# Fargo's Anti-gun mayor



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker will join mayors from across the country next week in a show of opposition to illegal firearms.

Walaker plans to attend the National Summit of Mayors Against Illegal Guns on Monday in Washington, D.C.

Walaker said he's a lifelong hunter, but said he staunchly opposes automatic weapons - going so far as to drop his National Rifle Association membership because of the organization's position on the issue - and the illegal gun sales that allow criminals to obtain them.

"I don't see a need for them, and I don't like to see anybody up against law enforcement having better weapons than we can provide for law enforcement," he said.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns arose from an initial meeting held in April 2006, hosted by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, to discuss ways to stop the flow of illegal guns into U.S. cities, according to the coalition's Web site.
Dennis Walaker Fargo mayor Signed a petition against the sale of automatic weapons.
Dennis Walaker Fargo mayor Signed a petition against the sale of automatic weapons.

Walaker joined the coalition in August by signing a statement of principles drafted at the initial meeting.

Fargo is the only North Dakota city that belongs to the group, which has been expanded to 123 cities.

The coalition aims to punish criminals who possess, use and traffic illegal guns; target irresponsible gun dealers; oppose federal efforts to restrict cities' access to gun-tracing data; develop technologies that aid in detecting and tracing illegal guns; and support local, state and federal legislation that targets illegal guns.

Fargo Police Capt. Tod Dahle said Fargo officers don't encounter illegal firearms as often as their counterparts in big cities like Minneapolis, but they still deal with the problem.

"And we do so more often than we did in the past," he said.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As it turns out it's hard for him to drop his membership when he doesn't have a membership. When confronted with the question he said well I did years back. Years back????? so how do you drop a current membership that you don't have. Lie for political impact I guess. Ignorance must be bliss. NRA was contacted and he was not on their membership list.

Dropping membership to an organization that doesn't support automatic weapons doesn't do much anyway does it? Like many uninformed this less than genius mayor hasn't figured out the difference between automatic, and semiautomatic. When the semiautomatic was being attacked by the gun control fanatics the media would always show someone shooting a full automatic. Then they say the media isn't biased. I guess it is possible that they are simply stupid, like some mayors.


----------



## englishpointer (May 16, 2005)

I am amazed at a ND mayor being ignorant about weapons.
Another thing i am Further amazed by and upset by is that, i thought
ND people would try to set a example of being honest and be true to ND.

I hope this is his last term in Fargo, if for nothing else being dishonest!!!

Does he think he is a Clinton for god sakes. Well i guess he and Hillary share some resembelance.
:******:


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

NRA shows no record of Walaker
Brittany Lawonn, The Forum
Published Saturday, January 20, 2007

Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker says he dropped his National Rifle Association membership because of its stance on automatic weapons.

Problem is, the NRA says he has never been a member.

The NRA couldn't find any record of Walaker ever having a membership after running a city search, state search and a national search for him in its database, said Andrew Arulanandam, NRA spokesman.

"He was never a member," Arulanandam said.

When reached at home Friday, Walaker again said that he was an NRA member, although it was a long time ago.

"What they're saying is not true," he said.

Arulanandam said if Walaker had been a member, his name would have shown up because the NRA database includes information on anyone who has been a member.

Walaker said he doesn't believe such a database exists.

"I can't imagine they have a database of all their millions of members," he said.

Walaker said he paid dues for one or two years and would have to go back into his checkbook to find proof of such payments.

"I don't know if I have anything that would confirm it, but I did have an NRA cap," he said.

Walaker said he dropped his membership around the time of the 1983 shooting death of a U.S. marshal by Gordon Kahl, an anti-government protester, near Medina, N.D., when federal officers tried to arrest Kahl.

Walaker said he has guns of his own as a lifelong hunter, but he opposes automatic weapons as well as the NRA's position on them.

He plans to attend the National Summit of Mayors Against Illegal Guns next week in Washington D.C., where many of the 123 mayors in the organization will gather to show opposition to illegal firearms.

Walaker will also be in the nation's capital for the U.S. Conference of Mayors' 75th Winter Meeting.

The trip is paid for through his travel budget, Walaker said.

Readers can reach Forum reporter Brittany Lawonn at (701) 241-5541

So he had a NRA hat? He would have to look back in his checkbook to see for sure? What, he keeps his checks for 24 years? And to think,,,,you Fargo people are paying for this trip!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You know,I am as avid a hunter as anyone on here.But who on here actually opposes the following?????That's what this coalition stands for....

