Skip to main content

NRA ready to put gun industry's money where its mouth is.
It was inevitable:
The National Rifle Association will launch a print advertising campaign targeting mostly Democratic senators up for re-election in 2014, according to sources close to the group.

On Thursday, full-page ads are scheduled to run in local newspapers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina and West Virginia. They will be supplemented by digital advertising in these states and 10 others, including Alaska, Colorado, Montana, New Hampshire and South Dakota.

Democrats in the NRA advertising crosshairs include Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the few remaining moderates in the GOP, is also a target of the ads.

Because the ads are being placed in local media, the buy is a cheap $375,000. But the industry mouthpiece is not shy about spending millions when it comes to influencing elections. That didn't work out too well for it in 2012, when the 95 percent of the candidates the NRA laid out nearly $18 million for lost at the polls. Six of the seven U.S. Senate candidates it backed were defeated.

The NRA obviously hopes to turn that around next year, figuring no doubt that its wild claims about "gun grabbing" will fall on more receptive ears because of new proposals introduced mostly by Democrats at the state and federal level.

Those proposals, which include universal background checks for all gun purchases, limits on high-capacity gun magazines and a ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons, have strong support among Americans, according to polls. But the polls are national in scope and the targets are Democrats in red states where support for some of the proposed gun restrictions—the assault weapons ban especially—are presumably less pronounced, and even a Democrat who opposed passing any new gun laws might be vulnerable because of the party's overall support of them.

Click here to volunteer for Robin Kelly's campaign.

Donate now to Kelly to give the boost she needs to win against the NRA.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the fact that Susan Collins is among (17+ / 0-)

    the people that the NRA is throwing money against...is good news, in my opinion. Is there some way that we can help stoke this right-wing hysteria from the NRA into some right-wing primary hysteria in Maine? That would sure be sweet (Perhaps we can get their crackpot governor, Paul LaPage to run against her?)

    •  We are not that lucky (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath

      I agree that the NRA spending money to attack Collins is a good thing, but not because it poses a threat to her re-election.  She could run as an Independent and win, maybe even with a write-in campaign.  It is good however, to have the NRA discredit itself and waste its resources.  It is good to sow confusion among Republicans, to make them question their alternate universe.  It would be good if Maine Republicans had to spend a significant portion of their resources on a primary fight.  I hope the NRA puts more money behind the idiot that came up with this strategy.

      •  I expect she'll draw a primary opponent... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        salmo

        ...and all Maine GOP sources have been absolutely crickets mum on this today because the party has drifted so far right into Paul LePage's decaying orbit. It will waste their resources, her resources, and make her vulnerable in the general or maybe even pull an Olympia Snowe. See Twitter #mepolitics or @brucebourgoine for further current speculation.

  •  Thanks for bringing this up (12+ / 0-)

    I read it this morning, but a little busy at the moment. This is precisely what we need to watch out for, so that we can support Democrats in need of help against the NRA. This one does look like small potatoes, but it's early...they have plenty of time to ramp up their 2014 fear factory.

    “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

    by tytalus on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:29:10 AM PST

  •  And spring will arrive on March 21. There are so (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55, MKinTN, annieli, salmo, FogCityJohn, poco

    many things that are just part of the natural rhythm. Man, you would have had a hell of a subject if NRA would just once not do what has become so inevitable for them.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:56:13 AM PST

  •  I wouldn't worry too much. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, JBL55, ratador, annieli

    Knowing these guys, their ads will have all the subtlety and cleverness of a.........................bazooka.


    "Just because you win the fight, don't mean you're right," - Funkadelic

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:03:18 AM PST

    •  I would. (12+ / 0-)

      They aren't subtle, but their tactics work. I'm afraid a lot of people here are underestimating their effectiveness, and the hard political realities, even though it is right smack dab in front of our faces. The chances of the AWB2 even passing committee, let alone going up for a vote, are pretty much nill at this point. And for that, we can thank Harry Reid, with the help of Senators like Diane Feinstein (yes, the very person who is out there pretending to push for it). Universal Background checks remain a big "maybe", and even that will be a hard fought battle and the NRA will do everything in it's power to make sure anything that passes is designed to fail, just like they did with AWB1. It's ALL part of their strategy. There is a reason why they remain the most powerful lobbying group in the country-they are really fucking good at it, and I'm sorry but we suck by comparison.

      This article nails it

      It was written 2 days after Sandy Hook, and everything the author predicted either has happened or is currently happening.

      We need a plan B.

      You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

      by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:28:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is one truth we need to face (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, annieli, KenBee
        Part of the reason that alarmism has been such a successful tactic for the N.R.A. is that gun control advocates have a lamentable habit of playing, unwittingly, into their talking points. As the public reacted to the events at Sandy Hook on Friday, many people took to the airwaves and the Internet to make a strident case for greater gun control. But they often betrayed a certain prudish illiteracy when it came to the basic features of the firearms and laws that they were talking about. There were calls to ban “automatic” weapons, though fully automatic weapons are already illegal, and the Newtown shooter used semiautomatics.
        Because I still see this all the time.

        You don't need to be a firearms expert, but you do need to know what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon if you want to effectively lobby against them.

        The VPC has a good, basic primer on the issue here:

        http://www.vpc.org/...

