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.

(Huffington Post)   The NRA is the Enabler of Death   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 366
    More: Obvious, Bill Moyers, NRA, Andrews Air Force Base, mass shooting, second floor, TDKR, University of Colorado Hospital, Air Force One  
•       •       •

2294 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 10:48 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



366 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 12:16:07 PM

gilgigamesh: I would like hot women to pay me to give me blow jobs.


This statement supports my belief that if you talk to someone long enough, you'll always find common ground.
 
2012-07-24 12:16:12 PM

Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?



Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:38 PM

Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?


Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:41 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?
 
2012-07-24 12:18:21 PM

Chimperror2: Certain acids and combustibles make the "hypergolic" compounds that were found. Forget the guns, if he had brought those to the theater, there would be a lot more deaths due to fire and toxic fumes.



Why didn't he use the bombs, then? If they were so much better than guns, why didn't he use them? I farking hate this argument. "Oh, they'll just find another way to kill people" -- if there's an equal or better way to easily kill tons of people, why do they keep picking guns first? It's almost like people who design military weapon killing machines have perfected it.
 
2012-07-24 12:18:29 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


Did those other countries have 200 million firearms owned legally by their citizens?
 
2012-07-24 12:19:52 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Chimperror2: Certain acids and combustibles make the "hypergolic" compounds that were found. Forget the guns, if he had brought those to the theater, there would be a lot more deaths due to fire and toxic fumes.


Why didn't he use the bombs, then? If they were so much better than guns, why didn't he use them? I farking hate this argument. "Oh, they'll just find another way to kill people" -- if there's an equal or better way to easily kill tons of people, why do they keep picking guns first? It's almost like people who design military weapon killing machines have perfected it.


Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.
 
2012-07-24 12:20:21 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


Yep, but make sure to ignore all other socieconomic differences as well.

/something someting about correlation-causation
 
2012-07-24 12:20:29 PM

redmid17: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.

So I guess you didn't bother to google "hearsay".

Psst: the cop wasn't there when it happened. Someone told him. That's what hearsay is.

You know you can check a gun for a jam after the fact right? You don't have to be there when it happened.

/have you ever cleared a jam or even shot a gun?


Of course I have. We don't know when, or if, it jammed.

We don't know much of anything, because this happened a few days ago and pretty much anything up to and including the actual body count is typically unreliable this soon after a tragedy. Stating anything as gospel fact at this point just makes you look like a bobbleheaded retard.
 
2012-07-24 12:20:44 PM

dlp211: Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?

Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.


So legislate to cover that base, and the criminal adapts and appears normal to anyone who comes investigating. Once the investigation is over you only succeeded in turning a killer into a patient killer.

The killer already waited more then 60 days from his first purchase.....whats waiting another couple weeks?
 
2012-07-24 12:21:28 PM

redmid17: shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.

And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?


I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.
 
2012-07-24 12:21:35 PM

dlp211: Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?

Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.



There is no mention of ammo in the Constitution.
 
2012-07-24 12:21:37 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


Well instead of being a dick you could always look at the fact that with our current levels of firearms banning them isn't going to have much of an effect. Also perhaps there could be other factors than just stricter gun laws?
 
2012-07-24 12:22:18 PM

dlp211: I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo.


Agrees (NSFW language)
 
2012-07-24 12:22:31 PM
GUNS SOLVE EVERYTHING!
 
2012-07-24 12:22:49 PM

Giltric: Still waiting to see an example of a random CC person stopping a mass shooting. That was a driving force behind concealed carry in Texas - after the Luby's shootings in the 1990s. And we still haven't seen it happen.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her gun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time, which prohibited carrying a concealed weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

seems like the law gets in the way of people defending themselves.


Right...but now that the law has been changed, why haven't we seen these killing sprees stopped by civilians with carry permits?

Besides, her having a loaded pistol in the car was illegal at that time anyway - unless she was "traveling."
 
2012-07-24 12:23:09 PM

redmid17: And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?



Firstly, I don't support banning all guns. I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet, load it with a 100 round magazine, and kill 70 people in the dark. As for the guns that are already out there, the number of illegal firearms will go down over time, as they wear out, get confiscated, are turned in, etc. If 100 round drums were not legal, for example, this dweeb probably couldn't have gotten one. He's not some underworld crime lord with blackmarket gun connections. Him, the guy in Tucson, V Tech -- they were just dorks who went crazy and had EASY access to massively powerful human killing machines.
 
2012-07-24 12:23:26 PM

dlp211: I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.


I feel the same way about welfare. We should let poor people die in a ditch. But I'm not advocating it.
 
2012-07-24 12:24:35 PM

Linux_Yes: yea, and i suppose my Legislators do what is in my best interests, right? they would never lower themselves to be bought and paid for by big business/rich lobbyist in D.C. , right?

and i suppose that is Democracy too.

and i guess the ever widening wealth gap between the rich and the middle class is just all illusion, right?

smoke one for me too, pal. one day, you'll look back and say THESE were the good ole' days..........


