I have been out of the loop, this has probably already been beaten to death here... My God is it true.  Where's he at on the AWB???  No way I'll vote for anybody who says "if we just show the terrorists respect they will respect us back" but its interesting.

Edited error in header, RAF

Who's John Dean?

James Dean's love child

I think it's Howard Dean.  As in "Howard the Duck". Yes, he has an endorsement from the NRA.  I suspect it's for a number of reasons. They're trying to hedge their bets and endorse someone from both sides. They don't care about the AWB. They're mainly interested in reducing the nuisance lawsuits that are bleeding the gun industry.  In my opinion only, I believe that the NRA mainly concerns itself with the avid target shooters, hunters and high end collectors. They only care about the rest of the gun enthusiasts as far membership fees go.

Part of the reason I'm "donating" my subcription cost for my NRA rag back to the NRA is just that reason. They don't cover or talk about the types of guns and shooting I'm into. Sure there is an artical here and there about an AR for an FAL or something like that. But not enough for me to make it worthwhile to me.

The NRA does not really care about the AWB or shooters like me IMHO. Do I think it's a waste of money to support the NRA, no I don't. Does the NRA represent me as a shooter, no they really don't. But I will support the NRA because they do fight for gun owners, sure it may not seem like it sometimes, sure I have problems with some of the shit they do. Why do I support the NRA because our NRA rep in Wisconsin busted his ass to help get the PPA passed, and it was passed. We just have a dickhead Gov who wouldn't sign the bill.
I don't think they should be endorsing Dean or anyother candidate that has any type of anti-stance on anything 2nd amend related and that includes GW. HE said he would sign the bill to re-authorises the current AWB. To me thats selling out. He would have been better off say that he'd cross that bridge if and when he came to it. But he did not. Will I vote for W again? well so far I have no reason not to, but by sept. of 04 that could change. I wouldn't even consider Dean as a candidate as far a voting for him. Sure VT has the most relaxed gun laws in the nation. But thats not Deans doing and I'm sure he would rather have it the other way. So unless GW does something stupid my main issue for this election IS guns and second amendment issues. Everything else that would be an issue GW is handleing fine As far as I'm concerned.
Dean has cut his own neck. He has made to many dumbass comments. And personaly I don't like being looked at and talked about like I'm  a criminal because I choose to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. Villify the villan, not me. I don't use my guns to rob, steal, kill(people anyway) or anything close to it. I shoot paper, steel(and animals) when and where it's legal. We are not criminals because we own guns anbd the Dims need to stop trying to portray us as that. Untill they do that no gun owner should ever consider a Dim as a viable voting choice.( thought like everything there are some exceptions)

Dean's stance on guns is as good as Bush's.  Vermont is one of the least restrictive states in the Union.

Which leaves alot to be desired.

Oh, no doubt.  Pick your poison.

Which don't mean dick. It's not like dean passed all those non restrictive gun laws. He didn't the states constitution makes it rather difficult to pass them. That and the voters seem to know how to handle the polis. Dean is a prick who would take yer guns in a second if he could get away with it.

This is the NRA people, and you are suprised?

The NRA had a major hand in writing all gun legislation for the past 30 years.

don't kid yourself, Dean knew he couldn't get gun laws passed in a state like Vermont, so he didn't try

Remember, the NRA does not care about "Assault" weapons.  Dean probably would fit 100% with the duck hunters.  Gore would have, as well.

I agree with the posters who say his position and GWB's are about the same.  Slight variations are merely technicalities which could be swept one way or the other based on political expediency.  

I am very pleased.  Now one can vote Libertarian or whatever one feels would be a good "Freedom" protest vote without risk of putting Demotrouble into office.  If Dean were to win, I see no difference.  Now, I'm not talking abaout the Congress.  Better keep the Demos out there.

Has Dean made any statements that lead you guys to believe he's anti-gun, or is this just knee-jerk reaction to a Democrat?  The Brady Campaign is pretty down on Dean, and the NRA rated him highly.  In my book that's a good thing.

I'll be voting for GW either way.  I've just developed a little more respect for Dean than any of the other candidates.  I'm not aware of anything really anti-gun he's said, altho feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  At least he's been consistent in his anti-war views, not weaseling back and forth like the rest of the Dem field.  I appreciate principle in a man, even if I disagree with it.  I wouldn't say Bush has been particularly pricipled on the gun issue; saying he'd support the AWB and failing to challenge DC's gun ban even after Justice said it was going to start reading the 2A like it was written.

Trojan Horse.

The fact remains that he's a flaming liberal who is avoiding the gun issue because he knows that that issue has handed the democrats their asses on a plate ever since 1994.

dean is a dork, you can look at his face and tell he is a shifty individual, i get the don't trust him bells and whistles going off inside, every time i see him

 Indeed, it's called dumbing it down.  Had they not 'stuck their nose into things', these pieces of legislation would have been MUCH worse.

