I'm absolutely astounded.  Here it is, 11:40pm in Seattle (AR15.com's clock is about 15 minutes fast), and NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION of Rush Limbaugh's antigun vitriol from this morning (about 11:25am on Seattle's KVI-570 broadcast of Limbaugh's show).

Regarding Yasser Arafat, Limbaugh said, approximately:
He was nearly frothing when he equated the carrying of a firearm -- my God, in the sacred halls of the U.N., at that! -- with being a terrorist.

Feel however you want about Arafat, but Limbaugh equating gun-toting with terrorism made me turn off his show.  I doubt I'll listen to the antigun pig ever again.

You know why Limbaugh got divorced twice?  Because his ex-wives wouldn't mount Rushmore.  

So I would take this happened in New York; or at least in this country?  Does he have an Alien Firearms License?  I doubt it.

I'm sure if you called in, and got through the screeners, he'd apologize for giving that impression (maybe try on friday.)

 I think the general idea is it's bad form to bear arms while addressing representative bodies -- it's akin to threatening them with violence. I'm pretty sure that it's always been verboten to bear arms in the senate chambers, for example, much as you can't bear arms in a courthouse.

Arafat addressed the UN in New York about twenty years ago.

WOA! cool your jets bro! I heard the same thing, but to listen to you, we obviously didn't "hear" the same thing. Everyting Iv'e ever heard from him has been pro-gun. I don't know what the laws are for ccw at the U.N., however, given that whole organization's rabid anti-gun bent, I would venture to say it is verboten. That said, Rush was trying to make a point that Arafat, while ostensably making overtures for peace, was alowed to carry. If it IS a no-no to cary at the U.N. then why was Arafat given the green light to do so.
There seems to be a double standard there.
Go back and listen to previous programs, the most recent of which Rush gave a modest credit to boycotting gun owners for K-fart's current problems.
While he may not be as passionate about the second as I am, he is NOT anti-gun.
As for being a pig ?, well.....I think you tie that to the anti-gun thing.
He went off when this McCain-Fiengold gunshow BS came out. I would think if he was an anti, he would have jumped headfirst into that one.

While Rush isn't as actively pro-gun as I like (and I think that stems from him having seemingly little personal interest in the things), calling him anti-gun completely misses the mark.

71_Hour..not only do I think you misinterpreted his statement, I think you're completely over reacting as well.

Face it, there are times when being openly armed really isn't necessary or appropriate.  Legitimate diplomats (which Arafat attempts to qualify as) have little need for personal sidearms, much less when addressing a body of dignitaries.  

Think about it...who are the sort of VIP's (using the term loosely) who are always flaunting their weaponry...Osama, Saddam, ummm...memory failing but I'm sure the point is taken.  How many times have you seen Saddam triumphantly firing a weapon off into the air?  What does Osama always have with him?

The fact of the matter is that legitimate democratic leaders understand that sidearms are not (or no longer, at least) the tools of their trade.

Like AnotherPundit typed, Arafat's move was obviously meant as some sort of militantly defiant show of force.  

Rush didn't equate the carrying of a gun as the act of a terrorist, he equated the act of openly wearing a sidearm while addressing a global body of dignitaries for what it was:  a threatening display meant to communicate how resigned to his militant path he is/was.

Why would it be "bad form" to pack heat in front of the U.N.?  Personally, I'd like to have seen him open fire on those vermin.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to everyone, not just citizens, and there's no language excluding the U.N. compound in the Second Amendment.  If the U.N. wants to forbid it, let them set up in some third-world hellhole run by an Idi Amin wannabee.

Limbaugh takes gun owners for granted as Republican voters.  He and his ilk don't care about doing anything for us.  No need to repeal any "reasonable" laws since the gun nuts will all toe the Party Line when it comes time to keep the Democraps out of office -- lest the nuts lose all their guns to a Gore.  Remember the flintlock the NRA gave him for speaking at the convention a few years ago?  Oh, can't own that in NYC without getting a permit -- didn't he give it away or throw it out or something?  I recall that he sure didn't bother to get a permit and keep it.

McCain -- hah.  Limbaugh might make some whiny comments about the guy turning traitor on Bush, but when push comes to shove, Limbaugh will be out there backing Arizona's Republican Senator for reelection against whatever Democrap challenger comes up, no matter what the Democrap's politics really are.

