digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Flashback: McCain once sought to push the NRA out of the GOP

thinkprogress.org — "I don ’t think they help the Republican Party at all, but I don’t think they should in any way play a major role in the Republican Party’s policy making." In Louisville, KY today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will address nearly 60,000 gun enthusiasts at the annual National Rifle Association convention.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cg4et, on 05/17/2008, -4/+61Will the real John McCain please stand up?
    • Deodrus, on 05/17/2008, -4/+21Y'all act like you never seen a white politician before
      • bphicke, on 05/17/2008, -8/+2Why does it matter that he is white?
        • calantus, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4Obviously, you have no idea what Deodrus is referring to, cg4et either.
    • MadEnvoy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+13Jaws all on the floor like Hillary, like Obama just burst in the door
    • JettaMan, on 05/17/2008, -5/+14Why doesn't he just admit that he is a Democrat that has infiltrated the Republican Party? He seems to think that Freedom to Bear Arms is just some funny little thing that hunters do. The founders had very clear and important reasons for adding the 2nd amendment and it wasn't for sports enthusiasts who like hunting. It is to protect the democracy against tyranny from the state.
      • wjackson, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3No, no, no...you did it wrong.
      • firecaptain, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5It's not a "freedom", it's a RIGHT.
      • seldon452, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Uh, you really should examine the language of the actual amendment. Depending on your interpretation you get a different idea from it (That's not really news). It all has to do with where the comma is. It says:
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        Does that mean that everyone has the right to bear arms or only well regulated Militia's (Such as the police and national guard). This is not an argument if these organizations are failing us it is simply which of the two meanings you draw from the amendment. I personally believe in the second one, but I'm sure many disagree.

        • MWeather, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Many do disagree, like the drafters of the ammendment, and English teachers.

          Either "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a restriction, or it is not. The comma doesn't change that.

          The only way you could assume it was a restriction, though, is if you think "being" means "so long as" and not "because".

          If it IS a restriction, then it means that if the militia is not needed for security, then the government can infringe on the PEOPLE'S right keep to bear arms.

          But the right is still that of the people. In no case does the right to bear arms fall on the militia.

          The amendment is quite clear: Because of the fact that a well-trained militia is needed for security, the government may not infringe on the people's right to keep bear arms.

          It offers no guidance on what the government may do if a militia is no longer required, it merely states the reason the restriction was placed on the government.

        • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1MWeather, thats all well and good, and personally I think individuals who are responsible members of society should have the right to keep firearms. But in legal vernacular, "the people" means "The State." Maybe you have a different view of who the PEOPLE are in that sentence, but... how exactly are the amendments not part of a legal document.
        • MWeather, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2So you think the second amendment prevents the government from taking the government's guns? Why do you feel the people has a different meanin in the second ammendment than it has in all the pother amendments that mention the people?

          Or do you have this view of all mentions of the people, like : "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

          Given your view the above would mean that the government has even more powers than those enumerated in the constitution, rendering the whole document (sans the bill of rights amendments that don't apply to "the people") moot.

          Is that really what you think?
        • JettaMan, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3It's quite easy to figure out what they meant. Read the papers that they wrote around the same time (they write articles and letters to one another) and it quickly becomes clear the comma doesn't matter.
      • copyland, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1yeah, you tell 'em, Tim McVeigh
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5I think its awesome that when John McCain like or flip flops, he's covering up how GOOD of a candidate he really is. I like the guy, but I do not like the current republican party values that he has to align himself with.
    • crackberri, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1cg4et, McCain will stand up when Hillary is finished….
    • DangerCollie, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Well, I think I support at least one of McCain's positions...on something. It's hard to keep track of them all. I'm a gun owner but I don't necessarily support the NRA. My opinion is they've gotten far too militant. Instead of working cooperatively for intelligent regulations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they just oppose everything, even when it makes sense.
    • bluevillage, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Not knowing McCain well before this, as I don't think most Democrats do, I'm surprised at how often I'm surprised that he really does seem to be incoherent: all over the place in his positions. This smacks of only one thing: having no backbone and saying what's politically expedient. He's also clearly lacks the intelligence to know when he's inconsistent or to be able to craft a coherent vision of things.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Actually, I am a democrat, and have untill McCain started pandering so hardcore to the Right, had a lot of respect for him. he has been up until recently been pandering. in fact I was hoping he would win the GOP nom in 00, but Bush had to suggest to voters that McCain may have an 'illegitimate' baby who he was taking care of? (the child was adopted.)
  • barackoblogger, on 05/17/2008, -4/+45straight talk express... derailed.
    • apophenic, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5It's been derailed so many times it doesn't matter anymore. He can do anything, and the media will parrot whatever he tells them to.
    • pintomp3, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5now it's the doubletalk express.
    • faceless323, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3McCain is going to pull a Mission Accomplished on us. He is going to say straight meant "hetero" and not "honest"