The NRA is in a tough spot politically.  They cannot be seen as fringe ever again.  Remember that 80s 'Jackboot' campaign?  You can be sure that they do, as it had immense political fallout.  I agree with the poster who said that they are are more friend than enemy.  

I'm less concerned with being sold out by the NRA, than by my fellow gun owners who own no unPC firearms and are dumb enough to think that the antis will go away if they get our AKs.  Remember that smoking bans started with a simple and 'reasonable' request that smoking should be banned on certain airline flights.  They don't understand the concept of incrementalisim.  

I am a rather spiteful person, and if they stab me in the back, I'll join 'anti hunting' causes, because after all you don't NEED to hunt, and that will place their no longer needed firearms on the alter of sacrifice.  I'll also join the VPC, and convince their power brokers that a multiple projectile weapon ban is needed.  These 'shotguns' are machineguns in disguise...  (yes, sarcasim)

What do you care- you sold all your guns, remember? [:D]

I would rather have not had the NRA involved in anything but hindering gun legislation, by appeasing, all they did was lessen the degree of the slippery slope.  Better to allow it to come to a head, quickly, then to drag it out as it has done.

It has been of no help to America.  Lots of help to the democrats, and as such, it is my enemy.

Zaphod throws hishands up in despair...

Amazing! Folks HERE think the NRA is helping democrats, and democrats think the NRA is the spawn of Satan and a shill for the GOP!

Wonderful! Nice to know we're all so fucking unified in this group! WAY to stand up against the liberals!

GO TEAM! [rolleyes]

Again:

Has Dean made any statements that lead you guys to believe he's anti-gun, or is this just knee-jerk reaction to a Democrat?

Zell Miller's a Dem, and he's not anti-gun.  Troll DU for a while and you'll run into plenty of pro-gun Dems, most of whom are actual liberal Democrats.  If Dean's made those statements, cool.  I just haven't heard them.  Enlighten me.  I'm certainly not going to vote for him regardless.

Very interesting, Eric.

Dean has stated that he does not support legislation protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

In 1992, Dean stated on his NRA questionaire that he thought the federal assault weapons ban was nonsense. In 2004, the Dems have officially reeducated Dean on that issue and he now favors keeping the current ban forever.

Either Dean's support for RKBA is pretty shallow if he can make that flip, or someone who really hates RKBA has a good grasp on his leash.

Anybody remember former Arkansas governor Bill Clinton's NRA questionaire? He came out very strongly for the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Fast forward to Clinton as President and his Solicitor General is arguing in court that you have no right to any gun at all under the Second Amendment.

Anybody recognize these names? George Soros. Andrew McKelvey. These are men who have chaired anti-gun foundations and donated millions of their own money to gun control causes. Soros just donated $15 million to the Dems and McKelvey is on the hook for another $1 million (plus the $12 million he has poured into Americans for Gun Safety).

Does anyone think the Dems are going to change their gun policy and quit feeding at that trough when the feed is so good?

For those who would criticize the NRA, I think we should all look at these numbers:

Number of people who voted in 2000 election: 111 million
Estimated number of legal gun owners: 44-80 million
Number of NRA members: 4.2 million
Amount donated per member in NRA PAC: $0.38
Amount donated per member in GOA PAC: $0.57

If 10% of the people are pulling a sled that the other 90% are riding on, then the least the remaining 90% can do is have the good grace not to bitch about how fast the sled is getting pulled. If you want to bitch about how fast we're getting to Grandma's House (RKBA) then you better be out here pulling the damn sled.

What I'm saying is that he'll likely keep his yap shut until elected (should that dour day ever come) and then, in order to keep his leftist base happy, will go ahead and sign almost anything they send him.

That being said, gun control isn't the main reason I'm not voting for him. His head-in-the-sand foreign policy is enough to make me remember Jimmy "wear a sweater if it's too cold" Carter.

No doubt. It sounds a bit optimistic, but still has a ring of truth to it. Hmmmmm..... [:\]

John Dean? You're thinking of Nixon's guy. [;)] As for Howard Dean, he's come out in support of the AWB. Unacceptable. I voted for Bush last election, this time I will be voting 3rd party. Neither of the major ones have our interests in mind. It's www.constitutionparty.com for me next time.

EVEN if it sunsets?

NRA is, and always will be, a gun control group.
Dean's stance is the same as Bush.

That makes NRA, the "Tweedely-dees" of Gun groups...  [snoopy]!!!


Keep giving NRA $$!!

Keep voting Tweedely-dee!!!  [ROFL2]

Do you have a solution or just a very analytical diagnosis of the problem???

Ya, I do. Try voting for the best man for the job, instead of those who will violate the Constitution, and sign SOCIALIST legislation!!!!