Punish criminals who possess, use and traffic illegal guns...great idea

Target irresponsible gun dealers....put them out of business

Oppose federal efforts to restrict cities' access to gun-tracing data...why restrict local police?

Develop technologies that aid in detecting and tracing illegal guns
and support local, state and federal legislation that targets illegal guns

Before you answer think about this.....if you don't favor the above.....does that mean you are in favor of criminal use of weapons,illegal sale of weapons,irresponsible gun dealers etc.

Before someone jumps all over me for being anti-gun.....I don't know a thing about this group.Just reading what it says they stand for in the article......anti-criminal.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ken, I agree but I am a right wing liberal that doesn't believe in anything that is good in America. Go ahead, guys let's here that same old rhetoric! Let us have it. The NRA calls me every year and I tell them I will not join for the same reasons you have listed.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

"Gun tracing data" to me means registration of all of your guns. How would they have any data if your guns weren't registered? Some might say the gun forms you fill out when you buy a gun. Those forms are ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS!! I can legally buy a gun from (or sell one to) an individual with NO PAPERWORK WHATSOEVER. When the feds come to my door with a stack of 4473's and want to verify my guns' whereabouts I can say that I sold them all to private citizens and all the sales were on a cash basis, and it would be legal. The system is a JOKE!! Better yet, "I sold them all to one of the dealers at a gun show. I can't remember his name but he was kind of heavy set and wore suspenders." That ought to narrow it right down for them.

When I sold guns for a living there were two instances of folks coming in to buy a gun who couldn't legally own them. In both cases I could have legally trasferred the guns to them because the feds didn't contact me within the legal timeframe (5 business days), the "DELAY" period had expired with "NO RESPONCE". Luckily neither guy got the guns, they came in too late, by then the ATF had contacted me, but to the letter of the law they (the ATF) were late. It's a fine system that the FBI (they do the nics checks) knows for over a week that a felon is trying to get a gun from a dealer and they can't get around to stopping it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

My gun is already registered with the Canadian government.In fact I recieved my new Canadian 5 year PAL license in the mail Saturday.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

DJRooster said:


> Ken, I agree but I am a right wing liberal that doesn't believe in anything that is good in America. Go ahead, guys let's here that same old rhetoric! Let us have it. The NRA calls me every year and I tell them I will not join for the same reasons you have listed.


What's a "right-wing liberal"???? k:


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

This mayors coalition is the same group that was in support of banning all "cop killing" ammunition. Remember that a 30-30 will penetrate a kevlar vest.

They also wanted a total ban on automatic weapons. Again they did not say that what they really meant was "semi" automatic weapons. This ban actually included semi shotguns.

They have more hidden items on their agenda than the ones that they admit to. Remember another thing, once they get one, they will push for another.
I may not agree with everything that the NRA stands up for but it is all or nothing. There is no room for negotiations with some groups of people.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess I just don't see the American public going along with "all or nothing." And I have a semi-auto rifle and shotgun.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Ken, the problem with the "American public" is most of them don't know and don't care about the difference between "automatic" and "Semi-automatic".

While the trigger group is the important part of semi vs full auto, the un- informed and disinterrested public is generally just turned off by black plastic stocks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Those of you who think the mayors coalition is ok have not looked into it far enough. About two years ago when I looked at their list it would have included nearly all semiautomatics including your shotgun Ken, whatever make it is. They are not being honest with us.

The NRA constantly supports punishing criminals. They do so in the hope that if we punish criminals the general populous will not want our guns. They do not support automatic weapons.

The uninformed is what will get us if they don't care enough to find out what is going on. The big problem is it has become a partisan issue and many liberals will go along with it without ever checking into it. I would guess you fall into this category Rooster. If you value hunting as you way you do you need to dig deeper into this. You owe it to yourself, your children if you have any, and your fellow sportsmen, you all do.

Remember Walaker said he dropped his membership because of automatic weapons. He said he dropped it because of the Gordon Kahl shootout. I worked with the FBI on the Gordon Kahl shootout, and no one had automatic weapons. They were using Ruger Mini 14's. The feds made a terrible mistake, you don't outshoot a Mini 14 with a 2 inch barrel revolver. The only smart one that day was a county deputy with a shotgun, and that shotgun took the young Kahl out of the fight.

Walaker is trying to defend himself with one stupid comment after another. He probably wants to rub shoulders with the big city boys. I guess he can't remember he is from North Dakota.