      McCain take a viagra so your heart can explode.
  • RuffRidr, on 05/17/2008, -19/+8I agree that McCain is not the most ideal candidate for gun owners. He is still light years ahead of Barack and Hillary when it comes to the 2nd Amendment issues, however.
    • pintomp3, on 05/17/2008, -5/+3how about the 1st and 4th amendments? and habeas corpus? and the geneva convention?
      • Mothrog, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Why do we have to pick and choose?
        • Gerz1219, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Because either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the next president, and they place different emphases on different amendments.

          Go ahead and vote for a third party candidate. I'll bet you a billion dollars he or she doesn't win. You have to choose.
        • jdaniel284, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5"Go ahead and vote for a third party candidate. I'll bet you a billion dollars he or she doesn't win. You have to choose."

          It's not important whether you win or lose. It is only important that you FIGHT. And I will be voting for the candidate that best supports my liberty and freedom, which is a long way from either Obama or McCain.
  • brokenspatula, on 05/17/2008, -20/+14thinkprogress = garbage
  • isparadiselost, on 05/17/2008, -10/+24When will you stupid republicans realize what a POS McCain is? He has an F- rating from Gun Owners of America. www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

    He's as or more liberal than the liberals running. He's all about getting rid of the 1st amendment (McCain-Feingold) and has his sites set on the 2nd amendment.

    You can be sure that his chances of winning are slim to none. Most of us who typically vote republican as the lesser of the two evils have no intentions of voting for him.
    • Enasni1212, on 05/17/2008, -1/+9Republican as the lesser of two evils? There's a new one.
      • homah, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8Parties are irrelevant...there is garbage on both sides of the fence. They want us to fight over stupid ***** like which party is better instead of focusing on the real issues.
        • isparadiselost, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1It's sad that no matter how many times your rational perspective is presented, it escapes 99.999999999% of the people who read it.
    • crackberri, on 05/17/2008, -8/+1isparadiselost's elitist view is the reason why Hussein will loose this November. You and Hussein are clueless.
    • hittnrun, on 05/17/2008, -9/+2I guess when you Osamabats realize your empty suit is going to look real stupid and real young in a debate against a grownup. It willbe such a stark contrast, you losers will sh!t your pants.
      • swrostmore, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3You're right about one thing, he is going to look REAL young.
      • isparadiselost, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I know you're not talking to me. I will be voting for the only true conservative in the race - Ron Paul. When you're old enough to vote, you'll understand.
    • spritom, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6McCain is far from anything that gun-rights advocates would want. Having him in office would most definitely be a time when no bills favoring gun-rights would go through. And likely a few slightly-left-leaning bills would go through.

      In contrast, Clinton or Obama would actively seek to pass more stringent gun legislation.

      The question is...do conservatives hold their nose and vote for McCain and be an "enabler" to the party? Or vote for a true conservative even if that person doesn't have a chance of winning the election? It may (or may not) send a message to the party, but it would also mean 4-8 years of a left-leaning person in the White House.