        You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

        by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:51:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only half true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SwedishJewfish

          Yes, fully automatic weapons are already heavily restricted.  But as soon as you move to regulate something, the manufacturers and their allies in the press, in the NRA, in Congress, and everywhere else will just change the terminology.  They mock reformers for wanting to ban what they claim are purely cosmetic features (if that were true, why would they care?), but when some of those supposedly cosmetic features were banned, manufacturers just made minor adjustments to evade the ban and provide the same functionality.  They get to make the rules of the debate, and they get to change the rules if they start losing.  Educating yourself only goes so far when the game is Calvinball.

          "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

          by libdevil on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:43:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •   by being literate you take that distraction away (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SwedishJewfish

            which is what a lot of the dkos rkba input has been about at it's core.
              So now that we have all practiced at the art of gun law arguing, maybe we can help get background checks funded, enacted, and enforced.

             In my local town, most of the time when drug sellers and violent criminals and non violent property criminals are arrested, they also have illegally obtained and possess a firearm...one yesterday even had one with the serial numbers filed off for extra jail credit.
              LEO's use these laws as they currently are for enforcement.
               The Cal DOJ says if they had 50 million dollars they could in three years collect the guns of, and arrest as appropriate several thousand already known ex felons in possession, illegally, of guns...as a separate operation from ordinary day to day enforcement but uniformed officers...key points here:

            * known in possession

            * no money to enforce

            true, it's fund raising 101, but still if they are half right...and these aren't known criminals these are ex felons, ex criminals not known to have reoffended...mostly.

               My local sheriff just mounted up all the force and all the gear to arrest just one ex felon living out in the sticks, known to be violent and dangerous, known to be in possession of lots of firearms, (not the one I linked above, another one.)

               He had long ago moved, so that was sad and embarrassing for LEO's.  
               Same LEO's are 15 deputies short this year, cause of money.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:27:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Right, which is actually what I was trying (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mrblifil, WakeUpNeo, Karl Rover

            to get at. And the "cosmetic features" bit is what is used so effectively to bamboozle people, and ensure that any legislation that bans assault weapons is essentially useless.

            The VPC and others have tried to make this case-the criteria for an assault weapon have to be simple and broad. This entire list is vital reading, but this is the most critical part:

            7. The most significant assault weapon functional design features are: (1) ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine, (2) a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip, and, (3) a forward grip or barrel shroud. Taken together, these are the design features that make possible the deadly and indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed. None of them are features of true hunting or sporting guns.
            Just those 3 features-that's it. Forget about bayonette mounts or flash supressors or any of that other stuff-they are NOT what makes an assault weapon more deadly.

            It is helpful to know what specifically about these 3 features makes them lethal-it goes back to the reason for their design, which is for military combat.

            1. The ability to accept a high capacity magazine-It actually helps to talk to the RKBA folks or anyone who has used a gun with a detachable magazine (raises hand). It is very easy to reload-for a skilled shooter, it can take 2 seconds. High capacity magazine clips make it a bit easier of course, but it's really just the basic function of a detachable magazine that holds 10 or more rounds that makes it possible to fire out hundreds of rounds within a matter of minutes.

            2. A rear pistol or thumb hole grip-Pistols have a grip that is sharply angled to the barrel, making it easier to point and shoot from the hand. By contrast, a standard civilian rifle has a straight stock, and is designed to be fired from the shoulder. This requires more effort to aim, which is a good thing, because it helps you avoid hitting the wrong target. A pistol grip on a long gun gives it the functionality of a handgun-easy to point and shoot. A thumb hole grip is included because it offers the same functionality-it's one of the ways the gun manufacturers used to circumvent the 1994 legislation.

            3. A forward grip or barrel shroud shroud give you the ability to hold the barrel, or grip a handle close to the barrel, with your non-trigger hand. This gives you the ability to spray fire and also is useful in close quarters assault style combat. Since assault rifles have short barrels to begin with, when you hold and point it you are in a hunched up combat stance designed to minimize recoil-so you can maintain control over the weapon and keep moving forward instead of being pushed back by the recoil of the weapon. It is very useful in close quarters combat like you would encounter in a military situation.

            All of these in combination are what make an assault weapon capable of hosing down a large number of people in a short amount of time. 20 people in ten minutes, in Newtown. They give the shooter the ability to spray a large volume of fire over a wide killing zone, and also the ability to "shoot from the hip"-Something which most pro-gun folks say doesn't happen but it shows up in army training manuals:

            And in popular culture:
            One more thing that is not mentioned here but is important, since the Assault Weapon of choice is the AR-15-the civilian version of the M-16 or M-4 which have been the standard issue long gun for US soldiers since Vietnam (the only real distinction is the M-4 can go fully auto, but that makes little to no difference in lethality)

            The .223 ammunition that was used in Newtown is in fact a very common type of round used by hunters. It is a mistake to argue that this is a high caliber, especially lethal type of ammunition. It becomes that when it is fired from an AR-15, because the design of this weapon gives it such a high muzzle velocity. I will actually quote someone who came to DK claiming to be a militia member to explain the kind of damage that inflicts:

            A rifle caliber, say the AR-15's 5.56/.223 is smaller and lighter, but is cooking at a breath taking 3300 feet per second.  While the wound channel is much smaller (.22 caliber vs .45 caliber) the sheer speed at which it impacts creates whats known as cavitation.  To keep it simple, this is a shockwave that displaces tissue around the wound channel.  The shockwave is so fierce that it devistates anything it touches.  For example, a shot that misses the heart by 3 inches, may still pulverize the heart with the shockwave and yield immediate results to the threat.  
            This is why Noah Pozner did not have the bottom half of his face, or his left hand, and why most of the victims of mass shootings are buried in closed caskets. The impact on the human body is absolutely devastating- moreso than any other firearm.

