PDA

View Full Version : Did Kagan Compare the NRA with the KKK?


Lifeofahero
06-18-2010, 11:23 AM
Friday, June 18, 2010

Did Kagan Compare the NRA with the KKK? [Robert VerBruggen]

It has become clear that Elena Kagan, Obama’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is no friend of gun rights, to say the least. While clerking for Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall in 1987, she wrote the judge that she was “not sympathetic” (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs) to a Second Amendment–based challenge to the D.C. gun ban. While serving in the Clinton administration, she wrote a memo that “paved the way for an executive order banning dozens of semiautomatic weapons,” according to the L.A. Times. (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/27/nation/la-na-kagan-guns-20100528)

And National Review has learned that in 1996, Kagan apparently tied the NRA to the KKK — yes, the KKK — while debating the Clinton administration’s position on a bill.

The bill in question was the Volunteer Protection Act, which, when it was passed and signed the following year, protected some non-profits’ volunteer workers from tort liability in certain cases. The administration worried that it would apply to volunteers from unlikable non-profits.

Two documents (http://cdn.nationalreview.com/pdf/Document.pdf) discovered at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and obtained by National Review suggest that Kagan was involved in these discussions. One does not contain her name, but the handwriting appears to be hers. (You can see an example of Kagan’s handwriting here (http://cdn.nationalreview.com/dest/2010/06/18/descriptionkagan1.pdf).) It has the name of administration colleague Fran Allegra at the top, and lists two “Bad guy orgs” that might be covered — the NRA and the KKK.

The second does have Kagan’s name on it; it is a memo from Allegra to Kagan. Allegra reports that he checked the IRS’s “Cumulative List of Organizations Described in Section 170(c)” — the list of tax-exempt organizations, which, he says, are the only organizations the bill would cover — and that neither the NRA nor the KKK was on it. “If you have other names you want me to run down in the Cumulative List, I would be glad to check them out,” he adds, suggesting that Kagan requested the initial check of the NRA and the KKK.

Is Kagan so hostile to gun rights that she would compare the top gun-rights organization in the United States with a viciously racist hate group? It sure looks that way. We look forward to her explanation.

- Source: National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGFkY2E5Zjg1OTFmYjMwODY1ODhlNDVkNTQ0OTdhOTI)

snobord99
06-18-2010, 11:59 AM
Please explain to me where she compares the NRA with the KKK?

I know you're trying to demonize her, but just making things up doesn't really do the job.

johnny_22
06-18-2010, 12:05 PM
I can't quite make out the writing above and below, but at:

http://cdn.nationalreview.com/pdf/Document.pdf

you see

"not NRA there are terms....

not KKK"

So, she groups it, but, then goes on to talk about 501c3.

I wish she had typed it.

Lifeofahero
06-18-2010, 1:21 PM
Please explain to me where she compares the NRA with the KKK?

I know you're trying to demonize her, but just making things up doesn't really do the job.

First, I didn't write this article. Second, I don't make things up. I found this article interesting because the two documents show she grouped the KKK and the NRA together as "bad guy orgs."

Take from it what you will. This is just another view of the, very few insights into her personal beliefs regarding the 2A and groups that support the 2A.

M198
06-18-2010, 4:27 PM
Yeah, this is crap. Surprised it didn't come from news max. This kind of BS connect the dots on the way to phony outrage annoys me to the highest degree. I know a racist in the NRA, that must mean the NRA is a racist group! Same thing. It's ridiculous. I don't like the Brady Bunch people or Nazis. Did I just compare the Brady Campaign to Nazis?

Big E
06-18-2010, 4:51 PM
- Source: National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGFkY2E5Zjg1OTFmYjMwODY1ODhlNDVkNTQ0OTdhOTI)

That's a pretty big leap. I question the motives of the original author of the story. Sounds like he came accross two names he recognized and he was the one trying to tied them together. As of right now, the whole thing seems out of context. Now if we have her quoted as saying something, that's a horse of a different of a color.

yellowfin
06-18-2010, 6:48 PM
What boggles my mind is why more connection isn't made between gun ban proponents and the KKK.

snobord99
06-18-2010, 8:36 PM
First, I didn't write this article. Second, I don't make things up. I found this article interesting because the two documents show she grouped the KKK and the NRA together as "bad guy orgs."

