feckingmorons: The NRA is about guns, The NRA -ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is about freedom republican taking points and guns.

I am a life member of the NRA and I send the NRA-ILA money every year. Enjoy your freedom republican talking points!

FTFY.

JerseyTim: There was a great episode of Planet Money where they talked to a professional lobbyist who represented various interests. One of the things he would do to get money to people on Capitol Hill is have firms and organizations he was lobbying for give money and support causes completely unrelated to their interests. The idea was that, when the time came, his other clients would do the same in return.

A great way to make bribery not look like bribery. The lobbyist is essentially using their client base as a money laundering service; taking their monetary support for an issue now as a "loan" they will pay back with fundraising for the client later. Perfectly legal for politicians; a Rico violation in mob and marijuana cases.

Giltric: The ACLU was founded by antimilitarists and pacifists who believed the freedom os speech was more important then the RKBA.

Of course not, they're equally important. The only reason conservatives don't like the ACLU is because they point out every time conservatives act like dickbags to other people.

Or in layman terms: butthurt

Gyrfalcon: Central America as in south of Mexico?

No, Central America as in Kansas.

Giltric: LoneWolf343: Since gun control is a largely settled debate anymore, they have to evolve if they want to keep rolling in those delicious delicious donations.

It is not nor will it ever be a settled debate.

The big issues are settled. No one seriously advocates taking away all guns. No one seriously wants mental patients to have suitcase nukes. Gun rights and gun control will always co-exist.

The debates now are all nuanced minutia. Which is why even mentioning the 2nd Amendment at every turn is so stupid.

Giltric: RyogaM: NRA founded in 1871.

ACLU founded in 1920.

If the members of the NRA cared about all the civil rights of all people, the ACLU would not have needed to be created.

The NRA was founded because soldiers couldn't hit the broadside of a barn and was used as a tool to train people how to shoot properly.

The ACLU was founded by antimilitarists and pacifists who believed the freedom os speech was more important then the RKBA.

Funny how throughout history the people with pens are rounded up by the people with guns.

So what if the ACLU was founded by pacifists? It does not change the fact that NRA was created first, and if they had given a rat's ass about the freedom of speech, press, association and religion, a bunch of pansies would not have been needed to form the ACLU to begin with. It's great that you can own a gun and think it will protect you from jack-booted thugs, but if you have no freedom of speech, association, press and religion, the jack-booted thugs aren't going to give a damn if you own guns because you would be completely under their sway to begin with. Bottom-line, if you really care about freedom, you would support the goals of both the NRA and the ACLU.

Garble: Giltric: LoneWolf343: Since gun control is a largely settled debate anymore, they have to evolve if they want to keep rolling in those delicious delicious donations.

It is not nor will it ever be a settled debate.

The big issues are settled. No one seriously advocates taking away all guns. No one seriously wants mental patients to have suitcase nukes. Gun rights and gun control will always co-exist.

The debates now are all nuanced minutia. Which is why even mentioning the 2nd Amendment at every turn is so stupid.

Obama could pass a law allowing any US citizen can have a gun no questions asked, and the NRA would still find a way to spin it as an attempt for Obama to take our guns away, and there would still be quite a few NRA members to fall for that BS.

Some farkers are proving how easy it is for the NRA to BS their members to scam them out of cash.

RyogaM: Giltric: RyogaM: NRA founded in 1871.

ACLU founded in 1920.

If the members of the NRA cared about all the civil rights of all people, the ACLU would not have needed to be created.

The NRA was founded because soldiers couldn't hit the broadside of a barn and was used as a tool to train people how to shoot properly.

The ACLU was founded by antimilitarists and pacifists who believed the freedom os speech was more important then the RKBA.

Funny how throughout history the people with pens are rounded up by the people with guns.

So what if the ACLU was founded by pacifists? It does not change the fact that NRA was created first, and if they had given a rat's ass about the freedom of speech, press, association and religion, a bunch of pansies would not have been needed to form the ACLU to begin with. It's great that you can own a gun and think it will protect you from jack-booted thugs, but if you have no freedom of speech, association, press and religion, the jack-booted thugs aren't going to give a damn if you own guns because you would be completely under their sway to begin with. Bottom-line, if you really care about freedom, you would support the goals of both the NRA and the ACLU.

I do support protecting the second amendment. I just don't think that should be used as a tool to fuel a conservative agenda that's not even gun related.