Just another political hack with no care for what happens, as long as "his team" keeps power.  If Rush thought he could gain more votes than he'd lose by going completely anti-gun, he'd be calling for outright bans within the week.  Just look at Henry Hyde of Illinois and see how much negative stuff Rush says about him -- ok, so he's antigun, sabotaged the fight against the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, voted pro-Brady, screwed gun owners for years, but by God he's a REPUBLICAN and that's all that matters!



Edited to change "grants" to "guarantees" in para 2 -- my bad, it was 2:15am, I was tired, I was pissed.  I'm still pissed.  Rush is an antigun pig.  If you think he isn't:  why doesn't he own any guns??  He's rich and powerful enough to own them no matter where he lives.

Rush Limbaugh is not a pro-gun person. He is so weak on this issue, the only reason he says anything about guns is to not offend a large portion of his audience.

Where are the "Dittos" on his pro-gun views?

Lip service to Republican listeners!

You guys need to get a grip! Rush is as pro-gun as any other conservative talk show host, with the possible exception of G. Gordon Liddy.

But considering Liddy's well-known love and ties to Israel, I suppose that pi**es off a bunch of y'all anyway!

One of Rush's favorite sayings is:

[b]If the liberals read the Second Amendment the way they read the First Amendment, gun ownership would be mandatory![/b]

Also the NRA had him as a speaker at their annual meeting in Memphis(?) several years ago. They filled the convention center auditorium with NRA guests and had to open several other rooms to contain the overflow crowd of attendees!

It was the most popular speaker they ever had at any of their annual meetings.

They presented him with some custom shotgun as a token of their appreciation, and after trying to get the shotgun 'approved' to be taken to his apartment in Manhattan, he finally gave up! I think the shotgun wound up at his mother's home in Missouri.

[b]Of course Rush is pro-Second Amendment![/b]

What makes you say otherwise? Jealousy? Or the fact that he hates Arafat?

Eric The(Hmmmm?)Hun[>]:)]

PS: Does it frost you that he regained 80% of his hearing after his operation?

ETH -

Thanks for clearing up that re: Rush. He IS definitely pro-gun.

But it all makes me wonder -

"Why do people round here SO ENJOY attacking conservatives?"

They attack the NRA.

They atack Rush.

They attack GWB.

They attack Ashcroft.

They even show dislike for Alan Keyes.

Are they so tunnel visioned they can't see the big picture??

Or are many people round here NOT REALLY conservative???

Enquiring minds want to know.

1. Being conservative does not in any way mean that one need refrain from criticizing conservative organizations or public figures.
2.  Why do you assume that everyone here MUST be a conservative (as you define conservative), anyway?
I've said it before and I'll say it once more, the only thing we have in common here is that we all are pro-gun.  That's it.  Put us all together in real life and we aren't all going to get along, agree with each other, or even like each other.  
As much as you would like to have it otherwise, being pro-gun does not autmatically mean a person will be a pro-life, conservative, Christian, Republican.  I'm not interested in hearing how anybody who is pro-gun but not all those other things (and Eric would add pro-Israel to the list)is a Marxist-Leninist dupe and a hypocrite and is pissing on the sacred memory of the Founding Fathers.  You guys have said all that before and I've responded to it all before.
Unless a member has identified himself as a political/cultural/fiscal/Constitutional conservative, you have no logical reason to assume he is one or to question his "credentials" to call himself one.
Stop having unrealistic expectations and you'll stop being disappointed.

I'm with you garandman. We've got enemies literally under every rock. There is seldom call to attack each other.

Rush is 100% pro-gun. He despises gun-grabbing McCain and worships the ground Heston walks on. What's not to like?

Wow. So much of my thunder stolen!

CaptainSanity
Eric The Hun
GarandMan
10mmFan

Well said, all! [beer]

Please try READING the above Achmed statement. That is NOT a criticism. It is an attack.




I USED TO BE naieve in that regard. I've since learned my lessson.

But that DOES NOT address my point. The names i listed above are my "friends" (as determined by their policies on the Second Amendment) Whatever else they beleive, THAT ALONE qualifies them as someone I WILL NOT attack.

If I have a beef with them, i will address it with them personally, privately , via e-mail etc etc. That is a courtesy I will extend to my friends.  I will NOT dress them down in a public forum like this. Regardless of their pro-life or Christian beleifs or lack of beleifs, their pro-gun stand buys them that courtesy from me. I have become a ONE ISSUE man with regard to my public policy - gun rights. All else is peripheral. They are useful to me in their fight for gun rights, and I will do NOTHING to belittle them publicly.

I will NOT do the Marxist Democrats work for them in tearing down pro-Second Amendment persons.