Blaming the NRA for Gordon Kahl is like blaming a spoon for Rosy O. being fat.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

> Blaming the NRA for Gordon Kahl is like blaming a spoon for Rosy O. being fat.


Good one!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman.....like I said.....I don't know anything about the group....just reading what is in the article.....thanks for enlightening me.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The people of Fargo are getting what they deserve in electing someone simply because of name recognition. Had it not been for the threat of flooding again this past year, issues would have been more important and not so much the name recognition, because if you actually listened to his positions one could have seen this and some of the other liberal ideals coming.

In regards to this group they are very much anti gun and where supportive nationally of people who have been active in seeking more restrictive gun laws. Many of these people want bans or confiscation simply on the looks of a weapon.

AR-15 made by Colt is a .223 same as a Ruger Mini 14. Both are semi auto, both are capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammo. Yet one is stocked with wood the other in a composite. Given the choice for use as a hunting weapon, I would choose the AR-15 because of accuracy over the Ruger. For long range shooting at Prairie dogs I would choose the AR-15 as well for the same reason.

Yet this group is in favor of taking away my right or others from owning a more accurate weapon simply on its appearance. There are many other examples and points of interest that bears looking at with this group. Denny stepped in it and deserves to be taken to the wood shed and really next election sent packing.


----------



## upland420 (Dec 27, 2004)

Ron Gilmore said:


> The people of Fargo are getting what they deserve in electing someone simply because of name recognition.


Welcome to NORTH DAKOTA...where being elected to ANY office is virtually a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT! People here don't have clue 1 about what a candidate really stands for. If thye've "heard of him" and he's not a convicted criminal, he's usually gonna get voted for. This guy was elected because of what went down in 1997...PERIOD. What was his big accomplishment? He did HIS JOB. Nothing more. Grand Forks went under and Fargo didnt so somehow this guy became a super hero. He has the presonality of an area rug. Essentially a PERFECT representative for Fargo!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> He has the presonality of an area rug. Essentially a PERFECT representative for Fargo!


Thats funny


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

upland420 said:


> Essentially a PERFECT representative for Fargo!


Why are you so full of hate? Everyone was probably with you until your last sentence insulted everyone from Fargo. You could have ended it with "Y'all deserve better." or something, but you had to go with the hate. This hate is gonna eat you up inside - turn you into a guide or something...

M.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> This hate is gonna eat you up inside - turn you into a guide or something...


Good one M :lol: :lol:


----------



## englishpointer (May 16, 2005)

i am willing to bet , that he will not make it thru the next election. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some of the things they have said in the past:
Thumb hole stocks or pistol grips are only on assault weapons
Scopes are only for assassinating people
Full metal jackets are for penetrating bullet proof vests
Hollowpoints are for killing people
Remember the Teflon cop killer bullets. I don't know if there ever was any such thing, but the picture I seen with the caption was a Federal Nyclad. It was developed to keep airborne lead to a minimum in indoor ranges. 
A few years ago their list not only included the AR15, but the M14 and the Remington 1100, the Browning semi auto shotgun and many other firearms. At that time the list contained 120 models of firearms.

Their main objective is to get rich suing the firearms industry like they did big tobacco. Where is that money going. Certainly not to health care. Didn't North Dakota use some for the Devils Lake drain?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Their main objective is to get rich suing the firearms industry like they did big tobacco.


PM

I disagree - its more important than money - its about power! Look at Schumer - he's now the senior senator from NY now. All brought about from his hysterical anti-gun rhetoric when he was a no-name congressman Same thing with Biden - and the California senators. Name recognition, committee standing, and power brought about by drumming up fear in the proletariate. Saving folks from their fears is how to get power.

M.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MRN

I agree with you about people in congress using fear to get power, but there was a bill aimed at stopping people from suing firearms manufacturers for crimes committed with firearms. It was the coalition of mayors that was trying to sue them for many millions just like tobacco was sued. Some of the big cities had dollar signs in their eyes. There is nothing to disagree on with this point, it is factual, and was happening until congress stepped in.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> I disagree - its more important than money - its about power! Look at Schumer - he's now the senior senator from NY now. All brought about from his hysterical anti-gun rhetoric when he was a no-name congressman Same thing with Biden - and the California senators. Name recognition, committee standing, and power brought about by drumming up fear in the proletariate. Saving folks from their fears is how to get power.