Take from it what you will. This is just another view of the, very few insights into her personal beliefs regarding the 2A and groups that support the 2A.

I assumed you didn't write the article, but when you name the title of the thread the same as the title of the article I take that to mean you've adopted the claim made by the author (even if both end with a question mark). While you didn't make it up, it certainly looks like you've adopted something that was made up. As has been mentioned, grouping is very different from comparing.

Things like this is how FUD usually starts/spreads.

Theseus
06-18-2010, 9:41 PM
Although I have no doubt she is anti I don't believe that this is a strong enough link to suggest that she was calling the NRA the same as the KKK.

But hey, I was the idiot that thought private property being exempt meant private property was exempt. Ha.

abusalim81
06-18-2010, 11:43 PM
http://www.infowars.com/kagan-compared-nra-to-kkk/

snobord99
06-19-2010, 12:32 AM
Although I have no doubt she is anti I don't believe that this is a strong enough link to suggest that she was calling the NRA the same as the KKK.

But hey, I was the idiot that thought private property being exempt meant private property was exempt. Ha.

No no no. You're not the idiot that thought private property being exempt meant private property was exempt. You're the idiot that thought private property meant private property. ;)

Cokebottle
06-19-2010, 1:00 AM
Please explain to me where she compares the NRA with the KKK?

I know you're trying to demonize her, but just making things up doesn't really do the job.
Who cares.... the fact that it appears that she practically authored the 1994 AW ban is enough for me.

Lifeofahero
06-19-2010, 11:21 AM
compare |kəmˈpe(ə)r|
verb [ trans. ]
1 estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between : individual schools compared their facilities with those of others in the area | the survey compares prices in different countries | total attendance figures were 28,000, compared to 40,000 at last year's event.
• ( compare something to) point out the resemblances to; liken to : her novel was compared to the work of Daniel Defoe.
• ( compare something to) draw an analogy between one thing and (another) for the purposes of explanation or clarification : he compared the religions to different paths toward the peak of the same mountain.
• [ intrans. ] have a specified relationship with another thing or person in terms of nature or quality : salaries compare favorably with those of other professions.
• [ intrans. ] be of an equal or similar nature or quality : sales were modest and cannot compare with the glory days of 1989.
2 (usu. be compared) Grammar form the comparative and superlative degrees of (an adjective or an adverb) : words of one syllable are usually compared by “-er” and “-est.”

Pointing out a similarity between the two, by stating they were both "bad guy orgs", is comparing by definition. While it wasn't expounded upon, she did compare the two and she did reveal her true feeling about the NRA here.

Another thing. How is this information FUD? Fear, uncertainty and doubt? The two documents presented in the article, are but a small insight into her personal beliefs. They should be the only items taken into consideration, as well as her statement of being "not sympathetic". The article may have a bias, but it's up to the reader to find the facts within the article and make a judgement based on the facts.

snobord99
06-19-2010, 11:44 AM
Pointing out a similarity between the two, by stating they were both "bad guy orgs", is comparing by definition. While it wasn't expounded upon, she did compare the two and she did reveal her true feeling about the NRA here.

Another thing. How is this information FUD? Fear, uncertainty and doubt? The two documents presented in the article, are but a small insight into her personal beliefs. They should be the only items taken into consideration, as well as her statement of being "not sympathetic". The article may have a bias, but it's up to the reader to find the facts within the article and make a judgement based on the facts.

You would call the DOJ handgun roster a comparison of handguns? If so, I don't think there's much more that needs to be discussed between us on this topic. I mean, do you really think "Obama and Bush are both human beings" is a comparison of the two?

And I didn't say that his information is FUD. What I said was "[t]hings like this is how FUD usually starts/spreads."

FirstFlight
06-19-2010, 12:00 PM
Kagan notes label KKK and NRA as 'bad guy' organizationsBy Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
June 18, 2010 6:15 p.m. EDT
U.S. Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan meets with senators on May 12.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: White house rejects criticism, calls notes "preliminary research on legal questions"
NEW: NRA's director of public affairs calls notes "bizarre and outrageous"
William J. Clinton Presidential Library released notes last week
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings begin June 28
Washington (CNN) -- A conservative magazine suggests Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is "hostile" to gun owners, based on notes she wrote in the Clinton White House in 1996.

