream involves flavour.

It wouldn't matter how creamy and sweet a brand of ice cream was; if it was vanilla, I would rate it below almost any brand of chocolate ice cream.

It wouldn't matter how religiously tolerant or tough on criminals a political candidate was; if s/he opposed animal welfare measures, the Humane Society would rate him/her lower than almost any candidate who supported them.

Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns.

I'm not non-partisan on ice cream flavours. Don't take my word on the relative goodness of ice cream brands without ascertaining what my standards are.

I'm just not the one having a problem with the concepts here.

The Humane Society didn't rate Kerry by looking at his voting record on abortion or the death penalty or tax cuts. They rated him by looking at his voting record on animal welfare measures. For those who might not have guessed this, VoteSmart makes it explicit.

The fact STILL is that they rated him on his record on SPECIFIC MEASURES, and NOT on his record (if any) on OTHER policy positions they may take.

Quite likely, ALL candidates would score poorly if rated on their record on SOME of the Humane Society's (or some other group's) OTHER policy positions. In that case, it might make sense to simply factor them out -- they cancel out across the board. The "bias" in that case would be in favour of *all* candidates -- just as the bias would be in favour of all ice cream brands if I were asked to rate them all on the basis of their chocolate ice cream alone.


Unless you (or your sources) can point to some position of Kerry's that

(a) is contrary to the interests and concerns of someone other than the extremists you are quoting, and would actually cause ordinary people to vote against him if they knew about it; and

(b) can be characterized as a violation of "hunters' rights" as ordinary people would understand that concept, i.e. rights subject to justifiable limitation

then I'm just seeing demagoguery still.

[JayS]

64. "the ratings are offered for exactly what they are "

Now you are getting it.

The Humane Society didn't rate Kerry by looking at his voting record on abortion or the death penalty or tax cuts. They rated him by looking at his voting record on animal welfare measures. For those who might not have guessed this, VoteSmart makes it explicit.

[iverglas]

74. smarmy is not charming

Now you are getting it.

I got it from the very beginning, chum.

And I'm still waiting for you to ... well, to make sense, for starters.

The groups that I listed represent a more extreme view, pro or con, on each issue I listed. If you can't see how this does not jibe with Kerry's public stance on each issue, I can't help you.

What the hell is "this" (underlined above for convenient identifiation)?? The extreme views of the groups on the issues? Why would it matter whether their views jibe with Kerry's stance? WHO SAID THEY DID?

WHERE HAVE YOU DEMONSTRATED that Kerry's views ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUES ON WHICH THE GROUPS RATED HIM do not jibe with his public stance on THOSE issues???????

How can you continue to call him a liar without doing that?

You appear to be alleging that a group's endorsement of Kerry means that Kerry agrees with that group on every single one of its policy positions. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ENDORSEMENTS MEAN.

You appear to have then used that FALSE CONCLUSION as the FALSE PREMISE for your conclusion that Kerry is lying every time he says that he holds a position that differs from one held by such a group. Like so:

The US Humane Society endorses Kerry based on his legislative voting record.
The US Humane Society opposes deer culls (let us assume).
Therefore Kerry opposes deer culls.
INVALID ARGUMENT - the premises are true, the conclusion does NOT follow from them

Kerry opposes deer culls.
Kerry, if asked, would say that he does not oppose deer culls.
Therefore Kerry is lying.
UNSOUND ARGUMENT - the first premise is FALSE.

This is about all I have been able to get out of your indirect, convoluted assertions, I am afraid.

If this is NOT what you are saying, could you try stating -- straightforwardly and plainly -- what you ARE saying?


I never even did manage to make sense of your very first statement:

Please discuss, seriously, how Kerry's voting record on firearms and hunting can be reconciled with his voting record and the political groups that support and rate him.

How his voting record can be reconciled with his voting record??

I've done my best to respond to what it appeared you were saying, to be met only by foolishly patronizing evasions like "now you're getting it".

If you ever do want to ask a comprehensible question, or respond to my attempts to respond to what you did say, lemme know.

[JayS]

78. I have no idea where you keep getting the following...

You appear to be alleging that a group's endorsement of Kerry means that Kerry agrees with that group on every single one of its policy positions.

You appear to have then used that FALSE CONCLUSION as the FALSE PREMISE for your conclusion that Kerry is lying every time he says that he holds a position that differs from one held by such a group.

[iverglas]

81. try here

Please discuss, seriously, how Kerry's voting record on firearms and hunting can be reconciled with his voting record and the political groups that support and rate him.

You started it.

And it sure looks to me as if you are alleging that a group's endorsement of Kerry means that Kerry agrees with that group on every single one of its policy positions.

Maybe you could re-start by re-writing that sentence into something intelligible, if you truly think that I have misunderstood something here.

[JayS]

87. Okay, that sentence does suck. Replace the first instance of...

..."voting record" with "statements on" and it will make more sense.

[iverglas]

95. well damn

Replace the first instance of "voting record" with "statements on" and it will make more sense.

If that isn't just about exactly what I've been doing. I do try to look for meaning, however obscure it may be.

So we have:

Please discuss, seriously, how Kerry's statements on firearms and hunting can be reconciled with his voting record and the political groups that support and rate him

And I'm still waiting for you to substantiate the veiled (in that instance) allegation of dishonesty, i.e. the alleged discrepancy between "statements" and "voting record".

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of what bearing "the political groups that support him" has on the honesty of his statements or the consistency of his statements with his voting record.

In a nutshell.

[JayS]

108. Are you at all familiar with anything he has voted on?

Maybe do some googling and that will help you understand what I am saying. I admit that I have you at a bit of a disadvantage because I have looked into this more.

And I'm still waiting for you to substantiate the veiled (in that instance) allegation of dishonesty, i.e. the alleged discrepancy between "statements" and "voting record".



And I'm still waiting for an explanation of what bearing "the political groups that support him" has on the honesty of his statements or the consistency of his statements with his voting record.

I've already given you this. Perhaps look at Senate Bill 1431 and that will narrow it down some.

[iverglas]

111. like I said

Your claim, yours to substantiate. You haven't. You haven't "given" me anything at all, the onus of providing whatever it was is on you, and it certainly is not my job to go hunting for evidence to substantiate your claim. I guess we're done.

Except for the questions that remain in the inquiring minds that want to know what your point is.

[JayS]

119. Ponder on endorsements and why those endorsements are...

...given. Maybe that will help. Other than that it is like me trying to explain air to you.

[iverglas]

122. go ponder yourself

Ponder on endorsements and why those endorsements are given. Maybe that will help. Other than that it is like me trying to explain air to you.

Maybe what would help would be if you would forget about air, and come up with some way of substantiating the claim that an endorsement by a group over which a candidate has no control, even if said endorsement meant what you falsely claim it means, is proof that the candidate is lying about something.

That *is* what you're saying, right?

[JayS]

125. No.

[Dont Hurt Me]

7. I like

the GOA. They have more of a no compromise view toward our liberties. They are better than the NRA just not as popular.