A wonderful summary of the dangers of democracy. But I wouldn't limit it just to the proletariate, I think you could include most of the petite bourgeoisie as well. Gaining power by saving folks from their fears is so much easier than confusing them with the facts.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

This is kind of off topic, but I can't help but think it whenever gun control laws come into play...

Its a dream I have...well, more like a nightmare. Its a recurring thing in a way. So in this dream, the anti-gunners get their way and ban all guns. Suddenly, WHAM, Hillary Clinton gets assassinated...by ARCHERY EQUIPMENT (shock...and applause :wink: )

So, anti-gunners become anti-archery. A few years down the road all archery equipment gets banned because of it's sneaky, silent nature that has made it the perfect would-be-assasin's weapon.

The world continues to turn (though snow geese and whitetails become more prevalent than cockroaches and RAID delves further into the extermination business by switching to vertibrates and selling 50 gallon drums of controceptive spray) People walk around with their ho-hum lives until gangs pop up all over carrying illegal firearms and archery equipment. The law inforcement personnel (who, because of several instances of accidentally shooting bb-gun-weilding psychos) are completely defenseless, having to depend on stun guns and pepper spray.

Anarchy unfolds and the populace soon is ruled by war lords and gang leaders.

And all because the anti-gunners got their way...

Lucky for North Dakotans, we fought the power, kept our guns, and erected four-post deer stand/guard towers to protect ourselves from the roaming hoards of gangs/deer herds.

Some dream, eh?


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Idaho Mayor Withdraws From Bloomberg's "Coalition"

Friday, January 19, 2007

Idaho Falls, Idaho, Mayor Jared Fuhriman has disassociated himself with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" coalition.

Mayor Fuhriman joined the controversial coalition in October after being contacted by Bloomberg's office, but recently backed out due to pressure from constituents and his concerns over an "agenda" within the coalition that seems to seek to prevent anyone, even law-abiding citizens, from carrying a firearm.

In an interview with local station KDIK Channel 3, Fuhriman said, "I found there's probably a little more of an agenda coming from Mayor Bloomberg's office than I anticipated. So as I looked into it, I could see there was a conflict with the NRA and some of the beliefs we have here in Idaho."

Shortly after signing onto Bloomberg's coalition, Fuhriman and city council members began receiving calls and letters of complaint from concerned constituents. "There was just a real uprising. They interpreted it as it was taking guns away from people who use them to hunt. There were some people who were ready to string him up," said City Council president Ida Hardcastle.

A complete list of Mayors who have joined Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition may be found at http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=2533. If your Mayor is on this list, please contact him or her to voice your opposition and ask that he or she reconsider his or her position.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2544


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

We as a country are getting way overboard into passing the buck. If a peoson commits a crime with a gun of any sort, he should be delt with harshly. To blame the maker of the gun is just crazy. Guns do not have to power to overtake my mind and make me so their will, make people accountable for their actions. As far as full auto, semi auto, I wnat them all. Without a lot of training, and real time shooting, a person with a full auto is much less dangerous than one with a pump shotgun in most cases. The knowledge of guns by most people is very sad indeed. The Fargo mayor is wrong, and he will likely be paying for this for some time. We should all let him know this.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Well, I'm willing to give Walaker the benefit of the doubt on this one. I overheard the man actually say that his assumption was that the conference was about fully automatic weapons before he went. Nobody wants to see every petty thug carrying an Uzi, but when you say "automatic" in Chicago, that includes semis. I'm willing to bet that his assumption about the subject matter was wrong (I have to admit that his assumption is disconcerting), but unless he winds up actually trying to ban semi-auto handguns, I'm going to reserve judgment.


----------



## dsavit (Jan 30, 2007)

This is just a 'news producing ' media making something out of nothing just to get you to buy their rag of a newspaper (The Forum and now the Grand Forks Herald) and watch their news telecasts (WDAY and WDAZ). Unless I was there myself to hear it come exactly out of Walaker's mouth, I would not believe a thing this media conglomerate writes about. They will make news out of nothing to sell their product.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

He's got some explaining to do. Fargo folks should put there boot on his neck and don't let up until he spills the beans. Fargo and ND do not need this type of representation.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

dsavit and omegax,

The bottom line to me is he lied about his NRA membership. Doesn't the truth matter to anyone any more. Also this group doesn't have a clue between an uzi and your Ruger 10-22, Remington 1100 and the list goes on. I hope you Fargo boy's get vocal hold his feet to the fire.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

zogman said:


> dsavit and omegax,
> 
> The bottom line to me is he lied about his NRA membership. Doesn't the truth matter to anyone any more. Also this group doesn't have a clue between an uzi and your Ruger 10-22, Remington 1100 and the list goes on. I hope you Fargo boy's get vocal hold his feet to the fire.