The notes were released last week by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Kagan worked in the White House Counsel's office in 1995 and 1996. Kagan, 50, was nominated to the high court May 10 by President Obama, and her confirmation hearings begin June 28.

The disclosure coincided with the release Friday afternoon of about 80,000 more documents.

A March 1996 document is likely to stir conservative anger. In it, she labeled the Ku Klux Klan and the National Rifle Association as "bad guy" organizations.

The issue was a pending bill, the Volunteer Protection Act, which gave some volunteer workers from a range of nonprofits a measure of liability protection from lawsuits. Kagan expressed concern that certain groups might be included in a "Cumulative List" of tax-exempt groups that would be covered under the proposed law.

Kagan addressed her handwritten thoughts, based on a conversation with Clinton aide Fran Allegra, who responded that day that neither the KKK nor the NRA was on the list provided by the Internal Revenue Service. Allegra gently advised his colleague, "We probably need to be careful about suggesting 'bad' organizations will qualify for the provision bill as it would suggest we are allowing 'bad' organizations to qualify for tax-exempt status." The measure was passed into law in 1997, but ultimately vetoed by Congress. Allegra is now a federal judge.

The National Review first reported about the notes, and asked on its website, "Is Kagan so hostile to gun rights that she would compare the top gun-rights organization in the United States with a viciously racist hate group?"

The White House issued a response Friday.

"Kagan's notes from a conversation with DOJ Attorney Fran Allegra track an earlier memo Allegra sent to her outlining which organizations would be shielded under volunteer and nonprofit liability legislation," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Allegra's memo notes that neither the KKK nor the NRA would be shielded from liability under the bill, after Democrats in Congress and others raised concerns that the provision swept too broadly. It's simply not credible to suggest that these jotted down notes represent anything but preliminary research on legal questions about what organizations would be covered under the legislation, and the organizations discussed reflect the public debate over the legislation at that time."

The guns rights group also reacted to the Kagan notes Friday.

"How can the NRA respond to something that bizarre and outrageous?" NRA's Director of Public Affairs Andrew Arulanandam said in an interview with CNN. "This is precisely the kind of stuff that needs to be aired out in the confirmation hearings, a complete airing out of where she stands on our issues."

Some 160,000 pages of documents are being reviewed from Kagan's four years in the Clinton White House, during which, in addition to being in the counsel's office, she also served as an adviser on the Domestic Policy Council from 1997 to 1999. Papers from those stints have been released the past two Fridays, revealing a lawyer with a politically tuned, pragmatic approach to issues like abortion, gun control and tobacco regulation.

The material is a prelude to Kagan's much-anticipated appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans on the panel continue to express deep concern that the weekly document releases provide little time for members to explore her work as a government lawyer, and whether they offer any clues about how she might rule as a justice on the nation's highest court.

"We must be convinced that someone who has spent the better part of her career as a political advisor, policy advocate, and academic -- rather than as a legal practitioner or a judge -- can put aside her personal and political beliefs, and impartially apply the law, rather than be a rubberstamp for the Obama or any other Administration," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a floor speech Friday. "The Clinton library documents make it harder -- not easier -- to believe that Ms. Kagan could make that necessary transition."

The White House has fashioned a low-key campaign to get Kagan confirmed, trying to avoid any public controversy that could derail her elevation to a lifetime job on the bench. The Clinton-era documents have been released on Friday afternoons, and Fridays generally are slow news days.

Obama officials have refused to make Kagan available for interviews since her nomination, and she has spent her days meeting privately with senators and prepping for the hearings in a small office in the White House complex.

If confirmed, Kagan would succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Before stepping down from daily involvement, she was the administration's solicitor general, and personally argued six cases before the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience, and conservative critics have been eagerly scanning Kagan's record in government service and academia for signs of her possible judicial philosophy.

