Maybe they don’t let you pack heat in the stadium?
I wonder how many people will look at this list and think “Hey, a lot of people and organizations I respect are for gun control laws… Maybe the NRA is wrong?”
Perhaps the gun control people should mirror this page for recruitment purposes.
It’s an impressive list, isn’t it? By my rough count (I counted the number of lines of their text that showed up on my screen, then counted pages), their ‘enemies list’ includes over 140 national organizations, over 240 celebs, ~30 national figures, over 40 journalists, over 40 corporations, and 23 media organizations.
Something I’ve got to wonder about, especially in view of the “liberal media”: only 23 media organizations and roughly 40 journalists? Jeez, we’re slacking here, guys!
And I’ve got to mention that they named editorial cartoonist Herblock in the list of journalists. He’s been dead for awhile now. (The Web page is dated 6/17/03.) Not only that, but they named him twice in the list. Must be a Chicago thing.
It would really be refreshing, if only for the sheer novelty, for 2nd Amendment supporters (of whom I am one) to understand that exercising responsiblity in the use of firearms is not taking them away. Yes, it is one’s constitutional right to own guns, but the extreme position that every variety of ordnance, including cop killer bullets, is acceptable but safety measures to protect children in gun-owning households are not only serves to confirm the commonl held misperception that gun owners are really gun nuts.
And having enemies lists went out with Nxon, I thought.
You know what this means… Somebody doesn’t like Sara Lee.
Seems to me that there are a number of gun laws on the books already that could probably be enforced a little better, but that notwithstanding, the NRA very often does come across as over the top.
Waaaaaaaay over.
My $.02
Pebs
Indeed. Make one kinda wonder what kinda “cite” they’d provide in challange to their statement, “All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.”
Also that list makes me wonder just what the hell’s going on in Kansas City. Look at the number of organizations with Kansas City mailing addresses. There’s an awful lot of 'em.
Actually, during a recent game, one of the announcers mentioned that the QB (I forget who was playing) was moving to a shotgun formation due to all the blitzes, and the other said “yeah, well I bet he wishes he had a shotgun right now; it’s the only way he’s going to avoid the rush”. 
I was hoping that–in the confusion of listing almost every organization on the planet–the NRA accidentally listed itself as opposing gun rights.
I haven’t had much luck finding “cites” proving the “anti gun positions” of the listed groups or people.
I have noticed that the list has been borrowed and reprinted in lots of places
http://www.bluemountainsports.org/shame.htm
http://secondamendmentstuff.com/antigun_org.htm
http://www.sas-aim.org/anti/corporations.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/thrise/93/id86.htm
maybe KC is the home base for the black helicopters?
Unc, that’s probably left over from the fight over concealed carry in Missouri.
beagledave, I’m glad you clarified that the “enemies” phrasing was yours. However, I disagree with the “enemies” characterization, no matter how techinally correct your definition might be.
Hm.
If you take the alphabet and write it out in a circle, so A is at 12 o’clock, and B and C follow clockwise … then take the word “chiefs”, and shift the ‘c’ clockwise eleven places (for eleven men on offense), shift the ‘h’ clockwise seven places (for seven points for a touchdown), shift the ‘i’ counterclockwise two places (two points for a safety, natch), shift the ‘e’ clockwise sixteen places (for … uh, I’ll figure this one out later), shift the ‘f’ clockwise eight places (for … um, er … half of whatever I figure out for sixteen) and leave the ‘s’ intact, do you know what you get?
C H I E F S becomes * N O G U N S*.
Great googly moogly.
Those Wonderbra fuckers are guilty of promoting fraud in singles bars worldwide.
The so-called ‘cop killer bullet’ ban was a media-hyped circus that had absolutely nothing to do with those armor-piercing handgun rounds specifically designed to go through a ‘bullet proof’ vest. In fact, those rounds were never available for sale to the public, and the media frenzy surrounding the whole thing drew attention to the fact that police officers were wearing vests in the first place - something that before that, was not widely known among the criminal element - thus causing more criminals to aim for the head rather than the chest. It probably (my own hypothesis) cost more officers lives than it saved, in addition to the fact that it was a bullshit piece of legislation that would’ve banned nearly ever centerfire rifle round in existence.
