Morgan v. Jones

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Toppy Vann wrote:It is in my view the same with guns. Freedom should be freedom from fear of guns in schools.
Well sure; no one is going to argue with an anodyne statement like that! The problem arises from the solutions proposed to bring about that state of affairs. Most that have been proposed have been, as noted earlier, simplistic and superficial, like "get the guns out of homes"--it seems obvious, but not, unfortunately, likely to yield the desired gains. Further, I'm curious about your earlier statement:

"The sad irony is that if there is a gun in your home you are likely less safe than those who have no guns. "

Can you give us a reference--that is, some empirical evidence--supporting this?
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

Background. John Wayne. Movie cowboy. Movie soldier. Part of gun culture in North America.

Doug Hamilton, owner of the Family Shooting Center at Cherry State Park, poses for a portrait behind the rental gun counter at the facility.

Actors perform during a gunfight re-enactment at Buckskin Joe Frontier Town and Railway in Cañon City. Part of gun culture in North America.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html
How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby

By Joel Achenbach, Scott Higham and Sari Horwitz, Published: January 12

In gun lore it’s known as the Revolt at Cincinnati. On May 21, 1977, and into the morning of May 22, a rump caucus of gun rights radicals took over the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association.

The rebels wore orange-blaze hunting caps. They spoke on walkie-talkies as they worked the floor of the sweltering convention hall. They suspected that the NRA leaders had turned off the air-conditioning in hopes that the rabble-rousers would lose enthusiasm.

The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front, on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation.

And these leaders were about to cut and run: They had plans to relocate the headquarters from Washington to Colorado.

“Before Cincinnati, you had a bunch of people who wanted to turn the NRA into a sports publishing organization and get rid of guns,” recalls one of the rebels, John D. Aquilino, speaking by phone from the border city of Brownsville, Tex.

What unfolded that hot night in Cincinnati forever reoriented the NRA. And this was an event with broader national reverberations. The NRA didn’t get swept up in the culture wars of the past century so much as it helped invent them — and kept inflaming them. In the process, the NRA overcame tremendous internal tumult and existential crises, developed an astonishing grass-roots operation and became closely aligned with the Republican Party.

Today it is arguably the most powerful lobbying organization in the nation’s capital and certainly one of the most feared. There is no single secret to its success, but what liberals loathe about the NRA is a key part of its power. These are the people who say no.

They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA learned that controversy isn’t a problem but rather, in many cases, a solution, a motivator, a recruitment tool, an inspiration.

Gun-control legislation is the NRA’s best friend: The organization claims an influx of 100,000 new members in recent weeks in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The NRA, already with about 4 million members, hopes that the new push by Democrats in the White House and Congress to curb gun violence will bring the membership to 5 million.

The group has learned the virtues of being a single-issue organization with a very simple take on that issue. The NRA keeps close track of friends and enemies, takes names and makes lists. In the halls of power, it works quietly behind the scenes. It uses fear when necessary to motivate supporters. The ultimate goal of gun-control advocates, the NRA claims, is confiscation and then total disarmament, leading to government tyranny.

“We must declare that there are no shades of gray in American freedom. It’s black and white, all or nothing,” Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said at an NRA annual meeting in 2002, a message that the organization has reiterated at almost every opportunity since.

“You’re with us or against us.”

An identity crisis

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by National Guard and retired Army officers in New York who vowed to “promote rifle practice” and improve marksmanship. The first president, Civil War general Ambrose Burnside, had seen too many Union soldiers who couldn’t shoot straight. For generations thereafter, the NRA focused on shooting, hunting and conservation, and no one thought of it as a gun lobby.

The turmoil of the 1960s — assassinations, street violence, riots — spurred Congress to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, the first major piece of gun legislation since the New Deal. Supporters of gun control originally included California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who worried about the heavily armed Black Panthers.

The NRA didn’t like the 1968 law, viewing it as overly restrictive, but also didn’t see it as a slide toward tyranny. The top NRA officer, Franklin Orth, wrote in the association’s publication American Rifleman that “the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

The key word: “sportsmen.”

In 1972, a new federal agency charged with enforcing the gun laws came into being: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Lawmakers raged against the terror of cheap handguns known as Saturday-night specials.

It was in that environment that Neal Knox rose to prominence.

Clifford Neal Knox — born in Oklahoma, raised in Texas, a graduate of Abilene Christian College — started out as a newspaper reporter and editor before founding, at the age of 30, Gun Week magazine.

He wanted to roll back gun laws, even the ones that restricted the sale of machine guns. He believed that gun-control laws threatened basic American freedoms, that there were malign forces that sought nothing less than total disarmament. There would come a point when Knox would suggest that the assassinations of the 1960s and other horrors might have been part of a gun-control plot: “Is it possible that some of those incidents could have been created for the purpose of disarming the people of the free world? With drugs and evil intent, it’s possible. Rampant paranoia on my part? Maybe. But there have been far too many coincidences to ignore” (Shotgun News, 1994).

