I’m not yielding that I believe Obama would apply such a litmus test, but I am also granting that I believe Republicans do it from the other direction. I’m trying to be fair and unbiased about this.
Ok, the NRA secretly hated Bush before they publicly loved him. Those flip-flopping rascals!
WTF are you talking about?
The BLM has since backed off.
FWIW, a map of BLM administered land (out of date, but from their own site).
Also, as much as every blog on gun rights seems to assert otherwise, the restrictions were in a set of drafted rules drawn up by one component of the DoI, rather than a specific action by Obama.
I’m poking fun at the notion that George Bush wasn’t an advocate of gun rights. I promise my humor will be a little more broad in the future.
He accomplished little regarding gun rights, even with his party owning both the house and the senate. A gun advocate he was not. He was better than those that ran against him but that’s not saying much.
He was quoted saying that he would have signed the 2004 Assault Weapons ban had it come to his desk. That is not what a gun rights advocate would do.
You do understand the concept of the lesser of two evils, do you not?
EDIT: For the record, I believe that Bush said what he said because he was trying to curry favir, because nobody believed that the AWB renewal would ever see his desk. he could therefore claim that he would have signed it when he knew he would never have to. Again, politics.
Maybe, but i still contend that any real gun rights advocate would not have made those statements.
The sublime Michelle chimes in:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111117/NEWS09/311170050/1001
Curiosity piqued, I google “Bachman NRA” and, no surprise, she is endorsed by said worthies. She also claims to have a permit for concealed carry. Unnerving, perhaps, but not especially surprising for a Congressman of her caliber.
OK. so Ms Bachman is batshit pizza, and the NRA endorses her, but that is no reason to suggest that the NRA shares such outlandish notions. It is a recent comment, so we may rest assured that an official NRA spokesman will be issuing a renounce, denounce and deny statement. Directly. She only said it yesterday, no rush.
Ya think?
Had Holder not explicitly suggested that new gun-control initiatives were required to clean up the mess that his department had a part in making you might have a point. But you don’t. We addressed this a few pages back.
Your rhetoric really doesn’t work very well in gun debates, and frankly it gets tiresome. You need only post your obligatory “keep the Goddamn things if they mean so much to you!” post and we can go on with it instead of rehashing old stuff that you missed.
But the NRA doesn’t endorse candidates in every presidential race. They declined to endorse anyone in 1992, 1996 and 2000. So there is ample precedent for the NRA saying, “Forget the lesser of two evils, we’re standing by our principles and not endorsing anyone we do not truly believe in.”
ETA: by the way, I thought your analogy of public annoyance at shooting in public lands and people moving in next to airports was spot-on.
True pro-gun folks won’t ban assault weapons, true Scotsmen eat haggis.
Interestingly, your raising of the 1992 election brings the OP’s point into focus. They would have endorsed George Bush, a former Life Member, but he pulled his membership after the NRA referred to government agents as “jack-booted thugs”. Like I said, I don’t agree with everything they do and there are times when I think they go way too far. That was one of them. As for the rest, they never would have endorsed Clinton or Gore but I didn’t know that they didn’t endorse Dole or Bush. I’ll have to take your word for that, I don’t have time to look it up right now.
Thanks. I thought it was pretty apt.
Except Eric Holder never said that. You made that up.
Post #152, where I linked his testimony before Congess on the “Fast and Furious” matter:
I even underlined it for you. Again.
He kind of did during his testimony on Operation Fast & Furious:
I guess whether Airman’s comment is consistent with his testimony depends on your perspective.
ETA: Ninja’d.
You keep addressing my personality as though it were a relevant issue. It is not. Ms Bachman said what she said, her endorsement by the NRA is a matter of public record.
And, of course, Ms Bachman spoke yesterday morning. By what dark temporal art have you already discussed and disposed of her statements “a few pages back”?
My proposition is relatively clear, the guilty flee where none pursueth. If the vast majority of the left were to think as I do, that this isn’t worth the struggle, especially when we have so many bigger fish to flay, the NRA would continue to offer conspiracy theory as fact. Whether this is a result of sincerely deranged conviction, or nothing more than an effort to sustain their secure employment into an uncertain future is above my pay grade.
What Ms Bachman said is batshit pizza. She has the endorsement of the NRA, and we have the concurring statements of Mr LaPierre. We may fairly assume she will continue to enjoy their favor, absent some statement of rebuke or disagreement. We may further fairly assume that any suggestion of gun regulation, however modest and reasonable, will be met with hysteria and theories of dark conspiracy.
And you? Do you share her conspiratorial fantasies? Do you think Mr Obama and Mr Holder are trying to pull a slow one?
I mildly regret your assessment of being “tiresome”. Rest assured, I will give your opinion all the attention it deserves.
That in no way equates with “Congress needs to pass new initiatives to help us clean up the mess we made.” That’s completely your interpretation.
Or are we supposed to read between the lines to see what Obama’s real motives are?
No it doesn’t. Holder’s comment had nothing to do with the ATF gunwalking, it was a broad assertion of the ATF’s need for effective enforcement tools. That makes them no different from any other law enforcement agency.
It really is a simple thing. What is the definition of a statute? Holder explicitly requested “statutory tools”, e.g., laws, to help “stem the flow of guns”, something his department singularly failed to stop and in fact encouraged with “Fast and Furious” when they refused to allow FFL holders to deny suspicious purchases under the guise of it being a law enforcement matter.
It’s all right there. He’s asking for new gun-control laws while testifying about a legal gun-related catastrophe that happened on his watch. It’s not a question of interpretation, it’s in black and white.
“Gunwalking”, eh? Not quite good enough to steal, but worthy of a passing tip o’ the hat. Duly rendered.