I never said that. I said America is NOT a case of unbridled capitalism. Washington is hopelessly corrupted by money (both parties)...they change the rules so they can benefit legally. Worse, the parties ensure that only those 2 parties get a seat at the table.
 
2012-07-24 12:24:47 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-07-24 12:25:01 PM
Just out of curiosity: How many mad gunmen have actually been NRA members?
Because this is like shaking down AOPA after 9/11 and hoping that its going to stop Bin Ladin.

/This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:03 PM

Giltric: dlp211: Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?

Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.

So legislate to cover that base, and the criminal adapts and appears normal to anyone who comes investigating. Once the investigation is over you only succeeded in turning a killer into a patient killer.

The killer already waited more then 60 days from his first purchase.....whats waiting another couple weeks?


It isn't perfect, but it is something. Also regulate the sale of ammo and destroy high-cap magazines.

There is no perfect solution, I, and nearly everyone who is rational will admit this. But there is a better solution.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:38 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet


Where does this stuff come from? You can't buy guns over the internet without the sale being processed by a dealer and then all the usual background check, ID, and all that happens.

I have to admit, if I believed half the things that the prohibitionists believed, I'd post nutty things on the internet too.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:50 PM

Frank N Stein: Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.



You know what I meant. Oh, that's right. The AR platform was designed for deer hunting. My bad.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:05 PM

redmid17: shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.

And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?


That's where the UN comes in.

DUH.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:30 PM

dlp211: redmid17: shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.

And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?

I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.


Japan's shogunate (I think, government either way) controlled all firearms manufacturing from the 1700s on, so that one is out.

UK did a lot of things but passed laws after their massacres outlawing semi-auto handguns and rifles. If the US did that, you'd be looking at over a 100 million illegal guns in civilian possession on the low end. Semi auto pistols account for something like 70% of gun sales nowadays. Not only would the government either be buying (horrible for the budget) the guns back or seizing them from civilians, the sheer scope of it is impractical.
 
2012-07-24 12:27:08 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Firstly, I don't support banning all guns.


The guy I was responding to was which is why I found his comment totally unrealistic.
 
2012-07-24 12:27:09 PM

rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?



Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?
 
2012-07-24 12:28:03 PM

paygun: dlp211: I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.

I feel the same way about welfare. We should let poor people die in a ditch. But I'm not advocating it.


I think you missed my point. I am not for banning weapons in the US, hence I am not an advocate, but someone asked how to which I responded the solution is the way the UK and Japan did it.

I shoot, fairly regularly.
 
2012-07-24 12:28:24 PM
Let me be overly specific to prove my gun penis is bigger than yours, in an attempt to disprove what you are saying, even though I understand the point you are making.

GUNS NEVER DID NOTHING WRONG!
 
2012-07-24 12:28:40 PM

way south: This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.


Considering that NRA board members are from companies that make high-capacity magazines, that sounds about right.

Link

No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.
 
2012-07-24 12:28:49 PM

Fart_Machine: The guy I was responding to was which is why I found his comment totally unrealistic.



You were responding to me. I think high-capacity magazines should be illegal, as they are in California. That's all I'm advocating here.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:03 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet,



Speaking as somebody who has purchased a firearm "over the internet", allow me to point out that it still had to be shipped to a local licensed dealer, and I was still required to go through a background check. It's not like it was dropped off at my doorstep.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:05 PM

gilgigamesh: redmid17: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.

So I guess you didn't bother to google "hearsay".

Psst: the cop wasn't there when it happened. Someone told him. That's what hearsay is.

You know you can check a gun for a jam after the fact right? You don't have to be there when it happened.

/have you ever cleared a jam or even shot a gun?

Of course I have. We don't know when, or if, it jammed.

We don't know much of anything, because this happened a few days ago and pretty much anything up to and including the actual body count is typically unreliable this soon after a tragedy. Stating anything as gospel fact at this point just makes you look like a bobbleheaded retard.


How about this: Evidence suggests that his primary rifle failed, thus causing him to switch weapons. Not proven, but there is evidence showing that.

So continuing to parrot the idea that the evil baby killing assault rifle needs to be banned because of this is disingenuous, since it seems the weapon in question didn't do as much damage as the other guns.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:31 PM

shower_in_my_socks: You know what I meant. Oh, that's right. The AR platform was designed for deer hunting. My bad.


The most common hunting rifle is a military design. Where does this design stuff come from?
 
2012-07-24 12:29:40 PM

shower_in_my_socks: redmid17: And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?


Firstly, I don't support banning all guns. I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet, load it with a 100 round magazine, and kill 70 people in the dark. As for the guns that are already out there, the number of illegal firearms will go down over time, as they wear out, get confiscated, are turned in, etc. If 100 round drums were not legal, for example, this dweeb probably couldn't have gotten one. He's not some underworld crime lord with blackmarket gun connections. Him, the guy in Tucson, V Tech -- they were just dorks who went crazy and had EASY access to massively powerful human killing machines.


Depends on what round the beta mag jammed on(they are prone to jam)....it could have jammed on the first or second round...could have jammed on the 99th round too, we just don;t know. If it jammed on the first couple rounds he would have been as successful as he was if he had 10 round mags for the rifle.

