TV Review: Frontline’s ‘Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA’

Gunned Down The Power of the

The National Rifle Assn.’s political clout is so sweeping – and numerically disproportionate – that it’s unusual to realize its power is largely taken for granted, as if it were always thus. Frontline addresses that history, as well as the group’s combative modern posture, in “Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA,” an hourlong documentary perhaps especially important for Hollywood, given how surrogates for showbiz and the gun lobby inevitably end up pointing fingers at each other in the face of mass shootings. The refresher course is necessary, though nothing here provides any clues about shaking the NRA’s stranglehold on politics, where “No retreat” is the mantra.

As this latest fine and even-handed production from Kirk Documentary Group makes clear, the NRA was a relatively benign, not terribly political organization until 1977, when then-dissident members seized control of the group, adopting a hardline stance against virtually any form of gun-control regulation.

The seminal moment, however, came in 1999, when the NRA vigorously pushed back against the public’s understandable horror over the school shooting at Columbine High School, with then-front-man Charlton Heston famously brandishing a rifle and dramatically intoning, “From my cold, dead hands.”

The 2000 election followed, with NRA muscle contributing to the razor-thin margin that denied (with a little help from the Supreme Court) the presidency to Al Gore, who as Vice President had cast the tie-breaking vote on a piece of relatively modest gun legislation.

Among those interviewed, perhaps the most salient point that keeps emerging is the NRA’s savvy, now under the leadership of Wayne LaPierre, in remaining vigilant and steadfast even in the wake of new tragedies, such as the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary or of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, realizing that while the group’s commitment to the sanctity of firearms is unwavering, the public is apt to get distracted in its opposition, and move on.

LaPierre, moreover, must deal with his own unyielding wing within the NRA, a former spokesman notes, which might explain his reluctance to seek compromise in any way – a stance that has if anything metastasized during the Obama administration, due to the “They’re coming for our guns” paranoia his presidency has unleashed on the political fringes.

No one currently associated with the NRA would speak to the producers, and indeed, why should they? Because in the ongoing battle over gun control, it’s pretty obvious who’s winning. Small wonder proponents of stricter gun laws have recently begun pursuing state ballot initiatives, as the New York Times reported, seeking to mount an end run around the NRA’s well-fortified position in Washington.

For now, though, as “Gunned Down” illustrates, the organization’s leaders seem to recognize they come to that battle armed with the ultimate ammunition: Tons of money, a cowering political class, and a population that might embrace reasonable limitations on gun ownership in theory but lacks the necessary determination to make it happen once the smoke clears.

105 Comments

  1. Robert sackman

    Robert sackman says:

    June 15, 2016 at 4:31 am

    I have to wonder… if maybe one or two of the victims of this senseless act of terrorism had themselves been legally armed… might the outcome have been at least ” less ” tragic ?? This kind of senseless violence will not end with any new law or gracious scripted political speech… it will end only when we all recognize that our individual well being is our own responsibility… sure.. call 911. They will be there in time to notify your next of kin.

    Reply

  2. Robert sackman

    Robert sackman says:

    June 15, 2016 at 4:05 am

    Wow… the evil gun yet again kills. The ar15 is top of the news even though , without a human operator… its just a piece of metal… wheres the focus on the subhuman degenerates who pull the trigger ?? Nra has a special offer right now for a 600 dollar ( or thereabouts ) lifetime membership. Guess i will be writing a check. Guns are NOT the problem. The world of human degenerates .. THATS the problem

    Reply

  3. Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  4. Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  5. Steven Torrey

    Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  6. Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  7. Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  8. Bradley Thompson

    Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  9. Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  10. Steven Torrey

    Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 8:41 am

    It’s kind of a funny thing; I’m commenting on this so called documentary without watching it because it’s so easy to predict what the liberals are regurgitating. There is no original thought, and no real research, just blame the NRA for the violence in America.
    The fact of the matter is, the NRA is not some monolithic organization made up of a few fat old white men, and firearms manufacturers handing out millions of dollars to politicians. It’s an organization of 5 MILLION and growing, like minded law abiding gun owners who are currently subjected to over 20,000 gun laws in 50 states and the federal government, and are carefully observing the trend of anti-gun politicians who are chipping away at the second amendment one restrictive law after the other, and wrapping the slow errosion of the right to bear arms in the facade of, “Public Safety”. Gun owners are told that no one is trying to take our guns away, yet New York and Connecticut are doing just that.
    For those of you that don’t know, those of us that are members of the NRA are made up of active, retired, and veterans of the military. We are also made up of city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. But wait, there’s more! NRA members are also doctors, lawyers, educators, parents, grandparents, legislators, and in the past, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
    Interestingly enough, the liberals point an accusatory finger at the big dog, yell foul at the NRA (WE THE PEOPLE), because we will not go quietly into the night, and claim that politicians are cowering at the power of the NRA. Personally, I have a different narrative in that gun owners have the power of the U.S. Constitution behind us, and we are finally fed up with anti-gun politicians who are blatantly ignoring those 27 words in the Second Amendment. We back law makers that uphold and protect, and not violate the constitution, and we applaud legislators that implement laws that protect our right to bear arms, and repeal draconian laws that do nothing to protect the people from violent offenders, but do unnessarily restrict the possession of firearms by law abiding gun owners.
    Liberals notoriously blame the NRA for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook…well…every violent attack where the criminal used a firearm. They fail to place blame and responsibility on the human element which is the violent criminal. It’s the gun, an inanimate object, and not the person, that liberals consider the real evil. But even in the mind of liberals, there are exceptions to their blame and finger pointing. According to Leah Gunn-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence”, “There’s no such thing as a law abiding gun owner”. Leah’s rationale is, “You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment, and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.” To that I say, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
    The irony of this commentary being posted in Variety, the newspaper of the entertainment industry, is overwhelming to me. The entertainment industry promotes violence, and calls it entertainment. Sylvester Stallone, and Liam Neeson, create personas that shoot, stab, and blowup everything in their path, get paid MILLIONS of dollars to play those roles, and then have the audacity to tell law abiding gun owners that possession of firearms is wrong. Seriously?
    I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I served as a Military Policeman. After the military, I served my community as a police officer. In that time, and after my retirement, I have kept firearms, unlocked and loaded in my home. I raised two daughters, and I now have five grandkids. NO ONE in my house has ever been in danger from my firearms…except for the intruder that broke in…he came face to face with my .357 magnum and I, and peacefully submitted to arrest and detention as my wife called local law enforcement.
    In closing, people, not inannimate objects or organizations are responsible for the evil in the world. Once liberals finally learn that lesson, we can all move on to solve other issues.

    Reply

  11. Steven Torrey

    mayor says:

    January 13, 2015 at 5:27 am

    I watched part of this show early this morning when i couldn’t sleep – it cured THAT.

    Reply

  12. Steven Torrey

    Steven Torrey says:

    January 14, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    Mayor–something tells me you ain’t the brightest bulb in the garden or in the ceiling…

    Reply

  13. mirgc says:

    June 15, 2016 at 8:50 am

    I’ve noticed the same as well.

  14. mayor says:

    January 16, 2015 at 9:09 am

    Torrey spouts nothing but insults. No intelligence is required to do that. We all learned it in third grade. Is it fun to use tax payer money to troll? Your facebook page is unavailable. Afraid someone will uncover your true identity?

  15. Bradley Thompson says:

    January 12, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    This review is by far the most shallow piece of television criticism I’ve ever seen. Nowhere does Mr. Lowry mention that the film visually equates the NRA with mass killings of children and assumes a totally unproven idea that gun control would stop such crimes. Frontline should be embarrassed to call this journalism.

    Reply

  16. Steven Torrey

    tim ozuna says:

    January 8, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    Saw the nra ep and I got to say, I thought it was such a one sided left wing story it made me sick. I can’t believe you would show Obama fake tearing like he gave two shits.political show boating for his own agenda is all that was . I lost all respect for front line and would not donate a dime to such one sided news.

    Reply

  17. Steven Torrey says:

    January 8, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    The Newtown tragedy will resonate in American politics for years to come. Any politician who dare breathe a word of gun control will face fierce opposition. Let a candidate show off his/her ability to fire the Glock [Joni Ernst}–and that candidate will be sure to get that far right wing fascistic element that is a reality of American politics. And the shift in Congress to the far right will be inevitable.

    Reply

  18. Steven Torrey says:

    January 8, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    I just watched the program. Frontline takes the perspective from that of the murder victims of gun violence; Frontline reports on the politician’s response to those murder victims. Frontline reports on how the NRA controls the politicians and controls the debate about gun control. As far as I’m concerned, Frontline did not go far enough in describing the NRA as a far right fascistic organization that would replace Constitutional Law with the Tyranny of the 2nd Amendment. For example, emblazoned on the NRA headquarters is the truncated quote from the 2nd Amendment–“….shall not be infringed…” The NRA objected to Dr. Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General because Dr. Murthy asserted that gun violence represents a major health crisis. With 81,000 gun injuries, with 20,000 suicides by gun, with 10,000 gun deaths–if that does not qualify as a health care crisis, then what does? (Never mind a political lobby having any say in who should be Surgeon General.) The NRA objects, and wants to prohibit. Doctors from asking patients about presence of guns in the household. First, any imposition on the medical profession regarding questions doctor can or cannot ask–seems out and out fascistic; second, if the tobacco industry lobby was to want doctors prohibited from asking about smoking–well, it couldn’t be done. The NRA has persisted in demanding Congress forbid the CDC from collecting statistics on gun violence or doing research on gun violence for fear such statistical gathering or research would lead to more gun control legislation. All of that is something of a small nature the radical far right fascistic nature the NRA is.

