Gosh, what a surprise...Lapierre complaining about that evil communist librul media.

Nothing that he says is apolitical. He has a goal in speaking out. The evil communist librul media is a usual whipping boy for the right and it is red meat for getting out the vote.

And he is likely going to try to save the Stand Your Ground laws that the NRA fought hard for.

__________________




"Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace." ~Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

The NRA has a LOT of nerve talking about manufacturing controversy...

For the NRA, controversy and fear serve them well...
Gun Sales Booming: Doomsday, Obama or Zombies? - ABC News

You can bet dollars to donuts their attempts on this issue will be more of the same...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I don't know why they didn't endorse President Obama over Romney. Obama's mere presence has made gun and ammunition sales skyrocket, he's a boon for their industry of choice.

And he hasn't done a damn thing against guns! Wait, he didn't sign a bill into law allowing folks to bring firearms into national parks, not much but a most certainly not a step backwards for the 2nd Amendment. Meanwhile with Mittens, we've got a guy whose 2nd Amendment credentials are quite suspect, or at least they should be in the eyes of the NRA given their standards, at least on par with Obama. When he was the Gov. of MA, Romney signed bills into laws that banned assault weapons and increased licensing fees by 400%.

Mitt Romney on gun rights - West Palm Beach Libertarian | Examiner.com

But f-ck logic. He's a conservative this time, he swears it and that's good enough for the NRA. Because the other guy didn't do anything against gun owners as an executive, but he might.... ...and that's scary. O.O

......

And now we return to our regularly scheduled program.

The NRA really shouldn't be sticking its toe in this one, it's not necessary IMO. I understand going in for defending the "Stand your Ground" law, totally get them on that note; but, does that law honestly apply in this case? As for the media, um, George and Trayvon weren't celebrities, and Trayvon would have been an everyday victim if this were an everyday case. But it wasn't.

__________________
"Bush tortured people, Obama just kills them."
---Noam Chomsky

I agree about the NRA. My wife and I are members. I'm asking, for example, like this: If the government made it against the law for a homeowner to offer resistance against home intruders, and allowed the bad guys to do their mayhem on you and your family, how many homeowners would tell the government bureaucrats to chew some prunes, and use all means to protect their home and loved ones? It's the same way with the government attempting to suspend the Second Amendment. It would be suicide for politicians.

I've long beleived that the 2nd Amendment established the People as the de facto 4th branch of gov't. With it, we can stop our gov't from running rough-shod over our rights, but if we are united in opposition to this. That makes it DAMN hard to actually carry out, but still possible if the gov't goes far enough into left field that the People decide that they've had enough.

__________________
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Leftists and very small children don't seem to be able to understand that the Government isn't there to "fix" the economy, anymore than a tick is there to fix your dog.~Oftencold

It's really quite simple ... the reason they want Obama out to protect 2nd Amendment rights is because the REAL danger would likely come in a 2nd term when there much less political accountability. I'm reminded of the old saying ... 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.' You act like gun control isn't a big deal to Democrats. But you know it is.
What's equally fascinating is how NRA critics like some of you have asserted that they are mainly out for money purposes in gun sales, when at the same time you point out they aren't pushing the candidate under which they've made the most money. Ergo, you unknowingly refute yourself with your own arguments.

Oh Jesus help us. If you take away all the stuff Obama might do, is going to do and has subversive plans for, what have you got?
A pretty damned centrist President.

__________________
...

The thing some people don't understand is that gun control is STILL too restrictive, even though Clinton's post-Columbine knee-jerk assault weapons ban didn't get renewed yet. It's a sad state of affairs when not-doing-anything (which is Obama's record) to work toward greater constitutional freedom on an issue is a standard many people are content with. We don't need "centrist"; we need someone who is all about constitutional freedoms.
I'm not happy with Romney either--he's nothing more than a "lesser of two evils" so to speak, as far as I'm concerned. The only one I could truly have put my support behind would have been Paul, in terms of most of the issues.

.
I don't see it as restrictive at all. I would like a data base for all former inmates of a psyche facility at the touch of a button so they can never obtain a gun.
Why do we need assault weapons?

Romney is not the lesser of anything, he is the Republican mirror of Obama save a few pet subjects. I predict if he wins his presidency will mimic Obama's on most important issues.

__________________
...

That's just the name of the bill I was referring to. In reality, any weapon can be an assault weapon. A hammer can be an assault weapon. It's an arbitrary term. The bill created an artificial definition called "assault weapons", even though full automatic weapons have been illegal for many decades. The real-world result of the ban was it just added more restrictions onto what were already semi-automatic firearms with plenty of restrictions already. Things like no pistol grips for rifles, and an arbitrary limit on rounds a gun can hold. It was passed in the wake of Columbine, even though there was never any evidence that the any of the measures of the bill would have prevented the massacre at all. The only reason Obama hasn't signed a renewal of the ban is that it hasn't managed to reach his desk. He's well on record that he would support it.


Well that's the problem with the political landscape nowadays--candidates are really always that way, except for a few outliers every now and then who the media doesn't give adequate support to.