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 12:35:08 PM

shower_in_my_socks: The AR platform was designed for deer hunting.


?

The standard AR round (223/5.56) is undersized for deer. Varmit hunting? That is more the perfect fit for the AR Platform and the 223.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:09 PM

dlp211: 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.



Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:20 PM

dlp211: 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.


You going to regulate the sale of gunpowder and casings as well?
 
2012-07-24 12:36:23 PM
Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.
 
2012-07-24 12:37:31 PM

The_Sponge: shower_in_my_socks: Chimperror2: Actually, I don't think those people would have cared who shot him.


Right, Mr. CCR with his p-shooter is going to take down a guy who has him massively outgunned, is wearing body armor, operating in the dark with hundreds of screaming people running around. The fantasies some of you nuts have are hilarious.


As much as I support concealed carry, I fully realize that this situation was beyond tough for the average person who has a permit, and I put myself in that category.

IMHO, the only person who would have been prepared for that scenario is somebody who has extensive law enforcement or military training.


As someone with extensive military training especially in CQB situations, even I am probably not taking a shot in that scenario. I could, if everything in the environment was perfect for me to take the shot, but that would be completely out of my hands.
 
2012-07-24 12:37:35 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


Wait. So, that means Hitler and Stalin WEREN'T progressives? Remember, you have a narrative that you're sticking to, here.
 
2012-07-24 12:38:02 PM

The_Sponge: IMHO, the only person who would have been prepared for that scenario is somebody who has extensive law enforcement or military training.


It would have been a nightmare scenario for anyone with military or police training. Trying to take out an armored gunman in a dark crowded theater with scrambling civilians and tear gas grenades going off? We're talking Kobayashi Maru level here.
 
2012-07-24 12:38:31 PM

rufus-t-firefly: No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.


Really?
 
2012-07-24 12:39:01 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.



I stated earlier that it wouldn't do anything to stop everyday gun crime, but it would definitely curb mass-casualty rampages like Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, etc. Could a gun enthusiast with connections still get a hold of illegal equipment? Sure. But that doesn't describe the shooters in any of those mass-murders.
 
2012-07-24 12:39:09 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.

But please, keep arguing with the voices in your head, and by all means make sure those checks to the NRA keep flowing.

LOOK OUT! Obama's under your bed, reaching for your gun. Write that check faster!
 
2012-07-24 12:39:22 PM

redmid17: dlp211: 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.

You going to regulate the sale of gunpowder and casings as well?


Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.
 
2012-07-24 12:39:30 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: 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.


Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.


That doesn't make sense. If you have someone who was raped 3 times and impregnated 3 times, don't you think the child that results from the 3rd rape might grow up and become a murdering rapist too?

BULLET SPRAY! A-OK!
 
2012-07-24 12:40:33 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: 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.


Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.


I'm limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot. I have no problem with abortions in clinics, I have problems with abortions in back alley clinics, so you can take that strawman and beat it.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:15 PM

Fart_Machine: It would have been a nightmare scenario for anyone with military or police training. Trying to take out an armored gunman in a dark crowded theater with scrambling civilians and tear gas grenades going off? We're talking Kobayashi Maru level here.



The only thing I'll give the CCR argument here is the possibility that the shooter would have fled if he realized someone was shooting back. Possibly he would have just run to the theater next door and kept going, but we'll never know.

I support CCR programs and it's the one thing I wish I could get in my state, but they've made it virtually impossible.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:47 PM

dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.



Because your solutions infringe on my rights.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:51 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Keep reading, sparky.


You're right, firearms manufacturers support a lobby for gun rights. The conspiracy has been blown wide open.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:32 PM

dlp211: I'm limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot.



You can take your limit, and shove it up your ass.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:33 PM

The_Sponge: Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.


Or we could compromise and limit clips to only holding two abortions at a time.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:35 PM

EyeballKid: Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.

Wait. So, that means Hitler and Stalin WEREN'T progressives? Remember, you have a narrative that you're sticking to, here.


Wait, what are you talking about? What are you implying? What narrative? How many paint chips did you eat as a child?
 
2012-07-24 12:42:36 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.


Because your solutions infringe on my rights.