How do you know he lied? They said they do not keep a database of former members?

Just curious.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Zogman,

Well, I know why he thought the conference was being held. I regard lying about membership in the NRA as a separate issue (I'm not exactly impressed). I'm concerned that he assumed that the conference was about fully automatic guns, but unless he buys into grabbing all "automatics", I'm not going to freak out.

Personally, I think the sponsors of these types of conferences use the term "automatic" to try to spin public opinion in their favor. It does worry me that Walaker seems to have bought into the assumption (You have _no idea_ how bad I wanted to butt into the conversation I overheard to correct him!). I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because I know what his intent was. However, I AM watching carefully. If he makes one move in the wrong direction, I plan on being heard.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I dont know any members or former members of NRA that dont know the difference between a semi-automatic and a automatic gun.If Dennis is that illinformed he should stick to street maintenance. Come on folks its the Bloomberg group! They are as antigun as you can get.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

This is a portion of an e-mail I get from the NRA-ILA

Fargo, N.D. Mayor Dennis Walaker, who has joined Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun mayoral coalition, is either woefully confused, or deliberately misleading the public, about his alleged NRA membership status. In trying to highlight his pro-gun credentials when joining this cabal of mayors, Walaker billed himself as a one-time member of NRA. The only problem--there is no record of Walaker ever being a member.

Walaker apparently forgot the first rule of how to get out of a hole--to stop digging--when he then questioned whether NRA even maintains a database of its members! The millions of current and former NRA members can easily attest to the fact that we do maintain membership records. As a member-based service organization, we rely on this information to provide our members the benefits and news they expect.

One has to have concerns about a group that seeks the release of sensitive records that jeopardize gun owners' privacy rights and law enforcement safety, when one of its own members is incapable of accuracy with his own records

Now that he is a politician lying just comes natural uke:


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Is there a link anywhere for this database? I wonder if my uncles name is still on it. He was a member back in the 70's and early 80's.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I hope not . My name and some information about me will be found there. I am proud to say I am a member of the NRA. But their data base should not be available to the general public.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Old Hunter,
I think the NRA is one of a select few that does not even sell their membership list. :sniper:


----------



## Chesador (Aug 15, 2003)

Never trust a politician!!!

I have to wonder though, a politician in North Dakota must be brain dead to openly support any form of gun control organizations or activities.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

http://tinyurl.com/2r2d7t

link to articles on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Coalition


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

zogman said:


> Doesn't the truth matter to anyone any more.


Zogman,

I regreat to say that the general public doesn't care if they lie. They do if it is a Republican but can you remember, "I did not have sexual realtions with that woman" speech? Gues what, the same people voted him in again. That nasty azzed liar lied to the American public and the world and everyone voted him in again. Disgusting.

Politics=Liar plain and simple.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

From the NRA ILA newsletter..........

BLOOMBERG DEALT SETBACK -- FOR NOW

In a blow to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's crusade to drive gun dealers out of business, the U.S. government has decided not to file charges against those dealers targeted by the mayor.

Stepping well outside his legal jurisdiction, Bloomberg coordinated a private, undercover "sting" operation using private investigators to stage straw purchases in the hopes of catching dealers engaging in illegal sales. Among the numerous problems with this illicit campaign, Michael Battle, DOJ's director of the executive office for United States Attorneys, cited the Mayor's use of persons "without proper law enforcement authority" and efforts that "interrupt or jeopardize" criminal probes.

When asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, "Not necessarily."

In hailing this recent development, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox noted, "NRA has always maintained that Mayor Bloomberg overstepped his boundaries and possibly broke the law in conducting these sting operations, and we expressed our concerns to BATFE immediately. NRA is grateful that the bureau has reviewed the matter and concluded that no action is warranted against these firearms retailers. NRA hopes that Mayor Bloomberg heeds the BATFE's stern warning that he and his administration could face potential legal liabilities if they continue their disregard of current federal law and the safety of law enforcement officers. If Mayor Bloomberg was serious about reducing crime, he would focus on prosecuting violent criminals in his city, instead of resorting to media stunts and press conferences."