[MrBenchley]

10. Headed by one of the most virulent racists in America....

Yeah, we definitely should piss off 99.9% of America to pander to 300,000 gibbering right wing fuckwits.

[NorthernSpy]

15. I used to think so too...

I'd assumed that Larry Pratt was a neo-nazi, given some of the company he's reported to have kept, but then I learned that his wife is part black. You wouldn't think that a white supremacist would be interracially married. :shrug:


Mary

[MrBenchley]

41. What, a right wing fuckwit who's also a hypocrite?

Wow...that hardly ever happens (snicker).

[Redneck Socialist]

8. If those votes were widely known it would lessen Kerry's appeal

to a large number of voters. However, few other than the members of those organizations are going to be aware of those votes.

That is the whole point of pheasant hunting photo ops. They get lots of press, many people see them and go "hmmmm, Kerry is a gun owner, he hunts, I guess he can't be all that bad."

It is actually pretty good politicking.

The photo op assuages your run of the mill hunter/gun owner. The humane society types don't like the photos but they can look at his voting record and be reassured that Kerry votes their way 100% of the time. Everybody comes away happy except the extremists on both sides of the issue. Appealing to the broad middle (where most of the voters are) is the whole point.

[MrBenchley]

11. The broad middle is where Kerry IS

--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...

[FatSlob]

16. I could look at the Kerry hunting photos and tell they were

staged photo-ops. He was wearing a brand new vest!

[Wickerman]

35. No shit

he's a millionaire - he travels constantly campaigning. I guess he should've had his vest from the 70's fed-exed to him. Hell, maybe he forgot which house it was at?

"I sure as hell won't vote for John Kerry - Democracy is tipping in the balance - we have a madman in the whitehouse who also happens to be a halfwit puppet of very dangerous men, our economy is crumbling, we have no healthcare plans, SS is shot to hell, no energy policy except feed oil companies, and, oh, we have a war that is going to hell in a handbasket and has managed to lose us respect worldwide. I sure as hell won't vote for Kerry - that bastard was wearing a brand spanking new hunting vest in a photo I saw of him hunting!"

quotes do not imply ownership to anyone individual, even if FatSlob would care to claim credit... :P

[FatSlob]

61. Where did you find that rant?

And who's rant was it?

[Wickerman]

72. In the darkest recesses of my mind

as I tried to figure out what the fuck is going on in this thread. We've got a strong candidate who can beat Bush*. He isn't going to get the NRA endorsement, but he has about as reasonable a stance on gun control as one could hope for AND he is and has been a hunter. Yet, all I see on this thread is a whole bunch of bitching that he likes animals too much. Hell, I like animals.

When I read the bit about his vest I thought I had slipped into some weird alternate universe where Maureen Dowd was offering her fashion sense critiques - all the while the balance of the fucking free world is in the hands of the Amurican public.

This public will go to the polls with such weighty concerns as "does John Kerry like animals just a little too much?", "Does this orange hunting vest clash with his hazel eyes?". No one on the pro-gun side comments on the fact that Bush*, in anywhere but insano bizarre world, wouldn't even be considered as an opponent for Clyde, the dogcatcher in my town of 4k, let alone as leader of the free world.

So, yeah, the quote was hypothetical. Call it hysteria, over the top, whatever. I just find it unbelievable that folks here are so tied to their guns that they would consider passing over Kerry in favor of Bush*

[JayS]

77. Well...

he has about as reasonable a stance on gun control as one could hope for AND he is and has been a hunter.

...aside from some bland statements about hunting and the Second Amendment there is not much to go on about where he stands. He regurgitates some information that comes straight from the statement by the Brady Bunch on the assault weapons ban and is highly rated by that group. Sorry, that does not sound promising.

I just find it unbelievable that folks here are so tied to their guns that they would consider passing over Kerry in favor of Bush*

Believe it. For some it is about guns, for some it is just a litmus test. Remember that Gore fellow that had so much trouble with this?

[Wickerman]

89. With which?

I think I know what you are trying to say about Gore, but not certain.

And for some, its all a load of bullshit. If folks are so willing to criticize Kerry here, yet never say anything negative against Bush, all for the sake of their guns, then I'd suggest they go elsewhere. They give those who can actually make convincing gun rights arguments from the DEMOCRATIC perspective a tougher field to plow. This is a board by and for Democrats. Too many RWers have come on here and posed as progressives spouting gun rights. When they are outed it further damages the credibility of all other pro gun posters. Finally, when our "progressives" put Kerry's gun right's cred under the microscope and ignore Bush's*, it only serves to reinforce the message that pro gunners are freeps.

From his website:

Increased Gun Safety
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

[JayS]

96. "This is a board by and for Democrats"

Let's see...y'all can't understand some very simple concepts so that makes me a right winger.....

And how can one criticize Bush on gun rights? Aside from a statement about the assault weapons ban he has said nothing that I have heard. Unless it has to do with Iraq I don't expect to hear him say anything anytime soon.

And yes, I saw that info on Kerry's webpage. It is bland.

[iverglas]

100. amazingly brazen

Let's see...y'all can't understand some very simple concepts so that makes me a right winger.....

I have yet to see a "simple concept" in anything you have posted in this thread.

I have seen veiled allegations, misrepresentation of the meaning of phenomena, evasion of questions and unwarranted condescension.

The only "simple" thing I've seen is a claim that John Kerry lies.

Unfortunately, since I haven't seen a shred of evidence to back it up, it remains "simple" in a different sense: insignificant.

[JayS]

113. If you can't see it by now, I can't show it to you. n/t

n/t

[Wickerman]

103. Listen, I never called you a right winger

I wasn't even posting to you, I was posting to FatSlob and even then the statement was generic, explaining a dilemna that is often approached in this forum - one that with the election coming seems to be more and more pronounced. I find it EXTREMELY odd that folks need to be prodded to recall that they are indeed Democrats - and then its like pulling fucking teeth to even get lip service to the issue.

In the meantime, we don't seem to see any threads tackling Bush's* stance on gun control, even though...

And how can one criticize Bush on gun rights? Aside from a statement about the assault weapons ban he has said nothing that I have heard. Unless it has to do with Iraq I don't expect to hear him say anything anytime soon.


And, if you really have ANY desire to persuade someone to whatever logic it is that you are trying to so clearly entertain (Kerry needs to say more on gun control so that he can alienate either side?) perhaps you could be a tad more polite than...

y'all can't understand some very simple concepts so that makes me a right winger.....

Thanks, I think I have already given you far more time than you deserve.


edit to fix bold

[JayS]

115. Sorry Lunabush, I thought you were talking to me.

I find it EXTREMELY odd that folks need to be prodded to recall that they are indeed Democrats

I always find it frustrating that a Democrat in Maine is expected to be just like a Democrat in Texas or like a Democrat in California. That will never happen.

And sorry but I don't watch Bush on TV, I don't listen to him on the radio, and I don't read about him in the paper. He is a non-entity.

[Wickerman]

120. I responded to your post that was a response to a post I made

to FatSlob. I called no one in particular a troll, my screed was directed to the board in general, but it requires no rocket scientry to see that we still have them here.