In the second half of the 1970s, the NRA faced a crossroads. Would it remain an Establishment institution, partnering with such mainstream entities as the Ford Foundation and focusing on shooting competitions? Or would it roll up its sleeves and fight hammer and tongs against the gun-control advocates? Or flee to the Mountain West? The latter was appealing, and the NRA leadership decided to move the headquarters to Colorado and also spend $30 million to build a recreational facility in New Mexico called the National Outdoor Center.

The moderates felt rejected by both the NRA hard-liners and the Washington elite.

“Because of the political direction the NRA was taking, they weren’t being invited to parties and their wives were not happy,” says Jeff Knox, Neal’s son and director of the Firearms Coalition, which fights for the Second Amendment and against laws restricting guns or ammunition. “Dad was on the phone constantly with various people around the country. He had his copy of the NRA bylaws and Robert’s Rules, highlighted and marked. My father and a lot of local club leaders and state association guys organized their troops.”

Theirs was a grass-roots movement within the NRA. The solution was to use the membership to make changes. The bylaws of the NRA gave members power on the convention floor to vote for changes in the NRA governing structure.

“We were fighting the federal government on one hand and internal NRA on the other hand,” Aquilino says.

In Cincinnati, Knox read the group’s demands, 15 of them, including one that would give the members of the NRA the right to pick the executive vice president, rather than letting the NRA’s board decide. The coup took hours to accomplish. Joe Tartaro, a rebel, remembers the evening as “electric.” The hall’s vending machine ran out of sodas.

By 3:30 in the morning the NRA had a whole new look. Gone were the Old Guard officers, including Maxwell Rich, the ousted executive vice president. The members replaced him with an ideological soul mate of Knox’s named Harlon Carter.

Carter, a longtime NRA board member, had arrived in Washington in 1975 as founding director of a new NRA lobbying unit, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). His pugnacious approach, which rankled the Old Guard, was captured in a letter he wrote to the entire NRA membership to discuss the fight in Congress over gun control: “We can win it on a simple concept —No compromise. No gun legislation.”

He had a shaved head (“bullet-headed” was one description) and vaguely resembled Nikita Khrushchev. A former U.S. Border Patrol agent and chief, Carter was an outstanding marksman who racked up scores of national shooting records. (Four years into his tenure, he would acknowledge that, as a 17-year-old, he’d shot and killed another youth, claiming self-defense. He was convicted of murder, but the verdict was overturned on appeal.)

Within months, thanks to Carter, Knox was working in the NRA headquarters, running Carter’s old lobbying unit. And Carter made clear in an interview with The Washington Post that the NRA wouldn’t be relocating to Colorado:

“This is where the action is,” Carter said.

Another leadership change

Over the next few years, NRA membership tripled. With the presidential election of Reagan, the energized activists went on the offensive, hoping to roll back the 1968 gun-control laws and, in the process, abolish the ATF.

Aquilino, who became the top NRA spokesman, remembers those days as great fun: “We were a bunch of 25-year-olds, and we created the whole grass-roots lobbying concept.”

The hard-charging style of Neal Knox created internal and external turbulence. Carter kept looking over his shoulder at Knox, who clearly wanted the top job. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers chafed at NRA pressure. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) complained of the NRA, “You have to have a litmus test every five minutes or you’re considered wavering.”

One day in 1982, Knox came to work and discovered that he’d been locked out. He’d been fired as head of the NRA’s lobbying shop and replaced by a mellower character, Warren Cassidy. Cassidy portrayed himself in an interview with The Post as a reasonable man: “There have been lobbyists at the NRA whose zeal has occasionally gotten in the way of their common sense.”

“They felt Dad was too extreme and too uncompromising and they could get more mileage with honey than vinegar, so Harlon pulled the rug out from under him. It was hugely painful. They were best of friends,” Jeff Knox said. “Dad showed up to work in the morning and there was a security guard with his boxes of stuff at the front door, and he wasn’t allowed back into the building.”

Neal Knox hovered around the organization. He managed to get elected to the board in 1983, only to be expelled a year later. (“My mistake — Mine! — was not to have cleaned house on the board when I had a chance,” Knox told The Post in 2000.) Carter, meanwhile, retired in 1985.

What happened next revealed the NRA’s delicate position as a Washington institution representing a large and increasingly hard-line membership. After years of lobbying by the NRA, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which, among other gun-friendly provisions, eased restrictions on interstate sales of firearms and expressly prohibited the federal government from creating a database of gun ownership.

A huge NRA triumph, the media declared. Some lawmakers said off the record that they would have voted against the act but feared retaliation from the gun lobby. And yet the Second Amendment fundamentalists were furious. The NRA endorsed the act even though it included a last-minute amendment pushed by gun-control advocates that further tightened the restrictions on machine guns.