            And that is why they should be banned. From the earth, for all eternity, if I was queen of the world.

            (I'm sure I got some of these details wrong, and one of my friends from RKBA will be in to correct me shortly ;)

            You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

            by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:00:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The AR-15 doesn't make the .223 go faster. (0+ / 0-)

              The muzzle velocity of the .223 would be essentially equivalent in any firearm.
              Muzzle velocity is a measurement of the bullet & caliber, not the type of rifle.

              Nor is it '[more devastating] than any other firearm'. The bullet does the damage, the effects of the bullet is independent of the firearm.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 08:13:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hmmm.... (0+ / 0-)
                The muzzle velocity of the .223 would be essentially equivalent in any firearm.
                Muzzle velocity is a measurement of the bullet & caliber, not the type of rifle.
                According to this and other sources I've read:
                How Barrel Length Affects 5.56x45 Muzzle Velocity

                The design of the weapon makes a difference. The length of the barrel in particular, as well as the rifling inside the barrel.

                Nor is it '[more devastating] than any other firearm'. The bullet does the damage, the effects of the bullet is independent of the firearm.
                I'm still learning this crap and it does make my head spin sometimes, but from what I understand, the .223 ammo is designed specifically FOR the M-16/AR-15 (BTW, I was incorrect to state that it is commonly used in standard hunting rifles, not the case apparently so there goes that NRA talking point). But that doesn't change the fact that an AR-15, with a standard barrel length of 16 inches, used in combination with a .223 caliber cartridge is especially lethal because the round is fired with enough velocity to cause cavitation:

                According to the gun industry:

                A secondary way that a bullet causes damage is by the temporary cavity it causes. When a bullet hits soft tissue, the tissue acts more like a fluid than a solid as it gives way and tries to absorb the bullet’s energy. The bullet does not immediately penetrate the tissue; instead it makes an impact crater that stretches in until the bullet penetrates the tissue.

                As the bullet continues its path, it violently pushes the tissue ahead of it both directly and indirectly in such a way that the tissue is stretched beyond its elasticity and is cut and torn as it quickly tries to return to its original position and beyond.

                In essence, a bullet going through soft tissue has the same effect as dropping a stone into a pail of water - if the stone (bullet) enters the water slowly, the water (tissue) displacement is so gradual that is has little effect on the surrounding molecules. If the stone (bullet) enters the water (tissue) with a lot of momentum, however, the surrounding molecules have to act a lot more quickly and violently, resulting in a splash (temporary cavity). Temporary cavitation is important because it can be a tremendous wounding mechanism.

                Both permanent and temporary cavities are greatly affected by a bullet’s design, sectional density and velocity at the time of impact.

                You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:09:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is true. But an AR has a short barrel. (0+ / 0-)

                  Rifling isn't an issue, it is fairly standard for any rifle of a given caliber. The AR doesn't have 'special rifling' (which makes sense....rifling is a simple concept)

                  A semi-auto, like an AR will have a lower velocity than a bolt action, because some of the gunpowder is used to cycle the action.

                  But all that considered, those are all pretty miniscule differences, and the AR isn't designed to maximize the rounds velocity.

                  .223 is a popular hunting round, it is one of the most popular varmint rounds, but it isn't usually used for deer hunting. It simply isn't powerful enough to be an ideal deer round (however, it is used in the southern states for deer, as deer are generally smaller farther south).

                  As for the last part, for all bullets the damage is primarily through shock.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:51:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The 16'' barrell is the standard length though (0+ / 0-)

                    and that's long enough to create the necessary velocity for cavitation injuries, as well as hydrostatic shock.

                    I think that is the key to the lethality of the design of the AR-15-it is just long enough to cause cavitation, but short enough to be portable and relatively easy to handle, easy to point and shoot and has low recoil. That all makes it easier to aim and pull the trigger rapidly, and the high capacity mag means you can fire off hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes. No it is not the most powerful weapon, but it packs a big punch for a relatively small and easy to handle rifle. There is a reason it's standard issue for our military, right?

                    And again, I just don't see any legit reason why we NEED to have these in civilian life. I know that they are used for things like varmint hunting but why can't you make a version of it without those 3 key features that make it such an effective mass murder weapon?

                    This is what I truly don't get...I hear all the time that gun owners are well aware of the responsibilities that come with gun ownership, and take this very seriously. And for most of the people here in RKBA I do believe that. So why support a weapon that any dumbass without any training, or skill, or marksmanship whatsoever can use to massacre people so easily?

                    You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                    by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:30:19 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, 16'' is long enough for that, but so would a (0+ / 0-)

                      1'' barrel.
                      The reason why the 5.56 is standard issue for the military is because it is the smallest (and, hence, weakest) round that the military brass was able to agree upon. (smaller round means more can be carried). Military guys still argue about it being too weak.

                      " So why support a weapon that any dumbass without any training, or skill, or marksmanship whatsoever can use to massacre people so easily?"
                      This can describe many things. Including every firearm.

                      The question I have is why does the gun control crowd want to take liberties away from innocent people for a rifle that murders less than half the number of people/year that bare hands do?