      Personally, the conservative side of this election is reminding me of '96 with Bob Dole. Very little conservative excitement. In '04, the Republicans really got out the vote...this time, I just don't see it.
      • sodade, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I am all for protecting our 2nd amendment rights and all, but I just don't understand why people would put it on the top of their priority list. I guess Obama's oh so horrible statement about clinging to guns and god was just truth telling.
    • tifosiuno, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately when Cheney has been in the senate to vote to break ties McCain has voted with him 10 times. That my friend is not a liberal voting record.
      • Qeveren, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2You're operating under the assumption that Cheney is a conservative.
    • ungulate, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Honest question here - I've heard conservatives say that McCain Feingold somehow violates the first amendment. By what stretch of the imagination is this the case? If you're really going to equate money with speech, you've automatically locked the poor out of having any voice at all. Is there some nuanced distinction at work here, or is it just as it seems on the surface?
    • facelesscoward, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Maybe I'm naive because I've only been alive for 18 years, but from what I've seen, the GOP gives less of a ***** about the Bill of Rights (barring the Second and occasionally the Tenth Amendment) than the Democrats do.
  • vinnyvenus, on 05/17/2008, -10/+13 Obama sponsored a bill to limit gun control in inner cities but now he is supposedly for 2nd amendment. All politicians Obamans pander to voters.
    • petrodollar, on 05/17/2008, -2/+10Wouldn't gun rights advocates favor a bill that limits gun control?
      • masterm1nd, on 05/17/2008, -6/+1You know what he meant, try to argue the actual substance next time.
        • mrgreen4242, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3Tough to argue you substance when you don't make sense and say the opposite of what you apparently mean. Try to be coherent next time.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/17/2008, -5/+2"Tough to argue you [?] substance when you don't make sense". Classic. Can I call you a hypocrite now? I know what you meant, so it would be pretty lame of me to dwell on you're typo, or use the typo as a counterargument, wouldn't it?
        • Niffer, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Why are we all waiting for next time? Let the battle commence!
    • swrostmore, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2***** lolll
    • sylvok, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Yes because one really needs high powered weapons to hunt dear, or sport with. That is what many claim to use them for but I have yet to see a hunter with a M16
      • sodade, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1That's the problem with pro gun people - they aren't being honest. Everyone knows the reason they want M16s is to protect themselves when govt breaks down or when it becomes overly oppressive. That is a valid reason in my eyes, but if they said that, they would get marginalized faster than you can say conspiracy theory.
        • lotsa1s, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0I suppose they could also want them because its fun as hell to own an M16? Not everything needs to solve some super essential problem or serve any high function. Some times its just fun to own certain things.

          You could shoot a bolt action rifle for fun, and hunt with it, yes, just like you could drive to work in a 10 year old Volvo. But why drive a Volvo when you could drive a Ferrari?
  • MurphyWatson, on 05/17/2008, -7/+11He only has a C+ rating from the NRA(its not like they love the guy or anything).
    The sad thing is that he was right when he said they shouldn't influence policy.
  • Gemfinder, on 05/17/2008, -3/+34You don't have to be a Republican to be pro-gun. I know lots of Libertarians and Democrats who support the Second Amendment.
    • subcomandante, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8I'm very much to the left, but I do support the Second Amendment.
    • ZeroIce, on 05/17/2008, -1/+7I bet 99% of libertarians would support the 2nd Amendment. The majority of democrats just wanna take the guns away for the frightened unarmed Americans and those who complain about the "shootings".
    • Gerbil_Juice, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5I'm sure as hell not what is considered a Republican these days but I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
    • Mothrog, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Then perhaps those Democrats ought to stop electing gun-control loving leaders, and demand the party remove their hatred of guns from their platform.
    • MakiNavaja, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Blah blah blah.

      You don't even understand the Second Amendment, yet you support it?
  • thezettabytes, on 05/17/2008, -3/+20Wow! McCain is having quite a debate with himself.
  • mikexcore, on 05/17/2008, -3/+19Another prime example of how McCain is a flip-flopper.
    • innocentsinner, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8Flip-flopper was last election. 'Elitist' is the new buzzword
  • petrodollar, on 05/17/2008, -6/+4lol, Republicans sure know how to ***** up an election. They can't even hold onto house seats in ***** ass Missippi backwaters anymore. I guess that's what happens when you're whole platform consists of tonguing the ass of the least popular president in modern history.

    It wasn't all that long ago that these ***** were braying about how America was headed for a "permanent Republican majority." Now they're losing elections in the deep south to liberal dumbasses like Don Cazayoux.
    • crackberri, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Petrodollar, I have a great idea how to screw up a republican election! Let's not seat Florida and Michigan. Sorry, I forgot you dip-***** have already beat us to the punch!
      • KingWilson, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1HAAAAAAAAAAA "republicans sure know how to ***** up an election"
  • BloodWenis, on 05/17/2008, -6/+10Neocon Douchebag.