Mrtraveler01: Obama could pass a law allowing any US citizen can have a gun no questions asked, and the NRA would still find a way to spin it as an attempt for Obama to take our guns away, and there would still be quite a few NRA members to fall for that BS.

Some farkers are proving how easy it is for the NRA to BS their members to scam them out of cash.

Which is why they'll whole heartedly behind this guy without the slightest bit of shame. All they have to do is concoct some doomsday Fartbango soschulism takeover scenerio to scare the rubes, just like Pat Robertson scares the mouthbreathers to send him money to prevent God from inflicting some natural disaster on Murica.

Gun nuts and God nuts are such fertile soil for con artists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen to harvest easy money.

dahmers love zombie: but didn't freak out about logical stuff like instant checks and denying gun rights to felons, I'd be MUCH more interested in joining.

What exactly are the stats for ex-con felons committing gun crimes? If they don't have a higher rate of commission, then I wouldn't say those laws are logical from a prevention standpoint. Having said that, I think it's pretty ridiculous that there's almost no one out there arguing that ex-cons should have their right to vote returned to them, but the NRA is lobbying to let them buy guns. You'd think if the NRA really cared about their rights, and not gun sales, they'd at least be supportive of efforts to enfranchise felons as well.

Mrtraveler01: I do support protecting the second amendment. I just don't think that should be used as a tool to fuel a conservative agenda that's not even gun related.

Agreed. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm as liberal as they come, and am in favor of rational gun restrictions, like making sure kids, the insane and criminals do not have access to guns, which means that I support background checks on all gun sales. According to the NRA, apparently, this just means I'm looking for the first chance to grab everyone's guns and institute a fascist police state. It's insane how the NRA goes out of it's way to antagonize people like me, all in the name of getting membership fees from the rubes.

cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: So?

The ACLU is the same way in pushing Liberal ideology under the guise of preserving civil rights

It's true. Civil rights is a liberal concept.

lol thats funny how you took what I said and made that statement. Wow I wish I could be that good.

There's nothing funny about it; it's a bald statement of historical fact. Liberalism and liberals are responsible for popularizing and expanding the idea that citizens have rights their State is legally bound to respect. In the same manner, Conservatives have consistently resisted that argument since the Enlightenment, and -in the US- have been in the forefront of the fight to roll back and restrict civil rights since the 70s. Don't like random police checkpoints, or police militarization, or "free speech zones", or mandatory strip searches, or the "drug war", or the State Security Industry, or Prison expansion, or asset forfeiture laws, or "innocent doesn't matter" juris prudence? You can thank conservatives, Republican and Democrat, for them.

Giltric: RyogaM: Giltric: RyogaM: NRA founded in 1871.

ACLU founded in 1920.

If the members of the NRA cared about all the civil rights of all people, the ACLU would not have needed to be created.

The NRA was founded because soldiers couldn't hit the broadside of a barn and was used as a tool to train people how to shoot properly.

The ACLU was founded by antimilitarists and pacifists who believed the freedom os speech was more important then the RKBA.

Funny how throughout history the people with pens are rounded up by the people with guns.

So what if the ACLU was founded by pacifists? It does not change the fact that NRA was created first, and if they had given a rat's ass about the freedom of speech, press, association and religion, a bunch of pansies would not have been needed to form the ACLU to begin with. It's great that you can own a gun and think it will protect you from jack-booted thugs, but if you have no freedom of speech, association, press and religion, the jack-booted thugs aren't going to give a damn if you own guns because you would be completely under their sway to begin with. Bottom-line, if you really care about freedom, you would support the goals of both the NRA and the ACLU.

Again....the NRA was founded as a tool to teach people how to shoot. It wasn't until 1934 that they became a "civil rights" organization with the assault on the 2nd via the NFA.


To summarize....you have no idea what you are talking about.

So, you agree that all members of the NRA should also support the ACLU, yes?

violentsalvation: LordJiro: Giltric: People should start wagering or offering a year of TF to any takers if they are confident Obama would not influence/back/sign new gun control legislation.

Sure, Obama's EXPANDED gun rights, but it's just to lull us into a false sense of security.

We can carry in National Parks, woooo. victory and the end of all logical discussion, or something. (This is in italics and I cant find where the tag is to move it, it happens. )

"This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico."
- Eric Holder, testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

and

ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations (new window)

So yeah, nothing for gun owners to worry about. Let guns slide into Mexico and then blame the gun owners using a fabricated reason to crack down. Totally made up reasons for concern. Blinders are awesome.