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:42:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My reasons: (0+ / 0-)

                        These are massacre weapons. Yes, they kill a statistically small number of people in the US, but as rare as mass murders are, they have a devastating impact. Newtown is shattered, absolutely shattered. 2/3rds of an entire generation has been wiped out. Our entire state is still mourning. My daughter still has nightmares about it. Mass murder is a form of terrorism.

                        They are also the weapons of choice for organized crime syndicates-the drug cartels, human trafficking rings, insurgents and militias all over the world. They are the most highly trafficked type of weapon, and we are the #1 supplier in the world. This goes beyond our own borders.

                        There are better weapons for self defense, for hunting, for just about every possible use. Most people who own them treat them like toys.

                        And finally, because all rights have limits, and I do not believe that the 2nd amendment enshrines the right to own any weapon you want.

                        I would be fine if they were available to people who had a Class III license. But I think it should require more than passing a simple background check to own one.

                        You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                        by SwedishJewfish on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:11:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Let me try to simplify this. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SwedishJewfish

                  If this is 'making your head spin', I think you maybe over analyzing this. Try to remember that both cartridges & firearms are fairly simple concepts.

                  The damage caused by bullets is through kinetic energy.
                  The faster the bullet, the more kinetic energy.
                  The heavier the bullet, the more kinetic energy.
                  That is really all there is to it. The .223 really isn't 'especially lethal'. It is a fairly fast round, but there isn't anything 'special' about it, except it was accepted in 1953 as the official NATO round.

                  Although, as you stated, the rifle can make a difference in a bullet's velocity, the differences are relativity miniscule compared to the differences between the type of cartridge.

                  Bolt-action, long and heavy barreled rifles are designed to maximize a round's velocity and long range accuracy, not a short-barreled, semi-auto like the AR.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:23:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

                    I think I get it now.

                    But a bolt-action or long-barreled rifle is not nearly as easy to shoot as an AR-15, correct? I've seen people fall over backwards firing them because of the recoil.

                    I can see why they make great hunting weapons. The AR-15 not so much. Even for vermin, if you have so many vermin that you need a 30 round mag, I think it's time to hire an exterminator.

                    You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                    by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:38:46 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not for a round as small as the .223. (0+ / 0-)

                      The difference in recoil is noticeable but, much like with velocity, it is primarily the differences in the caliber, not the type of rifle.

                      The AR is a very good hunting rifle, it is the preferred coyote hunting rifle in my neck of the woods. It is a solid & well put together rifle. (and they do make ARs with larger calibers for deer as well....but that is getting too wonky for our discussion)

                      But it has nothing to do with 'need' or 'effectiveness'.
                      You don't 'need' to be able to talk on the phone without fear of being wiretapped without a warrant, but I did not support that....and I don't support AWB for the same reasons.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:51:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well I suppose this is where we have to agree (0+ / 0-)

                        to disagree then. I don't see it as anything even approaching the realm of warrantless wiretapping.

                        Also as I said in my previous reply, I don't even think they necessarily should be banned, but there needs to be some responsible regulations around their ownership. More stringent licensing requirements, for example. Requiring a class III license would effectively eliminate the trafficking problem, since most Class III license holders are very responsible and wouldn't risk losing their license to make straw purchases. And I bet you would see fewer mass murders too.

                        Just something to ponder, you know....it doesn't even have to be a ban, just some sensible regulation.

                        You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                        by SwedishJewfish on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:20:48 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  I think you hit the target.. (0+ / 0-)
              an assault weapon capable of hosing down a large number of people in a short amount of time.
              These weapons have no place in any society. They must be banned, now and forever.

              This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

              by Karl Rover on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 03:11:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Ah yes, the jargon issue. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          S F Hippie, poco, mrblifil

          This is one of the few policy areas of which I am aware in which one is somehow considered unfit to have a position if one doesn't know the intricacies of guns.

          I wonder how many voters -- even well informed ones -- would be able to discuss what makes a chemical subject to regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act or what constitutes a pollutant for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  How many of us could explain the difference between a "removal action" and a "remedial action" under CERCLA?  If you can't do those things, should you not be permitted an opinion on the subject of environmental regulation?

          Similarly, if you can't explain to me how overtime is defined in Title 29 of the CFR or what the NLRB's rules are for union organizing elections, should you be disqualified from discussing labor rights?

          To accept this argument would be to treat the vast majority of American citizens as unqualified to have a voice in policy.  This is precisely why we see the argument pushed by those who oppose gun regulation, both here and elsewhere.  

          Curiously, the gun crowd never demands such expertise of itself.  I'm a lawyer with over 25 years of experience, yet I'm constantly being lectured by laymen about constitutional interpretation and the meaning of the Second Amendment.  I don't take it too personally, since  these same laymen claim to have a better understanding of the Constitution than Justice John Paul Stevens.  

          So while you can't possibly be credible in discussing gun control policy unless you're an expert on the mechanics of deadly weapons, you have every right to pontificate about the meaning of the Constitution, even if you lack any legal credentials.  Such are the "mechanics" of the gun debate.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:45:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Trust me, I am far from an expert (0+ / 0-)

            My only experience in firearms was owning a Glock 9mm handgun for about 7 years, and the only time I ever fired it was on the range, two times. I do not like guns, and this was never my "pet" issue by any stretch. Before December 15th, I knew not a damn thing about assault rifles at all.