    Reply

  19. Allen Hanford

    Steven Torrey says:

    January 8, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    Since the Newtown tragedy, the NRA gun nut psychos have persisted in claiming that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to allow for mob armed citizen revolt against the Federal Government. With that lunatic logic, the Boston Marathon Bombers, Eric Frein, Timothy McVeigh, et. al. were simply exercising a [supposed] Constitutional Right to overthrow the US Government. That Timothy McVeigh’s lawyers did NOT invoke the 2nd Amendment as a defense for his actions, suggest that there is no right inferred or implied in the 2nd Amendment allowing for armed insurrection of the U. S. Government. (And such lunatic logic shows how fascistic these NRA gun nut psychos are.)

    Reply

  20. Steven Torrey

    Deserttrek says:

    January 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    this is just another in a long list of why i stopped donating to the local pbs station long ago …. public broadcasting should never do any programming on such issues as it will never be even handed or representative of the average person. I am willing to bet the author and variety want the police to answer their calls and i am also sure most hollywood functions have armed security. when the author and ALL supporters of so called “gun control” including ALL politicians and that means obama too, give up their guards and walls and security then we can talk

    Reply

  21. silverbeast says:

    January 12, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    deserttrek I apologize ….that comment is meant for the dipshit (Steven Torrey) that posted above you

    Reply

  22. Timothy Wheeler, MD

    silverbeast says:

    January 13, 2015 at 9:46 am

    It’s was a simple mistake. It still doesn’t negate the fact that you are a hoplophobic, freedom-hating moron.

  23. Steven Torrey says:

    January 12, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    If you are so dumb as to get confused in how to respond–maybe you shouldn’t be commenting–and certainly too dumb to own a gun….

  24. silverbeast says:

    January 12, 2015 at 10:57 pm

    With the Heller and McDonald Supreme court rulings, the 2nd Amendment means what it says. The Supreme Court will soon have other cases to further cement the ORIGINAL intent of the 2nd Amendment and finally prevent it from being perverted by the likes of freedom hating morons like you sir. Now kindly pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow.

    Reply

  25. Lot49 says:

    January 7, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    Every time PBS whines about how evil guns and the NRA are, I buy another gun and support the defunding of PBS. I’m already a life member of the NRA, can’t do better than that. If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one. Just because you want to be helpless and unable to protect yourself from criminals doesn’t mean the rest of us have to do the same. Besides, if we have guns and you don’t, what can you do about it? Not much.

    Reply

  26. Allen Hanford says:

    January 7, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    This was a good overview of the NRA, but an hour isn’t nearly enough time to communicate the extent to which it subverts the democratic process. The NRA’s tentacles are at work not just Washington, but in every state and at the ready to attack individual communities.

    Reply

  27. Steven Torrey says:

    January 7, 2015 at 8:10 am

    See the lunacy of your logic, Dee? Per the NRA mantra–per the 2nd Amendment, everyone owns a gun. Now there is need for a gun in every store, every mall, every school, every church, every street corner to protect everyone from the gun everyone owns.

    Reply

  28. Steven Torrey

    Dee says:

    January 7, 2015 at 6:11 am

    I can’t blame the these people for being upset and furious about the horrible things that happened to their children and loved ones. I would be also. I would be even more furious that they had not been protected. Our nation has protection, our presidency and family has protection. why do our schools NOT have protection? Lives would have been saved if a qualified, trained gun owner would have been there to stop these shooters. Education and training are the keys to preventing horrible situations like these. How horrible it would be to know all you can do is wait and hope the shooter doesn’t shoot you before the police or swat team are able to get there and hopefully get in to save you.

    Reply

  29. Steven Torrey

    Timothy Wheeler, MD says:

    January 7, 2015 at 1:09 am

    The gun control lobby drifts ever farther from the mainstream of American society. For over 20 years legislation, federal court decisions, and public opinion itself have evolved in the direction of more firearms freedom. Experience has shown that, rather than being “a virus that must be eliminated” as the public health gun prohibitionists say, firearms in the hands of good citizens are a social benefit.
    Timothy Wheeler, MD
    Director
    Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
    A Project of the Second Amendment Foundation

    Reply

  30. Timothy Wheeler, MD says:

    January 7, 2015 at 1:09 am

    The gun control lobby drifts ever farther from the mainstream of American society. For over 20 years legislation, federal court decisions, and public opinion itself have evolved in the direction of more firearms freedom. Experience has shown that, rather than being “a virus that must be eliminated” as the public health gun prohibitionists say, firearms in the hands of good citizens are a social benefit.
    Timothy Wheeler, MD
    Director
    Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
    A Project of the Second Amendment Foundation

    Reply

  31. David Byron says:

    January 6, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    Tell me why there are an estimated 110 million gun owners and only say 7 million NRA members. I would think if the majority of Gun owners like my self felt the NRA represented our views then more of us would be members. But they don’t so over 103 Million of us don’t care for the NRA. Numbers don’t lie.

    Reply

  32. Steven Torrey

    joaniex3 says:

    January 6, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    Numbers lie when they’re slanted and generated by liberals who want to paint a narrative that guns are evil and we should give up our 2nd amendment rights while democrats force “gun control” laws the force gun seizures from innocent citizens. Thank you Mr.Lowrey for showing me this show is as “even handed” as your review.way way way left of the center.

