If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Foreign Policy)   The NRA is too busy trying to export its agenda to other countries to address the real-life outcomes of that same agenda at home   (foreignpolicy.com) divider line 34
    More: Obvious, political agenda, no compromise, gun ownership, gun registry, small arms, end runs, overly broad, exports  
•       •       •

1313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 8:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-24 09:15:46 AM
3 votes:

imontheinternet: Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.



Romney might. As a Brady bill supporter and a governor who signed a permanent assault weapon ban, there is some risk he would continue that policy if he got elected.
2012-07-24 09:10:46 AM
3 votes:
Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.
2012-07-24 09:41:00 AM
2 votes:

Gwyrddu: the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)

And these non-knuckle dragging morons would somehow be immune to tear gas and can somehow find a way past a full bullet proof suit to hurt the shooter, and do this all before being shot themselves? I don't care how good they were with their gun, the chance of hitting someone else in that situation would be greater than taking down the shooter.

If someone really wanted to stop the shooter their best shot would be to to physically wrestle the man down. It worked in Arizona and it would have had a chance to work in the Aurora theater, and if it doesn't you aren't putting anyone but yourself at risk.


Anyone that claims that they could have taken the shot if they were there with a gun, or some other person could have taken the shot if they had a gun is patently lying. For 7 years my job was shooting including CCB, and I will be the first to admit that even for me, that would have been a near impossible shot that would have required so much to go right for me that was not in my control that no person that shoots at paper targets could have taken that shot.

There are a handful of people in America that could have taken that shot, not only would they had to have been an amazing shooter, but they also would have had to be able to deal with the stress of the situation.
2012-07-24 09:13:24 AM
2 votes:
1: Banning guns won't do shiat.

2: Despite some kneejerk responses, the American left has generally softened its stance on gun control in the last two decades.

3: No, the tragedy wouldn't have been averted if someone else in the theater had a gun, you stupid fark. It probably would have resulted in more people dying because of the dark, crowded location, the armored shooter, the use of tear gas, and the fact that most people in stressful situations aren't freaking Deadshot.
2012-07-24 09:04:59 AM
2 votes:
I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.
2012-07-24 09:04:25 AM
2 votes:
I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.
2012-07-24 08:58:55 AM
2 votes:

the_foo: Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


Everyone knows Joe Six Pack can see in the dark, through tear gas, through all the people panicking, and be able to line up a shot that would have hit a weak spot in his armor without accidentally hitting an innocent.
2012-07-24 12:40:50 PM
1 votes:

DORMAMU: Like in Russia?


In Russia guns ban you!
2012-07-24 10:56:24 AM
1 votes:

sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.


Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.
2012-07-24 10:01:36 AM
1 votes:
Law abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed everywhere. To prove they are law abiding, they should take a drug test a couple times a year.
2012-07-24 10:00:20 AM
1 votes:
I'm a bit curious of the mental gymnastics involved in having the US have the largest gun violence rate of any country (in fact many multiples of countries) on Earth - as well as a very high gun ownership rate - and telling people that the gun violence rate would go down if more people had guns.

Maybe gun violence operates on a sort of bell curve? And the US is stuck somewhere in the middle? Less guns it'd go down on one side, more guns, it'd go down on the other?
2012-07-24 09:36:54 AM
1 votes:

Bloody William:
You do realize that few people are accurate under stressful situations, and since the gunman was in front of the theater, unless you ere sitting in the front row there would be dozens of other people between you and him you could shoot if you're not Bullseye? And you do realize that such a thing would be the "crossfire" people keep saying would have happened?

Also, stand in front of a projector showing a moving picture. That's not a flat light clearly illuminating you. That's a moving, complex picture spread across the screen and the subject. That's basically visual camoflauge, It's not like there was a spotlight shining on him.


Honestly, the left wing's gun phobia is every bit as irrational as the right wing's homophobia. They think of one way someone could do something bad and go "well, there you have it. There's never any use for guns."

Some people would be willing to put themselves at risk by moving towards the gunman to get a safe shot. I don't whether I would since I've never been in a situation like that, but those people are out there. And do you really think it's better to let him shoot 70 people than take the chance that someone could be hit by return fire?