            It took about 2 days of reading-At the VPC link I included in my post and also "evesdropping" at various pro-gun forums. Still no expert, but knowledgeable enough to go toe to toe with some of my most vociferous opponents on this issue.

            You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

            by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:10:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also, I would argue this is not a jargon issue (0+ / 0-)

              It is the very heart of the issue, as it pertains to assault weapons. You need to be prepared when someone asks you "What is an assault weapon?" or you have already lost the argument.

              You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

              by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:16:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Can you answer the question . . . (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco, mrblifil

                "What is a toxic chemical?"  How about, "What is fine particulate?"  Or perhaps, "What bacteria (and at what concentrations) make ground beef unfit for human consumption?"

                If you cannot answer those questions, have you already lost the argument about whether we should have environmental regulations or food safety inspections?  One might well argue that the answers to those questions are the very heart of the issue, and in some sense they are.  But that's why we have legislators and administrative agencies to sort these matters out, because they bring expertise to these issues that the average citizen does not have.  

                Nevertheless, I don't think anyone would argue that one's lack of expertise in, say, chemistry or toxicology makes one's opinion on environmental issues somehow unworthy of consideration.  Yet that is precisely the argument being made here.  I'm not buying into it.

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:20:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK, couple things here (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco

                  One, I'm not saying anyone's view is "unworthy of consideration" by any stretch. Nor am I saying knowledge of the mechanics of firearms is anything the average citizen needs to know. I'm talking about people who are gun control advocates-the very experts and legislators who are supposed to, as you say, "sort those matters out". And yet they lack critical knowledge on even the most basic things-even as simple as something like the difference between an "automatic" and "semi-automatic" weapon. They make the NRA's argument for them-it's so easy to then turn around and say "look at these people, they don't want to ban assault rifles because there is no such thing as an assault rifle, it's just cosmetic features etc. etc., end of story, they just hate guns and they want to ban all of them and take away your hunting rifles because they are gun grabbers" And when even the legislation itself is so flawed that it is rendered useless (like the AWB1 was) that furthers their argument-they can then say "see, we tried this before and it didn't work, but now they want to try it again! It's because they just hate guns and they want to ban all of them and take away your hunting rifles because they are gun grabbers"

                  Also, I am not talking about such minute detail. All the average citizen needs to know about what an assault rifle is and why it should be banned can be summed up with an argument like this-It is the kind of weapon that was developed for use in military combat, to kill large numbers of human beings. The only difference is the army weapons can use automatic or "machine gun" fire, and that makes little to no difference. They are just as powerful and lethal as the guns we fight wars with, and that is why mass murderers use them.

                  Very simple, no jargon.

                  But it is nonetheless useful to arm yourself (no pun intended) with knowledge, so that when someone challenges you and tries to obfuscate you can take them down effectively. Example-here(Yes I was extremely irritated and a bit shrill when I wrote that, but it shows how you can take down someone who is trying to confuse everyone with meaningless jargon and downright lies...notice there is not even an attempt at a counter-argument by this self-professed gun expert)

                  The smarter we are, the more effectively we can fight for better policy. It seems pretty clear cut to me.

                  You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                  by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:15:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  To be clear . . . (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SwedishJewfish

                    I wasn't claiming that you thought anyone's views were unworthy of consideration.  So if I sounded like I was imputing that view to you personally, I apologize, because I wasn't.  Instead, I was explaining why I don't buy into this argument that the only people who can have an opinion on gun control are those who are experts in firearms arcana.

                    As for the effectiveness of the so-called AWB, it was designed to be ineffective.  When the law exempts a slew of weapons and grandfathers existing weapons that meet the definition of the (entirely prospective) "ban," one shouldn't be surprised to find that it's ineffective.  But that's an argument for broader, not narrower, gun control.

                    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                    by FogCityJohn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:44:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you for clarifying (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FogCityJohn

                      That's definitely not what I was trying to imply. I don't think that you need to be an expert to know that a weapon that is capable of killing 20 people in 10 minutes is not one that should be available for any schmo off the street at your local Wal Mart. That's really the point that needs to be driven home.

                      And yeah, the "designed to fail" aspects of the 1994 legislation were dumbfounding. The VPC did a great job of dissecting how the industry circumvented the regulations here:

                      United States of Assault Weapons- Gunmakers Evading the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

                      They did the same thing with the state version of the law in CT. It was not only ineffective, if backfired-because now gun advocates can make the argument that CT had the AWB and it didn't stop Lanza, so there is no point in passing a federal version.

                      You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                      by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:03:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Being totally ignorant of grammar and spelling (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn, mrblifil

            hasn't stopped the tea baggers from getting a platform.

            Why do I have to know all the details about guns to express my opinion that I don't want to see young men walking around my neighborhood with weapons capable of firing 30 bullets quickly on their backs?  It scares the hell out of me and most people and there is no reason for it, but it's legal.  I would like it to not be legal - I don't really care if they want to own a gun, but I don't think they should be able to go anywhere they want with it.  

            But when I say say that I am called a fool, a coward, ignorant and a goof.  And am sneered at for not knowing the proper terms for the gun and the thing that allows them to shoot 30 bullets quickly.  

