NRA.oval office

[bullet44]

The question ask last nite in the debate,
was"the nra says they will have an office
in the white house, that concerns me>"
Why would that concern anyone with what we
have had in the white house the past eight
years. These were all liberal questions,
un-decided voters,no way.
How is it the republican party is never able
to prevent this>? Can we not stack the deck
on our side>?

 

[Waitone]

It is all a matter of whose ox is getting Gore(d). NRA is not permitted to have an executive talk opening about good relations with the President (a truly stoopid move), but it is perfectly ok for the existing president (Clinton) to aid, abet, support, encourage, staff, and promote that spontaneous grown organization, Million Mom March. Why it was shear happenstance the the organizer was a staff weenie to Dan Rather.

Big media has dropped any pretense at objectivity. They are now advocates of a specific political ideology. Sooner or later the free market will take its vengence (it might well be called FOS News).


------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964

 

[dZ]

an even bigger issue is that Clinton sold access to the Whitehouse to the Chinese

 

[Byron]

All true, but nevertheless, the guy who made that statement with a video camera in the room is an idiot and a fool. I mean, really, how dumb can you get? He should not be let within 25 feet of a microphone until this election is over.

 

[Oatka]

Too bad Bush didn't respond by asking if the questioner was just as upset with Handgun Control for having an office at the White House. Then end with, "Have you seen the picture of Sarah Brady hugging Clinton - Well, I'll guarantee that you won't see me hugging Wayne LaPierre!"

Of course I'm at ease at home and under no pressure.

 

[bookkie]

I'm with Oatka. I was real disapointed in Bush for not supporting the NRA. Instead he he hawed around the issue, making the NRA look like an evil organization that he did not want to be associated with.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!

 

[kjm]

My father and I were speaking about this. He said back in the fifties and sixties, the NRA was almost an unofficial 4th branch of the government. He purchased a really sweet M1 Carbine from the government for twenty bucks because he was a member of the NRA. IMO Bush missed out on an excellent opportuntiy to draw a distinction between himself and Gore. The American people need to understand that the President takes an oath to the Constitution. The whole constitution. The Second Amendment was part and parcel to that constitution, and so the President cannot take his oath seriously and attack ANY private arms ownership. Bush could have pointed out that Al Gore is already bragging to America on how he intends to violate the provisions of the constituion he finds disfavor with. Bush needn't be a commercial for the NRA, just simply state that his oath will prohibit him from further hindrances to the lawful activities and exercise of rights of the people. He could then at his option add that it is the PARENTS job to insure their kids are safe around guns, and there IS an organization with over 100 years of gunsafety that will provide to the parent the training necessary to insure the kids are safe. Will the parents take responsibility, or give it over the the Federal Government? In my opinion, you shouldn't go ceeding your obligations and responsibilities to government. Government is well defined in the constitution as having tasks to perform that only it can effectively do. When it attempts to take on jobs better suited for states and the people, the only people happy are the government employees.