No,no and no. Rush is [b]NOT[/b] anti-gun.

I cannot count the times he has come out for gun owners...you have selective hearing my friend. I've been listening to him for 9 years. He has [b]NEVER[/b] come out against guns or owners...[b]NEVER[/b].


Chill dude...wrong target.
[b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b]

Post from Golgo-13 -

No, it doesn't. But it doesn't help the cause much, either, unless you've got some sort of constructive criticism that might.

E-mail Rush with your advice! I'm certain that he will give it every bit of consideration that it deserves.

I [u]used[/u] to assume that, as well. But I have had a rude awakening to just how deep the support for the Second Amendment may not be, even among some gun owners.

The liberals are not friends of the RKBA in the overwhelming majority of cases. They 'feel' that the government is the answer to any and all concerns of crime, foreign invasions, civil insurrections, etc.

Conservatives believe otherwise! Period.

While I have known a very few liberals who support the RKBA, I know not a [u]single[/u] conservative who opposes it!

There may be some 'conservative' politicians, such as Henry Hyde, who support the AW ban, but they are few and far between. But I've never considered Rep. Hyde anything other than a moderate Republican just for that and a few other reasons.

Yes, that's true. That's why I'm preaching to the Board. Being conservative, Christian and Republican are just [u]some[/u] indicators of how a person might view the RKBA!

I remember Jane Fonda once said c. 1968 that:

'Any black man in America who doesn't own a gun is a g-d fool!'

So I suppose that even back then, Hanoi Jane was a true believer in the RKBA!

Eric The(Yeah,Right!)Hun[>]:)]

Addressing the UN while armed IS poor form.
Unless the weapon is decorative, or ceremonial, like a Sikh's little sword.
He's supposed to be up there with Statesmen. It's all posturing, too.  
You wouldn't get married, with a rifle slung over your tux, for the same reason.
Low class.
Just because one recognizes that it is inappropriate to be armed in certain settings, does not mean that one is "Anti-Gun".
I bet some of you guys would wear "white bucks" and seersucker after Labor Day, too[;)].

I listened to Rush all summer and when the news about Ashcroft writtening the letter to the NRA, he was almost in tears he was so happy that we finally had someone on our side.

Keving67

LOL!!!!

Wearing seersucker AT ALL is poor form.

[:D]

Rush is one of the most eloquent voices in the media who thoroughly advocates the original intent of the 2nd amendment.  His views on the subject reflect your own, and though he may not own a black rifle, he has us saying 'Amen'time after time.

Here is where you go really off the reservation:
[b]
"Limbaugh takes gun owners for granted as Republican voters. He and his ilk don't care about doing anything for us. No need to repeal any "reasonable" laws since the gun nuts will all toe the Party Line when it comes time to keep the Democraps out of office -- lest the nuts lose all their guns to a Gore. Remember the flintlock the NRA gave him for speaking at the convention a few years ago? Oh, can't own that in NYC without getting a permit -- didn't he give it away or throw it out or something? I recall that he sure didn't bother to get a permit and keep it.

McCain -- hah. Limbaugh might make some whiny comments about the guy turning traitor on Bush, but when push comes to shove, Limbaugh will be out there backing Arizona's Republican Senator for reelection against whatever Democrap challenger comes up, no matter what the Democrap's politics really are.

Just another political hack with no care for what happens, as long as "his team" keeps power. If Rush thought he could gain more votes than he'd lose by going completely anti-gun, he'd be calling for outright bans within the week. Just look at Henry Hyde of Illinois and see how much negative stuff Rush says about him -- ok, so he's antigun, sabotaged the fight against the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, voted pro-Brady, screwed gun owners for years, but by God he's a REPUBLICAN and that's all that matters!"
[/b]

It really sounds to me like you either don't listen to Rush very much, are easily offended, or buy into the 'vote your concience' philosophy.  Rush Limbaugh does not need any votes, he is not elected.  He does support most Republicans, and all conservatives.  He does not have a single issue save conservatism.  He sees all conservative issues as equally important and interconnected.  He offers a lot of criticism toward more moderate Republicans, but push come to shove, he will support the more conservative [b]electable[/b] candidate.
Makes sense to me.
[thinking]

No way, garandman!
You gotta look like a sport now and then [:)].


Poor form is wearing Camouflage EVER, if you're not in the field, or in uniform.
Poor form is wearing those goofy moonlit eagle, or lone wolf T-shirts.
Poor form is a backwards baseball cap.
Poor form is a mullet.