Do you know if he was using buck or bird shot with the shotgun? you get a good spread and you could hit alot of people with one shot using birdshot.

Don;t know if we will ever get a final report that would say how many were injured by .223 and how many were injured by the other weapons he used. But all of your arguemnets might be based on a weapon that wasn;t even a factor in killing or injuring people....which is typical for people who want to regulate firearms even more.
 
2012-07-24 12:30:36 PM
nukes don't kill people.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:08 PM

rufus-t-firefly: way south: This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.

Considering that NRA board members are from companies that make high-capacity magazines, that sounds about right.

Link

No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.


Lordy. Midway doesn't make anything. They're a reseller.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:10 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Giltric: Still waiting to see an example of a random CC person stopping a mass shooting. That was a driving force behind concealed carry in Texas - after the Luby's shootings in the 1990s. And we still haven't seen it happen.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her gun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time, which prohibited carrying a concealed weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

seems like the law gets in the way of people defending themselves.

Right...but now that the law has been changed, why haven't we seen these killing sprees stopped by civilians with carry permits?

Besides, her having a loaded pistol in the car was illegal at that time anyway - unless she was "traveling."


How many chances have people with a CCW had to prove you wrong during a mass shooting? 2 or 3?
 
2012-07-24 12:31:19 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I think high-capacity magazines should be illegal, as they are in California.



And that has done wonders for the firearms death rate, right? Because California is slightly ahead of Washington when it comes to that statistic, and we don't have a ban on high capacity magazines.

Seriously, the fact that I would be committing a crime by bringing my Beretta into California along with its 15 round factory mags is insane.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:21 PM

shower_in_my_socks: You were responding to me.


Fart_Machine: keithgabryelski: Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.

Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Wat?
 
2012-07-24 12:31:58 PM
You can have my health care, education and 8-hour work day. BUT DON"T TAKE MY farkING GUN.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:58 PM

The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?

Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?


"My side?" So there's a side that wants people planning a mass murder spree to be able to buy as many guns and as much ammo as they want in a short period of time without being noticed?

And that brings me to a "common sense" regulation - report sales of firearms and ammunition in such a way that someone would get flagged if he purchases a certain quantity of either in a certain period of time. Exceptions would be made for dealers, of course.
 
2012-07-24 12:32:43 PM

The_Sponge: And that has done wonders for the firearms death rate, right? Because California is slightly ahead of Washington when it comes to that statistic, and we don't have a ban on high capacity magazines.


But still well below Arizona and Nevada.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:21 PM

The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?


Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?


Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:34 PM

rufus-t-firefly: The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?

Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?

"My side?" So there's a side that wants people planning a mass murder spree to be able to buy as many guns and as much ammo as they want in a short period of time without being noticed?

And that brings me to a "common sense" regulation - report sales of firearms and ammunition in such a way that someone would get flagged if he purchases a certain quantity of either in a certain period of time. Exceptions would be made for dealers, of course.


Handguns purchases are already monitored in the way you mentioned.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:50 PM

Giltric: Don;t know if we will ever get a final report that would say how many were injured by .223 and how many were injured by the other weapons he used. But all of your arguemnets might be based on a weapon that wasn;t even a factor in killing or injuring people....



He shot 70 people. He started with the shotgun. That's maybe 5 rounds? Then he went to the AR. He eventually went to a semi-auto handgun. I think most of the shooting was probably done with the AR, just doing the math, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. The Tucson shooter also started his rampage using the highest-capacity clip he had, and was tackled when it ran out and he went to load a lower-capcity clip. In that instance, a lower limit would have definitely saved lives.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:54 PM
The NRA is nothing more than a well funded political lobbying group whose base supporters consist of head nodding, redneck dimwits, who believe in fairy tale conspiracies about dark skinned boogeymen going door to door confiscating guns of innocent patriots so that the unarmed populace will be easier to subvert into slavery and enable the UN's stormtroopers to bring about one-world government socialism by killing us all.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:55 PM

Frank N Stein: So continuing to parrot the idea that the evil baby killing assault rifle needs to be banned because of this is disingenuous, since it seems the weapon in question didn't do as much damage as the other guns.


You would be a lot more convincing if you argued the actual points your opponents make instead of the arguments your strawman makes.

Again, I never claimed, nor do I desire, that ar-15s be banned. Now if you want to talk about 100 round clips, that's another matter.
 
2012-07-24 12:34:03 PM

paygun: rufus-t-firefly: way south: This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.

Considering that NRA board members are from companies that make high-capacity magazines, that sounds about right.

Link

No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.

Lordy. Midway doesn't make anything. They're a reseller.


Keep reading, sparky.

Further, some of these vendors of high-capacity magazines also boast executives who are board members of the NRA. Ronnie Barrett, the CEO of Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, which makes a military-style rifle sold with high-capacity magazines, was elected to the NRA board in 2009. And Pete Brownell, who runs Iowa-based Brownells Inc., which also makes high-capacity magazines, joined the NRA board in 2010.

And vendors also have a profit motive.
 
Displayed 50 of 366 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report