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

I am glad to get some good information from this post in regards to the truth behind this group, as I wouldn't support any movement that confuses AK47s with semi-auto 12 gauges (_although to be completly honest I won't use one for pheasant hunting after witnessing too many "sportsman" who couldn't get a clean kill w/ a pump_). But I have noticed how some peopl post good facts and others use the time-honored "slippery-slope" argument, i.e. if we allow X (any gun legislation) then Y (all-out bans) is sure to follow. In any form of debate or forensics that is considered the lowest of all the fallacies of argument, especially without concrete data to concur with it. Does anyone really think Dorgan or Conrad would allow Schumer to ban shotguns? How long would they last in office considering how much revenue hunting brings to our state? Sorry, won't happen.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Give him the ZUMBO treatment. Firebomb his email inbox, give him a piece of your mind. It worked with the "terrorist guns" comment. Rallying the troops and applying it to someone "important" will be the real test.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Does anyone really think Dorgan or Conrad would allow Schumer to ban shotguns? How long would they last in office considering how much revenue hunting brings to our state? Sorry, won't happen.


They wouldn't vote for it if someone like Schummer introduced it and it could win without their vote. If their vote was needed they would vote with Schummer. Then they would give us a song and dance as to why they had to do it. Like the bill before congress now with all the pork in it. I'll bet they vote for it.

I think you want us to be calm while the cool-aid works. We don't have to guess if X happens then Y happens, the liberals have already tried to include many firearms in their "assault weapons" ban that are definitely not assault weapons. Kennedy has tried to get taxes on ammunition that would cost ten times as much as the ammo itself. Every couple years some liberal introduces something that endangers the second amendment. Conrad and Dorgan will do whatever they are told to do, and the partisan will still vote for them. They will also defend then and blow smoke at every opportunity. 
Nice try ------- Dennis, is that you.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Southwest Fisher said:


> But I have noticed how some peopl post good facts and others use the time-honored "slippery-slope" argument, i.e. if we allow X (any gun legislation) then Y (all-out bans) is sure to follow. In any form of debate or forensics that is considered the lowest of all the fallacies of argument, especially without concrete data to concur with it.


What gun legislation do we need that is not already on the books? This is an all or nothing issue for every law-abiding gun owner.


----------



## ND trapper (Nov 14, 2006)

njsimonson said:


> Give him the ZUMBO treatment. Firebomb his email inbox, give him a piece of your mind. It worked with the "terrorist guns" comment. Rallying the troops and applying it to someone "important" will be the real test.


Good post.


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

Sorry, Plainsman, but I've been too active in our state's legislators affairs to believe that. Both Senators are consistently lauded by conservative sources for being among the most conservative or middle-line among the Senate democrats, if they weren't they wouldn't have been there so often. BTW both of our senators rank higher than Schumer in both overall rankings and in the party's rank structure. Don't call them puppets when voting history and FACTS can prove your statements wrong. Seriously, who's drinking the kool-aid? Don't believe all the right-wing hype, not all Dems have burning flags and stealing shotguns as their #1 priority.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Kent Conrad

(The only reason K. Conrad could be considered conservative is when he is compared to ultra leftists)

Gun Issues

2006 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2006, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Conrad a grade of D+ (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2005 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 10 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 66 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 10 percent in 2003.

2002 On the votes that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Senator Conrad voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Conrad a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2000 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2000, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Conrad a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

1999-2000 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent in 1999-2000.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Conrad a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues
(Back to top)

2005-2006 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 20 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 20 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the American Humane Association 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 80 percent in 2004.

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 80 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 80 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the American Humane Association 80 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 80 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 80 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 80 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 75 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 75 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 75 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 75 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the American Humane Association 75 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 75 percent in 2001-2002.

2000 Senator Conrad supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 40 percent in 2000.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Conrad voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0682103


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

The same can be said of Byron Dorgan

Gun Issues

2005 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.

2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Dorgan a grade of D+ (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2003-2004 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 10 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 50 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 10 percent in 2003.

2002 On the votes that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Senator Dorgan voted their preferred position 62 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Dorgan a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

1999-2000 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent in 1999-2000.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Dorgan a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

----------------------------------------

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues
(Back to top)

2005-2006 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 20 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 20 percent in 2005.

2004 In 2004 Humane USA PAC endorsed Senator Dorgan.

2004 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the American Humane Association 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 60 percent in 2004.

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 60 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 60 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the American Humane Association 60 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 60 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 60 percent in 2003.

