Gunner Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
By now I have realized that nobody (sheepdog) is going to be swayed by anything I tell them. But I have never been one to give up on unattainable goals. And this way, nobody will beable to say I never warned them.

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

John McCain's Gun Control Problem
by John Velleco
Director of Federal Affairs

In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.

It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.

He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.

"I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently," McKelvey said.

So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the 'middle' on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.

To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton's gun control agenda.

Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.

McCain's star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a 'maverick' as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.

Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.

Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.

But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.

McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.

Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.

Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would "bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate."

The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.

"I think that if the Congress won't act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it's on the ballot," McCain said in an interview.

At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved."

McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.

As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.

"We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up," McCain told viewers.

Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, "No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves."

Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.

Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation -- which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely -- were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.

"There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda," one Republican Senator told Roll Call.

After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.

"Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole," AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey's multi-million dollar investment.

A Cox News Service article noted that, "The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate."

However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, "the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating."

Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.

In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.

John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Joh ... ontrol.htm

McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearings” Aug 17, 1999

McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999

His gun record is all over the map.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
This makes some excellent points, and more eloquently than I am capable of.

http://www.gunowners.org/mcgungrab.htm


John McCain Is A Liberal Gun Grabber
by
Pastor Chuck Baldwin
As published at NewsWithViews

The last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a "D" behind their name. But put an "R" behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.

Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.

Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]."

John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain's pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.

In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.

For example, if John McCain's proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

But there is so much more to the McCain madness.

Former California State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson wrote this about John McCain, "He's [McCain's] proven his dislike for conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.

"Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience with elitist RINO's (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the conservative movement out of existence."

Senator Richardson went on to say that he would in no way vote for John McCain, if indeed McCain is the Republican nominee (which he obviously will be).

I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom Americans have already fallen victim to McCain's phony conservative campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the hangman? And that they--conservatives and gun owners--are the ones who McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony conservative Republicans?

For example, President George W. Bush recently nominated Michael Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Sullivan is one of the nation's most rabid anti-gunners. GOA's Larry Pratt describes Sullivan as being "as anti-gun as Ted Kennedy." Honest gun owners, lawful firearms dealers, and law-abiding gun show operators could have no worse enemy within the federal government than Michael Sullivan. We could expect no worse from Hillary Clinton. And a John McCain Presidency would doubtless give us more of the same.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the American people have no better friend than Ron Paul. He has a 20-year proven track record of fidelity to the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA rates Congressman Paul with a grade of A+. According to GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following: the Brady law; the requirement to lock up your guns; the law permitting the U.S. to be part of the U.N (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms); participation in UNESCO; federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

Ron Paul has also sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state's driver's license. Dr. Paul also opposes a national ID card, which would be a tool of government to identify gun ownership.

Gun owners (along with conservatives and Christians of all sorts) should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an angry, gun-grabbing liberal such as John McCain to become the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, while rejecting the candidacy of one of America's most principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution, and pro-freedom legislators of this generation: Congressman Ron Paul.

I say again, the last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. John McCain may have an "R" behind his name, but he is just another establishment liberal: one America cannot afford.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,985 Posts
I honestly had forgotten about some of that, but now remember reading a lot of that in American Rifleman. Bob Barr is looking better all the time!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
It would be one thing if he was running as a Democrat, which is what he truly is and should do. But for someone to do and say even HALF these things under the guise of being a Republican is unacceptable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,985 Posts
Hell, man, I agree with you. As I said on another post, I still have not made up my mind, honestly. I have never in my voting lifetime been so pissed off about the candidates. McCain is a wild card. You never know how he is gonna vote, despite what he says. Bob Barr is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but has a snowballs chance in Hades of getting elected. Puts us between a rock and a hard place. Either vote for the best man (Barr) and Osama gets elected, or vote for the slightly lesser of two evils (McCain) and hope for the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
Maybe nobody(sheepdog) will be swayed by your arguments...maybe we will...the important thing is that you feel strongly enough to keep on coming...that I respect...and I consider your information...

You have presented a good picture of the Pancake Man...alias "Flip-flop McCain"...and it's clear that he's a whore to whoever has the money that might propel his career upward....like most other politicians, with no true convictions...trying to juggle what he says to pry open the pocket of the moment....that's normal for what we have to choose from...he's like an open window and looks like a fool for being that way....