I heard that Obama went back in time and created the ATF so they could argue a case for more gun regulations based on a program that started under the previous President.

itsaconspiracy.jpg

coco ebert: Reading this thread full of liberal gun owners makes me think there needs to be a less-right-wing version of the NRA that is devoted only to gun rights and not a whole host of other issues. Clearly there's a constituency.

It's called the Democrat Party. Perhaps you've heard of it.

I thought this was going to be a gay sex scandal.

Matter of time.

Shaggy_C: coco ebert: Reading this thread full of liberal gun owners makes me think there needs to be a less-right-wing version of the NRA that is devoted only to gun rights and not a whole host of other issues. Clearly there's a constituency.

It's called the Democrat Party. Perhaps you've heard of it.

I've never heard of a "Democrat Party".

coco ebert: Reading this thread full of liberal gun owners makes me think there needs to be a less-right-wing version of the NRA that is devoted only to gun rights and not a whole host of other issues. Clearly there's a constituency.

The thing is, I honestly don't remember such a large demographic of pro-gun young guys who were left wing/moderate center-right. If I'm honest, I think it's the internet; I've found a great community of gun owners who share my interests, humor and politics on the issue. I don't have to deal with the "gun culture" bullshiat...it's wonderful.

The NRA lost me long ago with LaPierre and his fantasy land of jack booted thugs and other paranoia fueled conspiracy crap. This extension of the NRA's mission is pathetic and signals that they really have nothing else to do. Oh, and f*ck Grover Norquist and Alec.

qorkfiend: Shaggy_C: coco ebert: Reading this thread full of liberal gun owners makes me think there needs to be a less-right-wing version of the NRA that is devoted only to gun rights and not a whole host of other issues. Clearly there's a constituency.

It's called the Democrat Party. Perhaps you've heard of it.

I've never heard of a "Democrat Party".

It's for hipsters.
Having more than one member makes it too mainstream.

Lionel Mandrake: NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said. link (new window)

What a psychotic prick. Only a f*cking moran would this idiot money

As usual, Obama is one step ahead of these guys. He's actually waiting until after his second term so he'll have time to personally come to your house to take yer gunz.



"He took er gunzzzz!"

coco ebert: Reading this thread full of liberal gun owners makes me think there needs to be a less-right-wing version of the NRA that is devoted only to gun rights and not a whole host of other issues. Clearly there's a constituency.

I've had this thought for some time. Someone needs to "make it so".

way south: Military weapons include things like Fully automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, mortars, artillery, land mines and armed vehicles.

They also include nukes, weaponized anthrax and stealth fighter jets.

If you are making a Christmas wish list may as well go for broke.

You are also the guy who said the NRA could be deflated by simply re-opening the machine gun registry weren't you?

Man they saw you coming from across the street, didn't they?

dr_blasto: They've done a great job getting shiatty laws like Florida's Stand Your Ground Law in place and making a mess rather than getting California's weird laws cleaned up.

I've always wondered at all the outrage over the limitation of a 10-round clip versus pushing ambiguous "self-defense" laws that allow you to shoot people if they look at you funny.

Like many things about the right wingers, the concept of the NRA has potential, but the execution is pants on head retarded.

/still baffled at how badly they managed to fark up a populist movement with the teabaggers

Fart_Machine: 10-round clip

ah, yet another "gun owning" farklib that uses the word "clip"

quatchi: coco ebert: Reading this thread full of liberal gun owners makes me think there needs to be a less-right-wing version of the NRA that is devoted only to gun rights and not a whole host of other issues. Clearly there's a constituency.

I've had this thought for some time. Someone needs to "make it so".

way south: Military weapons include things like Fully automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, mortars, artillery, land mines and armed vehicles.

They also include nukes, weaponized anthrax and stealth fighter jets.

If you are making a Christmas wish list may as well go for broke.

You are also the guy who said the NRA could be deflated by simply re-opening the machine gun registry weren't you?

Man they saw you coming from across the street, didn't they?

You need to read up on the FOPA to understand my compliant about the registry.

A militia, a irregular military force, probably couldn't afford the specialized manpower that strategic weapons require. Much less the weapon itself.
It's like suggesting a militia in washingtons time could buy a ship of the line and terrorize the east coast.
In theory, maybe. But if they could have afforded such an expense, I doubt buying permission from the government woud be an obstacle (assuming they cared to fill out the paperwork).
It's not a scenario that would keep me up at night.