    Reply

  33. Ralph says:

    January 13, 2015 at 10:01 am

    This is easy. Some people just aren’t joiners. But, that doesn’t mean that they disagree with the NRA and its policy and position. You may however be the exception to the rule…if you really are a gun owner.

  34. Steven Torrey

    Maxwell says:

    January 6, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    “End-run around the NRA”?
    You ain’t gonna like what you find on the other side.

    Reply

  35. Steven Torrey

    maryam says:

    January 6, 2015 at 9:25 am

    With liberals it’s always about the agenda and “end runs” around the will of the people — question for this anti-2nd Amendment/anti-Constitution/ anti-Freedom journOlista hack: isn’t the will of Congress, the true will of the American people in this Constitutional Republic??? So what is it that you and your ilk really want?? End of the power of Congress? More power in the hands of the omnipotent, one-party-rule, “presidency”? Dictatorship a la Maoist China? How far is too far for your ilk?? As a naive young Democrat woman I couldn’t care less about 2nd Amendment fights, but after your ilk exposed its true colors with the radical Occupiers in power, I finally get what we are fighting for. It’s the very heart and soul of this republic OF the people, BY the people, FOR that miserable statists such as yourself want to abridge.

    Reply

  36. Steven Torrey says:

    January 6, 2015 at 9:40 am

    Those twenty murdered children had a RIGHT to life! Their RIGHT TO LIFE trumps the 2nd Amendment right–despite Joe the Plumber’s psychotic assertion. The Right to Peaceable Assembly is also in the Constitution. As well as a right to ‘ensure domestic’ tranquility and to achieve those rights, the Founding Fathers included a clause Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18–“To make all laws which shall be necessary…” (But hey, thanks for confirming for the reading public–Maryam–that you are indeed a right wing lunatic that the NRA is so fond of.)

    Reply

  37. Steven Torrey

    Steven Torrey says:

    January 5, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    Since the Newtown tragedy, the NRA gun nut psychos have loudly and often proclaimed that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to allow for armed mob insurrection against the Federal Government. That lunatic logic means that the Boston Marathon Bombers and Eric Frein were simply exercising a [supposed] 2nd Amendment right to overthrow the US. Government. A lot of these NRA gun nut psychos–crypto-fascists, the lot of them–need to read Title 18 of the US Code, specifically Sect 1114 & 1111–the Sections that Timothy McVeigh was indicted and sentenced with. And read again, for the first time, about the Militia to ‘suppress insurrections” which the NRA would foment.

    Reply

  38. Deserttrek says:

    January 7, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    name calling and the denial of my rights does not help your agenda ..
    Since the Newtown tragedy, the far left anti gun nut psychos have loudly and often proclaimed that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to allow for hunting……no that is not true and all you far leftist know it

    Reply

  39. Steven Torrey

    Deserttrek says:

    January 7, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    name calling and the denial of my rights does not help your agenda ..
    Since the Newtown tragedy, the far left anti gun nut psychos have loudly and often proclaimed that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to allow for hunting……no that is not true and all you far leftist know it

    Reply

  40. Steven Torrey

    scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  41. scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  42. scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  43. scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  44. dennis carrier

    scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  45. dennis carrier

    scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  46. Jerry Bourbon

    scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  47. scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  48. scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  49. scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  50. scott says:

    January 7, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You understand NOTHING of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Yes, the anti-Federalists lost the battle over the adoption of the Constitution. They didn’t want a strong central govt and also didn’t like that there was no bill of rights.
    In the state adoption process the legislatures, frequently at the behest of the anti-federalist minority, recommended changes to the Constitution. In at least one instance the state ratified on the express condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted by the first Congress and one state didn’t ratify until after that was done.
    Madison took those 186 (as I recall) different proposals and distilled them into 12, numbers 2 thru 12 eventually became the Bill of Rights.
    Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists like Madison clearly recognized that the BofR was about INDIVIDUAL rights. This history is well documented.
    The “militia” clause was a consolation prized to the anti-Federalists. It gave them nothing because the new Constitution still allowed Congress to keep a standing army but it did ideologically reaffirm the desire to depend upon the militia. But that is all.
    Heller and MacDonald have now completed the process of recognizing that 2A protects an individual right to arms. We are no only arguing about scope.
    The rest of your blathering about McVeigh and the “right to revolt” is simply that – blathering.
    No serious gun-owner, least of all the NRA, claims the 2A provides a right to revolt. That is a “straw man” argument.
    It is clear though, from the writings of the Founders, that the means to resist tyranny were to be left in the hands of the people.
    btw, calling me “moron” doesn’t make me one. but doing so demonstrates exactly what you are.