            •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

              Well, that's true but the billions in astro turf funding had a lot to do with that. Very similar to the NRA in that way. The pro-gun folks have a ready made, heavily funded platform any time they need to use it. What we have is a mish mash of different advocacy organizations that can't seem to agree on anything, and a lot of people who have been shattered by gun violence. There is no industry to support our cause-it is grassroots, and that means by design it's David vs. Goliath. But while we can't outspend them, we can outsmart them.

              re this:

              But when I say say that I am called a fool, a coward, ignorant and a goof.  And am sneered at for not knowing the proper terms for the gun and the thing that allows them to shoot 30 bullets quickly.  
              That's because some people are assholes, unfortunately.

              Yes, some people (many if not most on the pro gun side in my experience) are jerks about this, and they hair split, and deflect, and one thing they do constantly is argue in bad faith. They say things that they KNOW are not true, and they just assume you won't come back at them because it isn't their area of expertise.

              (As an aside-one of the things I discovered in my oppo research is that the gun nuts secretly LOVE Saul Alinski and use "Rules for Radicals" as part of their playbook. This jargon thing we are talking about comes from Rule #3-"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.")

              All I'm saying is knowledge is power-and the best way to defeat an opponent is to understand him, prepare for every argument he might make, and then use his own words to humiliate him and take him down. As liberals we do this with just about every issue-from economics, to foreign policy, to abortion, and I don't understand the resistance in this particular area. We need to get more knowledgeable, get organized, reach out to our natural allies-like communities of color who have been fighting this battle for years, and know more about gun violence than just about anyone.

              If we don't do that, I'm afraid we will lose-not just the debate, but the midterm elections, and people will continue to lose their lives.

              You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

              by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 08:42:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I just wonder how affective they will be. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        An Insider is saying the NRA is losing members, and cooking the membership books to make it look like they are gaining members.

        http://www.capitolhillblue.com/...

        •  Most of their funding doesn't come from (0+ / 0-)

          dues paying members though. It comes from the firearms industry.

          And MB is right-you need to look at how this issue is polling in red states. Just because there is national support for something doesn't mean it has a chance of becoming federal law. If that was the case, we would have federal laws supporting things like marriage equality and abortion access. Instead, we have DOMA and the Hyde amendment.

          You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

          by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:44:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Capitol Hill Blue gets more things wrong... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SwedishJewfish

          ...than right and is a place you should reconsider linking.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:01:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  They let loose the trolls when they do this: (8+ / 0-)
    will launch a print advertising campaign
    Get ready, even here.

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:05:17 AM PST

  •  Given the current mood of the average American ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    ... and average NRA member, this could be a really fine thing if opinion polls are any indication.

    "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

    by JBL55 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:08:37 AM PST

  •  And yet.... (7+ / 0-)
    Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina
    Lousiana has the 2nd highest rate of firearm deaths of any state in the nation, and New Orleans has the highest rate of any city in the U.S.

    North Carolina is 21'st, Arkansas is 12th.

    Furthermore...

    States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death

    The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, Alabama, and Wyoming. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate for the 50 states of 10.25 per 100,000 for 2010. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates.
    And all of them, coincidentally, the very "Red States" that oppose gun control.

    and...

    By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York.
     photo 513_zpsa27a3aa8.gif

    You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

    by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:10:59 AM PST

  •  If They Want To Do Radio or TV (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, GayHillbilly

    I have a script they can use:

    The NRA is coming out with guns blazing in support of the Second Amendment and we're asking our members to target a few Senators in 2014.
    It practically writes itself.

    This head movie makes my eyes rain.

    by The Lone Apple on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:21:30 AM PST

  •  So how about having PPP... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    poll these states to see how they feel about the various gun safety measures?

  •  my comment is OT because it concerns safety: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Eric Nelson

    most information (user manuals) i've read include clear warnings and instructions for each firearm.

    now i find similar warnings and instructions apply to gun safes/gun vaults, so i'm posting a link to a pdf from a randomly-selected mfg, which anyone can read and learn about...

    which i hope someone will ask VPOTUS about, too.

    There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:32:57 AM PST

  •  Wayne Lapierre's rants and histrionics since 12/14 (9+ / 0-)

    have damaged the NRA's credibility and brand even in Red States.

    I hope that Gabby Gifford's PAC and Bloomberg's wealth will act as a counterweight in some of these races.

    And as we are seeing in the special election in Chicago, maybe an F rating from the NRA can now be worn as a badge of honor.

    It takes time to practice generosity, but being generous is the best use of our time. - Thich Nhat Hanh.

    by Frank In WA on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:35:21 AM PST

  •  I doubt they'll try that in CT (0+ / 0-)

    All of our delegation is pretty much in the gun control camp. Even though many gun manufacturers are here.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:51:19 AM PST

    •  Well, that and we don't have any senators up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, annieli

      for re-election in 2014, and the one house seat is in a solid blue district.

      Our state legislators are a different story, and the gun lobby does have a lot of influence there. It's one of the reasons our so-called Assault Weapons Ban is so weak and flawed (as evidenced by the assault weapon legally purchased and used in the Newtown massacre)

      You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

      by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:59:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I'm told we have some of the tightest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        exterris

        laws in the country. If that's true, then basically, there is nothing stopping anyone from getting any kind of weapon they want.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:05:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We do (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, wishingwell

          and you're right, in terms of assault weapons. Even under the 1994 legislation, it was ridiculously easy to bypass (because it was designed to fail)

          That said, we are still in the bottom 5 states for overall firearm deaths, and there seems to be a direct correlation. Assault weapons do not account for the vast majority of gun deaths, because most gun deaths are not mass murders.