Millions of law abiding gun owners currently protect their children from negligent discharge injuries and deaths every year through their own means, such as not only keeping their guns and ammunition locked up, and locked up separately, but also in educating their children from a very young age that firearms are not toys.
They’re doing this so well that more children die from falling off of bicycles or drowning in swimming pools than through firearms injuries every year. And of course, laws requiring trigger locks or other storage measures will do absolutely nothing for those ‘accidents’ that happen in homes where the guns aren’t even legally owned, such as the Michigan case in which a six year-old child found a handgun under the bed in the crack house his mother left him in and killed a classmate. What will yet another law requiring me, a single adult who lives alone with no children, to trigger lock (and render useless) the gun I keep for self defense do to help that crack house kid? If his mother is willing to ignore the law against crack, and to illegally have a gun, what makes you think she’d use a trigger lock or a gun safe?
I, for one, like to know when the money I spend will be used by the company I do business with to lobby for political and legal policy I don’t agree with. If I disagree strongly enough with those policies, I don’t want to support them, either directly or indirectly.
The NRA’s urged boycott and letter writing campaign of Citi Bank for closing the account of a business customer who was a federally licensed firearms dealer did result in a change in Citigroup’s policy, which was to not do business with anyone who manufactured or sold ‘military weapons, military munitions or firearms’. NRA members decided that as law-abiding citizens, they didn’t want to do business with a company that had a stated policy of denying credit to businesses or individuals on the basis of firearms ownership. Citigroup apparently found it in their financial interest to change their tune, and either satisfy their customers or lose them.
So what’s wrong with ‘voting with your money’?
Good Lord, have you never seen the fans at Arrowhead Stadium? Kansas City is usually a laid-back place, but when thousands pour into Arrowhead and guzzle that beer, the place (the stadium, not the whole city) turns into an exercise in mob mentality. I can see the Chiefs not wanting guns there.
That jokingly (sorta) said, I also don’t understand the numerous Kansas City addresses. Kansas City has not been (until recently, that is, with the passed/then blocked conceal/carry law) a big battleground for gun issues.
Kansas City is pretty much a big city lavished in mediocrity, so I’m not understanding the focus. But hey, maybe there’s a lot more going on than I know.
A lot of St. Louis city and metro addresses there too.
Would Columbia be the epicenter of anti-gun energy, then, being inbetween KC and St. Louis? Or would it be Boonville? …No, not Boonville…
Can’t the NRA forgive people like the AMA or the National Association of Chain Drug Stores or even insurance agencies for not liking guns so much? I mean it can think their positions are wrong, but come’on be a little understanding. These are the people that have to treat pointless gunshot wound after gunshot wound, the people who get shot and murdered constantly by gun toters, and who have to pay to sort out the outrageously high level of gun violence in this country, and so on.
I mean, I’m against censorship of KKK speech all the way, but I can’t exactly blame someone who’s father was lynched by the KKK for shits and giggles from getting pretty worked up about them making light of it at a public rally. Doesn’t mean I think they should have their way, but come on: a little sympathy at least for the costs in pain and death of this freedom. Liberty has a price: not just in defending it, but in the ability of free people to hurt the hell out of each other much more easily. It’s still worthwhile to have liberty, but let’s not forget that it’s a tradeoff to some extent.
Great, a comparison of the NRA and the KKK. Wonderful.
Here’s a difference: if the KKK lynched someone, would you blame the rope?
I could have sworn there were others.
Or am I being wooshed?
This isn’t the pit, but I would have thought that any creature with more than just a ganglion here and there could realize that I was not comparing them, but comparing the cost bourne by rights which come with co-committent harms. Free speech allows harm to be done. Widespread ownership of guns comes with the cost of the widespread use of them.
Again, I wish we were in the pit so that could more fully ridicule you, but you seem to lack and understanding of the concept of the appropriate relevancy of an analogy. Not all elements need to be the same: only those relevant to the illustrative nature of the comparison.
Actually, this is the Pit, so feel free to ridicule whatever you want. Maybe you’ll look less stupid that way.
Heh, this reminds me of my father, the card-carrying NRA member with the signed Charlton Heston picture, who’s avidly boycotting Monster.com (and others on the list)…
Of course, he doesn’t have a computer, so I have to wonder how effective his boycott will be.