The hard-liners like Knox feared that the NRA had gone wobbly. Membership declined. Knox blamed the organization’s financial and membership problems on Cassidy and a general “compromising and wimpiness.” Cassidy shot back in the press: “Neal is unhappy about everything about an NRA that can function without Neal Knox. . . . Neal believes that the sun does not rise unless he permits it and does not set unless he permits it.”

Knox, however, wasn’t going away.

A shift back

The NRA made a comeback in part because of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The gun-control effort, named for White House press secretary James Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan, called for a seven-day waiting period on gun purchases and a background check on the purchaser.

“What if there had been a Brady Bill 150 years ago? What if they had to wait seven days to get their rifles to come to the Alamo and fight?” an NRA vice president, Robert Corbin, shouted to loud applause at the annual meeting in 1991 in San Antonio, according to The Post’s account.

The membership once again shoved the NRA to the right, electing dissidents to the board, including the editor of Soldier of Fortune magazine. Among the new board members was a familiar face: Neal Knox.

“What you’re seeing now is the NRA on the way back,” he said at the time.

The organization had a new executive vice president, as well, Wayne LaPierre, who knew the organization inside and out from years in the lobbying shop. LaPierre, then 41, had been a PhD student in political science at Boston University with political skills smooth enough to land a job offer after college with Tip O’Neill, the legendary liberal House speaker from Massachusetts.

Instead, LaPierre gravitated toward the lobbying world and, in 1978, was hired by Knox as an NRA lobbyist. He had helped write the gun-friendly 1986 legislation, and he maintained an unwavering stance on the Second Amendment. The NRA flourished under LaPierre’s leadership. As Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency, some 600,000 people joined the NRA, according to LaPierre’s tally. He appointed a Knox ally, Tanya Metaksa, as head of the NRA lobbying unit.

“Wayne was trying to protect his flank, and he needed somebody very hard core,” recalls Richard Feldman, who worked for the NRA in the 1980s and whose book “Ricochet” is a tell-all on gun politics.

LaPierre knew what notes to hit to satisfy the hard-liners. At the annual meeting in 1993, LaPierre told the members, “Good, honest Americans stand divided, driven apart by a force that dwarfs any political power or social tyrant that ever before existed on this planet: the American media.”

Democrats in Congress and some Republican allies passed an assault-weapons ban in 1994. That fired up the NRA base. The NRA’s rhetoric grew harsher. Out on the political fringe, the militia movement grew in influence, as anti-government activists warned of black helicopters carrying federal agents dressed like ninjas. The militants cited the 1992 shooting deaths of two civilians in a federal raid at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and the 1993 siege by federal agents of a religious sect’s compound in Waco, Tex., that culminated in a fire killing 76 people.

John Magaw, then the head of the ATF, recalls trying to set up meetings with the NRA to discuss gun issues. “They would not answer. They would ignore us.”

It was personal, too. Once, Magaw says, he saw LaPierre waiting to board a plane at Dulles International Airport. They were at the same gate.

“I went over to pay my respects and say hello,” he says. “He just turned and walked away. He wouldn’t talk to me.”

The NRA did not make LaPierre or any other NRA official available for an interview for this article.

Everything seemed to be going the NRA’s way in the aftermath of the 1994 midterm election, when Democrats were drummed from the House en masse. But then came Oklahoma City.

Timothy McVeigh’s April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killed 168 people, including 19 children in a day-care center, and although the NRA had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, the association’s strident anti-government rhetoric drew national attention. News reports focused on a fundraising letter, signed by LaPierre and sent to NRA members before the bombing, that said the new assault-weapons ban “gives jackbooted Government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure and kill us.”

Even staunch NRA members began to get queasy. Former president George H.W. Bush resigned his NRA membership. Former NRA president Richard Riley, who headed the association from 1990 to 1992, told The Post at the time, “We were akin to the Boy Scouts of America . . . and now we’re cast with the Nazis, the skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan.”

LaPierre apologized for having used language that he said was wrongly interpreted as a broad attack on federal agents. And he began to maneuver behind the scenes to keep the NRA from turning into a fringe organization like the John Birch Society. That would mean doing something about Neal Knox, Metaksa and their allies.

At the 1997 annual meeting in Seattle, Knox ran for the office of first vice president, a position that would put him in the line of succession to become president of the NRA. But suddenly he had competition for that job from none other than Charlton Heston. The legendary actor and NRA supporter beat Knox by four votes and went on to become president.

“Needless to say, when you run against Moses, Moses wins,” says Joe Tartaro, the Cincinnati rebel.

Metaksa left ILA the next year, and Knox was off the board at decade’s end. He died in 2005. David Gross, a self-described “Knoxinista,” says Knox and his allies ultimately won the ideological battle even if they personally didn’t survive as NRA leaders.

“You know the old saying, ‘You never want to be first’?” Gross says. “The person with the alleged radical ideas, or the new ideas, they extend themselves, they fail, then somebody comes along, picks up the pieces and then develops the project.”

