Tuesday, October 25, 2005


Picture perfect...

A quick thank you to the nice folks at NYSRPA who just posted this lovely photo of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre practically hugging Sue Kelly. Though they didn't bother to put a caption on the photo or say when or where it was taken, we'll assume it was recently, judging by Sue's new youthful appearance. At least we now know why Sue doesn't seem to have the time to meet with her constituents. She's way too busy kissing up to powerful Washington lobbyists.

I don’t understand what you mean. Sue Kelly and several other politicians from both parties were at the event and Wayne LaPierre was one of the speakers and they were all at the event to meet with us, the unwashed masses that you see in the background of the picture. The event was to raise campaign funds from those of us who attended that would be used to support politicians who support the Second Amendment like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and 13 other Democrats in the Senate who voted with Sue Kelly along with 59 Democrats in the House to Pass S397.

As far as, “powerful Washington lobbyists.” The NRA only has 4 million members and spent less on all national, state and local campaigns in 2004 that the Unions spent in just House elections in the same time period and there are a lot more Union members than NRA members.

I have also see Sue at many events in Orange County including even one retirement dinner for a Post Office worker.

At least she has never been arrested with an illegal handgun, trying to take it on an airplane like House 22 District Maurice D. Hinchey was.
Well, Sue Kelly has taken (in this cycle) more money from trade unions than from gun lobbys. Most of the union money is from the construction trades, not too surprising, since her husband is in the construction business. ("I'll hire your ironworkers, if you guys will give money to my wife's campaign" would be my guess at the most likely scenario...)She has only received $1000 from gun lobbys, so I guess that the NRA and its supporters are getting a good bang for their bucks. I fail to see why the gun industry should get special protection not afforded to other industries in the US. I agree that suits aginst gun manufacturers are, in most cases, unfounded, but, hey, I don't see auto manufacturers getting sued simply for making cars. Fight the suits and take yer chances. If they are BS, then you'll either get the case dismissed, or you'll win. Gun makers don't need any special protection, IMO. Sue also gets lots of money from insurance companies, partly due to her committee position regulating that industry, but I wonder if any of those insurance companies have gun makers as their clients? Things to ponder, more bang for the buck...

I have much more trouble with Ms. Kelly's stance on the Assault Weapons Ban that was left to expire recently. THAT bill was supported by many of her constituents, as well as all of the MAJOR law enforcement agencies and unions, but she let it go. So much for listening to her constituents, I guess she only listens to the ones that contribute to her campaign, or get lots of press coverage.
The reason that this bill was needed was that you have places like NY City and Washington DC who passed laws that allowed a gun maker or sellers to be taken to court even if the gun was legally sold. If you remember, the day before the House passed a bill that protected fast food places from being taken to court by people who blamed the fast food companies for being fat. We also have bills in the past that limit the libility of Airplane makers from being taken to court after a plane is 18 years old and just this year Congress passed a bill that only applied to NY that prevented people who were leasing cars from being take to court when the person who leased the car was in a wreck.

I also disagree with your statement about the AW Ban. Most of people who know anything about guns know that the AWB was a waste of time and did not have any impact. The only reason the guns were banned was that they looked evil. Guns that fired the same bullet at the same rate of fire were not banned. The AWB was only a "good first step," toward the banning of even more guns. Besides, in NY we do not have to worry because we have our own AWB and just like the national AWB, it was just a "good first step," and now bills are in Albany that if passed would ban many guns used in hunting and target shooting, including handguns that are used in the Olympics. What are they saying about the bill, "Currently, there is legislation in the NY State Assembly that would strengthen the state’s assault weapons ban ..., which would include copy cat assault weapons, ..." What is a "copy cat assault weapon?" A gun that was built according to the Assault Weapons Ban that the anti-gun people still do not like.

Not all police supported the AWB and the reason it ended was that many of the Democrats wanted it to. They know that the passage of the AWB caused the Democrats the House and the Senate, something that even Pres. Clinton agreed with. That is why Kerry was running around acting like he was pro-gun. Only a minority of Sue's constituents supported the AWB and the people who did support the AWB voted for the LOOSER the last time. It was one of the campaign issues. Almost all Democrats except the EXTREME LEFT know that gun control is a loosing issue. In some places like NY City it might be a winning issue in some races but across the rest of the nation everyone knows that gun control is a LOOSER.

Just look at Brazil where 66% of the people rejected a gun ban even though less than 4% of the people own guns.
They know that the passage of the AWB COST the Democrats the House and the Senate, something that even Pres. Clinton agreed with.
Gun Control is not a losing issue.

When you run a campaign based only on percentages and "swing" votes, you end up having to pander to the misguided opinions of a very small percentage of the voting population. The VAST majority of people (registered or not) want resonable gun laws that protect thier families.

The fact is - it should be impossible for a Minor to get thier hands on a machine gun.

That is not alot to ask of our government and I am disappointed that Sue Kelly would not step up and defend our children from this danger.

It is nearly impossible for a minor to get their hands on a machine gun. In fact, I'd be willing to wager a fairly large sum that neither yourself nor any of the habitually lying gun banning bigots that populate the cuckoo wing of the demoratic party can point to a single instance of a minor misusing a machine gun OR a single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime.

PS. by responding, I'm not stating that I qualify for the "habitually lying gun banning bigots that populate the cuckoo wing of the demoratic party."

Been a Democrat and a liberal for a long time, and I haven't actually run into any of those strawmen that you just described. The Dems that I've run into (and I know many who are very active in campaigns and the party) just want to close the gunshow loopholes and require locks to attempt to prevent future Columbines. I've never met a "habitually lying gun banning bigot." However, if you have traveled among the left wing of the party, attended meetings and talked to a lot of them, please let me know who they are and I'd be happy to talk with them.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?