    Reply

  51. Matt Armstrong

    Steven Torrey says:

    January 8, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Frontline took the perspective of those murdered victims. I see twenty murdered children. I do not see a need for the psychotic screed about the 2nd Amendment from the NRA gun nut psychos. So yes–you are both a moron and a sociopath–indifferent to the magnitude of the tragedy that is gun violence. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18: “…to make all laws necessary…” to ensure that innocent life has a Right to Life…

  52. James willis

    scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  53. TyrannyOfEvilMen

    scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  54. scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  55. Rick McCargar

    scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  56. scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  57. scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  58. NRAmemberandproudofit

    scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  59. NRAmemberandproudofit

    scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  60. Steven Torrey

    scott says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    No, Seven Torrey, NO ONE else’s “right to life” trumps ANYONE else’s individual rights.
    I ALSO have a “right to life”.
    Therefore I have the right to defend that life.
    Therefor I have the right to arms to defend that life (see Blackstone).
    So, I have the right to “arms”, which the SC said in in Miller (1934) were the arms “commonly in use at the time” as “suitable for militia (military) use”.
    Semi-automatic rifles, at least, clearly meet that test.
    And Heller (2008) clearly stated the right is INDIVIDUAL, there is no “militia” membership required to exercise it. But the arms “necessary” to a militia are my RIGHT.
    And possessing them and using them for “ordinary purposes”, including self-defense is my RIGHT.
    Get over it. YOU LOST.

    Reply

  61. Clutch Cargo

    Steven Torrey says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    You also need a lesson in American History. The Anti-Federalists lost in 1787for three reasons: 1) because they did not attend the convention; 2)Washington cast a pall of gravitas upon the convention that would see a strong Federalist government be developed; 3) they were outclassed intellectually by James Madison. One of the more popular Anti-Federalist was Patrick Henry–“Give me Liberty or give me death”; his peers dismissed him as long on rhetoric and short on smarts–like so many modern day NRA gun nut psychos. Gottleib and Wayne LaPierre represent new Anti-Federalist stance which echoes Reagan’s dictum–“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Well, in times of national crisis like world wide depression, global terrorism, pandemics like AIDS, armed insurrection–a strong and united Federal Government is required to address the complexity of the issue. Washington and Mason saw this in 1787 when they knew that local states could be overwhelmed by the likes of Shay’s Rebellion–to Washington and the Founding Fathers they saw that only a UNITED States could stand strong in the presence of Shay’s Rebellion; no different then the modern day lunacy that the NRA wants to foist about the 2nd Amendment. And note–Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys did not invoke the 2nd Amendment in his defense; that means the 2nd Amendment cannot ever be construed to mean that armed insurrection was intended by the Founding Fathers. Again–by your logic, the Boston Marathon Bombers and Eric Frein, Timothy McVeigh, et. al. are simply exercising a [supposed] 2nd Amendment Right for armed insurrection. You lose! Get over it! (Moron!)

  62. Steven Torrey

    Steven Torrey says:

    January 6, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    Thanks for the rhetoric that disguises a pathology of Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann. Twenty children murdered in cold blood and this is the best your pathetic excuse for a ‘soul’ can come up with. In the end–no matter what you say, what drivel you produce–your psychotic screed reduces itself to the notion that America must accept as 2nd Amendment collateral damage the murder of those twenty children. You are simply too stupid to know implications of what you write. And it’s why I persist in calling you NRA gun nut psycho sociopaths. Indifferent and callous toward the tragedy. Hilter would envy the pathology of the NRA gun nut psychos.

  63. Jay says:

    January 6, 2015 at 6:07 am

    It’s interesting you mention McVeigh, he never fired a single shot. What is lunacy is having a single person commit a horrendous crime, and screaming to restrict the other 135 million gun owners that are law abiding citizens that own and use guns for hunting and recreational shooting everyday. Where is the ‘common sense’ to that logic? Would you ban crayons from schools because 1 kid writes on the wall? The circumstances are far different but it is the same flawed logic.

    Reply

  64. Steven Torrey says:

    January 6, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    MDJ357–that was sick and psychotic even by the usual standards of sick and psychotic NRA gun nut pathology….

  65. Murray Exdroola

    Mdj357 says:

    January 6, 2015 at 8:04 pm

    If some psyco jumps on a nearly full school bus at a stop, shoots the driver, takes control of the bus then drives it full speed over a cliff or bridge and kills all aboard, you would then, of course, demand more gun control. If some psyco jumps on a nearly full school bus at a stop, punches out the driver, takes control of the bus then drives it over a cliff or bridge and kills all aboard, you would then, of course, demand more, ummm, fist control? But if I said arm and train the driver you, I’m sure, would call me all the typical anti-gun insults you could come up with. We have guns and some “bad” people will misuse them. We have cars and some “bad” people will misuse them. We have lots of “things” and, of course, some “bad” people will misuse them and cause harm to others. So are we to ban (like that would do any good anyway) all “things” that can be used by someone to cause harm? Or instead give people ways to protect themselves, like airbags in cars, life-vests in boats and AR-15’s in the hands of people determined to protect themselves and their families from any and all that threaten their lives and/or freedoms.