I am, and I will say it again, I am dismayed that we have thread after thread attacking Dems, and even Kerry - yet we rarely ever see attacks on Republicans and Bush* in this forum by the pro gun crew.

That doesn't hold cotten with what I call good progressive behavior - be our posters in Texas, or Maine, or even California.

[JayS]

123. Is it an attack on Kerry or a criticism. If I see that he is about...

...to run into a tree then I will at least tell him about it. If he chooses to maintain course into the tree, that is his own lookout.

Aside from blowing stuff up, I don't think the Republicans have done much at all. If you find something about them to talk about, let's talk about it.

[iverglas]

97. you missed something

If I may say what lunabush said, once more with emphasis:

I just find it unbelievable that folks here are so tied to their guns that they would consider passing over Kerry in favor of Bush*

See?

[JayS]

110. I answered this once already.

I just find it unbelievable that folks here are so tied to their guns that they would consider passing over Kerry in favor of Bush*

I think I even answered it on a post by Lunabush.

[beevul]

107. No offense LB...

but thats not quite an accurate characterization IMO.

"I just find it unbelievable that folks here are so tied to their guns that they would consider passing over Kerry in favor of Bush*"

The choices of those folks you refer to are a result of the choices and positions of Mr. Kerry. To view it any other way is to put the cart before the horse, IMO. It's a fact of life that if you support brady and the like, you are going to lose the gun vote. No if ands or buts. Why should those that Kerry is passing over vote for him? Because * is so bad? Somehow, if Mr. Kerry decided to change his position to one of pro-life, I don't think criticism of him because of it would be seen in that light ("vote Kerry because of * is bad news"). Nor should it be in this context. Rather than gun owners voting for Kerry because * is so bad, Kerry should be attracting their votes, because * is so bad.




Its all a matter who he makes room for at "the table".

I find it unbelievable that Mr. Kerry is so tied to his agenda that he would consider passing over gun owners and possibly handing the election to Bush*.

Thats my position for the time being.

"but he has about as reasonable a stance on gun control as one could hope for"

Voting 100 percent of the time for the preferred position of the likes of brady/CGSV on the votes they considered to be the most important is nowhere near reasonable.

How bad * is should not leverage the people into voting Kerry, but rather SHOULD lever Kerry into taking a more reasonable position to get those votes. The opposite is exactly why politics in general have become the way they are. He's not doing that yet...My characterization, is that hes taking a less than remotely desireable position on guns, expecting people will change their positions because * is so bad.

That shows he does not truly understand the gun issue, or those that vote based on its importance or "sub-importance" if you will, to them.


He should be the one changing his position to fit the people,not people changing their position to fit him. Voting 100 percent of the time for the preferred position of the likes of brady/CSGV on the votes they considered to be the most important,in addition to low grades from gun rights groups based on his voting record, is not what I would call going out of his way to attract votes. At least not many gun votes.

Like I said before, I believe it will change. It has to. If there are loyal Democratic voters who will not vote for Mr. Kerry because of the firearm issue, and there ARE some, there's dang sure alot of independents who have little to no party loyalty who also will not , and he also stands no chance to grab disgusted repug votes...of which there are many as well. He could have those votes, but thus far, chooses not to. How many votes that equates to, is hard pin down accurately, but I think it safe to say many million.

I believe things will change, but if they do not, and Mr. Kerry loses because of key states with heavy gun vote, don't blame gun owners, blame Mr. Kerry for not attracting their votes.

Again, no offense LB, just calling them as I see them.

Off topic...err on topic...err...

I like animals too!!!!

[Wickerman]

116. None taken

you and I have discussed this several times, though we have more circled around it rather than take it head on, as you did here.

I believe that Kerry has presented a fairly viable gun platform - one that splits the difference. See, I believe the sky won't fall if he doesn't get the gun vote. I do believe it will hurt him. However, I don't think Bush* has been the wet dream that the gun gang wanted either. He steadfastly refuses to offer up much in the way of discussion - which I find odd considering his constituency SHOULD be all over a strong gun stance.

Perhaps Kerry and even Bush know something - perhaps they know that the best angle is to straddle the middle. Personally, what I see in the Kerry platform suits me just fine...

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/
Increased Gun Safety
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place.

I got no problem with that - one that I often see the pro gun side railing about - we don't need no new gun laws - we need to enforce what is there...

He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.

Again, no problem there. I see guns sold at auction all the time. Sometimes they are sold responsibly, sometimes not - I liken that to the problem that may be present at gun shows - why not just put a safeguard in place? The Background check system? Again, something else that is railed on here - lets fix it - its here to stay - lets make it right. Child safety locks? I haven't seen a convincing argument not to outfit new guns with the lock.

As I see it, Kerry votes his conscience - I got no problem with that.

[iverglas]

126. gun laws that work, a modest proposal

An aside ... about an actual issue.

Criminals don't obey laws. They aren't going to wake up and say "oops, I'm not allowed to have a gun, so I hadn't better go buy one".

So if one wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, one has to use measures, including laws, that will operate on their sources.

Law-abiding gun owners presumably don't want criminals to have guns.

So why would a law-abiding gun owner object to a requirement that any firearm transfer s/he engages in -- in which s/he sells or gives or barters a firearm to someone else -- be cleared through a background check?

Such a background check would eliminate, or at least reduce, the possibility of his/her gun getting into the hands of a criminal through no intent of his/her own, and contrary to his/her wishes and interests.

So the law-abiding gun owner has an actual incentive for complying with the law in question: the law increases the chances that his/her own objective -- keeping guns out of the hands of criminals -- will be achieved. And of course the law-abiding gun owner is also just a little more likely to obey laws in general than criminals are.

Criminals have a strong propensity for using handguns to commit crimes. Law-abiding gun owners might therefore be particularly concerned about handguns falling into the hands of criminals. They might even, if they are sensible, be concerned about people (who are, while not criminals, not quite as law-abiding as they are) transferring handguns to criminals who offered them enough money. Law-abiding gun owners might think it quite reasonable to require ownership of handguns to be registered, as an extra deterrent to any fellow law-abiding gun owner who might, in a weak moment, be tempted to sell one to a criminal.

Two pretty simple measures.

And yup, not all law-abiding gun owners would comply with them. But it sure seems reasonable to expect that the proportion of law-abiding gun owners who would comply with the requirement that they obtain a background check on anyone to whom they intend to transfer a firearm would be a good deal higher than the proportion of criminals who would refrain from purchasing a firearm from a private seller.

Handgun registration would require some initial cooperation from the law-abiding handgun owners, to get the measure adopted and have them register their existing handguns, and then just cooperation from firearms dealers, for new sales of handguns. Firearms dealers of course have a whole other incentive for complying with the law: profit, which they can't make if they get caught breaking it.

Eminently reasonable, seems to me; little muss and fuss, and a potentially significant improvement in the situation as it relates to firearms in the hands of criminals. How could a law-abiding gun owner possibly object?