[rolleyes]

Do you have a specific candidate in mind or we talking "Weird Science" here where we are going to devise a robot politician that will be and do exactly what we want????

I grew up in VT and H Dean is the last person I would vote for!!!
I have inside info as why he wants his records to remain sealed from when he was the gov of VT
If certain info got out he would easyly be considered unelectable!!!
Thats all I'm saying right now so don't even ask
Big

Like what?

THAT is the reason Republicans like Bush can get away with supporting the AW ban, because people just ASSUME that Republicans are pro-gun.

This is not good. If people start to figure that we will vote Republican no matter what, the following things will happen:

1. Democrats will give up on gun owners entirely and start appealing to their hard-core anti-gun base.

2. Republicans will take their support from gun owners for granted and start becoming more anti-gun to appeal to more “moderate” voters.

We WANT candidates competing for our votes; they will not do this if we blindly vote for one party always.

Edited to add: Also, as DriftPunch mentioned, the NRA is much BETTER than most gun owners. How many gun owners have I heard say things like “You don’t need ‘cop killer’ bullets” or “Civilians shouldn’t have THOSE kinds of weapons.” I know they are not as good as GOA or JPFO, they have at least helped keep us from going the way of England (yet).

Reality check: We represent only a SMALL minority of gun owners, who are themselves are a minority among the general populace. The NRA represents over 4 million gun owners who (unlike most) actually do something to protect their rights, rather than just drink beer and watch TV after getting back from a deer hunt.

OK, liberty86... let's just say you had your way and all 4.2 million NRA members have been swayed by your cogent arguments on the subject.

You now have the $0.38 per member and 4.2 million votes to add to GOAs 300,000 votes and $0.57 per member and they are all at your command willingly. A whopping 4% of the electorate is yours to command!

So what is your command o wise emperor of RKBA?

Sunday on Fox news Dean said"I support the AWB"

Dean's problem with the public perception that he's, at worst, a moderate on gun control in a party that is to the left of him on the issue will be his choice of running mate.  The running mate is usually someone who appeals to the party's base and that someone is likely to be to the left of Dean on gun control.  What's the poor running mate to do?  Disagree with Dean's gun control record in Vermont?  Or support Dean's public perception?  Tough choice for a lib.

go to Candidatesonguns.org I think and you will see a questionaire filled out by ol Howie Dean.

CRC

You guys asking Liberty for a candidate...

Why don't you get off your ass and think for yourself.

Due Diligence.  Do it.

Scott

Well, I didn't ask Liberty for a candidate. I just asked him what he would do with the same resources the NRA has that would be better for RKBA since he feels that the NRA is wasting those resources.

I take it you don't feel that is a fair question?

As to your reply, do you really think it advances RKBA in any way shape or form? If you really did know of a candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning a Presidential election, exactly how did you advance your cause by telling someone who is potentially interested in him "Why don't you get off your ass and think for yourself? Due Diligence. Do it."

Or did you just alienate someone who was asking a valid question? Why not add "I know an RKBA candidate and you don't! NYAH NYAH!"?

Let me just give you a little help here, since we both support RKBA. There were 111 million voters in 2000. There are 4.2 million weak-willed compromising NRA members. There are 300,000 GOA members. The only way we will ever sell RKBA is by selling it to the people who vote and getting that 4.5 million number much higher.

The NRA is already a minority. If you think the NRA is a "gun-control organization", you are a minority of a minority. In effect, your beliefs are going to remain on the lunatic fringe until a LOT more people adopt them. Copping a shitty attitude with the people who are ideologically closest to your beliefs is probably not going to be an effective way to expand your beliefs or your political power.

But do what makes you feel good; because that's what it is all about, eh?

I have a novel idea....

Why don't you figger out what you believe, then do some research, and vote for the one who will represent you!!!
Or do you always ask someone else who to vote for..?

If [b]I[/b] cannot find a Constitutional candidate on the ballot, I leave THAT selection blank....

It's called an "under vote".

The powers that be, keep track of voting patterns....

Four million gun owners voting for ONE third party candidate WILL make the difference in a close race like the 2000 race.

I choose to send a message to those who would strip me of my liberty.

1) I will never vote for them, and will resist them politically and financially.

2)I will NEVER compromise, and will resist with violence any attempt to actually deprive me of my liberty.


If four million MEN stood up and said that, (as a party), do you think the tweedelys would take notice???

Hmmmmmmmm?



[b]NO COMPROMISE!!![/b]    [pissed]

You give me 4 million COMMITTED men, (like the 300,000 GOA), and I'll give YOU a president of the United States, within two election cycles...



OR we will restore the Constitution the OTHER way.....

[liberty86 rant]

If [b]I[/b] cannot find a Constitutional candidate on the ballot, I leave THAT selection blank....