I realize we'll have to fight him tooth and nail for every right we have, if he can find a way to sell us down the river and , in doing so, ease his own pain, so to speak....he's without conviction and without principle...and he's not a true conservative in other realms, either......

I still believe that, since there are only two choices, McFlip and Ohbummer....he is the lesser of the two evils.....I do not believe that Obummer is not heavily swayed by his Muslim background influences...I do not believe that he is not a racist just dying to get some power....and I do not believe he has the slightest measure of principle, or love for America.....I would vote for Rosie O'Donnell before Ohbummer....I firmly believe he is the worst choice we could make, and so will vote for McFlip.....only because it's the only way I can vote AGAINST Ohbummer......I don't have any more reasons than that...and it's still a simple choice for me....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
I don't know why this didn't surface in my tired brain before, but consider this:

If we get OB....we also get a party full of anti-gunners who will have more power to do what they want...and espouse many other platform issues we're against....we get to fight the whole herd for 4 years...

If we get Mc...he'll be tempered by those true Republican conservatives who follow the party platform which is much closer to what most of us believe....and will fight him with us on many issues....some of them will really be on our side as far as being honest Republicans with principles more closely aligned with us....

Kinda like plan A is fighting China---plan B is fighting a few Chinese spies amongst a nation of Americans.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
With a significant majority in both houses, McLame will be a willing accomplice to all their plans anyhow.

The only difference between the two is their party affiliation. Don't forget, McLame is on the take from George Soros.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
Sounds kinda mean, but if he's the best the Republican party can come up with, what they get, they deserve....kinda runnin' a horse thief for Sheriff in Montana...just don't make sense...but, just like an old Zane Grey novel, sometimes good hard-workin' folks have enough...and maybe this is what it will take....either way, we're gonna get a bellyfull of politicians of all sub-species.............
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
25,453 Posts
I understand your point, RP and you have a valid one. But as I and others have said, we have little choice this term. :|
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
It keeps coming back to our doorsteps...we're gonna have to decide what we care about and what we'll fight for...and die for, if we have to....and we're gonna have to prepare and train ourselves...and make some heavy decisions with not much time to carry them out....kinda like some hard-workin' family men had to do in 1776....considerin' what they put on the line....well, we're as good but no better...if we want freedom and our unalienable rights, we're gonna have to keep folks from alienating us from our rights...and that's a part of being a good American that'll take some thinking out beforehand....and firm resolve....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
sheepdog said:
Sounds kinda mean, but if he's the best the Republican party can come up with, what they get, they deserve.....
He's not the best they could come up with. It's was a combination of factors:

Early primaries take place in many open primary states. Independents and Democrats choosing our nominee
He's a liberal, and he appeals to the media. Endorsed by the New York Times
Played up the military angle to no end
His own campaign finance legislation screws everybody

I wonder if all this is similar to when Bob Dole ran in '96. The RNC knew there was no way in hell Clinton could be beat, and Dole had wanted to run since he got back from the Mexican-American War. So he finally got his chance. B-Rock may be unbeatable, this might be a similar deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
May be so, but I'm gonna give him hell with my one little vote!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
"No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood."

For some reason, that axiom just appeared in my head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
...and no single raindrop realizes the importance it has to the field of corn....it takes a team effort to accomplish most worthwhile things...no heroes...just a lot of folks trying to do what they can....that's what built this country strong...your effort and mine and his and hers.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,150 Posts
I would vote for Rosie O'Donnell before Ohbummer....
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

tom sellecks' moustach just turned white!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
At the very least, I can absolve myself from most of the blame. I turned 18 in 1999, voted for Bush in primaries and in the general election, and that's before we knew he was half liberal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,098 Posts
Well, that's nice..it ain't your fault...gonna blame it on all us old guys, huh???? Well reach out there and getcha some of it...yank and pull and get it all over you...that's called life experience and it won't hurt...much....make a shitpot full of mistakes...some little and some big....carry some regrets and some "wish I haddas" and get old and ugly like most of us....it does tend to change your perspectives...but let me tell you...as bad as it sounds, it's good...life is really, really good, and I'd fight to the last drop for one more day of it....and you will too...and you'll spend less time worrying about making mistakes and more worrying about how to have more time to make them...and maybe make things a little better for your younguns 'fore you go.....when a young man gets past "This ain't fair" and "It ain't supposed to be this way"....and starts really rasslin' with life....great things can happen....oh, to be young as you are again......
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top