Shotgun Man
06-19-2010, 12:22 PM
Kagan notes label KKK and NRA as 'bad guy' organizationsBy Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
June 18, 2010 6:15 p.m. EDT
U.S. Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan meets with senators on May 12.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: White house rejects criticism, calls notes "preliminary research on legal questions"
NEW: NRA's director of public affairs calls notes "bizarre and outrageous"
William J. Clinton Presidential Library released notes last week
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings begin June 28
Washington (CNN) -- A conservative magazine suggests Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is "hostile" to gun owners, based on notes she wrote in the Clinton White House in 1996.

The notes were released last week by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Kagan worked in the White House Counsel's office in 1995 and 1996. Kagan, 50, was nominated to the high court May 10 by President Obama, and her confirmation hearings begin June 28.

The disclosure coincided with the release Friday afternoon of about 80,000 more documents.

A March 1996 document is likely to stir conservative anger. In it, she labeled the Ku Klux Klan and the National Rifle Association as "bad guy" organizations.

The issue was a pending bill, the Volunteer Protection Act, which gave some volunteer workers from a range of nonprofits a measure of liability protection from lawsuits. Kagan expressed concern that certain groups might be included in a "Cumulative List" of tax-exempt groups that would be covered under the proposed law.

Kagan addressed her handwritten thoughts, based on a conversation with Clinton aide Fran Allegra, who responded that day that neither the KKK nor the NRA was on the list provided by the Internal Revenue Service. Allegra gently advised his colleague, "We probably need to be careful about suggesting 'bad' organizations will qualify for the provision bill as it would suggest we are allowing 'bad' organizations to qualify for tax-exempt status." The measure was passed into law in 1997, but ultimately vetoed by Congress. Allegra is now a federal judge.

The National Review first reported about the notes, and asked on its website, "Is Kagan so hostile to gun rights that she would compare the top gun-rights organization in the United States with a viciously racist hate group?"

The White House issued a response Friday.

"Kagan's notes from a conversation with DOJ Attorney Fran Allegra track an earlier memo Allegra sent to her outlining which organizations would be shielded under volunteer and nonprofit liability legislation," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Allegra's memo notes that neither the KKK nor the NRA would be shielded from liability under the bill, after Democrats in Congress and others raised concerns that the provision swept too broadly. It's simply not credible to suggest that these jotted down notes represent anything but preliminary research on legal questions about what organizations would be covered under the legislation, and the organizations discussed reflect the public debate over the legislation at that time."

The guns rights group also reacted to the Kagan notes Friday.

"How can the NRA respond to something that bizarre and outrageous?" NRA's Director of Public Affairs Andrew Arulanandam said in an interview with CNN. "This is precisely the kind of stuff that needs to be aired out in the confirmation hearings, a complete airing out of where she stands on our issues."

Some 160,000 pages of documents are being reviewed from Kagan's four years in the Clinton White House, during which, in addition to being in the counsel's office, she also served as an adviser on the Domestic Policy Council from 1997 to 1999. Papers from those stints have been released the past two Fridays, revealing a lawyer with a politically tuned, pragmatic approach to issues like abortion, gun control and tobacco regulation.

The material is a prelude to Kagan's much-anticipated appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans on the panel continue to express deep concern that the weekly document releases provide little time for members to explore her work as a government lawyer, and whether they offer any clues about how she might rule as a justice on the nation's highest court.

"We must be convinced that someone who has spent the better part of her career as a political advisor, policy advocate, and academic -- rather than as a legal practitioner or a judge -- can put aside her personal and political beliefs, and impartially apply the law, rather than be a rubberstamp for the Obama or any other Administration," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a floor speech Friday. "The Clinton library documents make it harder -- not easier -- to believe that Ms. Kagan could make that necessary transition."

The White House has fashioned a low-key campaign to get Kagan confirmed, trying to avoid any public controversy that could derail her elevation to a lifetime job on the bench. The Clinton-era documents have been released on Friday afternoons, and Fridays generally are slow news days.

Obama officials have refused to make Kagan available for interviews since her nomination, and she has spent her days meeting privately with senators and prepping for the hearings in a small office in the White House complex.

If confirmed, Kagan would succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Before stepping down from daily involvement, she was the administration's solicitor general, and personally argued six cases before the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience, and conservative critics have been eagerly scanning Kagan's record in government service and academia for signs of her possible judicial philosophy.

So it is not FUD. CNN is reporting it. I think it is a good story.