By 2000, the NRA had become even more closely aligned with the Republican Party and worked strenuously to keep Al Gore from becoming president. At the annual meeting in May of that year, Hollywood legend Heston provided what might be the signature moment in the history of the NRA. He spoke of a looming loss of liberty, of Concord and Lexington, of Pearl Harbor, the “sacred stuff” that “resides in that wooden stock and blued steel.”

Handed a replica of a Colonial musket, he said: “As we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed — and especially for you, Mr. Gore.”

He held the gun aloft.

“From my cold, dead hands!”

The power of controversy

Had Gore managed to carry Arkansas or West Virginia — states full of gun-toting Democrats — or his home state of Tennessee, he would have become president even without any favorable recount of votes in Florida. The next spring, citing the election results, Fortune magazine ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying group in Washington, surpassing even AARP.

The paradox for the NRA is that it gains strength when under assault. During the 2000s, with gun control now largely off the table, the NRA membership leveled off. In 2004, the assault-weapons ban expired; in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5 to 4 vote, that the Second Amendment establishes an individual’s right to own a firearm.

The NRA is now headquartered outside the Beltway, in Fairfax, and, according to its 2010 filing with the IRS, has 781 employees and 125,000 volunteers. Annual revenue tops $200 million. It’s a tax-exempt, “social welfare” organization with the self-described mission “to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, to promote public safety, law and order and the National defense.”

LaPierre received $960,000 in compensation from the NRA and related organizations, according to the 2010 documents. Kayne B. Robinson, executive director of general operations, was paid more than $1 million. Chris Cox, head of the ILA, made $666,000. NRA President David Keene, a longtime conservative activist who was elected in 2011, is unpaid.

Last election cycle, the NRA spent about $20 million on federal election campaigns, according to Opensecrets.org. It has endowed a professorship at George Mason University (the Patrick Henry Professorship of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment). It’s a prodigious publisher of newsletters and glossy magazines, including American Rifleman, which in 2011 reported a paid circulation of 1.8 million. The NRA has a weekly TV show (“American Rifleman Television” on the Outdoor Channel) and a satellite news service, NRA News. The Web site is as slick as they come (as it loads on the screen, the site informs the visitor, “The full NRA experience requires a broadband connection”).

Beyond the financial muscle, the NRA has people power. The NRA can inundate local, state or congressional offices with phone calls via a single action alert to the membership.

Cleta Mitchell, an NRA board member, says, “Obama famously referred to people who ‘cling to guns and religion.’ He was right. We do. And we are proud of it. This is about abiding principles, and people take action when they think someone or some group is taking away precious values.”

Grover Norquist, the influential tax activist and an NRA board member since 2000, believes that gun-control advocates fail to recognize that their efforts are viewed by many gun owners as a message that says, “You don’t like me.” That message blots out all other efforts to communicate, he says. And no one, he says, votes for a candidate simply because that candidate is in favor of gun control. Millions of voters, however, will vote against a candidate on that single issue, he says. He thinks Democrats’ efforts to pass new gun laws will backfire.

“The D’s keep coming back to this. This is so visceral to them,” Norquist says. “Again, it’s an expression of contempt for Middle America. They don’t like you and yours and don’t think you should be in charge of the capacity to take care of yourself. They know they can’t do this for you, but they’ve hired these nice people to draw chalk outlines of your kids, and that’s supposed to make you feel better.”

William J. Vizzard, a retired ATF official who is now a criminal justice professor at California State University at Sacramento, says the NRA is not trying to be like other Washington organizations seeking to influence legislation.

“The NRA is a populist lobby,” he says. “They get support when people are mad and stirred up. They want the attention. They’re not interested in fixing things. They want to stir things up, and the more they stir things up, the more members they get and the more money they make. What do they gain by compromising? Nothing.”

In the fall of 2009, Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, convened a gun conference that brought police chiefs and law enforcement officials to Washington from around the country. Wexler also reached out to the NRA. The NRA representative remained largely silent, and at the end of the day Wexler sensed that the NRA had showed up merely to say no.

“They were not willing to accept what police chiefs who deal with shooting and firearms every day were saying,” Wexler says. “It was like, we don’t really care what you’re saying because this is what we think. The NRA has a preconceived idea about what should be done. And that is nothing.”

The NRA keeps track of gun-control supporters and makes lists. The NRA compendium of “National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies” includes AARP, the AFL-CIO, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics — just from the A’s on the list. (Toward the end of the list is The Washington Post.)

The NRA waited a week before it responded in depth to the Newtown massacre. LaPierre’s news conference, covered live on cable television, reintroduced America to the core values of the association. After calling for armed guards for every school, and uttering the line, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre predicted that he’d be beaten up in the news media: “I can imagine the headlines, the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow. ‘More guns,’ you’ll claim, ‘are the NRA’s answer to everything.’ Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.”