And since some of you have already tried to dismiss people who would like to defend themselves as "fantasizing", no I hope nothing like this ever happens to me. Having a gun would be no guarantee. I also have fire extinguishers and don't fantasize about my house burning down, and wear my seatbelt but don't fantasize about getting in a car accident.

As for seeing someone standing in front of a movie screen...have you been to a movie? If you can see the movie, you can damn sure see someone blocking it.
2012-07-24 09:35:17 AM
1 votes:

the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


And these non-knuckle dragging morons would somehow be immune to tear gas and can somehow find a way past a full bullet proof suit to hurt the shooter, and do this all before being shot themselves? I don't care how good they were with their gun, the chance of hitting someone else in that situation would be greater than taking down the shooter.

If someone really wanted to stop the shooter their best shot would be to to physically wrestle the man down. It worked in Arizona and it would have had a chance to work in the Aurora theater, and if it doesn't you aren't putting anyone but yourself at risk.
2012-07-24 09:34:16 AM
1 votes:

the_foo: cfletch13: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

I agree. The only thing that could have saved those people is panicked crossfire through a smokey, packed theatre.

Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


I never said they're knuckle draggers. They are human beings that are susceptible to panicked and irrational behaviour during periods of intense stress. They are not special and exempt from that and neither are you.
2012-07-24 09:30:28 AM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: Explain then, if you could, their support for Republican Mitt Romney (who, as governor of Massachusetts, signed into law a bill that reduces gun rights) over Democrat Barack Obama (who as president signed into law a bill that increases gun rights)?


You know I was listening to NPR yesterday, that bastion of The Lieberal Media, and I heard Brian Lehrer admit that he had not heard this fact until that very moment.
2012-07-24 09:25:45 AM
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: So your argument is that because we can't prevent everything, we shouldn't try to prevent anything?


Isn't that pretty much the GOP's current platform? If it doesn't solve a problem completely, it's a horrific waste of time and tax dollars.
2012-07-24 09:24:37 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: More like aware that spewing pro-gun talking points before bodies were even in the ground was a political loser. They learned at least that much from Columbine.


...what?

dittybopper: When you realize that the NRA is a single-issue users group, all of their actions make perfect sense. If you think they are a front for the gun industry, or for the Republican party, then you have a deep misunderstanding of their motivations.


Uh, were they a single-issue users group, they would try to advance that issue instead of the right wing political agenda.

nigeman: when a guy manages to mass drown people, I'll stop saying you're an idiot


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates
2012-07-24 09:19:28 AM
1 votes:

the_foo: (You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


holy shiat, I wonder if this will be the dumbest thing I read on the internet all day?
2012-07-24 09:17:51 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.

Psychos will find a way to kill no matter the law. Mcveigh killed quite a few without firing a bullet. The psycho in question had explosives in his apartment. Adding law after law to guns will not stop violence. You are asking for laws harping on the vast majority for the actions of very few. Are you going to ask to ban swimming next? Multiple deaths a day from that.


when a guy manages to mass drown people, I'll stop saying you're an idiot
2012-07-24 09:17:33 AM
1 votes:

HellRaisingHoosier: I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.


I look forward to a day when the NRA finally recognizes that its greatest enemy isn't gun control supporters, it's people like James Holmes.

Sadly, I don't think that day will ever come.
2012-07-24 09:16:49 AM
1 votes:

cfletch13: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

I agree. The only thing that could have saved those people is panicked crossfire through a smokey, packed theatre.


Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)
2012-07-24 09:13:59 AM
1 votes:
Over here in Australia we have the shooter and fishers party which is paid for by the NRA and they have just managed to get hunting made legal in national parks in NSW which nobody needed. I don't know why we need the lobby group for small arms manufacturers operating here in Australia, particularly when they so blatantly lied about the effects of the successful gun buyback scheme.
2012-07-24 09:13:43 AM
1 votes:

cfletch13: There was an instance recently with that old man chasing those robbers. However, if you look at how many shots he fired, one 1 hit someone. ONLY 1. The rest of those bullets had the possibility of harming many others and everyone's very lucky they weren't hit. When people are in a panic, they fire wildly and their accuracy is terrible.


chasing the robbers out of the building, while firing wildly and stopping only to shoot at the one laying on the ground
2012-07-24 09:12:46 AM
1 votes:
What TFA doesn't really grasp is that the NRA is looking at the idea of restricting international transfers and seeing a possible way to slow down or mostly stop transfer of arms from overseas into the United States. Naturally, they'd have a problem with that. And it's not just the United States: Even if the US doesn't sign on to the treaty, if a bunch of other nations do they can essentially force the US into compliance by not allowing transfers to or from their respective nations that don't comply with the conditions of the treaty.