  66. Steven Torrey

    Steven Torrey says:

    January 6, 2015 at 7:38 am

    My topic was about the NRA mentality–a mentality that believes the 2nd Amendment is about lawful citizen armed insurrection. And bedsides–it turns out that all you 135 million gun owners need to be controlled–witness the 2 year old shooting to death his conceal/carry mom in Walmart.

  67. Steven Torrey says:

    January 5, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    The face of the NRA: Cliven Bundy, Frazier Glenn Cross, Amanda & Jared Miller, Eric Frein, Timothy McVeigh–far right fascistic fanatics, anti-government kooks, crack pots, wackjobs, lunatics, and sociopaths. And this thread confirms the worst suspicions about the NRA lunacy.

    Reply

  68. Steven Torrey

    mayor says:

    January 13, 2015 at 6:21 am

    Torrey is an excitable boy, isn’t he? using terms like ‘NRA gun nut’, ‘wackjobs’ all the other unflattering comments indicates to me that you need to be controlled, since you have none over yourself. You seem to be the type that does indeed need a background check before being allowed to own a firearm. I’m pretty sure that you are unable to participate in a civil conversation. You appear to me to be the voice of violence in these discussions.

  69. The Rocker says:

    January 6, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Punk…the only people that “need to be controlled” are statists, communists, and traitors like YOU.
    Damn straight about the armed insurrection part, but even a borken clock is right twice a day.
    See your sad-sack sorry ass in our next civil war!

  70. The Rocker says:

    January 6, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Punk…the only people that “need to be controlled” are statists, communists, and traitors like YOU.
    Damn straight about the armed insurrection part, but even a borken clock is right twice a day.
    See your sad-sack sorry ass in our next civil war!

  71. Steven Torrey

    The Rocker says:

    January 6, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Punk…the only people that “need to be controlled” are statists, communists, and traitors like YOU.
    Damn straight about the armed insurrection part, but even a borken clock is right twice a day.
    See your sad-sack sorry ass in our next civil war!

  72. cargosquid says:

    January 5, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    “(with a little help from the Supreme Court)” FALSE
    Later full recounts gave the state to Bush.
    “a population that might embrace reasonable limitations on gun ownership in theory but lacks the necessary determination to make it happen once the smoke clears.”
    A population that recognizes that “reasonable” has a vastly different meaning to them compared to liberal gun control fanatics.
    When “reasonable” gun control laws show up….then we’ll talk.

    Reply

  73. cargosquid says:

    January 5, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    “(with a little help from the Supreme Court)” FALSE
    Later full recounts gave the state to Bush.
    “a population that might embrace reasonable limitations on gun ownership in theory but lacks the necessary determination to make it happen once the smoke clears.”
    A population that recognizes that “reasonable” has a vastly different meaning to them compared to liberal gun control fanatics.
    When “reasonable” gun control laws show up….then we’ll talk.

    Reply

  74. Steven Torrey

    cargosquid says:

    January 5, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    “(with a little help from the Supreme Court)” FALSE
    Later full recounts gave the state to Bush.
    “a population that might embrace reasonable limitations on gun ownership in theory but lacks the necessary determination to make it happen once the smoke clears.”
    A population that recognizes that “reasonable” has a vastly different meaning to them compared to liberal gun control fanatics.
    When “reasonable” gun control laws show up….then we’ll talk.

    Reply

  75. cargosquid says:

    January 5, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    “(with a little help from the Supreme Court)” FALSE
    Later full recounts gave the state to Bush.
    “a population that might embrace reasonable limitations on gun ownership in theory but lacks the necessary determination to make it happen once the smoke clears.”
    A population that recognizes that “reasonable” has a vastly different meaning to them compared to liberal gun control fanatics.
    When “reasonable” gun control laws show up….then we’ll talk.

    Reply

  76. Steven Torrey

    cargosquid says:

    January 5, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    “(with a little help from the Supreme Court)” FALSE
    Later full recounts gave the state to Bush.
    “a population that might embrace reasonable limitations on gun ownership in theory but lacks the necessary determination to make it happen once the smoke clears.”
    A population that recognizes that “reasonable” has a vastly different meaning to them compared to liberal gun control fanatics.
    When “reasonable” gun control laws show up….then we’ll talk.

    Reply

  77. Matt Armstrong

    dennis carrier says:

    January 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    love the NRA,at least there some people who are afraid to fight for our rights

    Reply

  78. dennis carrier says:

    January 5, 2015 at 6:37 pm

    I meant not afraid to fight for rights

    Reply

  79. Dillon Harris

    Jerry Bourbon says:

    January 5, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    Like the war on drugs, libbies?
    You’ll absolutely LOVE a war on guns…

    Reply

  80. Steven Torrey

    Jerry Bourbon says:

    January 5, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    Like the war on drugs, libbies?
    You’ll absolutely LOVE a war on guns…

    Reply

  81. AZsnipe says:

    January 5, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    Why is the NRA so powerful? Because of the many millions of dollars it spends. Where does all that money come from? The millions of NRA members that give to the organization. Why do they give so much? Because the NRA fights for their rights. End of show.