“CRAZIEST MAN ON EARTH” blared the front-page headline of the next morning’s New York Daily News.

“GUN NUT!” proclaimed the New York Post.

Among the most sensitive issues for the NRA is the idea of a national database of gun registration. It is orthodoxy among gun rights advocates that registration is a prelude to confiscation. The diehards invoke Hitler and other dictators who confiscated guns prior to slaughtering innocents. The NRA also argues that such registration is unconstitutional.

Two years ago, as part of The Post’s investigative series “The Hidden Life of Guns,” NRA lobbyist Chris Cox explained the organization’s position:

“The federal government has no business maintaining a database or a registration of Americans who are exercising a constitutional right. Just like they have no right and no authority to maintain a database of all Methodists, all Baptists, all people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds.”

Last week, Vice President Biden said the administration might use “executive orders” to curtail gun violence, a remark that incited the Drudge Report to run a screaming headline with photographs of Hitler and Stalin splashed on the page.

Biden met with NRA representatives Thursday at the White House. The NRA listened to the administration’s ideas and then provided an immediate response.

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” the NRA said afterward in a statement e-mailed to its members. “We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen.”

In short: No.

Alice Crites, Julie Tate, Magda Jean-Louis and Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.
By 2000, the NRA had become even more closely aligned with the Republican Party and worked strenuously to keep Al Gore from becoming president. At the annual meeting in May of that year, Hollywood legend Heston provided what might be the signature moment in the history of the NRA. He spoke of a looming loss of liberty, of Concord and Lexington, of Pearl Harbor, the “sacred stuff” that “resides in that wooden stock and blued steel.”

Handed a replica of a Colonial musket, he said: “As we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed — and especially for you, Mr. Gore.”

He held the gun aloft.

“From my cold, dead hands!”

The power of controversy

Had Gore managed to carry Arkansas or West Virginia — states full of gun-toting Democrats — or his home state of Tennessee, he would have become president even without any favorable recount of votes in Florida. The next spring, citing the election results, Fortune magazine ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying group in Washington, surpassing even AARP.

..................

One could surmise that the NRA was key in getting George W. Bush into the White House.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/1 ... ?hpt=hp_c1
Gun issue divides religious community

By Athena Jones, CNN

Washington (CNN) -– There is a split in American pews over gun control. In the weeks since the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, many Christians are wrestling with gun control, an issue they once held as a sacred, untouchable right.

For years gun control was championed by Catholic and mainline Protestant churches, but now many evangelicals are joining the growing choir of Americans asking what can be done.

“Maybe the most interesting meeting we had was with the interfaith group,” Vice President Joe Biden told reporters after meeting with a wide range of interest groups on guns. Biden was tasked by President Barack Obama to head up a task force to provide recommendations to reduce gun violence.

Biden said he was surprised to see a new face at the table: “evangelical groups, who generally have been reluctant to engage in this, because it's been viewed as maybe an attack on cultural norms relating to rural communities and gun ownership.”

Newtown could mark a tipping point on gun control for evangelicals.

Daniel Darling, an evangelical pastor from the Chicago area, called on fellow evangelicals to speak up on guns in an article on CNN’s Belief Blog.

He urged support for what he called “common sense regulations” - like restricting sales of high capacity magazines and assault weapons.

"I think it's a conversation we need to have and as evangelicals not be afraid to have," Darling told CNN. "The Scriptures call us to love our neighbors more than we love our guns."

“Most religious groups actually line up in support of stricter gun control laws,” said pollster Robert P. Jones, CEO of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute.

“The group that really stands out is white evangelical Protestants as the group most strongly opposed to stricter gun control laws," he said.

An August survey by the research institute found about 60% of Catholics and religiously unaffiliated Americans support stricter gun control laws, compared to just 35% of white evangelical Protestants and 42% of white mainline Protestants. That survey came after the mass shooting in a Colorado movie theater but before the shooting in the Connecticut elementary school.

Jones said culture and geography also played a role in the differences among groups.

The research institute found that white evangelicals are also the most likely religious denomination to own guns. Many live in southern and rural areas where guns are a way of life.

"We have separation of church and state, but not separation of religion and politics," Jones said.

Shaun Casey, a professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington who advised the Obama campaign in 2008, said the split among Christians on gun control nearly mirrors the split among Christian voters in the 2012 presidential election.

Casey points to biblical interpretation on weapons as a way to explain the difference among Christians. He said he believes some Christians misinterpret an episode late in Jesus' life when his disciple Peter tried to defend him from Roman soldiers with a sword.

"Some people say 'Well, that clearly means that disciples of Jesus Christ can carry personal weapons,'" he said, before adding that those readers ignore the part of the story where Jesus orders Peter to put the sword back in its sheath.

“People who look at that story and come away thinking that it's permissible for Christians to carry concealed weapons really misconstrue the whole story. The story is in fact about how Christians have in fact been disarmed by Jesus Christ."