The things on my list are weapons that militia of other nations use. Common items if your going to fight a war. Meaning our people would be ill prepared if called on, and that the value of the 2nd amendment today isn't what our forefathers intended.

So in answer to the original question of "how has the 2nd been neutered?", there you are. Not everyone can own any weapon. Just select people and select weapons from a select list of government approved sources.

If the first amendment got similar treatment, the ACLU would be frothing at the mouth with vitriolic rage.

USP .45: Fart_Machine: 10-round clip

ah, yet another "gun owning" farklib that uses the word "clip"

I love how that's supposed to be a pejorative, but it just makes me giggle.

USP .45: Fart_Machine: 10-round clip

ah, yet another "gun owning" farklib that uses the word "clip"

Oh sorry, I should have said magazine. Likewise I like how you completely ignored the question.

Fart_Machine: Oh sorry, I should have said magazine.

Nothing says 'responsible gun owner quite like:

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Smackledorfer: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It wouldn't matter if the 2nd amendment specifically said that individual citizens can own and carry guns. The anti-gun crows would still argue "No, that's not what the founding fathers meant."

Nice troll. Really on top of the thread and article too.

If people who don't like guns want to own guns, that's fine with me. You don't see gun owners trying to force people who don't like guns to own guns. I think it's fair to expect people who don't like guns to not try to force gun owners to not own guns

I have no interest in taking away anyone's guns, but gun control advocates are not equivalent to a gun not pressing for mandatory gun ownership just because both situations involve forcing views upon others. That is a pretty stupid thing to say.

InmanRoshi: Did you know that seekret Mooslem Kenyan Usurper President is teaming up with North Korea and Iran to take away the guns of God luvin Real Muricans?

You can stop it today with a 12 easy installment donations $39.95.

Farkin Christ, Gun nuts are the biggest gullible dupes. You're just barely one step below the old ladies who cash their social security checks and immediately give it away to the TV evangelists.

Stupid is good. Just ask the Republican party.

way south: jso2897: The narrative diverged from reality years ago.

The feds have done little to change the reality.
CCW is a thing that many have fought to get in their individual states, not a gift from Obama.
Right to carry on federal land is nice, but it was long lobbied for and signed as part of a package deal.
Obama's position on the 2nd amendment is still muddled and the AG's involvement with "Fast and furious" wasn't helping. Gun owners have every right to be skeptical and recent events (wars, economic woes, troubles abroad) are doing nothing to sooth the mass panic behind gun sales.

If you want their narrative to change then throw up something that is a palpable victory for the NRA that it didn't have to pay for.

/From their perspective, its all about bringing in the membership.

That's exactly correct, and there will always be something they want that they don't have - and where the "faithful" are concerned, all they need do is point at what ever it is, and the fact that they haven't gotten it as proof positive that the gun grabbers are coming and the arrival of their mothership is eminent.
It's all bullshiat, but it sells ammo.

sprawl15: Fart_Machine: Oh sorry, I should have said magazine.

Nothing says 'responsible gun owner quite like:

[img843.imageshack.us image 525x734]

Justin Bieber?

Gyrfalcon: Genuinely curious, the concealed-carry thing is gaining traction down here, and my only reservation is I don't want wannabe gangbangers with no felony records (yet) to have the option ifyanowhutimean.

Wannabe gangbangers would have no issue with carrying a concealed firearm, permit or no permit. What bothers me is when people like our resident morons, Gov. Walker & Friends, decided that right after the new concealed carry laws were done they would eliminate the background checks, required training courses, and wait periods to obtain permits and weapons. Then they say things like "these background checks and wait periods were hurting businesses by reducing gun sales," and "this $25, four hour long, once-in-a-lifetime course is an unreasonable financial hardship for gun owners."

way south: A militia, a irregular military force, probably couldn't afford the specialized manpower that strategic weapons require. Much less the weapon itself. It's like suggesting a militia in washingtons time could buy a ship of the line and terrorize the east coast. In theory, maybe. But if they could have afforded such an expense, I doubt buying permission from the government woud be an obstacle (assuming they cared to fill out the paperwork). It's not a scenario that would keep me up at night.

So your only obstacle to a neighborhood militia owning nukes is that they are cost prohibitive?