That might be good for domestic firearms manufacturers, as they could then increase production and diversify their products, but that would raise the cost of firearms overall, and the NRA is a *USERS* group, not a manufacturers group*. That would make it harder for NRA members to buy guns by raising the cost, so the NRA would be against it.

When you realize that the NRA is a single-issue users group, all of their actions make perfect sense. If you think they are a front for the gun industry, or for the Republican party, then you have a deep misunderstanding of their motivations.

Full disclosure: I was an NRA member for 2 or 3 years in the mid-to-late 1990's. Haven't been since then.

*The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is the lobbying group for firearms manufacturers, not the NRA. They usually agree on issues, but not always, and the NRA isn't afraid to take on the manufacturers when they do something perceived as bad for gun owners (see: Smith and Wesson agreement).
2012-07-24 09:09:55 AM
1 votes:

StrikitRich: moistD: Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?

Stories like that are printed every month in American Rifleman. Yes, it's the magazine of the NRA, but they are gleaned and collated from other news sources.

Lost Thought 00: I thought the NRA was pro-Fast&Furious. After all, they are for putting guns into the hands of every person without any restrictions.

2/10. Not even a decent attempt.


I don't subscribe to that magazine, so I googled it and everything that came up was related to one crime stopped in Seattle. Care to link some more examples?
2012-07-24 09:09:54 AM
1 votes:

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


There, there. Let it all out. What was it that scarred you? Did a threatening non-white take something of yours? Has your girlfriend/wife stopped faking like she can feel anything when it's in? Did your girlfriend/wife leave you for a well hung non-white?
2012-07-24 09:05:33 AM
1 votes:

moistD: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?


There was an instance recently with that old man chasing those robbers. However, if you look at how many shots he fired, one 1 hit someone. ONLY 1. The rest of those bullets had the possibility of harming many others and everyone's very lucky they weren't hit. When people are in a panic, they fire wildly and their accuracy is terrible.
2012-07-24 09:04:32 AM
1 votes:
The National Rifle Association issued only one response to the shootings at an Aurora, Colorado, multiplex. On Friday, the flag at the firearms rights group's northern Virginia headquarters was lowered to half mast. And that was that -- no more on the story until "more information" was available.

It was classy and clipped-


Not so much. More like aware that spewing pro-gun talking points before bodies were even in the ground was a political loser. They learned at least that much from Columbine. Also worth consideration is the fact that the NRA bobbleheads in the GOP hit the ground running covering those same talking points the same day the shooting happened making any additional statements by the NRA proper redundant.

That all noted, the fact that the NRA talking points are now, apparently, showing up verbatim in places like Brazil in order to dissuade people from supporting gun control laws *is* rather disheartening.

The fact that the NRA = GOP = FOX is evident in the piece as well.
2012-07-24 09:03:41 AM
1 votes:
After the past week, I wish that theater HAD been full of Internet Tough Guy commandos packing heat. Either way, the story has a happier ending.
2012-07-24 09:02:29 AM
1 votes:

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


I agree. The only thing that could have saved those people is panicked crossfire through a smokey, packed theatre.
2012-07-24 08:59:50 AM
1 votes:
The NRA can kiss my grits. I've had more than one dinner-time phone call telling me that unless I send money to the NRA, the UN is going to come take away my guns.

/Collects and shoots historical rifles
//Figuring out to recreate historically accurate ammo is an interesting puzzle
2012-07-24 08:58:59 AM
1 votes:

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?
2012-07-24 08:57:39 AM
1 votes:
I thought the NRA was pro-Fast&Furious. After all, they are for putting guns into the hands of every person without any restrictions.
2012-07-24 08:57:23 AM
1 votes:
How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report