The focus cannot be on guns alone for many Christians, but also on the environment that gives rise to this type of violence, according to the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group. They said the focus should not only be on the guns themselves, but also on the environment that gives rise to this type of violence.

"When you have 40% of America's children being born into homes without fathers, we shouldn't be surprised to see this rise in violence. You cannot look at one aspect of this and say that it's simply because we don't have a ban on assault weapons," said the council's president, Tony Perkins.

"I'm not saying there is not merit to have a discussion about gun ownership,” Perkins said. “I do believe we have a Second Amendment right and that a law abiding citizen should have the right to protect themselves. What we are saying here at the Family Research Council is when we have a discussion about the violence that is taking place here in our nation, we cannot overlook the role that the family plays in this environment."

Biden has committed to getting his task force's policy recommendations to the president by January 15.
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9794
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

No one can explain an issue simply and clearly better than former Pres. Clinton where he did passionately at his speech at the electronics convention.


Former President Bill Clinton pushes for stricter gun control during Consumer Electronics Show speech
'I grew up in this hunting culture, but this is nuts,' the Arkansas native said. 'Why does anybody need a 30 round clip for a gun?'
Comments (57)
By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, January 10, 2013, 9:36 AM

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... z2HsY5kVeI

During Clinton’s speech on Wednesday, the former president seemed to favor reinstating the federal assault weapons that expired 10 years after he signed into law in 1994.

“Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005,” he said. “Half of all of them in the history of the country.”

The video clip of that part of his speech is at the bottom.

If there is was an argument to allow someone to run for two more consecutive terms AFTER a break after 2, this is the guy however he has plans to put his wife in the White House.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Toppy Vann wrote:No one can explain an issue simply and clearly better than former Pres. Clinton where he did passionately at his speech at the electronics convention.


Former President Bill Clinton pushes for stricter gun control during Consumer Electronics Show speech
'I grew up in this hunting culture, but this is nuts,' the Arkansas native said. 'Why does anybody need a 30 round clip for a gun?'
Comments (57)
By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, January 10, 2013, 9:36 AM

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... z2HsY5kVeI

During Clinton’s speech on Wednesday, the former president seemed to favor reinstating the federal assault weapons that expired 10 years after he signed into law in 1994.

“Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005,” he said. “Half of all of them in the history of the country.”

The video clip of that part of his speech is at the bottom.

If there is was an argument to allow someone to run for two more consecutive terms AFTER a break after 2, this is the guy however he has plans to put his wife in the White House.
Although I don't disagree that 30-round magazines are unnecessary in any sporting use of firearms, I hardly think that Clinton's exhortations, although certainly simple, are very clear--or, more importantly, useful, accurate, or pertinent. What you've failed to include in this citation, Toppy, is the interesting fact that, during the six years after the assault-rifle ban was lifted (Years 2006-2011, the most-recent data available), the rate of gun homicides was actually lower than it was during the period of the last 8 years in which the assault-rifle ban was in effect. (See the CDC reference below, although I've drawn on other data too.) Clinton, of course, ignored this inconvenient fact in his speech, but I wonder just how he'd explain it away. Does this look to you like a strong argument for legislating another assault-rifle ban?

Source: WISQARS.2009.‘Injury Mortality Reports 1999 and Onwards (USA).’ Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System / WISQARS.Atlanta:National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention / CDC,9 December. (Q1377)

As I've been saying in this thread: It's just not that simple. Anyone who has followed this issue and read the literature (the real research and independently-gathered statistics, not the self-serving remarks of politicians and left-leaning rabble-rousers) knows that simply bringing in another assault-rifle ban will almost-certainly have zero effect on the carnage. However, bringing in the assault-rifle ban will boost the popularity of a lot of politicians (getting re-elected being, of course, Job 1 for most politicians) and, likely, make the populace feel temporarily relieved.

Here's something else to chew on:

With reference to your earlier assertion that "The sad irony is that if there is a gun in your home you are likely less safe than those who have no guns," you might be interested to know that the homicide rates are lower in places in the US where there are more firearms [legal firearms], and insurance companies do not treat gun ownership as a factor in accident insurance.
Last edited by South Pender on Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

For all of you who feel that the US's "right to carry" laws are an invitation to gun violence, you might be interested in the following graph (data from the FBI). "Right to carry" is a state law allowing citizens to carry a gun on their person that exists in some states (designated "RTC" in the graph below) but not in other states (those states where carrying a gun is against the law are the "Non-RTC" states).

Image

Do these data suggest that having the right to carry a gun (presumably for self-protection and often taken advantage of by women) can be expected to increase gun-violence? Note also the general declining trend in the violent crime rate after the assault-rifle ban expired in 2005. (Compare particularly the rates in 2006 with those in 2011; the decline is about 9% in RTC states and 7% in Non-RTC states.)
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9794
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

South Pender certainly has the thinking of the NRA.