It's called an "under vote".

The powers that be, keep track of voting patterns....

Four million gun owners voting for ONE third party candidate WILL make the difference in a close race like the 2000 race.

I choose to send a message to those who would strip me of my liberty.

1) I will never vote for them, and will resist them politically and financially.

2)I will NEVER compromise, and will resist with violence any attempt to actually deprive me of my liberty.


If four million MEN stood up and said that, (as a party), do you think the tweedelys would take notice???

Hmmmmmmmm?



[b]NO COMPROMISE!!![/b]    [pissed]
[/quote]
[liberty86 rant off]

Nope.  a plurality is what it takes to win an election, and a politician is not going to go after your undervote if it will impact that bottom line.  In effect, YOUR UNDERVOTE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS.  You have to work in the system to have any say.

For F***'s sake!  There is not a single politician that you can possibly support.  You are on the lunatic fringe.  Politicians could gain support by using your views as an example in a speech.  

As long as the Republicans believe they have the gun-owners' votes, they won't bend over backwards for us. Heck, oftentimes they won't do shit for us anyway. How many years have the Republicans held a majority in the House? [b]Ten.[/b] How many years have the Republicans held a majority in the Senate? [b]Nine out of ten[/b], counting Jumpin' Jim Jeffords' assinine antics two years ago. How many years have the Republicans held the White House? [b]Three.[/b]

In those years, how many gun-control laws have been repealed? [b]NONE.[/b]

In 1995, the Republican-led congress voted to repeal the AWB but Bill Clinton vetoed it. [red]What's the holdup now?[/red]

The holdup is our fucking Republican President has stated that he agrees with the AWB. Congress ought to vote to repeal it again and send the bill to his desk so everybody can see what sham of a conservative he is.

Anyone see Scarborough Country last night? Joe had Wayne LaPierre on and at the end of the segment asked him about this very issue. Wayne said that when Dean was governor he had a good voting record. Since then he has flip-flopped on gun issues and is no longer the pro-gun candidate he once was.

On a related note, I met Wayne LaPierre last month and asked him about the Assault Weapons Ban. The NRA is very actively fighting it and he told me that they had the votes to defeat an extension bill in the House. He is also very active in promoting the arming of airline pilots. So to say the NRA is not helping our cause is incorrect.

I at least partially agree, but if I were in charge of Republican policy, I wouldn't work on repealing the AWB. It's going away on it's own in a year, so that power would be better used repealing something that won't go away on it's own, like the MG ban in the 86 FOPA.

On the rest, Dean might be about the same as Bush on gun control, but even if he is, I'd still want him as far from the White House as possible, since he is a total socialist loony on every other issue.

If there were 4 million COMMITTED men who met your standards liberty86, wouldn't they already be a part of GOA?

But since this hypothetical anyway, let's say that you get all 4.2 million members of the NRA as committed as the 300,000 members of the GOA. Instead of only $0.38 per member, you are now getting a tremendous $0.57 per member for your new RKBA super-PAC. Your 2-yr election cycle PAC funds increase by over a million to $2.6 million.



How about we both do nothing and we'll still have a President of the United States in the very next election cycle? Or did you mean a President of the United States that shared your views on RKBA?

If its the latter, then I would be interested in hearing your strategy for taking less than 4% of the popular vote and 1/6 of the cash that George Soros alone just gave to the Democratic party and getting a President elected.

However, if you find you can't summarize such a strategy succinctly, we can just agree that you do indeed have such fantastic political skill and acumen to make good on your boast. Now all I want to know is what exactly you are going to do to promote RKBA using only the executive branch?

Repeal the 1989 import ban? Better hope all the domestic gun companies who have the market all to themselves as a result of that EO don't suddenly become less committed to your cause.



The OTHER way? Unless that OTHER way is ranting insanely on Internet forums until the rest of the population loses the will to oppose you, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Let's look at your troops again. All 4.5 million are now as committed as the 300,000 GOA members. That means that on average, each of them is SO COMMITTED that he will send an additional $0.57 every two year election cycle to support RKBA instead of a mere $0.38. This is the HARDCORE RKBA group. The NO COMPROMISE group.

Now what OTHER way do you propose that requires less commitment than parting with enough money to buy a 12oz Coke from a soda machine?

I would humbly suggest even with the RKBA movement unified and working together singlemindedly (HA!), we still do not have enough political power to refuse compromise. I'd love to change that; but we won't do that until we get more people voting our way - and inflexible rigid platforms necessarily reduce the number of people who are willing to adopt them.

The NRA serves a valuable purpose in taking people who are OK with things like the assault weapon ban and registration and educating them to the point that they may stop and listen to a good argument from GOA. Take those same people and expose them to GOA while they are still on the fence and what do you think the success rate would be?