[JayS]

129. Easy answers.

So why would a law-abiding gun owner object to a requirement that any firearm transfer s/he engages in -- in which s/he sells or gives or barters a firearm to someone else -- be cleared through a background check?

You won't find much of an objection. You may remember McCarthy-Dingel from last year. It showed a lot of promise...but it died.

Do you know that the only time I sold a firearm to someone that I did not know extremely well and wanted the guy checked out I had to ask a favor of a gun dealer to break the law for me and do a check for, as I told the buyer, "insurance" reasons.

Law-abiding gun owners might think it quite reasonable to require ownership of handguns to be registered, as an extra deterrent to any fellow law-abiding gun owner who might, in a weak moment, be tempted to sell one to a criminal.

Well, in a weak moment I would just sell the weapon and report it stolen, getting the cash from the buyer and whatever I could from the insurance company. :)

At one time registration might have been possible but the trust is long gone now. You won't see much support for it but you will find a lot of support for keeping the violent locked up. I'm working with one of our Reps right now on tying this idea to the War On Drugs issue.

[Redneck Socialist]

146. Couple more answers

"So why would a law-abiding gun owner object to a...background check?"

On general principle I don't like having to ask big brother's permission before I can buy a gun. I don't have to check in with the government before buying other products why should I have to do so with guns?

"Law-abiding gun owners might think it quite reasonable to require ownership of handguns to be registered."

Or they might reasonably fear that one day the same government that they already have to ask permission from before they can even buy a gun will use that registration list as a means to confiscate those registered guns.

Some folks might not think such fears to be reasonable, but we are talking about politics here and reason doesn't much figure into it.

[iverglas]

167. funny ...

On general principle I don't like having to ask big brother's permission before I can buy a gun. I don't have to check in with the government before buying other products why should I have to do so with guns?

You tried to buy pennicilin without a prescription lately?

Hey, maybe you think that you should be able to. Maybe you think that you should be able to buy any firearm, anywhere, from anyone, without a background check.

If so, that puts you outside this discussion. My suggesion was made in the context of a system that requires background checks for purchases from certain people, in certain places, and not for purchases from other people, or in other places.

A response that no background checks should be required ever is not a response to a proposal that the present patchwork requirement for background checks be extended to cover all purchases.

Or they might reasonably fear that one day the same government that they already have to ask permission from before they can even buy a gun will use that registration list as a means to confiscate those registered guns.

Yes, well, I think I did say they might think it reasonable. I'm not sure what a raving loon, or dupe of the extreme right wing, might think reasonable, and I don't see much point in concerning myself with it. The raving loons may be hopeless but are likely negligible; one might think that, with work, the dupes can have their eyes opened. Many of them probably believe that universal public health care is also a giant conspiracy to take away their rights, too ...

Some folks might not think such fears to be reasonable, but we are talking about politics here and reason doesn't much figure into it.

There ya go. No point in trying to do anything at all, is there? Why even bother being a Democrat when there's no chance of ever persuading people that they've been duped?

[beevul]

127. Seesaw...

I read things like what you posted, and I agree.

This for instance:

"John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place."

I strongly agree with that, all of it.

"He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock."

I have mixxed feelings about this. Regulation on selling personal property...Just doesn't seem right to me on principal alone...

The rest of it, I totally and strongly agree with.


Its his past votes on gun issues that make me uncomfortable...

"I don't think Bush* has been the wet dream that the gun gang wanted either. He steadfastly refuses to offer up much in the way of discussion - which I find odd considering his constituency SHOULD be all over a strong gun stance."

This is true. Though, to most pro-gunners, "nothing new" (besides CCW) is better than new legislation. The great majority of firearm legislation is bad in their eyes (at least those I know). Over reaching, or targeting the wrong group is what we don't like.

What I myself like to see, is legislation like this:

"Parade route gun-ban bill stripped of its ammunition"

"Revisions shift focus to violent crimes"

"BATON ROUGE -- A proposal to ban firearms within 1,000 feet of a parade route was watered down in a Senate committee Tuesday to instead stiffen the penalties for those who commit crimes with illegally possessed guns at a parade or similar street event."

"As the bill heads to the Senate floor, it says any person who illegally carries a firearm -- without a permit -- and uses that weapon to commit a violent crime during a parade, will face up to a $2,000 fine or a jail sentence of at least one year and up to five years."

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-1/108555290437380.xml


Reassurance that this is the type of legislation he would push would likely earn Mr. Kerry my vote, or close to it. He still needs to drop the AW ban business though. Its rediculous.

I seesaw back and forth. I would really like to be able not to.

In any case, I appreciate that we can discuss this like grown adults, instead of the alternative.

[JayS]

130. Let's see...we need stuff on Bush to talk about...

...that doesn't involve his....deficiencies....

One big issue that Bush ran on for Governor here was the Concealed Hangun License issue, which Governor Richards hated. We never expected him to win...but he did and now we have CHL. He was so bad as Governor that we sent him to Washington, hoping no one would let him do anything beyond playing with his erector set and stuff. It didn't work out that way though.

[beevul]

131. Outside the single issue of firearms...

theres TONS of stuff. Lies, Iraq, Oil, more lies, GTMO bay policies,
free speech zones, yet more lies, possible LIHOP/MIHOP, still more lies...

I could probably type for hours and still have more to go.

On the gun issue, however, all I personally can really say, is that I agree with ashcrofts position on the second amendment.


That and that I disagree with * on renewing the AW ban, even though that,like most everything he says was iether lip service, or lies, or both. Probably what was deemed "safe" lip service in this case.

[Wickerman]

132. Good points

but I have a problem seeing what it is that holds you up. I guess that is the symptom of our differing investments. I have nothing to lose either way - the fed won't be coming for my hunting weapons and I am not invested enough to worry about minimal restrictions on handguns, etc.

From what I see you are faced with a Kerry who might or might not attempt to enact more onerous gun laws. I read that first statement as the same as other DUErs, which I already paraphrased - don't need new laws. To me, Kerry is not the wild card. Yeah, there will be some restrictions, but nothing majorly new.

Bush*, on the other hand - he has already demonstrated that he has no regard whatsoever concerning your rights as a US citizen. Were he elected in November and for whatever reason martial law established (which seems much more likely with him at the helm than with Kerry) you can bet that Ashcroft WILL come for your guns - it would be our only means of fighting back.

I see no choice. Bush has clearly shown that he and his crew are mad and against the very foundations of this country. They will do what they damn well please - all the while wrapped in the flag. I think you could be looking at ultimate gun control with Bush* - you might see similar to slightly more stringently enforced gun control with Kerry.

[JayS]

133. Couple of points....

I have nothing to lose either way

Abortion rights do not apply to me but I still work to support them even though I have no dog in that fight. :)

From what I see you are faced with a Kerry who might or might not attempt to enact more onerous gun laws. I read that first statement as the same as other DUErs, which I already paraphrased - don't need new laws. To me, Kerry is not the wild card. Yeah, there will be some restrictions, but nothing majorly new.