All these stats ignore the fact that it is not always a registered gun that is going to be used in killings. Many of these guns are exchanged across the border for our drugs. Our gang members are hardly running down to the local police dept to let them know they are packing a 6 gun.

I work in HK a lot of the time now. FACT - there just aren't gun crimes there as there are NO guns and you can't get them as the land border is with the PRC and that border and all the HK Police, Immigration and Custom boats out there are out there in large numbers - China doesn't have the guns and they can't come get into HK. Some think the HK Police don't need to pack weapons.

It is ironic how we in BC and Canada ignore all the local shootings that go on far, far too frequently and yet you think Vancouver is so safe. You need only to be in a truly safe city to realize that it is far less safe in Canada (and it is pretty safe) than other parts of the world.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Toppy Vann wrote:South Pender certainly has the thinking of the NRA.
You have that wrong, Toppy. As a scientist, I have the thinking of someone who trusts data and empirical findings, rather than convenient rhetoric, unexamined speculation, half-truths, and political posturing. I'm not entirely happy with the NRA's position these days, but prefer real data to political spin--the kind in the Clinton speech that you were so eager to believe and pass along to us.
Toppy Vann wrote:All these stats ignore the fact that it is not always a registered gun that is going to be used in killings. Many of these guns are exchanged across the border for our drugs. Our gang members are hardly running down to the local police dept to let them know they are packing a 6 gun.
Of course, and by acknowledging this fact, you have undercut your argument (if indeed it is your position; it's hard to tell) for gun confiscation from those law-abiding people who have gone through the legal process to get the gun in the first place. Tell us, Toppy, just how the implementation of an assault-rifle ban will have the slightest effect on the thousands of illegally-acquired assault rifles out there. Any such ban will simply mean that those who obey the law will be prohibited from owning these guns in the future. But, as you have just acknowledged, a ban wouldn't deter the bad guys from getting them, would it?
Toppy Vann wrote:I work in HK a lot of the time now. FACT - there just aren't gun crimes there as there are NO guns and you can't get them as the land border is with the PRC and that border and all the HK Police, Immigration and Custom boats out there are out there in large numbers - China doesn't have the guns and they can't come get into HK. Some think the HK Police don't need to pack weapons.
Hong Kong, as you know, is a completely different culture from that in North America. Asian values are different from ours in many ways. Your conclusion seems to be that very low gun ownership is necessary for low homicide rates. However, if that were true, the homicide rate would be very high in Switzerland (where 29% of households contain guns), and yet Switzerland's homicide rate (number of homicides per 100,000 citizens) is extremely low. It's the culture, not the availability of guns, that is a key factor.

Just out of curiosity, Toppy, just what is the point you wish to make in connection with this issue? Do you feel that your Hong Kong observations should inform gun-related policy decisions in the US (the topic of this thread)? After seeing some empirical evidence, do you feel that confiscation of guns will have a significant favorable impact on gun crimes?

My point has not been to defend the NRA, but rather to make the case for evidence-based policy decisions. Just as we trust pharmaceuticals shown in clinical trials to be both effective and safe (and eschew those snake-oil-like patent medicines that haven't passed this test), so too should we trust real data as the basis for policy decisions, and be wary of assertions made based on speculation, misinformation, or political considerations.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013 ... 54307.html
NRA knocks Obama on daughters' security

Comments (225)

By DONOVAN SLACK 1/15/13 10:58 PM EST

The National Rifle Association released a video Tuesday calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for being skeptical of armed guards in schools when his daughters receive armed Secret Service protection every day.

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."

The president's children are typically off limits, even in the grittiest political warfare in Washington. But the NRA salvo is likely only the first of many in what promises to be one of the toughest battles Obama has committed to fighting in his second term.

The White House so far has not responded to the video, which is receiving extensive media coverage, including from BuzzFeed, the Washington Post and The Blaze.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/n ... ml?hp=t3_3
NRA ad attacked for including Obama daughters

Critics rip into a controversial new spot that references Obama's daughters.

By KATIE GLUECK | 1/16/13 6:54 AM EST Updated: 1/16/13 8:24 AM EST

The National Rifle Association on Tuesday released a controversial new ad that makes reference to President Barack Obama’s daughters - sparking outrage from critics who charged the spot is over the line.

The video calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for not embracing armed guards in schools even as his daughters enjoy armed protection at their schools.

NRA ad hits Obama on daughter's security

Gibbs: NRA ad 'disgusting'

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the ad’s narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”

The gun group’s spot came under immediate attack.

Former White House Press Secretary and Obama advisor Robert Gibbs slammed the ad on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday morning.

“I mean, it is disgusting on many levels,” Gibbs said. “It’s also just stupid.”

He added, “This reminds me of an ad that somebody made about 2:00 in the morning after one too many drinks, and no one stopped it in the morning.”