SO what you're saying is that first we need to repeal the second amendment
 
2012-07-24 12:42:50 PM

dlp211: I'm NOT limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot. I have no problem with abortions in clinics, I have problems with abortions in back alley clinics, so you can take that strawman and beat it.


FTFM
 
2012-07-24 12:43:25 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.


Because your solutions infringe on my rights.


What right is that?
 
2012-07-24 12:43:46 PM

gilgigamesh: I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.


I think that's where these discussions always get derailed. You're a good example, you don't support gun control.
 
2012-07-24 12:44:18 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: It would have been a nightmare scenario for anyone with military or police training. Trying to take out an armored gunman in a dark crowded theater with scrambling civilians and tear gas grenades going off? We're talking Kobayashi Maru level here.


The only thing I'll give the CCR argument here is the possibility that the shooter would have fled if he realized someone was shooting back. Possibly he would have just run to the theater next door and kept going, but we'll never know.

I support CCR programs and it's the one thing I wish I could get in my state, but they've made it virtually impossible.


Meh, I'd have to guess that if he was wearing body armor he at least came prepared for some return fire. But yeah, I have no problem with CCR either.
 
2012-07-24 12:44:30 PM

Fart_Machine: Or we could compromise and limit clips to only holding two abortions at a time.


what about gay abortions and the implications of sharia law
 
2012-07-24 12:45:12 PM

shower_in_my_socks: 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.


5 rounds might not seem like alot but the way a shotgun and its rounds are designed to perform with the choke patterns and spread from the projectiles everyone with one piece of birdshot in their arm is counted as injured.

It is very likely that most of the injuries and possibly even deaths came from the shotgun.

Where did you get the info on the order of battle....I'd like to look at it.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:18 PM

HeadLever: rufus-t-firefly: No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.

Really?


FFS.

In normal usage, the terms are farking interchangeable. You might as well correct my grammar or punctuation.

But limiting both magazines and clips is fine by me.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:40 PM

carmody: You know, I'm so old I remember the NRA before Wayne LaPierre turned it into a hard-right political action group. Back in my day, it was a simple sportsmen's association.


Everything that can be purchased and turned into a money fueled political device will be. 7/11 will be a hard right PAC any day now.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:53 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.

or restrict all guns.

It seems that bans on automatic weapons have helped the reduction in crime with automatic weapons.

that bans on assault weapons (for that decade) brought down crimes with assault weapons.

Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.


You're making a very specific and guided message here. Unfortunately, the two weapon types you chose to use as examples were very poor. A reduction in crime is nigh impossible to prove regarding automatic and "assault" weapons bans because of how infrequently they've been used in the commission of a crime ever.
I used quotations around assault weapons because no one can seem to agree on a definition whenever they bring up assault weapons for a gun control/restriction/legislation debate.
 
2012-07-24 12:46:53 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.


It surprises you that a gun distributor is part of the gun lobby?
It should surprise you more than the magazine capacity on most firearms exceeded ten rounds from before the World wars.

/Technology got better, bullets got smaller.
/The only thing still trapped in Pandora's box is hope.
 
2012-07-24 12:47:21 PM

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


Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."
 
2012-07-24 12:47:43 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


Wait a minute!

I was told that the Nazis and Communists were liberals!
 
2012-07-24 12:48:25 PM

rufus-t-firefly: HeadLever: rufus-t-firefly: No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.

Really?

FFS.

In normal usage, the terms are farking interchangeable. You might as well correct my grammar or punctuation.

But limiting both magazines and clips is fine by me.


Even in the military, which is obnoxious with terminology, magazines and clips are interchangeable when talking to others. You may be called a 'gangsta' if you are talking to someone that significantly outranks you, but everyone knows what you mean and that is all that matters.
 
2012-07-24 12:49:13 PM

dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have.


With all the realoading tech out there, you would just end up driving a major segment of the shooting industry underground. Laws of Unintended Consequences says that it will likely be worse (and I would argue much worse) than what we have now.

Brass, primers, powder and bullets are not that hard to build for those that know a few things.
 
2012-07-24 12:49:55 PM
Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........
 
2012-07-24 12:50:24 PM

Giltric: can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun


lol
 
2012-07-24 12:51:06 PM

way south: Technology got better, bullets got smaller


I read that as "smarter".

www.jannigogo.com

Still no cure for acid injecting spider bots.
 
2012-07-24 12:51:11 PM

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

Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."