          It is interesting though that our little state is home to 2 of the deadliest mass shootings in history-Newtown, obviously, and the Hartford Distributors Shooting (9 killed, including the gunman)

          You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

          by SwedishJewfish on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:15:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  There's going to be a lot of factors in 2014 (5+ / 0-)

    and probably some unforseen ones before the Election. So things are still unknown as to the results.
    North Carolina was going from purple to blue for awhile. Now that the local elections have given the General Assembly and the Governership to the Republicans,  it might be awhile before it trends the other way.
    The firearm discussions in the purple/red States may yet prove to be the reason seats are not gained.

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:08:55 PM PST

  •  One strategy might help neutralize NRA attacks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, CanisMaximus

    Should these Dems get a pass on gun control vote in order to protect Democratic seats?
    Alaskas - Mark Begich
    Arkansaw - Mark Pryor (noted above)
    Louisiana - Mary Landrieu (noted above)
    Montana - Max Baucux (bear with me on this)
    South Dakota - Tim Johnson
    North Carolina - Kay Hagan (noted above)
    West Virginia - ?

    There may be enough republicans in blue states that are amenable to gun safety measures looking out for their own political skins. So as a plan, make it known to the republicans in blue states they must do their part to protect the most vulnerable - or else

    This could neutralize the inevitable NRA assualt on these Dems in Red states and provide enough votes from both sides to make it happen while protecting Dems majorities in 2014.

  •  Seems like in Maine and NH more wasted $ by the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, exterris

    gun manufacturers mouthpiece.

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:36:57 PM PST

  •  These Senators should (6+ / 0-)

    go on the offensive and wear the NRA's  ads against them as a badge of honor. The time is ripe to demonize the NRA and one way you do that is to publicize the fact that they are on the NRA hit list and are proud that they are. They may say they support the 2nd amendment, but that  being on the wrong side of the NRA is a good thing for this country at this point. If enough politicians  stand up to the NRA, then  the hold they have on Congress will disipate even more, hastening their demise for stupidity with their extreme  pro  gun manufacturing positions.

    •  That plan would kill any democrat in WV. (0+ / 0-)

      Good chance the GOP will take Rockefellers seat since gun control is in play.

      Manchins office was both picketed and plastered with mail after his initial statements. Luckily he has enough time for them to die down.

  •  i haven't seen the other states (8+ / 0-)

    but north carolina supports the president's proposals, and even an assault weapons ban:

    North Carolinians support an assault weapons ban by a 51/41 margin and more broadly favor stricter gun laws by a 54/40 spread. Both of those things come despite the NRA having a narrowly positive 45/42 favorability rating in the state.
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...

    attitudes are changing, and democrats in red states should pay attention.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:38:19 PM PST

  •  Good thinking NRA, cause if theres 1 thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    the uninformed GOP have, it's a good memory of the past.

    Follow me on Twitter! @guileofthegods

    by Guile Of The Gods on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:39:14 PM PST

  •  NC Kay Hagan Vs Tea Partier Greg Brannon (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, annieli, Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson

    http://gregbrannon.com/

    Don't underestimate this because the NC is now being run by a GOP supermajority and Americans For Prosperity, which means NC is now being run by Kansas.

    From his campaign web site, we see is running on the Tea Party Big lie strategy to start phasing out Social Security and Medicare:

    We must keep our promises to seniors and not change benefits for those who are currently receiving or soon will receive Social Security or Medicare.

    We will not abandon those individuals who have paid into these programs for much of their lives and have made decisions based on these benefits.

    For younger people, such as those in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, these mandatory spending programs are unsustainable and unreliable. We must begin to phase in true free market reforms for the benefit of future generations.

    Really Gregg? Because by the time someone 20 retires in in 2058, the youngest Baby Boomer will be 94 years old (2058 - 1964 = 94).  At that point the total number of surviving Boomers should be about 2%.  So where is this "crisis"  coming from?  

    Just another con man promising to save people from a nonexistent crisis by taking their money.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:41:57 PM PST

  •  I'd agree, and I'm concerned. Not for our senate (6+ / 0-)

    race in CO, Udall isn't just seeking electoral cover in his support of guns in general, he has always been that way as this is where he and his folks come from. Udall is the one who has been pushing hard for access to PR funds to cover new shooting ranges that are sorely needed along the front range.

    I more worry for Franken. That was a close election and Minnesota has a lot of rural and ties to rural.

    Also Baucus. Baucus is no Testor.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:44:24 PM PST

  •  i'm only voting for candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, poco

    ...whom the NRA attacks.

    "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

    by humanistique on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:45:18 PM PST

  •   By working with Act Blue.............. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah

    or some other on-line group; these  targeted Democrats could easily collect enough small doantions  to conter balance those NRA ad buys. The candidates mentioned need to get their people on it.

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49:14 PM PST

  •  And the ads won't be specific: (0+ / 0-)

    "Obama is coming to take your guns/freedoms/whatever."

    They wouldn't dare try to actually offer a reasoned response to the proposals.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49:52 PM PST

  •  Counter ads-Hello Mike Bloomberg? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:52:44 PM PST

  •  makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

    Almost in every state polled, even red states people are in favor of banning assault weapons and  large magazines and universally people support background checks.
    The only people that would care about this are people that are voting for the republican  anyway. The NRA still thinks it's the 90's.
    They just went after Collins so they can say they didn't only target democrats.