“What’s wrong with these people, Mika? What’s wrong with these people?” Joe Scarborough, host of “Morning Joe,” asked co-host Mika Brzezinksi in disbelief.

“They are out of step, out of the mainstream, totally out of sync with what’s going on in our society, and quite frankly after seeing that, I think some of the people who run that thing are sick,” Brzezinski said. “I really do. I think they are sick in the head.

“And I’m serious,” she continued. “I am embarrassed right now.”

Later, replaying the ad, Brzezinski added, “It may disgust you. It terrifies me.”

Melody Barnes, the former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said the country should brace for more ads like the NRA spot.

“And that’s what’s going to infiltrate the debate,” Barnes said. “Those are the kinds of visits members of Congress are going to get, and that’s why people have been scared to take on this issue even after tragedy after tragedy in our communities around the country, and the American people have to be prepared for that and make a decision what kind of country do we want to live in and the message that they want to convey to their policymakers about the kinds of laws and the kinds of policies that we’re going to have.”

Sasha and Malia Obama attend Washington’s posh private Sidwell Friends School.

”Their whole goal is to ratchet up the rhetoric,” Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said on CNN’s “Starting Point” about the NRA ad. She added, “Let’s stay calm. Let’s look at the function of these weapons… we need to ban those weapons that have the functionality that can kill a whole bunch of folks in just a few seconds.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/n ... z2I95DtcOq
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://thehill.com/video/administration ... hypocrite-
NRA blasts Obama as ‘elitist hypocrite’ over school guards proposal

By Justin Sink - 01/16/13 07:26 AM ET

A video released by the National Rifle Association hours before President Obama is set to formally debut his plan to combat gun violence blasts the president as an "elitist hypocrite" for opposing the gun lobby's proposal to place armed guards in schools.

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the ad's narrator asks. "Then why is he 'skeptical' about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"

Members of the president’s immediate family are protected by Secret Service security details, which the agency insists upon.

The ad goes on to compare the president's push on gun control to his efforts to secure additional tax revenues during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations.

"Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security," the narrator says, as an image of Obama is shown flanked by "Meet the Press" anchor David Gregory, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), and Vice President Joe Biden.

It was on "Meet the Press" that Obama said he was "skeptical" of a plan touted by NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre to place armed guards into schools to prevent future mass shootings in the wake of last month’s killings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

"I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools, and I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem," Obama said. "And, look, here's the bottom line. We're not going to get this done unless the American people decide it's important."

The sharp personal attack from the NRA previews what will be a tough fight for the administration as Obama looks to press new gun-control measures.

During an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs criticized the ad as tone-deaf.

“I mean, it is disgusting on many levels,” Gibbs said. “It’s also just stupid.”

Obama will unveil his proposals to combat gun violence at an event Wednesday morning, the White House announced Tuesday.

"Tomorrow the president and the vice president will hold an event here at the White House to unveil a package of concrete proposals to reduce gun violence and prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown, Connecticut," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "They will be joined by children from around the country who wrote the president letters in the wake of that tragedy expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents."

Carney hinted that Obama was likely to introduce a "comprehensive" package, saying the proposals will include "the assault weapons ban, including a measure to ban high-capacity magazine clips, including an effort to close the very big loopholes in the background check system in our country."

The president is also expected to outline 19 executive actions that he can unilaterally take, according to Capitol Hill Democrats briefed on his plan. Those executive actions are likely to include more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, increasing federal research on gun violence and stronger prosecutions of those who lie on gun background checks.

The event is scheduled for 11:45 a.m. Confirmed attendees include members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the National Education Association, the Brady Campaign, and members of Congress involved in gun-reform efforts.

The White House has been mum on whether the NRA proposal on armed guards in schools could make its way into its package of gun violence measures. But the NRA's reaction to a meeting last week with Vice President Biden's task force, suggests the proposal had not gained traction within the administration.

The NRA said in a statement after meeting with Biden that they "were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."

In a pair of polls released Wednesday, respondents were broadly supportive of the NRA's plan, alongside a broad array of other gun control measures. Nearly two-thirds of respondents to a Pew poll and 55 percent of those surveyed by the Washington Post and ABC News said they supported placing more armed guards in school.

That's despite generally unfavorable views of the NRA itself. In the Washington Post poll, only 36 percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of the group, while a plurality — 38 percent — said the NRA had too much influence over the gun debate.

Read more: http://thehill.com/video/administration ... z2I97IV9CZ
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

Just watched the President and VP speaking about measures in regard to gun violence.

I see the issue as residing in the will of the people, then the will of Congress. Obama will do what he can to rally the people. The people will have to influence Congress to pass legislation. It might happen, slowly, but I would not place bets on it happening any time soon.

Meantime, there will be more attacks in schools, and malls, and other places of assembly, with assault rifles and large magazines of bullets.

Honestly, if Canada starts to go the way of the US, I will be packing bags, and moving to Costa Rica, or Ecuador.
Post Reply