2003 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 60 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 80 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 80 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 80 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 80 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the American Humane Association 80 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 80 percent in 2001-2002.

2000 Senator Dorgan supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 60 percent in 2000.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Dorgan voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Just, I like your forensic evidence as to where the Three Stooges stand in regards to gun issues.

SWF I ask in another thread for you to do your research and then review your statements!

For more depth into this, it is black and white in the Congressional record. Sad day, but ND voters to further ag interests have sent people to Washington that are opposed to the 2nd Amendment and have a track record of votes on bills and amendments that prove this!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Sorry, Plainsman, but I've been too active in our state's legislators affairs to believe that. Both Senators are consistently lauded by conservative sources for being among the most conservative or middle-line among the Senate democrats, if they weren't they wouldn't have been there so often.


And they are lauded for things like corn ethanol. A product that takes more fuel to make it than you get out of it. Ya, that's conservation all right. They were not really lauded for conservation, they were lauded for bringing home the pork even though it was no good for conservation. More CO2 in the atmosphere, more soil erosion, more plowing the prairie, less ducks, less deer, and on and on. Very destructive, but wow they are lauded conservationists.


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

Okay, for the love of all things holy, you cut and pasted my text which clearly says "conservative sources" and then when on a tangent against Dorgan's record on *conservation*? A different word entirely? Because I support someone that you do not you can't even take the time to read everything clearly before posting your attack. That's just sad.

BTW, Sen Dorgan just co-sponsored the Security and Fuel Efficiency (SAFE) Energy Act of 2007 with Sen Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho. Yes, it involves expenditures for crop fuels like ethanol, because any step we take to get rid of our dependence of buying oill from the a**holes as OPEC is a great step for this country.

Also, http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headl ... &archive=1

Senator Byron Dorgan Receives Energy Executive of the Year Award

The Association of Energy Engineers has awarded U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota its Energy Executive of the Year Award at the 29th World Energy Engineering Congress in Washington, D.C. 
Senator Dorgan has been a champion of energy efficiency and conservation while serving North Dakota in the U.S. Senate. Among his many achievements in the field of energy, Senator Dorgan has been a leader promoting ethanol, fuel cells, and wind energy. As the ranking member on the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee, Senator Dorgan has fought back against presidential budget cuts to energy efficiency, working to largely restore funding for vital DOE and EPA programs each year. Senator Dorgan has also worked diligently to enact new efficiency standards for commercial equipment as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The Association of Energy Engineers through its annual awards program recognizes individuals for their outstanding contributions to the energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable energy fields. According to Albert Thumann, Executive Director of AEE, "We are pleased to present Senator Dorgan with the 2006 Energy Executive of the Year Award. His work and leadership has helped to shape an energy roadmap geared towards improving the U.S. Energy Security landscape, helping to make U.S. businesses more competitive in a global marketplace and enhancing the environment."

About the World Energy Engineering Congress (WEEC)
The 29th World Energy Engineering Congress (www.energycongress.com) presented by the Association of Energy Engineers in cooperation with the Alliance to Save Energy is the largest energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies event in the nation. The WEEC includes over 250 state-of-the-art presentations and a 100,000 square foot exposition. More than 4,000 energy professionals from around the world attended the event.

About AEE
The Association of Energy Engineers is a 501(c)(6) non profit professional organization with over 9,000 members that specializes in training, membership development, chapter development, and certification for professionals practicing in the fields of energy management, renewable energy and green buildings. The mission of AEE is to promote the scientific and educational interests of those engaged in the energy industry and to foster cooperative action in advancing their common purpose. Information on AEE and its programs may be found at www.aeecenter.org

Sorry for the long post, I just like to back up my assertions with something other than standard boilerplate. Now enough on this subject, I apologize for moving of off the thread's original intent.


----------



## upland420 (Dec 27, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> And they are lauded for things like corn ethanol. A product that takes more fuel to make it than you get out of it. Ya, that's conservation all right. They were not really lauded for conservation, they were lauded for bringing home the pork even though it was no good for conservation. More CO2 in the atmosphere, more soil erosion, more plowing the prairie, less ducks, less deer, and on and on. Very destructive, but wow they are lauded conservationists.


Apparently some folks dont understand that a journey of 1000 miles begins with 1 STEP! Ethanol production may not be the most economically feasable thing *today* but getting things moving forward in this industry *today* will further our cause toward *energy independence *from middle eastern terrorists in *years and decades *to come. Ethanol isnt THE answer...its just one step in the right direction.