Poor form is NOT, however, seersucker and white bucks.
Just ask William F. Buckley.
[img]http://www.clpgh.org/exhibit/images/gif/buckley.gif[/img]

I once heard Rush talking to a caller that was anti-gun and this caller brought up the subject of so called "Assault Weapons".
Rush agreed with the man about "not seeing any reason for anyone needing to own an AK-47".
This is another reason why Rush is a sack of shit, that and his support of bible thumping maggots.

"Poor form" is Buckley's haircut.

[:D]

Oh garandman, you're a guy from Connecticut, who now lives in the South!
You, more than anyone, should understand Seersucker AND Buckley.[;)]

Post from 71-hourAachmed -

So will I, so will I!

If the GOP voters in Arizona don't rid us of this POS, and McCain does win the GOP primary,
then almost irrespective of whom the DEMOS might offer as an opponent, I would vote for that bastid McCain, too!

Why? Because the more GOP Senators that are elected will give us back control of the Senate! Period. End of story!

That is, [b]71-hour_Achmed[/b], unless [u]you[/u] actually like having Sec. 'Puff Daddy' Daschle as leader of the Senate!

Eric The(Well,DoYou?)Hun[>]:)]

I guess I can't argue with that, mostly cause I don't know what it means.

[BD]

Connecticut is the REASON I now live in the South. [:D]

Hmmmm.
Well Yale is in Connecticut.
Buckley wrote: "God and Man at Yale".
In the summertime, Yale types wear seersucker.
In the south, Plantation types (and preachers) wear seersucker.
Oh, hell....
Whatever [:)].

A point I have heard Rush make many times (besides being pro 2nd Amendemnt) is he views the right to own private property as being one of the most important rights US citizens have. He feels it is being eroded by government grabs by way of confiscation laws on citizens.

I know I've heard him say the 2nd Amendment is just that the SECOND & as such was very important to the writers of the Constitution.

[b][/b]

I know what he said, I know what the caller said, I do not need the likes of you telling me what I "think" I heard.

It is apparent you have missed a broadcast or two.

Post from MOLITAS -

Well, I'd hate to disagree with [u]you[/u] about what might constitute a 'sack of sh*t', but that is simply your own miserable little opinion, which, I might add, is not shared by very many people who support the RKBA!

BTW, I would ask you which 'bible thumping maggots' it might be that Rush supports, but I'm afraid that I'd get the same lame-a**ed sort of reply as you gave for Rush being anti-RKBA!

Eric The(AreYou[u]Sure[/u]You'rePro-Gun?)Hun[>]:)]

Actually MOLITAS is just mostly anti "Bible thumping maggots."

[:D]

[b][/b]

You should know now shouldn't you?
I mean after all yourself being the chief lame a**ed moron in attendance.

Once, again, MOLITAS, I will not question [u]your[/u] use of the word 'moron.'

Those might be the two areas of expertise that you have in this world - knowing everything there is to know about: 'sacks of sh|t' and 'morons.'

But you still didn't answer the question did you?

Eric The(But[u]You're[/u]TheExpert!)Hun[>]:)]

Now Eric -

Give credit where due.

He's also an expert on "Bible thumping maggots" as well.

[}:D]

GO TAKE YOUR LIBERAL WHINING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

71 hour-.....
"The US Constitution GRANTS the right to keep and bear arms to everyone".
Grants?????
Your arguments might be more persuasive if you showed more knowledge of the founding documents and the concept of natural rights.

...not to mention, we're talking about Arafat, right?
In the UN, in NYC, armed, right?
Uh huh.
Okay.

If you had seen Jeffrey Dahmer carrying a meat cleaver, and commented that it made him look like a psycho-cannibal.....

...Does that mean you're Anti-Cleaver?

Great. It's nice that I can read a topic like this and figure out that I'm a "sack of shit" because I listen to Rush.

Tough words to be using on the internet aren't they?

I'm sure skeered.

I read the topic then read all the replies on the second page.

From the little I can gather there seems to be a need for a Bible (Titanium cover, reinforced) to survive all those thumpings.

[:D]

(or did I miss some point ?)

Bet the little bitch wouldnt be so though then huh?

There are those facilities that specialize in "boorish prick" repair.

[:D]


(Please remember I'm still practicing to be a reporter when I grow up.  I never take things out of context.)

Molitas,
A word from a "bible thumper"...take 2 Retro-Viagra and go phuq yourself. Whats the minimum age of using your brain in Kali???

There's stupid people..then there's phuqin' stupid. Congratulations on your elevation.
[b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b]