Lifeofahero
06-19-2010, 12:34 PM
You would call the DOJ handgun roster a comparison of handguns? If so, I don't think there's much more that needs to be discussed between us on this topic. I mean, do you really think "Obama and Bush are both human beings" is a comparison of the two?

And I didn't say that his information is FUD. What I said was "[t]hings like this is how FUD usually starts/spreads."

By the definition of comparison, all handguns on the DOJ handgun roster are similar in that they are all approved by the DOJ to be on the handgun roster. So in that sense, they are comparable.

themethod
06-19-2010, 1:15 PM
The fact is she specifically singled out the NRA and KKK as bad organizations. So even if you make the argument that she didn't intend to imply some similarity or link between the two it is clear she is anti NRA which does imply anti 2A. Does anything else really matter?

yellowfin
06-19-2010, 1:25 PM
One thing I wonder about Kagan and a lot of people is how many know NRA members and aren't aware of it, and whether any would speak up and correct them about it. "Gun toting" this and "gun loving" that, "packing heat" junk, basically the same as racial slurs... does anyone other than me take the time to say "Hey excuse me, ***hole, did you know that's ME you're talking about" ? For as seemingly concerned about offending people as they supposedly are, they dish out denigration, condescension, and stereotyping a lot worse than anything they accuse us of.

dantodd
06-19-2010, 7:34 PM
What you DO know is that she wanted to support a bill that protected people who volunteer to work for non-profit organizations from civil litigation. And she wanted to make sure that volunteers from certain organizations weren't covered. The two organizations she was most concerned about were the NRA and the KKK. It doesn't mean she thinks they are the same or have similar goals, it only means she holds them in equal contempt.

Bizcuits
06-19-2010, 8:29 PM
Watch Bowling for Columbine... Moore compared the NRA to the KKK too...

yellowfin
06-19-2010, 8:38 PM
As General Patton would say, they know as much about the NRA as they do about fornicating.

Cokebottle
06-19-2010, 9:14 PM
Watch Bowling for Columbine... Moore compared the NRA to the KKK too...
I expect that from Moore.
I shouldn't expect that from someone who is nominated to the highest court in the land, charged with interpreting the Constitution.

snobord99
06-20-2010, 12:10 PM
By the definition of comparison, all handguns on the DOJ handgun roster are similar in that they are all approved by the DOJ to be on the handgun roster. So in that sense, they are comparable.

Except you weren't saying that they're comparable, you were saying that a comparison was made. There's a difference between comparable (adjective) and a comparison (noun). Two things being comparable means they can be compared; a comparison was made between two things means that someone has compared the two things. Anything can be compared to anything else but that doesn't mean a comparison has been made between everything in the world.

So yes, you're right. All handguns on the DOJ roster are comparable, but being on the DOJ roster by itself doesn't mean that the DOJ is actually making a comparison.

I say "A, B." Yes, A and B are comparable, but does the fact that I said "A, B" mean that I've made a comparison?

Lifeofahero
06-20-2010, 2:20 PM
Except you weren't saying that they're comparable, you were saying that a comparison was made. There's a difference between comparable (adjective) and a comparison (noun). Two things being comparable means they can be compared; a comparison was made between two things means that someone has compared the two things. Anything can be compared to anything else but that doesn't mean a comparison has been made between everything in the world.

So yes, you're right. All handguns on the DOJ roster are comparable, but being on the DOJ roster by itself doesn't mean that the DOJ is actually making a comparison.

I say "A, B." Yes, A and B are comparable, but does the fact that I said "A, B" mean that I've made a comparison?

I think you're confused. She gave them both the title "bad guy orgs" on the same paper, discussing the same issue. SHE drew the similarity that they are both "bad guy orgs" (in her opinion) which is a comparison. The cal DOJ drew the similarity that all guns on the handgun roster are "approved" (as defined by them) which is a comparison. Simply saying "A, B" does not compare them. If you say "A and B are consecutive letters" (according to the english alphabet) you draw the comparison that both are "consecutive letters" which is a comparison.