Clearly all that matters to some is their self absorbed opportunity to get more deer or birds in future seasons. After all, thats far more important than the future of our country. God forbid something so vital to the future of America as bountiful opportunities afield for hunters gets minimally infringed upon in order to help wean us from fossil fuels!! Lets just sit on our hands and stay in the middle east until someone devlops a cure all/magic pill answer for the energy *CRISIS*.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Upland, first and foremost energy independence is an issue for all of us. What Plainsman and others see in the push for grain based ethanol is really nothing more than a new angle to increase subsidy payments and retain a voting block.

There has been and remains many other more viable alternatives that have been shelved so that ethanol from grain can be funded. This is not taking a step forward, it is taking 3 or more steps back. You can do a search of my posts regarding this issue, and wildlife concerns are the last thing on my list.

Ethanol is not a green energy, it is not new energy and has a greater impact upon our air and water quality than other fuels currently being used or fuels that should have been supported instead.

The reality of corn ethanol is coming to light. The spill over has begun and by the end of this year, support for the continued subsidy of this product is going to wane as budgets and campaigns start to get underway.

SWF, have you done your research on the Three Stooges as of yet? We sure would like to see how 2nd Amendment friendly they are?


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

Ron, just because they don't receive passing grades by the NRA you automatically assume that I will acknowledge that they must be anti-constitutional in regards to the 2nd Amendment? If I posted anti-Bush statistics from a Pro-Choice group would you take them seriously? I doubt it. However, I will note that Dorgan has pushed the bill to open TRNP to Elk hunting, which conservation groups and the NRA support. Go ahead and put the "hater" spin on that, I'm sure you got something. In fact, no matter what I would post, if it involves someone that certain posters have developed a pre-disposotion against, it will always be spun negatively or just plain ignored. Case in point, you keep telling me I need to post some facts for you, yet you also conveniently ignored my response when the Senator's actions on conservation were questioned. So it's just bait-and-switch, then? Is that what happens everytime someone dares show contrary opinions - not calling someone out and being confrontational, just mentioning an opposing viewpoint - that they get attacked from a few different directions, enough so that they try and defend themselves a few times, then finally give up and one of you kicks out one last post and when you get no response then victory has occurred? If so, then request that they just rename the post "For Conservatives" so nobody gets the wrong idea and some of you are forced to round up the posse again.

Now cut and paste the standard "You are just a chicken liberal that can't handle us tough conservatives" post and we can agree to disagree, once again.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I am glad to get some good information from this post in regards to the truth behind this group, as *I wouldn't support any movement that confuses AK47s with semi-auto 12 gauges (although to be completly honest I won't use one for pheasant hunting after witnessing too many "sportsman" *who couldn't get a clean kill w/ a pump). But I have noticed how some peopl post good facts and others use the time-honored "slippery-slope" argument, i.e. if we allow X (any gun legislation) then Y (all-out bans) is sure to follow. In any form of debate or forensics that is considered the lowest of all the fallacies of argument, especially without concrete data to concur with it. *Does anyone really think Dorgan or Conrad would allow Schumer to ban shotguns*? How long would they last in office considering how much revenue hunting brings to our state? Sorry, won't happen.


The second amendment has nothing to do with sportsman or hunting it was written to protect us from an oppressive out of control government.

When you look at their positions they all want to hold lawful businesses and guns instead of the criminals that misuse them at fault.

No way they could be considered friends of lawful gun owners

http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Char ... ontrol.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Byro ... ontrol.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Kent ... ontrol.htm


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

SWF just so we are clear, I am talking about the voting record of the Stooges. I make my own mind up in regards to this. I only need to look back at the last time the AWB was up for debate. Both Conrad and Dorgan supported the amendments that would have given the AG the ability to ban 870's and Mod 12's because at one time they where used either by our military.

That is not a defensible act in my eyes. I do not care how much pork or how much support for Ag they provide. They are out of touch.

So if you feel asking a person to show you where they arrived at a point of view is calling someone out, then maybe it is best not to wade into the water. It is not an attack it is the way things work in this world.

A man is standing on a corner holding an apple in his hand. Two people walk by and debate just what he is holding. But regardless of who wins the debate, the fact remains that the man was holding an apple.

That is the crux of this, and why I continue to ask you to look at the record. You will see that the man was holding an apple when you thought it was an orange or pear or some other object.

So SWF do your research and then look at your posts, and while doing so think about the apple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

