Democrats linking gun rights to terrorism?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:54 AM post located here
Pilgrim:

The far right and the far left are identical. It's like th political line is more of a circle than actual line with the ends almost touching.

There really is no difference in tacktics or class. Let's all just face the facts.

Well sure. The problem that is reached is that The Far Right wants you to think that people that want higher CAFE standards are on the Far Left. Meanwhile any person on the Far Left wants to protest any person that owns stock in an oil company, saying they support the raping of the earth and are on the Far Right.

What becomes difficult is showing who is where. But to be honest this Neo-Con administration must obviously be Far Right because I'd be honestly willing to vote for a McCain and Guliani (sp?) ticket in a second.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:01 AM post located here
themuzicman:
Why doesn't that suprise me.

What that I knew someone that died, or that I think selling 9/11 material is wrong. Heck Ebay banned the selling of 9/11 stuffs.

One guy? ONE GUY? Welstone's funeral was taken over by the Minnesota and national democratic party, and turned from a memorial of a long time senator into a political rally just before an election.

I'm sure you have evidence that is greater than just Limbaugh's word of mouth?

[themuzicman]

Today @ 09:55 AM post located here
Ryokan:

the line isn't even a realistic or helpful explanation of the way ideology works.

Maybe not, but it's a GREAT statement about how reality works.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Today @ 10:02 AM post located here
Jimmy Higgins:

What that I knew someone that died, or that I think selling 9/11 material is wrong. Heck Ebay banned the selling of 9/11 stuffs.

That you would think something Bush does that has nothing to do with the victims of 9/11 is somehow "utterly disgraceful", and that you'd suddenly somehow percieve giving pictures to party donors as something unusual.

I'm sure you have evidence that is greater than just Limbaugh's word of mouth?

Yeah, it's common knowledge. If you missed it, you either have your democrat colored glasses on, or you live in a cave.

Even the DNC apologized.

And the answer to the original question about why the gun lobby hasn't used 9/11 for their purposes remains: Conservatives have class, something liberals forget.


Michael

[Pilgrim]

A picture of Bush making phone calls during 9/11? I don't know, it may be nromal to trade on such things but it does seem a little shallow to trade the tragedy of 9/11 for cash.

[themuzicman]

Fundraising is shallow. Every politician in the US has to do shallow things to raise money. It's a part of the life. They have to eat bad food and ask people to pay $500 or more per plate to eat it, too. That's fundraising.

Michael

[juliod]

Because there's no need to lobby when the need for being armed is so obvious, and, unlike liberal politicians, conservatives know when refrain from politicizing out of respect for the victims.

Who's talking about lobbying? I'm talking about passing laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no danger of a veto if the National Firearms Act is repealed, is there?

If guns will increase the security of the US, why is avoiding that a mark of "respect" for the victims?

Face the fact: Conservatives don't care about gun rights. They are motivated by the desire to protect the profits of handgun manufacturer and dealers.

More facts: Dealers in Class III weapons don't want a repeal or loosening of the NFA. An M-60 sells for about $40,000 now. And since there are no new ones entering the market the value will only grow. If the NFA were repealed the price would drop to $1,000 to $2,000. What's the official NRA position on repeal of the NFA?

DanZ

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:18 AM post located here
themuzicman:

Fundraising is shallow. Every politician in the US has to do shallow things to raise money. It's a part of the life. They have to eat bad food and ask people to pay $500 or more per plate to eat it, too. That's fundraising.

Michael

The photo is something for the archives, not for sale. Why couldn't they have just offered a normal photo of the President?

I know if Clinton did the same exact thing, he would have been lambasted for it.

[Pilgrim]

hmm, fundraising is shallow by nature? I guess all churches are shallow then.

Come, compraing eating bad food to trading on 9/11 is a bit of a stretch. But I understand. In this type of conversation no one wants to give an inch or admit any type of wrong however slight.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here
Jimmy Higgins:

The photo is something for the archives, not for sale. Why couldn't they have just offered a normal photo of the President?

I know if Clinton did the same exact thing, he would have been lambasted for it.

You mean like the time when he arranged to have a battleship float past the coast of France as he was walking the beach, and found stones that aren't indigineous to the area (planted by Clinton staffers), and made a cross from them?

Or maybe the time staffers intentionally took US flags planted by the graves at Normandy and laid them on the ground, so Clinton could "happen" upon them, and set the flags back in place?

Makes a photo of the president on the phone seem innocent by comparison. Bush doesn't even get the money from the photo. It's a PARTY fundraiser.

But I suppose a photo of the president on the phone is WAY WORSE than disrespecting the flag by placing several on the ground for a photo op, because one is a republican and the other a democrat, right?

(FYI, Clinton was lambasted for these, and rightly so.)

Michael

[themuzicman]

Today @ 10:37 AM post located here
juliod:



Who's talking about lobbying? I'm talking about passing laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no danger of a veto if the National Firearms Act is repealed, is there?

Dunno. Bush gave tacit support to renewing the 1994 "Assault rifle look alike" ban.

If guns will increase the security of the US, why is avoiding that a mark of "respect" for the victims?

The respect for the victims is in not exploiting their fate for political gain.

Face the fact: Conservatives don't care about gun rights. They are motivated by the desire to protect the profits of handgun manufacturer and dealers.

That's a laugh. Chances are the 1994 ban won't even come up for a vote.

More facts: Dealers in Class III weapons don't want a repeal or loosening of the NFA. An M-60 sells for about $40,000 now. And since there are no new ones entering the market the value will only grow. If the NFA were repealed the price would drop to $1,000 to $2,000. What's the official NRA position on repeal of the NFA?

DanZ

Source for your stats? Seems to me that the supply of M-60s would remain the same with or without the NFA.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Today @ 10:53 AM post located here
Pilgrim:

hmm, fundraising is shallow by nature? I guess all churches are shallow then.

Yeah, that's all churches do, right?

Come, compraing eating bad food to trading on 9/11 is a bit of a stretch. But I understand. In this type of conversation no one wants to give an inch or admit any type of wrong however slight.

I wasn't comparing them. Furthermore, Bush wasn't "trading on" 9/11. The PARTY was giving out photos of the President committing the horrible act of talking to the VP on the phone during the 9/11 crisis, as a thank you for a donation of $150. No victims mentioned or manipulated. Just the president doing his job. God forbid that the party would send out pictures of the president actually working. Might make the previous president look bad.

Michael

[Jacob]

Today @ 03:37 PM post located here
juliod:

Who's talking about lobbying? I'm talking about passing laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no danger of a veto if the National Firearms Act is repealed, is there?

It would never get repealed, but I think you're correct. IF (big if) it got repealed, it would only be because of popular support. That being the case, it would be signed into law.

Face the fact: Conservatives don't care about gun rights. They are motivated by the desire to protect the profits of handgun manufacturer and dealers.

Funny that it use to be the Liberal Democrats that cared about gun rights - and if they were honestly liberal, they would still care about them. But conservatives generally don't care about gun rights, just about finding a power base (just like most liberals).

More facts: Dealers in Class III weapons don't want a repeal or loosening of the NFA. An M-60 sells for about $40,000 now. And since there are no new ones entering the market the value will only grow. If the NFA were repealed the price would drop to $1,000 to $2,000. What's the official NRA position on repeal of the NFA?

NRA, silent on NFA. The AWB turns a $700 retail priced rifle into a $1200 rifle - I think you're right about the gun lobby not wanting these laws repealed.

Jacob