    Him getting the nomination, Fox News (specifically Hannity) pushed candidates on us while disenfranchising true conservatives and their candidates (e.g. Paul), sent me over the edge. After voted in the primary I (and my money) switched to Libertarian.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/17/2008, -3/+4that fact that you call john mccain a neocon is retarded.
      • BloodWenis, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Touche. He's far too liberal to even be called a neocon. He sure is hell isn't conservative. The lack of conservative support, the ridiculous amount of congressional seats we have lost/are about to lose is indicative of the GOP's downward spiral. What a bunch of posers.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Neo-cons are liberal. they have liberal foreign policies, and have just enough of a right wing flavor to trick republicans into thinking they love God, Guns and restricting just the right kind of freedoms at home to make you feel comfortable. but when you want to overhaul the whole infrastructure, that is considered liberal, Neo-cons don't want social freedoms to prevail. if you consider yourself conservative for any respectable reason (and there are few) it should be because you don't the government larger/exerting more power. Neocons cant get enough power.
  • mrgreg, on 05/17/2008, -3/+12Crap like this shows why McCain is clearly NOT a choice for true conservatives and 2nd Amendment supporters. I can't believe the NRA would endorse him over Ron Paul, who stands behind firearm owners so much more than flip flop McCain.
    • isparadiselost, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4The NRA was originally started as a gun control organization. Give them the boot and stick with Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms. The NRA is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  • jack104, on 05/17/2008, -6/+1Wow. Hillary Clinton supported the initial Iraq invasion and withdrew her support later. She changed opinions but since she's a democrat thats ok I guess. People CAN re-evaluate their position and stance on things without being a "flip flopper." As McCain stated, the NRA doesn't help the republican party, and as much as I hate to admit it, they really don't. They seem to turn a lot of voters off because they promote less stringent control of weapons and are seen as reckless or a danger. That still doesn't change the fact that he must appeal to them in order to gain the support of the more right wing population. He's done nothing wrong and YET AGAIN far left websites are taking things he's said and twisting them to support their agenda.
  • rakovlam, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2What's that I keep hearing? "Talking to [insert group] does not mean appeasing them". Oh, okay.
  • MakiNavaja, on 05/17/2008, -13/+4The NRA should be pushed out... of the country. Gun kooks.
    • Mothrog, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Yeah. God damn those bastards! Why the hell would you want to support the Constitution? It's just a god damn piece of paper!
    • lotsa1s, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Your the reason why we have a 2nd Amendment.
    • MakiNavaja, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1It's too bad you use the Constitution to further your argument when it is clear you don't understand what the 2nd Amendment actually says.
  • spritom, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5It's been no secret that McCain's views have not matched those of NRA members. McCain's been in the middle to middle-left of a number of issues that the NRA is interested in. But McCain in office would likely be a neutral time frame for the NRA.
    By comparison, it's also no secret that Obama and Clinton have actively sought to work on things in opposition of the NRA. Either of these two in office would have the NRA on the political defensive.
    Right or wrong, left or right, the NRA made a political choice to endorse McCain. But he's far from the NRA poster boy.
  • totorototoro, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8Its embarrassing to watch both parties bend over for the NRA. Mitt Romney claiming he was a lifelong hunter until it turned out he never had a license? John Kerry walking around awkwardly wearing hunting gear and toting a rifle?
    • rakovlam, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1I too wonder why our political parties would court well organized and well funded groups rather than the single-celled basement dwellers that congregate around this website.

      Why don't they care about the vote I may or may not give?
      • pintomp3, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2exactly, why listen to voters when you can cater to lobbies and special interests? the NRA is the 6th most powerful lobby. right between Association of Trial Lawyers of America (No. 5) and Christian Coalition (No. 7).
  • OverkillTASF, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5As, shall we say, a "gun owning" and disenfranchised former Republican, the only reason I will vote for the tool that is John McCain is that as crappy as he is, he's still loads better than Obama or Clinton when compared to my views. Now, if we have a solid independent candidate, my vote will go elsewhere. But, personally, it's insane to me that the Democrats have two candidates who absolutely bury the needle in liberal thought, but the Republicans can't muster up someone who even tips the scales... Yuck.
    • nick111, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Oh I don't think that's so unexpected.

      Conservative policies aren't really policies - on the whole they're just distractions while money is diverted from the general population to the already wealthy. All this ***** about guns is just such a distraction.

      It's easier for liberals to talk about doing things to benefit the general population because that's what they genuinely intend to do - though they often wind up being trapped into doing something else. Bill Clinton's social policies didn't really happen for example because Bush Senior had ransacked the treasury (ie: diverted money to the already wealthy) so thoroughly.

      What is bizarre (if you're looking for bizarre) is the way that so many poor people have been duped into believing that the already wealthy somehow deserve to have more (of their) money diverted to them.
    • Bkaufman, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1And the rest of the poor are duped into thinking that the Nanny state can provide for them while they don't work and pump out bastard children. Both parties are bad, and the fact that you can't see that is your own stupidity.
  • lhbaker, on 05/17/2008, -8/+3Vote Ru Paul!
  • jbenson2, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3So McCain does support the NRA 100% - what's the big deal?
    Obama does not support Hamas 100%.
  • mal1964, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1http://digg.com/politics/Credible_Report_Proves_Mc ...
  • NelsonR, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Want to bet, here comes another "FLIP FLOP" :) :) Ho Hum.