She CHOSE to draw the similarity by giving them the same title discussing the same issue on the same paper. Think of it what you will.

snobord99
06-20-2010, 3:49 PM
I think you're confused. She gave them both the title "bad guy orgs" on the same paper, discussing the same issue. SHE drew the similarity that they are both "bad guy orgs" (in her opinion) which is a comparison. The cal DOJ drew the similarity that all guns on the handgun roster are "approved" (as defined by them) which is a comparison. Simply saying "A, B" does not compare them. If you say "A and B are consecutive letters" (according to the english alphabet) you draw the comparison that both are "consecutive letters" which is a comparison.

She CHOSE to draw the similarity by giving them the same title discussing the same issue on the same paper. Think of it what you will.

I think you're confused. Giving them both the title "bad guy orgs" on the same paper is, without more, a list, not a comparison. The DOJ handgun roster is called a "roster" and not a "comparison" for a reason. The statement "letters of the alphabet include A and B" is not a comparison of A and B; it is a list of 2 letters of the alphabet.

Two things landing on the same list does not mean that they've been compared. The FBI placed Usama bin Laden and Joe Luis Saenz on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list; would you really say that the FBI have compared Usama bin Laden to Joe Luis Saenz because they both happen to be on the list?

Things generally land on the same list because of some similarity, there's no doubting that; however, to say that a comparison between two things was made merely because both things were on the same list is to equate a list with a comparison. I hope we can at least agree that a list is not the same as a comparison. I mean, would you really give your wife(?) a piece of paper that said "milk, eggs, cheese, bread" on it and tell her "here's the shopping comparison for the week?"

Hans Gruber
06-20-2010, 5:12 PM
She gave them both the title "bad guy orgs" on the same paper, discussing the same issue. SHE drew the similarity that they are both "bad guy orgs" (in her opinion) which is a comparison....

She CHOSE to draw the similarity by giving them the same title discussing the same issue on the same paper. Think of it what you will.

Actually, she gave both as examples of organizations that her CLIENT opposes. At the time it was the Clinton administration yes?

If I were working for the Bush admin, I'd probably say that X policy would give greater powers to groups that they may not agree with, for example Huffington Post and the ACLU. That doesn't mean that I think that those two organizations are the same or even comparable beyond the fact that my client would rather not enhance those organizations.

It's a tenuous connection at best to think that she was genuinely trying to say that the NRA and the KKK are similar organizations.

Big E
06-21-2010, 10:07 AM
What you DO know is that she wanted to support a bill that protected people who volunteer to work for non-profit organizations from civil litigation. And she wanted to make sure that volunteers from certain organizations weren't covered. The two organizations she was most concerned about were the NRA and the KKK. It doesn't mean she thinks they are the same or have similar goals, it only means she holds them in equal contempt.

Agree...and by contempt I think she hates everything about the KKK (past, current, and future acts and positions) and that she loathes the NRA because it pushes so hard for gun rights and I believe she is gun-phobic (I have nothing to support this, just my gut).

As an NRA member, I take offense to her for hating what she doesn't understand and thinking she can thereby pontificate on the issue and lump all of us into a subset of people she despises. I can understand that position for someone who claims themselves as a KKK member, but I don't understand that position towards the NRA.

dixieD
06-21-2010, 12:16 PM
Please explain to me where she compares the NRA with the KKK?

I know you're trying to demonize her, but just making things up doesn't really do the job.

I would like to see this as well. But for me, her arguing as Solicitor General in the Citizens United case that the government has the right and power to ban political books and pamphlets does it for me.

MT1
06-21-2010, 12:53 PM
Agree...and by contempt I think she hates everything about the KKK (past, current, and future acts and positions) and that she loathes the NRA because it pushes so hard for gun rights and I believe she is gun-phobic (I have nothing to support this, just my gut).

As an NRA member, I take offense to her for hating what she doesn't understand and thinking she can thereby pontificate on the issue and lump all of us into a subset of people she despises. I can understand that position for someone who claims themselves as a KKK member, but I don't understand that position towards the NRA.


:yes:

Cokebottle
06-21-2010, 7:38 PM
I believe she is gun-phobic (I have nothing to support this, just my gut).
She was one of the primary authors of Clinton's 1994 AW ban.

bwiese
06-21-2010, 7:53 PM
She was one of the primary authors of Clinton's 1994 AW ban.

Not reall. That was Rahm Emanuel.

She just worked for him. Anybody in her slot would have had to have done that work.