I wish I could believe that Kerry would be sensible on gun control but I don't think it is going to happen. With him coming right out and talking about the AWB as it applies to machine guns and the weapons used in Afghanistan kind of set the tone for my exploration into who he is.

I am sure that you have seen the letter from Rep. Dingle to Janet Reno where he talks about the lack of prosecution of people that lie on their Form 4473. Nothing changed from that under Clinton, nothing changed under Bush, and I doubt it would change under Kerry. Enforcing laws is just not very sexy or something.

When Kerry threw his hat in with the Brady Bunch, he shot down a lot of the trust that he would have otherwise had. I don't know if he can get it back.


Ashcroft WILL come for your guns - it would be our only means of fighting back.

He doesn't have the troops to do it. They are going to be occupied for awhile. :)

[Wickerman]

134. Well, we are back to where we started

I see. I do hope you don't sit this one out. GWB in a second term truly frightens me. As a supporter of a woman's right to choose you have already seen evidence that a 2nd term would be a disaster in that arena.

What with Kerry close to sitting the fence and protecting the choice issue, and Bush sitting the fence on the gun issue and devastating the choice issue I still hope you don't sit home.

peace.

LB

[JayS]

149. I don't know what is going to happen, Lunabush. Right now...

...I am pretty disgusted with the Democratic Party at both the national and the state level. The Presidential race started out with some of the finest candidates we have seen in years and years and years and years...and look what we got to work with. My local political heroes, after repeated statements of "that may project the wrong image" and "this would be a change of policy," proved that some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them. :) What is so funny is that the younger Republicans will work with you and are not all that upset that they will never win your vote. Politics does make strange bedfellows.

And I was able to convey the point of my thread to a storeclerk using only five words...so regional issues must be at play. :)

[Wickerman]

183. heh

I have lived in your region, I assure you it isn't an intelligence factor - perhaps its the water.

[JayS]

188. I just knew something bad would come from consuming so much...

...limestone. :)

[iverglas]

191. "only five words"

And I was able to convey the point of my thread to a storeclerk using only five words...

Why don't you just try those same five words here, and see how they fly?

[JayS]

194. Sure.

"The Brady Bunch loves him"

[iverglas]

198. well there ya go

"The Brady Bunch loves him"

As I was just saying in post 196:


Of course, if you were speaking to someone who already agreed with your conclusion, because of whatever disability in the realm of reasoning s/he might suffer, or had already accepted whatever unproven or false premise you were starting with, his/her agreement would not actually be evidence that you had succeeded.


You were speaking to someone who had already made the fallacious guilt-by-association connection for him/herself, or who was susceptible to the abject and appalling demagoguery that you chose to employ by making that fallacious connection for him/her, when you know perfectly well that the connection is fallacious, and yet you chose to use it anyway in order to achieve your purpose.

Congratulations, eh?

And what exactly, if one may ask, was that purpose? To persuade the store clerk, or firm up his/her intention, not to vote for Kerry?

I'd love to hear an alternative Democratic theory, I'm sure.

And, more generally, how this kind of demagoguery could conceivably be characterized as democratic discourse.

[JayS]

201. Why do you think he agreed with my conclusion? Our only...

...agreement was on the Brady Bunch, commonly known here as an anti-firearm ownership organization. Conveying their opinion of Kerry said all that needed to be said...which was part of what this thread was supposed to be about. You may want to note that we are supposed to take an endorsement by the police union to mean that Kerry is tough crime. Is that a false association also?

[Wickerman]

117. I am saddened, though

that you failed to check in on the fashion statement.

:)

[beevul]

128. fashion statement?

Oh, you mean the wearing of a new vest? LOL. I did like the rant though, made me laugh.

I don't put that much stock into things like that I guess, though I do tend to take a dim view of photo ops in general.

I guess I believe in words on record more than most silly photos, reguardless of reason or intent.

I must be a typical male, at least in that way (function over fashion) ...as my SO tells me repeatedly, I have no fashion sense!!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Redneck Socialist]

24. Do you think

that more people will see the photos of Kerry hunting or hear the spin put out by the pubs?

I think more people will see the photos (and form their own opinion)than will hear about rating Kerry received from the groups mentioned in the original post.

What will happen (as it does every four years) is that the pubs will target a specific demographic, in this case gun owners, and use those votes to portray Kerry as a gun grabber. Will it be effective? Probably, but Kerry is trying to play to a larger audience, that big mushy middle made up of folks who don't have strong convictions about this issue.

[JayS]

27. I think the photos of kerry hunting are...

...gone now. I think the forum there did not like the questions they were getting...and not answering. They may be back but I have not looked.

The Republicans will target the gun owners, as they usually do, but this time they will have the added bonus of a nice example of how Kerry is saying one thing but doing another. It will be fairly easy to target each group by saying "if Kerry is dicking over this group, how can you be sure he won't be doing the same to you if it become convenient" or something similar.

[iverglas]

29. still waiting for it

... this time they will have the added bonus of a nice example of how Kerry is saying one thing but doing another.

Now back that statement up with actual instances of where Kerry said one thing but did another in respect of "hunters' rights", and you'll actually have said something. Other than an unsubstantiated allegation, that is.

Heck, I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just saying that someone who so repeatedly and emphatically makes the assertion really needs to back it up with something.

[Columbia]

32. Here's one

"2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time."

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=wh_where_stand_apsps_hunting

"American Humane opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or for simple sport. American Humane believes that sport hunting is a form of exploitation of animals for the entertainment of the hunter and is contrary to the values of compassion and respect for all life that inform American Humane's mission.

American Humane finds that wildlife management often consists of creating habitat that favors "game" species, which creates an overpopulation available for the purposes of sport hunting. American Humane opposes these practices and favors wildlife "management" requiring the least human manipulation, favoring all wildlife in an ecosystem equally. On occasion when all other avenues have been exhausted and there remains a demonstrable necessity to kill some wildlife, it should be performed by responsible officials, and methods utilized must result in instantaneous and humane death.

American Humane considers sport hunting a violation of the inherent integrity of animals and disruptive of the natural balance of the environment through human manipulation, and calls for positive action to be taken to prevent such cruelties."

[iverglas]

34. uh ... no

I asked for actual instances of where Kerry said one thing but did another in respect of "hunters' rights".

You've provided me with

- a statement that an organization approves of Kerry's legislative record; and

- a statement of the principles espoused by the organization.

Surely you can see that this is not what I asked for.

Let us say that the Libertarian Stalinist League believes that news reporting should be fair and balanced, and advocates that all Fox newsreaders be sent to Alaska. And let us say that Candidate X proposes that all media outlets be required to provide free air time for organizations representing opinions contrary to those expressed in editorial content.

The Libertarian Stalinist League would undoubtedly support Candidate X's proposal.

Can we then infer that Candidate X supports the proposal that all Fox newsreaders be sent to Alaska?

Various non-Christian organizations in the US undoubtedly oppose the occupation of Iraq. Would it be honest/accurate to characterize a candidate who opposes the occupation of Iraq as a heathen based on the fact that s/he shares that position with such organizations?

Various Christian organizations in Canada oppose the US occupation of Iraq. So do I. Does this make me a Christian?