    A man's man, a piece of work but who cares Joe Lieberman is his mentor and nudges him when he screw's up and that's quite often. Lindsey Graham his other BOY, you know the one he mocks and meanwhile Lindsey eats it up. Oh the Republican party, historically you will known in the next election as the, "Party of the Forgotten". Thankfully so.
  • toddcat, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1This is when I had a bit of respect for Sen. McCain. He used not to be afraid to speak some hard truths to some pretty powerful people.
  • nick111, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3American kids are 12 times more likely to get shot than European kids. Maybe he just wanted America to catch up with the rest of the world.

    It's not unreasonable is it?
    • Akairenn, on 05/17/2008, -3/+0Proof, please? And how about we look at Switzerland, by the way?

      Guns do not cause violence. The ***** up society we live in causes violence. Take away guns, and you leave law abiding citizens defenseless, hardened criminals well armed, and deranged lunatics running each other through with swords, beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats, et cetera. Nothing is solved. The idea that merely getting rid of guns will solve crime is ridiculous.

      You want to lower the murder rate over here? Education is the key. But then, a well educated populace is something our government certainly doesn't want.
  • Mothrog, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1Maybe Think Propaganda should take a good look at Hildabeast and Obama's voting record before they post this *****. McInsane may not be an ideal 2nd amendment rights supporter, but he's leaps and bounds better than either of the dems.
    • mrgreg, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3He still crossed the lines and became anti-gun in 2000, and has since flip flopped on that issue, in addition to many others. I can't vote for someone whose beliefs change so much. Why put my support into someone for what they say now when they may say the opposite a few years later?
    • Arcueid01, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Wow dude, first off guns don't kill people; people kill people! Second off, our right to bear arms rules because we have the power to take care of a corrupt government should we have to. I am sure that is what our forefathers envisioned.
      • Bulletbillx, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1The government has bigger and better weapons than even the rich can afford. And barring that if it does become tyrannical it could just glass the rebelling sections of the country. So if the government ever does become that corrupt we are screwed.

        I still support the 2nd Amendment though since it can at least let you defend against the common criminals, and hunt.
  • Barackalypse, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1See, McCain and Obama and Hillary aren't so different, they're all gun grabbers at heart. Don't vote for any of these dinosaurs.
  • ankankr, on 05/17/2008, -1/+14This guy is a serial flip-flopper.

    I am John McCain and I am confused about my message!
  • LumpyRevolution, on 05/17/2008, -0/+7McCain is globalist CFR scum. When we revolt, and we will, he'll be hung from trees with the rest.

    (Daddy Bush metaphor intended)
  • Arcueid01, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6I just can't believe that anyone but Paul got the nomination. I tell you these Neo-con scum need to get out of politics and go live in some totalitarian country. They have absolutely no understand of the Constitution and the reason our country is so great.
  • jerrycurley, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1The best thing to happen to McCain so far is that all the worthless websites that cost Kerry the election 4 years ago are now fighting against him.
  • bubba9999, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Anyone who's watched McCain should realize that for the last 20 years, he's been working any angle he can that he thinks will give him an advantage to land in the White House. Hell, he very nearly split with the GOP 16 years ago and went at it as an independant before realizing that the GOP's coffers were more attractive than the fringe vote.

    During Dubya's administration, he worked hard to try to tie himself to the party wagon in order to appear to support mainstream party platforms specifically to gather support to prepare for this election. Remember when Dubya's administration was young and everyone was surprised when he fell in line? That was no accident.

    The dude obviously wants to be President more than anything in the world. He's willing to do anything to get it - lie, cheat, steal. I don't think that makes him any better or worse than anyone else, but I personally can't trust that sort of indiscriminate zealotry.

  • ohmysac, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1It's funny to me that people think the NRA speaks for all gun owners. Some talk like gun owners take orders from them. I for one am not an NRA member but a firm believer that the 2nd amendment is the 2nd most important amendment. The most important being freedom of speech. Alot of times the NRA does more harm to the cause than good. Or compromises where they shouldn't. I view the NRA as an elitist hunter organization. Most of the time they fail to see the point of the 2nd.
  • IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1McAmnesty is no friend of firearms owners - he's even worse than the two shrubs - but he's light years of the hoplophobic vermin remaining in the dimocrap race. In fact, the only one of the original field who isn't an enemy of the 2nd Amendment is Bill Richardson.
  • Mobiletek, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1it was time this favorite internet pastime came back up....
  • ChimpFlix, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Gun Owners of America is the new shiznit. The NRA has become a watered-down illegitimate organization.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.