Monday, December 17, 2012

NRA "A-rated" Elmer Fudd Ready to Surrender Your Rights

Joe Manchin Ready For Gun Control Action: 'Everything Should Be On The Table' Why do I think I hear the NRA weeniewagon cteaking around the corner?
LATER, from David Codrea: A-rated, endorsed ‘pro-gun Democrat’ shows true colors as NRA stays silent

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

The NRA plays things too conservatively, but I think they'll ding this guy's report card (probably not as much as they should though) and fight any attempts at an AWB or magazine capacity limit.

Still, this guy is an unsettling, if expected, development. The big test will be how many Republicans in the House will defect the same way.

Anonymous said...

Joe Manchin is a backstabbing lying piece of shit. Hell I have more respect for Dog Shit than Joe Manchin.


chevy
West (By God) Virginia

Anonymous said...

It's hard to imagine anyone saying so many ignorant and stupid things in one interview as Manchin did in that HuffPo article. What a complete lying, backstabbing jackass. So The 2nd Amendment is only about hunting, is that right Joe?

So this kind of excrement is what gets an "A" rating from NRA-ILA. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Trinity said...

Trusting the NRA to actually defend an undiluted 2nd Amendment is about as smart as trusting the GOP leadership -- Boehner, McConnell, et al -- to stand up to the Obamanation in fiscal negotiations. The NRA is too political and afraid of losing their seat at the table of power in DC.

Hell, not only did they give their blessings to this fool from West Virginia, they supported Dingy Harry Reed in reelection.

Put them into the mix to negotiate for our gun rights will end with them bending and grabbing their ankles while pleading that they got the best deal possible in the situation. Then they'll ask Boehner to pass the Vaseline back to the Democrats so they can be greased up also.

The NRA has some great training programs, but their politics flat out suck the green weenie.
dol/lal

Anonymous said...

"Trinity", I couldn't have said it better myself. By the way,as if everyone here doesn't already know it, the repubs are going to cave by design as they are all lefties in both political parties in Washington. We'll witness the usual "Good cop,Bad cop" with the repubs folding like cheap suits at the end,but not out of stupidity or fecklessness or cowardice...But treasonous complicity! In spite of all that,they still have to come door to door and get them. I know i have no intention of ever turning mine in!

Anonymous said...

Since one need be a member of FaceBook to comment on the Examiner, I missed my chance there. And here I find Trinity has pretty much said the same as I.
I won't trust the NRA any farther than I would the GOP or an hydrophobic skunk.
Except, I do trust the NRA to so willingly hand over member lists to LEO whenever asked, especially just before Crystalnacht.

William Flatt said...

The NRA is completely unreliable when it comes to actually defending our 2A rights. While they take credit for all 2A victories, they frequently leave the heavy lifting to other groups like GOA and SAF - then swoop in at the last moment to declare an "NRA victory". And that's when they're actually on the side of gun owners.

As HR 2640 proved in 2007, the NRA is not without a track record of backing anti-gun politicians and anti-gun legislation. I've long suspected that this was to bolster membership; that by allowing antigun bills to pass and become 'law' through insufficient pressure on pro-gun politicians, they create a sense of crisis so their fund-raising efforts garner more income. But with the NRA crossing the Rubicon into the territory of actively sponsoring anti-gun legislation & pressuring politicians to back it, the NRA is basically stabbing gun owners in the back (pun intended) and betraying their 'constituency'. Now I have come to believe that as unions have become an appendage for Democrat political organizing, the NRA has become the 'GOP Gun Club' and as such, an appendage for republican political organizing at the expense of defending our gun rights.

In that context, it is no surprise at all to me that the NRA is giving 'A' ratings to antigun Republicans. It's all a question of how green that red state money is. Trinity is right; the NRA is so beholden to their GOP masters, they don't want to do anything that might offend their sensibilities. And THAT is how people in England and Australia woke up one day to find that ALL their gun rights had disappeared overnight: their national gun organizations had become paper tigers with no way to effectively PUNISH turncoat politicians, and they - as a people - were so intellectually disarmed that the very notion of taking up arms to retain their arms seemed unconscionable at the time. Later, to the cameras of our NRA, they lamented how they "should have never given up" their rights and allowed their guns "to be taken away and destroyed". Lament all one wants; it does not change the fact that it after the fact when it is too late.

We know that the dress rehearsals are just about over, and M.V. is right - we've purchased a couple extra years of prep time for the hot war. I just hope it was enough.

For Liberty,
Will Flatt
III in Indiana

Mt Top Patriot said...

My letter to Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia:

Dear Senator,
You took an Oath of Office to defend and protect the US Constitution. By consequence that extends to protecting all Liberty and unalienable freedoms and rights codified in our governing documents. You are my elected representative in Congress. I have no other representation in the upper house.

I ask of you to reply to my question:
What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution do you not understand?

This is a serious question. It is predicated upon the rule of law. Law that I as an American have to, and do, abide by.

The 2nd Amendment is the supreme law of the land, just as the constitutional amendment of prohibition against slavery is. What you have proposed concerning outlawing "assault weapons", is akin to violating prohibition against slavery by permitting just a little bit of slavery.

Please allow me to remind you the act of outlawing a particular arms, the fact of which is protected under the rule of law of the US Constitution, suggesting legislation which you have stated clearly needs to take place contrary to the supreme law of this Republic, requires a Constitutional Amendment. The very nature of the rule of Constitutional law clearly does not give you or any American the power nor right to pick or choose what is legal or not based on your political position, or of singular power of office.

You are by law beholden to the sovereign will of the people. A people who are morally bound to respect all laws regardless of their political stance.

I wish to stress upon you, you Mr. Manchin, are on a slippery slope. You portrayed yourself as a champion of the right to bear arms in your last election. In that portrayal, in a vivid display of firing a rifle on national television, you stated you are a steadfast proponent of the law pertaining to the 2nd Amendment in no uncertain terms. You did not prevaricate in your exhibition. It was clear at the time of your campaign you portrayed yourself as an honest moral truthful law abiding man, an American, to be trusted to defend Liberty.

In no uncertain terms I am writing you to tell you you have violated my trust in you to protect and defend my Liberty and this Republics Rule of Law. You have violated your Oath of Office. And you propose to extend that violation via extra constitutional laws prohibiting my right to defend myself from tyranny, my natural right to defend myself, from the very tyranny you represent.

In light of these facts, I consider your proposal to ban "assault weapons" nothing short of an act of treason.

Respectful regards,
XXXXXXX

Anonymous said...

2009 Violent Crime rate comparisons
UK (included England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland due to how available census records are reordered)
UK 2009 est. total pop – 598,53,300
Violent crime defined as violence against the person (such as physical assault), robbery (stealing by force or threat of force) and sexual offences (including rape and sexual assault).
Total Violent Crime – 1,056,064
Which equals
1764.41 per 100,000 victims of violent crime.
epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-006/EN/KS-SF-12-006-EN.PDF
United States – self explanatory
USA 2009 est total pop – 305,000,000
Violent crime defined as In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
Total Violent Crime -1,318,398
Which equals
432.26 per 100,000 victims of violent crime
fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index (google search for link)

Just and FYI before we start discussing who really has a violent crime problem . Apparently firearms aren’t the sole predictor for violent crime … They media lies say it isn’t so!!!!