All I'm seeing is YOU doing exactly what you are supposedly objecting to: offering up "guilt" by association.

Approval of a candidate's position, on any specific issue or issues, by any person or organization, does NOT imply that the candidate supports all positions taken by that person or organization on all issues.

Anyone who maintains that it does is being dishonest. Or is very dim.

And anyone who asserts that a candidate supports the positions of a person or organization on any specific issue or issues has the burden of proving it.

And anyone who alleges that a candidate is being dishonest about his/her positions based on the false logic described above -- Organization A approves of Candidate X's positions on Issues M and N, therefore Candidate X approves of all policy positions of Organization A -- is either very dim or very deceitful.

I continue to hope that this is not what YOU are doing, i.e. that you are neither so dim as not to see the faulty logic nor so disingenuous as to be propagating it -- and to hope that if you see someone else either propagating or swallowing it, you are making the appropriate effort to counteract such deceitfulness/dimness.

And, of course, that you will actually substantiate whatever it is that you are saying about Kerry.

[Columbia]

36. Ah, how I've missed you Iverglas

Happy Memorial Day!

[JayS]

49. Ah, here is where you are getting confused.

Approval of a candidate's position, on any specific issue or issues, by any person or organization, does NOT imply that the candidate supports all positions taken by that person or organization on all issues.

No one is implying that there is one hundred percent support in either direction. It is just a comparison gotten by taking a known group, and what it stands for, and looking at what their attitude is towards a candidate. It is not complicated.

[iverglas]

57. "not complicated"

It is just a comparison gotten by taking a known group, and what it stands for, and looking at what their attitude is towards a candidate.

One might even be tempted to say "simple". In its old-fashioned sense.

But anyhow, here's what you originally said:

Please discuss, seriously, how Kerry's voting record on firearms and hunting can be reconciled with his voting record and the political groups that support and rate him.

And damned if that isn't pretty much what I've been trying to do.

You are (apparently) trying to say that a candidate can be judged on particular issues by the rating given to him/her by a particular organization on some other issue(s). This is just logically bad. It comes down to this:

The Libertarian Stalinist Party advocates sending all Fox newsreaders to Alaska.

The Libertarian Stalinist Party supports Candidate X's position on requiring media outlets to broadcast opinion contrary to its editorial positions, and gives Candidate X a good rating, because fair and balanced commentary in the media is very important to Libertarian Stalinists.

Therefore Candidate X is a Libertarian Stalinist and supports sending all Fox newsreaders to Alaska.

It just don't fly. And *I* am not confused at all.

Worse, of course, than this faulty logic, is that you go on to suggest that John Kerry is lying about his policy positions on certain issues, based on the support he has received from organizations that approve his record on other issues.

There is, as I have noted, one situation in which you would be correct: if "supporting hunters' rights" must be defined as "opposing any measure that would in any way interfere with the ability of any hunter to do anything that s/he ever wanted to do" that involves firearms and animals.

And that would be like saying that John Kerry didn't support free speech because he supported laws against perjury, in my own informed and considered opinion.

[library_max]

99. No, guilt by association is not complicated. Wrong, but not complicated.

[JayS]

112. We are not talking about associations between entities. n/t

n/t

[Columbia]

33. Another

"John Kerry is a gun owner and he believes in the right to bear arms. During his announcement speech, Kerry emphasized his strong belief in the Second Amendment by saying bluntly: “I’m a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment.” Additionally, Kerry has said he will work to defend hunting rights. “I enjoy going hunting. I'm prepared to stand up and defend common sense on guns.” "

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/rights.html

[iverglas]

37. well there ya go

I'm sticking to the "hunters' rights" aspect of things, because the rest of it doesn't really interest me.

From the very beginning of that article: John Kerry "led the opposition against polar bear trophy imports" (from Canada) and initiated "letters to prohibit interstate commerce of captive exotic animals for hunting, the bear viscera bill ...".

Two questions:

- are we to understand that the authors -- and perhaps you? -- do not believe that there are ANY justifiable limits on the "right to hunt"?

- are you seriously saying that there are hordes of people in the US who give a damn about, let alone oppose, Kerry's support of a prohibition on commerce in captive exotic animals for hunting, e.g.?

Frankly, I haven't a clue about the soundness of the scientific data on which Canada's polar bear hunting policy is based, but I can't see much objection to the US second-guessing it when it comes to what the US is going to allow across its borders. Anyhow, as I read what Kerry said, he *opposed* the outright prohibition on the import of polar bear trophies and supported a policy to permit such imports in accordance with the results of a review of Canada's policy by the US.

I'm just not sure what I am being offered here. It looks, to me, like extremely extreme extremist opinion, framed in insulting terms (John Kerry is the "water boy" for the HSUS), and I'm not sure why anybody would really care what the author thinks or says.

Are you suggesting that Kerry/the Democrats should overhaul their policies on everything that this author currently finds fault with their policies on? To what end, and for what likely benefit?

Kerry campaigned for a "record-breaking increase in Animal Welfare Act enforcement". So? It's a law, it should be enforced, no?

He sought to "reaffirm the US commitment to oppose any commercial whaling". (Commercial whaling? This is a "hunters' rights" issue?? In point of fact it has virtually nothing to do with "animal rights", and everything to do with the benefit to humans of not extinguishing important species on earth.) He worked for the HSUS's positions on cock-fighting and puppy mills.

Is support for commercial whaling, cock-fighting and cruelty to dogs really going to sway a majority of voters in the US to vote for a candidate? Is Kerry's opposition to them going to tip the balance in favour of Bush??

I'm kinda gobsmacked here, I gotta admit ...

[Columbia]

38. It's not my opinion

Frankly, I don't hunt, and it is not a major issue to me. I don't have a problem with it either though. However, I'm just trying to show what kind of consensus is out there with hunters in regards to Kerry's legislative record on hunting.

In fact, there is an entire website devoted to this one aspect:

http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/

[iverglas]

39. sportsmenforkerry.com

Yeah. I regard a source that starts out by intentionally attempting to deceive any passerby naive enough to be so easily deceived as a good source for just about anything.

I'm just trying to show what kind of consensus is out there with hunters in regards to Kerry's legislative record on hunting.

And as I've said, I'm not seeing any such consensus.

I'm seeing extremely extreme extremist opinion, and wondering whether you are seriously suggesting that Kerry and the Democrats should be adjusting their policies to conform to it.

And of course I'm wondering why anybody concerned about this alleged problem, whatever it is, isn't doing something to educate the dim who might fall for this crap, and expose the deceitful who are purveying it -- instead of devoting his/her efforts to ... what, exactly, is it that you are devoting your efforts to, here? This is what I'm just not getting.

[Columbia]

45. You're the one who wanted to know

I'm was merely providing what you asked for.

[JayS]

51. Good gosh I'm in the wrong f*cking party! n/t

n/t

[library_max]

154. Somebody wrote an article. Somebody else put up a website.

How does this indicate consensus? Is two a majority among hunters in this country?