  •  What idiot at the NRA targeted Sue Collins? (0+ / 0-)

    Confusion among Republican ranks is always a good thing, so I am applauding even as I marvel at the stupidity of the NRA targeting Sue Collins.  Not that I mind the possibility of sending her into retirement.  However, I don't have to be Nate Silver to know that the odds of Collins winning in 2014 by double digit margins are overwhelming.  And her stance on guns will not be a problem - hell even the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine (SAM) has come out in favor of background checks, and there isn't much territory to the right of that bunch.  Attacking Collins merely confirms that the NRA is toothless and clueless, which I guess is the silver lining here.

  •  Maybe we should be running ads (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil

    Pointing out how the NRA is help to murder our children and grand children by there unwillingness to help put a stop to people owning guns who should not. What is being purposed in the way of gun laws will have very little effect on sane people who own guns. So I guess it is fair to say that the NRA supports insane people owning guns!!! How would that be for an ad? There should be nothing more important than keeping my kids and yours safe !

  •  gun industry mouth? (0+ / 0-)

    Love the caption for the diary pic.  

    The NRA needs to put a gun where it's mouth is.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

    by sacrelicious on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:02:31 PM PST

  •  Alaska?? BOTH senators... (0+ / 0-)

    ...Murkowski AND Begich are both pro-gun!

    Begich is a lifetime member of the NRA! Read this link on his votes.

    Murkowski gets an "A" rating from the NRA. The only difference between them on this issue is their party affiliation.  It's obvious that the NRA is much more deeply involved in partisan politics on issues OTHER than "gun control."

    "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

    by CanisMaximus on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:05:31 PM PST

  •  This is a 2 for 1 for Firearms Manufacturers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil

    Every time there is a threat to John Q Gun-wannabe's right to purchase his firearm of choice firearm sales dramatically increase.  

    The advertising campaign promotes the sales of firearms and attacks Senators who might support some form of gun control.

    How many of you have seen an in a general interest newspaper advertising a firearm?  There are very few in newspapers.

  •  Hagan, Pryor, Landrieu are all pro-gun (0+ / 0-)

    Why would the NRA be targeting Senators who support them?  And in West Virginia, it's an open seat! Why not go after, say, Jeff Merkley or dick durbin, who actually want gun control?

    Is it because Merkley and Durbin are safe for re-election no matter what?

    Is it because these are considered the most in-play Democratic Senate seats, and the NRA just wants to defeat any Democrat wherever the opportunity arises, even the Democrats who are loyal to them?

    Might want to remind some red state Democrats that the reward of appeasing the NRA (and other conservative issue lobbies) is that they will accept your favorable votes and then spend as much as they can to try to defeat you.

    Cover me, Melvert! I gotta leave the Sovrin Independent Free Market Collective of Fortress Libertopia to go get our disability checks!

    by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:29:18 PM PST

  •  You don't say! (0+ / 0-)

    Being right-wing, Republican enabling, obstructionist asshats isn't going to be enough to keep Hagan and Pryor and their ilk from being slimed by Republican action groups?

    Whoever would have believed it?

    "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

    by libdevil on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:34:07 PM PST

  •  I'd like a turnaround on the gun grabber theme (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil

    I want to PREVENT people like these guys linbked below from having guns to grab.
      He's the son of an ardent gun grabbing criminal, and why he still had 55 acres of land that was not confiscated, and left to his career criminal son is beyond me.

    all the links are there in this story of the previous unraveling of this greatest police gun grabbing I have seen recently.

    I am frikking glad these guns have been grabbed by the police, a military machine gun as well as many semi auto military lookalikes and lots of likely stolen guns...squirreled away in a cave. And lots of ammo and lots of stolen vehicles.

    Read all about it, and be amazed, very amazed

    But back to the theme, these are the people none of us want to be able to grab guns...if we can turn this back on the NRA ads somehow...

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:12:59 PM PST

  •  Maine GOP... (0+ / 0-)

    ...absolutely total crickets silent on the NRA's targeting of Susan Collins tomorrow along with several Democratic Senators up in 2014. Looks like they want her to get a further right opponent who is in the NRA orbit in her GOP primary or at a minimum stampede her deep into their corner. See Twitter #mepolitics or @brucebourgoine

  •  Yeah like ads running behind them (0+ / 0-)

    showing how out of touch they are and their blood money and lack of empathy.  Or common sense. something simple like, These people do not want your guns.... They believe in keeping children safe from people who are dangerous to themselves and others.
    It's not about the money. from guns sales..It's about life.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:22:42 PM PST

  •  Sadly, (0+ / 0-)

    between now and 2014 there will undoubtedly be more shootings, more horror.  Fortunately, folks are starting to notice that guns really do kill people.  Imagine that!

    The NRA is a nihilistic organization and the smart people will walk away. Over time they will continue their downward slide to irrelevance.  Can't happen soon enough.

  •  I should think- (0+ / 0-)

    "The NRA doesn't own me" would be the best ad to run.

    The NRA doesn't own me.

    I will work hard

     to pass

     sane--sensible--

    responsible gun legislation-

    legislation that will go a long ways

     toward providing  for your safety

    from gun-related deaths in this country.

    Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

    by lyvwyr101 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:12:13 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site