The things on my list are weapons that militia of other nations use. Common items if your going to fight a war. Meaning our people would be ill prepared if called on, and that the value of the 2nd amendment today isn't what our forefathers intended.

You own the Blu-Ray cut of Red Dawn, don't you?

So in answer to the original question of "how has the 2nd been neutered?", there you are. Not everyone can own any weapon. Just select people and select weapons from a select list of government approved sources.

If the first amendment got similar treatment, the ACLU would be frothing at the mouth with vitriolic rage.

Speech is already regulated in that you cannot dry fire in a crowded movie house or swear on public airwaves or threaten government officials lives, etc and there isn't even any "well regulated" modifier in the 1st unlike the 2nd.

"cry fire" not "dry fire".

/Go Speed Editor, Go!
//*facepalm* of shame.

COMALite J: I'm no fan of LaPierre's NRA, but under Heston, and for most of its history prior to that, it was a worthy organization.

Charlton Heston spoofing the NRA's opposition to the Brady Bill on SNL (Hulu, sorry about geolocation) is amazing evidence that Republicans weren't always classless, humorless extremists.

/geek bonus: ".45 long slide with laser sighting"

quatchi: way south: A militia, a irregular military force, probably couldn't afford the specialized manpower that strategic weapons require. Much less the weapon itself. It's like suggesting a militia in washingtons time could buy a ship of the line and terrorize the east coast. In theory, maybe. But if they could have afforded such an expense, I doubt buying permission from the government woud be an obstacle (assuming they cared to fill out the paperwork). It's not a scenario that would keep me up at night.

So your only obstacle to a neighborhood militia owning nukes is that they are cost prohibitive?

The things on my list are weapons that militia of other nations use. Common items if your going to fight a war. Meaning our people would be ill prepared if called on, and that the value of the 2nd amendment today isn't what our forefathers intended.

You own the Blu-Ray cut of Red Dawn, don't you?

So in answer to the original question of "how has the 2nd been neutered?", there you are. Not everyone can own any weapon. Just select people and select weapons from a select list of government approved sources.

If the first amendment got similar treatment, the ACLU would be frothing at the mouth with vitriolic rage.

Speech is already regulated in that you cannot dry fire in a crowded movie house or swear on public airwaves or threaten government officials lives, etc and there isn't even any "well regulated" modifier in the 1st unlike the 2nd.

Because well regulated means "having lots and lots of laws!" rather than "being in proper working order"?

When you have to deal with a list of people who are not allowed to speak in public, or pay for two hundred dollar tax stamps to trade twenty year old books, when you've got a similar complaint.

/for the rest, the ACLU really should do more.
/maybe take some tips from the NRA about sending out email.

Only in America could the "Gun People" have such serious political sway. It's not the Wild West anymore. Nobody's 'a fittin' to kick yer horse in the tabackey maker or tie yer kin to the coal-carriage tracks.

I'd be more understanding of this fetish if most people were getting their firearms for the right reasons...but I have a feeling there's a decent enough portion of gun owners in certain states that are militia-type gun nuts that you wouldn't trust around a tack let alone a gun.

On the bright side, guns do the work of Darwin in many cases...so I'm totally torn here.

dr_blasto: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Gyrfalcon: Genuinely curious, the concealed-carry thing is gaining traction down here, and my only reservation is I don't want wannabe gangbangers with no felony records (yet) to have the option ifyanowhutimean.

Wannabe gangbangers would have no issue with carrying a concealed firearm, permit or no permit. What bothers me is when people like our resident morons, Gov. Walker & Friends, decided that right after the new concealed carry laws were done they would eliminate the background checks, required training courses, and wait periods to obtain permits and weapons. Then they say things like "these background checks and wait periods were hurting businesses by reducing gun sales," and "this $25, four hour long, once-in-a-lifetime course is an unreasonable financial hardship for gun owners."

I think that in order to legally carry a loaded firearm, you should be first required to demonstrate that you understand basic safety and have at least some base level of competency in use of that firearm.

I know a lot of people (most of my family) that voted in favor of the concealed carry permits when we had a referendum on it. Every one of them I've spoken to regarding removal of these requirements is disgusted. My father outright said that if he'd have ever thought those things would be removed he would have voted against concealed carry. Even the pro-gun crowd (at least the reasonable ones) understand these things are important, and their removal is not in the best interests of society. It's just the NRA and latest teabagger brand of "conservatives" that think this is a good idea.