[JayS]

50. Ah, here is where you are getting confused.

- are we to understand that the authors -- and perhaps you? -- do not believe that there are ANY justifiable limits on the "right to hunt"?

No one is suggesting that there should be no limits on the right to hunt, just like no one is suggesting that there are no limits on firearm ownership. You are reading too much into the discussion by trying to look at only a bill or two. You need to look at trends over time, which is what the groups I list do.

[MrBenchley]

42. Gee, jay....

Good thing we've got an ardent Democrat like you out there countering that message...(snicker)

[JayS]

52. And how would I counter that message? What argument would...

...I use?

[MrBenchley]

135. Gee, jay....

I'm not the one pretending that I'm a "pro-gun democrat."

[JayS]

137. You caught me.

I'm really an anti-gun Democrat; how did you figure it out?

[FeebMaster]

138. In light of this shocking confession, I've decided to come clean.

I am, in fact, a gun grabbing Republican. I post here solely to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are pro-gun by constantly pointing out that the Republicans aren't pro-gun. So far, it seems to have worked perfectly.


On edit: Hahah. I can see how this post will be quoted in the future: FeebMaster: "I am ... a ... Rebpublican."

[MrBenchley]

139. Jay, you're not fooling anyone...

[JayS]

140. I don't have to fool anyone.

[MrBenchley]

142. Well, that's plenty fortunate

considering what a sorry-ass job you're doing...

Like I said, good thing there's an ardent "democrat" like you out there (snicker).

[JayS]

144. My Democrats are still in office. How are yours? Jersey, right?

[MrBenchley]

145. Mine are...

And I'm not sitting around pimping for Larry Pratt....unlike some people.

[JayS]

147. I thought one is in jail for bribery and the other got in the race by...

...questionable methods.

Who is L. Pratt?

[MrBenchley]

153. That's what happens when you get news from Limbaugh...

You end up showing us that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

It's especially funny to see you asking who Larry Pratt is.

[JayS]

157. I notice you did not answer the question.

[MrBenchley]

159. Too TOO Funny...

Which one of us started a thread to piss and moan about John Kerry's low standing with the Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt's ugly little klavern of nutcases? Pratt is one of America's ugliest specimens, a racist so foul that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company in public.

There's nothing like informed discussion...(SNICKER)

[JayS]

162. I notice you didn't answer the question.

[library_max]

166. He did, though.

Question: "Who is L. Pratt?"

Answer: "Pratt is one of America's ugliest specimens, a racist so foul that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company in public."

[MrBenchley]

170. Why Kerry or anyone would want Pratt's endorsement

or pay attention to what a rancid imbecile like Pratt has to say is beyond me.

[JayS]

173. That was part two of the question I asked him...and that...

...certainly does not tell me who this guy is, just what Benchley thinks of him.

[MrBenchley]

181. Too TOO funny....Ask me AGAIN

what the first part of that "question" was....

It's always instructive to watch the "pro-gun democrats" reveal how little they actually know about the real world, and how much of what they do pretend they know is ditto-monkey gibberish.

[JayS]

187. No, what is funny is how many converts you make for the...

...Republican Party.

[MrBenchley]

192. Gee, Jay, I'm not the one attacking Kerry and other Democrats

or trying to pimp for a racist piece of shit like Larry Pratt. That would be YOU.

[JayS]

195. Thanks for making my point.

Now go write another check to DU.

[MrBenchley]

203. You got no point to make

other than that you want to peddle right wing horseshit.

[library_max]

70. I still don't see your point in pushing this.

Those votes are history, they are a matter of public record, and they can't be changed now. So what's the point of pushing the issue?

[JayS]

76. "what's the point of pushing the issue?"

The votes are history but the gun owner friendly attitude that the candidate puts forward is not.

[library_max]

84. So what are you saying? Kerry should tell gun owners to f*ck off?

Hey slackmaster, you thought I was a detriment to the Democratic cause when I gave you the honest answer you insisted on getting. How about this guy?

[JayS]

90. That sounds closer to the truth but I doubt he would use those words. :)

[library_max]

101. So you're against Kerry and want to see him lose?

Am I correct? Is that a fair conclusion to draw from your remarks? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think it is fair to clarify the purpose of this thread.

[JayS]

114. Do I want to see him lose? No.

Do I want to help him get there? I'm not enthused about it but am not closed to the possibility either.

[library_max]

152. Then what are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

The votes and the endorsements you complain about have already happened and can't be changed. So what are you trying to do here?

[JayS]

156. You really don't get it, do you...

[library_max]

165. I think I do, but if I said it my message would just get deleted.

[JayS]

171. Say it anyway. I'll read it before it gets nuked.

[libertyforall]

30. How the gun issue will cost Bush the White House

And not in the way you think either. You see, both George Bush and John Kerry support renewing the "assault" weapons ban (despite the fact that gun control has no positive effect on crime whatsoever, but I digress...). And neither George Bush nor John Kerry will abolish the ATF or repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968 . Regardless of what you think about these things, I can assure you that most of the more vocal gun rights activists in this country support abolishing the ATF and repealing all the current gun laws. I would bet that this number is somewhere between 1 and 5 million people, many of which reside in key battleground states like Arizona, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. So how will this cost GWB the White House?

Enter Michael Badnarik....

Last night at the Libertarian Party Convention in Atlanta, Michael Badnarik was nominated as the 2004 Presidential Candidate. Although Libertarians are very liberal on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, civil liberties, and the death penalty, they are solid fiscal conservatives and support the abolition of all gun control laws and agencies. Badnarik is an outspoken gun rights enthusiast and would be well-recieved by these 1-5 million gun rights voters who would also agree with him on fiscal and civil liberties issues and are VERY displeased with George Bush right now. The problem is that being a Libertarian, he won't get much media coverage. As it stands now, he will most likely draw about 500,000 to 750,000 votes nationwide. But, if that number increases, it could turn swing states in Kerry's favor. So, if you want to see Kerry in the White House, convince gun owners (and any other conservatives who are less than thrilled with Bush) to vote for Badnarik.

If you're interested in reading up about this guy, his website is:

www.badnarik.org

[MrBenchley]

40. Tee hee hee.....

"I can assure you that most of the more vocal gun rights activists in this country support abolishing the ATF and repealing all the current gun laws."
And the ones that aren't wearing swastikas are hiding under sheets.....

"As it stands now, he will most likely draw about 500,000 to 750,000 votes nationwide. But, if that number increases, it could turn swing states in Kerry's favor. So, if you want to see Kerry in the White House, convince gun owners (and any other conservatives who are less than thrilled with Bush) to vote for Badnarik."
Him or Roy Moore...they seem to be the two candidates really interested in pandering to the lunatic fringe.