    Reply

  82. Matt Armstrong

    Ed Fulton says:

    January 5, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    Gee Brian Lowry, do you think that just maybe that strong NRA backing is ————wait for it, ———a large majority of Americans that believe in the 2nd 2nd amendment?

    Reply

  83. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  84. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  85. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  86. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  87. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  88. Sue Christensen

    shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  89. Sue Christensen

    shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  90. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  91. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  92. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  93. FormerMarine

    shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  94. shane says:

    January 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Have you ever wondered why it is that liberal Democrats hate guns so much? I have. I think about it a lot, whenever I think how nice it would be if New Jersey became a “shall issue” state. Really though, why do liberal Democrats, who like to pose as supporters of individual liberties, hate guns? What is the motivation behind their position? Here are a few thoughts.
    1. Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners
    Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops. Gun owners are also more likely to think it was a good idea for people like Richard Nixon to go after communists like Alger Hiss. Many gun owners supported the Vietnam War. Some of them allowed themselves to be drafted and others went so far as to enlist of their own accord. These, however, are all things that liberal Democrats despise. If gun owners are in favor of these hated things, guns must be very bad.
    2. Gun Control as a Means to Attain Political Power
    Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections.
    The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.
    Gun control is just another special interest in their bag of tricks. The best example of this is the assault weapons ban. Every rational person knows that the ban eliminates certain guns based on cosmetic features. Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use! However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate. (“My Republican and Libertarian opponents are against the assault weapons ban!”)
    3. Liberal Democrats Hate African-Americans
    Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws.
    Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.
    4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution
    The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what’s good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?

    Reply

  95. FormerMarine

    33guns says:

    January 5, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Funny, you can count on both hands the number of nuts that do mass shootings, and they want to get rid of our guns for that, but you have to take your shoes and everyone in towns to count the number of deaths caused by cars and trucks. NRA is me, I use my gun to feed the freezer, and to make sure that I and my family sleep in our own beds at night. If you use it for something else, I’m betting you’re not a NRA member.

    Reply

  96. Matt Armstrong says:

    January 5, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I’m just wondering Brian Lowry, if you read the comments on sites like Yahoo News in regards to your anti-Constitutional gun control story? The American people are sending you a clear message! I can’t find one comment in support of what you are doing. That’s out of 1,083 comments. I have seen polls conducted with the same amount of people so it is obviously a good cross section of America, not to mention Yahoo News is a Left leaning news org.
    I’m also curious if you understand the following Supreme Court decisions:
    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials….fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
    and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
    The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
    Do you understand that you are trying to infringe on rights granted by God? These powers are delegated directly to me and my fellow American citizens. Who are you to come along and try to take that from me?
    What about the guy who comes along and tries to remove my freedom of speech? My freedom from illegal search and seizure?
    If you don’t like the way the Constitution is written and what it stands for, why not move to a country that supports your views? Why try to change something that 1,082 people support, and you and 2 other people don’t? Are you that selfish that you and a couple million like you feel your feelings are more important than hundreds of millions of people’s God given rights?

    Reply

  97. Matt Armstrong says:

    January 5, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I’m just wondering Brian Lowry, if you read the comments on sites like Yahoo News in regards to your anti-Constitutional gun control story? The American people are sending you a clear message! I can’t find one comment in support of what you are doing. That’s out of 1,083 comments. I have seen polls conducted with the same amount of people so it is obviously a good cross section of America, not to mention Yahoo News is a Left leaning news org.
    I’m also curious if you understand the following Supreme Court decisions:
    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials….fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
    and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
    The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
    Do you understand that you are trying to infringe on rights granted by God? These powers are delegated directly to me and my fellow American citizens. Who are you to come along and try to take that from me?
    What about the guy who comes along and tries to remove my freedom of speech? My freedom from illegal search and seizure?
    If you don’t like the way the Constitution is written and what it stands for, why not move to a country that supports your views? Why try to change something that 1,082 people support, and you and 2 other people don’t? Are you that selfish that you and a couple million like you feel your feelings are more important than hundreds of millions of people’s God given rights?

    Reply

  98. FormerMarine

    Matt Armstrong says:

    January 5, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I’m just wondering Brian Lowry, if you read the comments on sites like Yahoo News in regards to your anti-Constitutional gun control story? The American people are sending you a clear message! I can’t find one comment in support of what you are doing. That’s out of 1,083 comments. I have seen polls conducted with the same amount of people so it is obviously a good cross section of America, not to mention Yahoo News is a Left leaning news org.
    I’m also curious if you understand the following Supreme Court decisions:
    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials….fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
    and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
    The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
    Do you understand that you are trying to infringe on rights granted by God? These powers are delegated directly to me and my fellow American citizens. Who are you to come along and try to take that from me?
    What about the guy who comes along and tries to remove my freedom of speech? My freedom from illegal search and seizure?
    If you don’t like the way the Constitution is written and what it stands for, why not move to a country that supports your views? Why try to change something that 1,082 people support, and you and 2 other people don’t? Are you that selfish that you and a couple million like you feel your feelings are more important than hundreds of millions of people’s God given rights?