Its like US v Miller all over again.....
 
2012-07-24 12:51:47 PM

Giltric: Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........


Here
 
2012-07-24 12:52:10 PM
if all guns were used to perform abortions, we'd have a much happier planet.
 
2012-07-24 12:52:22 PM

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

Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."

Its like US v Miller all over again.....


A shiatty ruling as well
 
2012-07-24 12:53:54 PM

pacified: if all guns were used to perform abortions, we'd have a much happier planet.


full auto abortions would require drum magazines
 
2012-07-24 12:55:17 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


I'm a giant liberal. I think gay marriage is a-ok, I think a little socialism mixed in with a little capitalism is okay, I think Obama is a fairly good president. I believe this country's greatest strengths are its immigrants, both legal and illegal (my relatives were illegal immigrants once!). I am not a jingoist, and I'm extremely areligious.

I am also a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms. I am a responsible firearm owner. Gun safety is tantamount, and a vital lesson to anyone lucky enough to be taught. I don't belong to the NRA because their message is horrible.

Where is your stereotype now?
 
2012-07-24 12:55:59 PM
Came for the M.O.D. Squad reference. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-07-24 12:56:47 PM
I am certainly not against gun rights, but the NRA's continued insistence that every psychotic should own and carry a gun does indicate that they are completely in favor of every mass killing done within the US.

Have they ever done anything to keep guns out of the hands of anyone? Ever?

Has there ever been a single incident where the NRA has lifted a finger to make sure a single whackjob does not have the latest and greatest firepower?
 
2012-07-24 12:56:49 PM

paygun: gilgigamesh: I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.

I think that's where these discussions always get derailed. You're a good example, you don't support gun control.


Not anymore.

I am the libbiest lib who ever libbed, but the gun grab that occurred after Katrina opened my eyes.

During a state of civil insurrection and anarchy, police, and perhaps more offensively, Blackwater goons, went door to door disarming law abiding citizens at gunpoint, leaving them completely defenseless against the rampaging crime that had engulfed the city. The police were even less able than usual to protect us, and no one was safe. The city had fallen into pure chaos. Yet for some inexplicable reason, someone thought it would be a good idea to eliminate our ability to defend ourselves as well.

Let's just say that opened my eyes.

I think gun violence is a problem in this country, and I think the NRA is a cancer because it actively and very effectively stifles any real debate about the issue for a profit motive.

Something needs to be done. But while I used to casually support gun control, I see I was wrong. I now absolutely oppose "assault weapon" bans or other forms of gun control as misguided and sinister.
 
2012-07-24 12:56:51 PM

redmid17: Giltric: Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........

Here


Yep did it myself before my post which is why I am asking.

For all we know it could be a chest rig.....

Link

Or dirtbike rider chest proector with police logo.....Link
 
2012-07-24 12:56:53 PM

paygun: rufus-t-firefly: Keep reading, sparky.

You're right, firearms manufacturers support a lobby for gun rights. The conspiracy has been blown wide open.


Goalposts: moved.

Don't forget that the NRA is happy to sell out to protect those manufacturers.

Remember how mandatory trigger locks were a horrible infringement on gun rights?

Link

HARRISBURG, 6 December 1999, Senate sources confirmed that NRA agreed to the trigger lock and many other anti-gun features of SB-167 if they get passage of a bill to save gun manufacturers the cost of defending against frivolous lawsuits from cities.

The NRA will fark over its members so long as the gun industry profits from the legislation.

TIM RUSSERT: Do you support -- on your Internet it says trigger lock legislation is an invasion of privacy. It says you're against it.
WAYNE LAPIERRE: No, we have always supported safety locks. We're supporting the bill on Capitol Hill right now that provides mandatory...
RUSSERT: In states throughout the country?
LAPIERRE: Mandatory safety locks with the sale of every gun, instant checks on gun shows done with a 24-hour delay, and violent juveniles prohibited from owning guns.


Link
 
2012-07-24 12:58:55 PM
Enabler And Bringer Of Death
 
2012-07-24 01:00:28 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.


It is a very well known human urge to be there at the climax of any undertaking. A person who lays bombs to do acts of murder will not have the same ability to see how their plans come to fruition. That's my guess as to why the firearms are chosen, not their efficiency.
 
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