[libertyforall]

43. Being pro-2nd Amendment does NOT make one racist

What evidence do you have linking gun rights activism and Neo-Nazism or Klan activity? Before going back to the knee-jerk reflex of associating gun rights activists with Nazis or the KKK, I would urge you to think for a few moments. Take a minute to visit the website of the Pink Pistols, a homosexual pro-2nd amendment group which recognizes the undeniable link between gun control laws and genocide/hate crimes (www.pinkpistols.org ). Are they Nazis? Are they in the Klan? Hardly. Take a minute to visit the websites of the Tenth Cavalry Gun Clubs, an association of African American gun rights enthusiasts who recognize that gun control laws were originally PROMOTED by the KKK as a means of keeping guns out of the hands of potential lynching victims (www.blackmanwithagun.com , and do a google search for "tenth cavalry gun club"). Are they Nazis? Are they in the Klan? So before spouting off the typical anti-gun bigot lines about gun rights activists being racists or Neo-nazis or whatever it is, please take some time to examine the facts rather than the misinformation put out by anti-2nd Amendment groups.

[iverglas]

44. yada yada yada

... gun control laws were originally PROMOTED by the KKK as a means of keeping guns out of the hands of potential lynching victims ...

And anti-sexual assault laws were originally made by men as a means of maintaining the exclusivity of their access to the sexual/reproductive services of their human female chattel.

Hmm. Shall we now repeal all anti-sexual assault laws?


(www.blackmanwithagun.com , and do a google search for "tenth cavalry gun club"). ... So before spouting off ...

Here's a tip for you. Before spouting this nonsense again, do a DU search for, oh, "black man with a gun", or "pink pistols".

Oh, that's right, you can't.

Are they Nazis? Are they in the Klan?

Hey, nobody said that ALL evil self-serving folks are Nazis or Klan members.

Or even that ALL stupid people are.

Being pro-2nd Amendment does NOT make one racist

But ain't it funny how being racist evidently makes one "pro-2nd Amendment"?

I would urge you to think for a few moments

I'd do the same ... but perhaps it would be more useful simply to urge you not to talk to people you don't know as if they're foolish, ignorant children.

Will you perhaps be wanting to tell us all about psychiatrist right-wing loon Sarah Thompson's brilliant racist, misogynist examination of "The Anti-Gun Mentality" next?

[mosin]

46. Hi iverglas

:)

I would try to engage you in a delightful colloquy, but you seem a bit testy this evening, and I don't want to spoil our delightful relationship. ;)

Have fun with the newbie. He may not last long. (I know, I know. I'm still a newbie, too.) Starting out by linking to Michael Badnarik's website is probably not going to endear him to the mods. :)

[MrBenchley]

136. It sure as hell does among the politicans pushing this rubbish...

The plain fact is that every racist piece of shit around today is spouting this gun rights crap.

"please take some time to examine the facts"
And when you do, you see how desperate or dishonest one has to be to take the Pink Pistols at face value.

Let’s look at the record. Let’s start with Trent Lott.
Trent Lott led a campus riot to keep blacks out of the U of Miss in the 1960s. In this century, he announced that we wouldn’t have "all these problems" if we still had Jim Crow. If gun control is racist, you’d expect helmet-hair to be four-square for it…but he isn’t. In fact, he’s spent his career pushing the phony "gun rights" issue.
How about John AshKKKroft? Got his career started fighting integration in Kansas City…he’s been noticeably timid in protecting the rights of minorities, and notably gung-ho trampling the Constitution to punish them. Again, he’s not only pro-gun rights; he’s one of the shrillest and most strident proponents of the dishonest "individual rights" revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. He’s so pro-gun rights that he refused to let the FBI check to see if terrorists bought guns after 9/11.
Jesse Helms? The old turd used to scream that the UN was trying to ban gun ownership in the US to inflame his inbred supporters. Bob "C of CC" Barr? He’s on the board of the National Rifle Association.
And which side of the debate threw out an ignorant slur in Congress this year about all black people being drug addicts? The gun rights crowd, which at the time was trying to engineer immunity from liability for the corrupt gun industry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1249-2003Apr9¬Found=true

What about that National Rifle Association? What’s their record on bigotry and tolerance? Well, it’s not so hot…
Outgoing president Charlton "Moses" Heston made big capital of the fact that he marched ONCE with Martin Luther King, Jr. But that didn’t stop him from making racial slurs in front of the far right wing Free Congress Foundation, nor did it stop him from calling for a lynch mob in Michigan in 2000.
But what about the other board members? Well, board member Ted Nugent spewed racial slurs during a radio interview in Denver earlier this year. What did the NRA do about this disgrace? Nothing.
Board member Jeff Cooper calls blacks orang-outangs in public. Several board members have ties groups like English First. Then there’s the publisher of Soldier of Fortune…who can forget all the stirring calls for brotherhood and racial tolerance in SOF magazine (snicker)?
But the NRA is just one group. What about other gun rights groups?
Well, about the next largest is Gun Owners of America…which is pretty much a goober named Larry Pratt. Larry is so racist that even Pat Buchanan had to back away from him in public.
How about racist groups like Aryan Nations or the KKK? Nope, again, you’re talking about big gun rights supporters. Railing about gun control makes up a large part of their message. Here’s the Texas KKK:
"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

[JayS]

53. Could you provide us with the names of these groups?

I can assure you that most of the more vocal gun rights activists in this country support abolishing the ATF and repealing all the current gun laws.

I have never heard of them and I thought I was more up on things.

[libertyforall]

54. Sure thing. Here's some names and links....

Gun Owners of America: www.gunowners.org

Keepandbeararms.com (also called Citizens of America I think): www.keepandbeararms.com

Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: www.jpfo.org

Armed Females of America: www.armedfemalesofamerica.com

Second Amendment Sisters: www.2asisters.org

Pink Pistols: www.pinkpistols.org

Tenth Cavalry Gun Club: www.blackmanwithagun.com

As well as many other state and local groups, such as "Direct Action" here in my home state of Maryland (www.myguns.net)...

Think about it: these are all groups displeased with Bush who are willing to take a look at Badnarik. No way these people are going to vote for Kerry, but the idea here is that we could swing them out of Bush's column and possibly use Badnarik to turn some red states to blue in November. Just a thought from a gun rights perspective...

[JayS]

55. They want to abolish ...

...the ATF and repeal all the current gun laws?

I'm not sure how displeased gun owners are with Bush. The only gun measure I have heard him talk about is a lame one that most likely won't ever reach his desk. I will say that if he had pushed some of the programs that he did when he was Governor, he would have less to worry about on this issue. Guess he was busy with other things...

I would like to see Badnarik get a lot of votes. He is an interesting man.

[JayS]

56. I'm not seeing it. I just did a cursory glance but I am not seeing...

...anything that extreme.

[DavidMS]

148. I once emailed the JPFO...

little question about the Ludwig Lowie Company of Berlin. I knew that the produced rifles and wanted to confirm that the owner was Jewish. I asked them if they knew anything about the Jewish community's reaction to it. I got a response that basicaly stated that the Holocaust was the result of German Jews not owning firearms. I responded by sending my respondant this essay:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id77.htm

I did not hear anything back from him.

JPFO seems to be in slightly kooky right-wing libertarian fantasy terratory.

[Wickerman]

204. Locking

I think both sides have had a chance to vent their spleens over the Democratic choice for the PotUS.