    Reply

  99. Larry Cowden

    Matt Armstrong says:

    January 5, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I’m just wondering Brian Lowry, if you read the comments on sites like Yahoo News in regards to your anti-Constitutional gun control story? The American people are sending you a clear message! I can’t find one comment in support of what you are doing. That’s out of 1,083 comments. I have seen polls conducted with the same amount of people so it is obviously a good cross section of America, not to mention Yahoo News is a Left leaning news org.
    I’m also curious if you understand the following Supreme Court decisions:
    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials….fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
    and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
    The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
    Do you understand that you are trying to infringe on rights granted by God? These powers are delegated directly to me and my fellow American citizens. Who are you to come along and try to take that from me?
    What about the guy who comes along and tries to remove my freedom of speech? My freedom from illegal search and seizure?
    If you don’t like the way the Constitution is written and what it stands for, why not move to a country that supports your views? Why try to change something that 1,082 people support, and you and 2 other people don’t? Are you that selfish that you and a couple million like you feel your feelings are more important than hundreds of millions of people’s God given rights?

    Reply

  100. Matt Armstrong says:

    January 5, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I’m just wondering Brian Lowry, if you read the comments on sites like Yahoo News in regards to your anti-Constitutional gun control story? The American people are sending you a clear message! I can’t find one comment in support of what you are doing. That’s out of 1,083 comments. I have seen polls conducted with the same amount of people so it is obviously a good cross section of America, not to mention Yahoo News is a Left leaning news org.
    I’m also curious if you understand the following Supreme Court decisions:
    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials….fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
    and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
    The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
    Do you understand that you are trying to infringe on rights granted by God? These powers are delegated directly to me and my fellow American citizens. Who are you to come along and try to take that from me?
    What about the guy who comes along and tries to remove my freedom of speech? My freedom from illegal search and seizure?
    If you don’t like the way the Constitution is written and what it stands for, why not move to a country that supports your views? Why try to change something that 1,082 people support, and you and 2 other people don’t? Are you that selfish that you and a couple million like you feel your feelings are more important than hundreds of millions of people’s God given rights?

    Reply

  101. James willis says:

    January 5, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Magic Eight Ball
    The true intent of the 2nd Amendment has finally reached the ears of the sheeple. With their jaws on the floor and their minds in shock they stand aghast that it’s primary role is to keep the government in check and under the control of the people.
    Then they claim no such scenario now exists for such an extreme mentality and besides that the people would surely lose any such confrontation, with the government having aircraft and all kinds of advanced weaponry. They believe it would be a massacre. And they may be right.
    But that’s not the point anymore.
    The point now is, is that the government would HAVE to fight and require their soldiers and police forces to fire on their fellow Americans. A thing most Americans would have a serious problem with. There would be outright refusals perhaps even ending with them being shot as a “traitor”. Many would refuse to drop bombs on Kansas City for example.
    But basically it forces the government to show it’s ugly self for what it would be. A Plutocracy run by the 1% who have taken over the country. Greedy bastards willing to kill it’s citizens for the status quo. Only by armed resistance can the mask be taken off and the evil behind it exposed. Otherwise the great propaganda machines will tell the greatest lies ever and claim we wanted to be subjects rather than free citizens. In fact many sheeple are demanding it NOW.
    But… once the populace is disarmed, then there’s no choice but to go along with the status quo, or kill yourself to avoid corporate slavery.
    Without firearms in the hands of braver men than the gun grabbing sheep, they to will find themselves in “chains” but they will have the extra satisfaction of knowing they put them on themselves.

    Reply

  102. Steven Torrey

    TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    January 5, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Despite all of the political name-calling, ultimately the NRA … well, they are your neighbors. If you trust billionaires and Washington-types with your freedom more that you trust your neighbors, then that’s probably why they don’t trust you!

    Reply

  103. FormerMarine

    Eno Frapuni says:

    January 5, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    Any mention of the Second Amendment and recent Supreme Court cases upholding the NRA’s position in this piece?

    Reply

  104. Rick McCargar says:

    January 5, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    “Kirk Documentary Group makes clear, the NRA was a relatively benign, not terribly political organization until 1977, when then-dissident members seized control of the group”
    Dissident: “a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state”.
    Okay, I can respect that. I don’t care for authoritarian states…and that is what the NRA is against. So NRA members who were against a weak NRA, took hold, and used its power in a way to attack a growing, authoritarian state. Good plan.

    Reply

  105. Steven Torrey

    Rick McCargar says:

    January 5, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    “Kirk Documentary Group makes clear, the NRA was a relatively benign, not terribly political organization until 1977, when then-dissident members seized control of the group”
    Dissident: “a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state”.
    Okay, I can respect that. I don’t care for authoritarian states…and that is what the NRA is against. So NRA members who were against a weak NRA, took hold, and used its power in a way to attack a growing, authoritarian state. Good plan.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*