Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Diamond in the Scruff | Best Art Show. Ever. (Part V) »

Friday, September 21, 2007

Praising the NRA

posted by on September 21 at 9:56 AM

It’s that time again… The Republican presidential candidates are at a big NRA conference today, trying out-gun each other.

A look John McCain’s turn at the mic:

The first of six presidential candidates to address the group, Mr. McCain highlighted his opposition to the ban on “so-called assault weapons” and his efforts to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits accusing them of being liable for violent crimes.

“My friends, gun owners are not extremists. You’re the core of modern America,” he said to several hundred N.R.A. members at a Washington hotel today. “The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms.”

As Mr. McCain shifted his speech to the war in Iraq, he was briefly interrupted by anti-war protesters who were rapidly escorted out of the ballroom after one of them was doused with water by one audience member.

After the protesters were removed, Mr. McCain said: “We beat you yesterday. We beat you the day before. We’ll beat you today … We won’t choose to lose this conflict.” He was met with loud applause.

RSS icon Comments


what a bunch of assholes

Posted by vooodooo84 | September 21, 2007 10:05 AM

McCain is still in the race for the White House? Gee, thought he was in an old folk's home.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 21, 2007 10:08 AM

vooodooo84 beat me to it. Bunch of honky cracker mother fuckers.

Posted by Mike in MO | September 21, 2007 10:09 AM

What a stupid cockass. Every time I hear him speak on TV or read his words in print, my urge to kick him in the nuts rises a little bit.

Posted by Hernandez | September 21, 2007 10:10 AM

you know the NRA people probably cheered when the protester was doused with water

Posted by vooodooo84 | September 21, 2007 10:13 AM

Water? No one had a gun in there to take care of those wacky protesters?

Posted by Katelyn | September 21, 2007 10:15 AM

The "second amendment is at the core of the Constituion"?

I always thought is was the first amendent that is the core. You know, it being first and all...

Posted by Michael | September 21, 2007 10:22 AM

We've already chosen to lose by staying in Iraq. As the GAO and CIA have both pointed out, by our mere presence in Iraq, we're creating more terrorists than we're killing. At the same time, our attention is diverted from the police and intelligence work that would really keep us safe. So I call BS, Sen. McCain. You, your party and your failed president have chosen to lose.

Posted by D Huygens | September 21, 2007 10:41 AM

facing reality isn't a choice.

eventually we'll have to admit we lost, and we lost back in 2003 when we de-baathified & disbanded the iraqi army.

its over. partition is the only remotely humane way out of the mess, and it won't be our broke asses that do it. leave it to the asshole syrians & iranians.

Posted by maxsolomon | September 21, 2007 10:57 AM

“The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms.”

Know what else is unique in the world? Our levels of violence as a developed nation.

Posted by duh | September 21, 2007 12:03 PM

I know this is going to sound slightly crazy but I'll say it anyway...

Why don't any of the Dem candidates attend these NRA functions? Like it or not, the law of the land is that we all have the right to bear arms (ok not necessarily machine guns and grenades but that's not the point, is it?). I'm sure there are plenty of Democrat-voting NRA members who would appreciate hearing someone who represents their political views speak at these functions instead of two faced jingoistic elephant party old farts who normally do.

Granted, it is true they would run the risk of being heckled by conservatives. and hated by party line Dems. But the gun thing is something that even drives undecideds and wanna-be Libertarians to vote for the Repubs from time to time. Wouldn't it be nice to steal the Republican's thunder on an issue instead of things always being the other way around? Of course it means we would need to create some kind of compromise policy that was palatable to both sides but I don't see why that isn't possible... aside from the sad fact most Dems are too, well, genteel to actually protect themselves if faced with a physical threat (yes I vote Democrat but I still think too many are just flat out wimps who would rather run from a physical fight than protect themselves).

Posted by Vin | September 21, 2007 12:28 PM

Am I the only one that thought that was funny? I mean if not for the irony of smacking down one amendment in practise while praising another then the slapstick fun of spraying someone with water and tossing him out is hilarious.

Posted by arandomdude | September 21, 2007 12:40 PM

Duh - violence isn't going away simply because we demonize the NRA or get rid of legally owned guns. In fact, I seriously doubt violence will ever go away. As long as there is something to fight over people are going to use weapons on each other and sans man made weapons we'll all use our fists, feet, knees, elbows, heads or anything else that can strike a person. Outlaw guns and they will use knives. Outlaws knives and they will use sticks. You know that whole argument.

Instead of trying to eliminate the tools used to commit violent acts we would be better served by addressing the motivating factors. How about closing the gap between the haves and have-nots? Or maybe helping men cope with our anger or innate need for aggression better (because gun crimes are most a guy thing)? Or maybe enforcing policies that actually say medically diagnosed violently crazy people shouldn't be allowed to pack heat? Or maybe intervening when we see kids being bullied at school so they won't get crazy ideas like "if I bring a gun with me that other kid will stop stealing my shoes / lunch money / self respect"? The list could go on and on...

We don't do those things because it is much easier to pretend guns are responsible for people being angry or desperate enough to hurt someone when actually either we are too apathetic to fix the screwed up stuff about our society or too apathetic to deal with dangerous screwed up individuals or too apathetic to do the jobs we are all paid to do (like enforcing the laws we have in a non-arbitrary way). Why work hard to solve a problem when we can just appear to deal with a problem instead and get back to drinking, watching TV, and doing bong hits for Jesus? Kinda like thinking voting Democrats into Congress somehow gets rid of corrupt politicians at the federal level. Or that having "Diversity Training" magically mitigates the racist and sexist nature of the American workplace. Or that "No Child Left Behind" will suddenly make an underfunded public school system produce the next generation's high quality doctors and engineers. Or, my favorite, pretending that making DayQuil harder to buy will prevent anyone from manufacturing meth on a large scale and selling it to a very willing to use US population. Much like violence in society, it will take more than shortcuts and easy way outs to make these things go away and nobody around here is that interested in working hard when they can get all the credit for none of the results.

Posted by Vin | September 21, 2007 12:58 PM

arandomdude - I agree. If you support the 2nd you better support the 1st. That is wildly hypocritical. The whole Bill of Rights is supposed to work in concert. Those protesters have a right to be heard (but I'm biased because I think they are right!! :))

Sadly, either side having a gun handy probably would've made too much trouble. Would've made for a good headline though...

Posted by Vin | September 21, 2007 1:06 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).