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.

(SocialNewsDaily)   Social app shows which Congress members have accepted gun lobby cash, and "you can tweet these elected officials to demand gun control legislation, call them out for hypocrisy, or heck, tell them 'job well done' if you're fond of the 2nd"   (socialnewsdaily.com) divider line 33
    More: Interesting, congresses, Illinois General Assembly, Brady Campaign, gun rights  
•       •       •

3885 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-01-05 12:35:51 PM
5 votes:
Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.
2013-01-05 10:42:30 PM
3 votes:
Sometimes I just have to smile when faced with anti-gun propagandists, regardless of the vicious statements they make, because I know from years of past experience in this debate that because of their deep rooted hypocrisy, they WILL inevitably make my pro-gun case for me. All I have to do is sit back and wait for them to contradict themselves...

After the Sandy Hook attacks, the NRA responded with the suggested measure of establishing armed security guards at public schools in order to ensure there is a defensive presence in place to meet any violent threat. I personally agree with the idea, though I believe it doesn't go far enough. Frankly, allowing teachers to legally carry on school grounds would be a much more effective deterrent, promoting the ability of average citizens to protect themselves rather than constantly relying on some uniformed official.

The Obama Administration, of course, responded negatively to the NRA's position and has yet to even address or acknowledge the idea of armed teachers. Obama shrugged off the NRA, claiming he was "skeptical" of the armed security concept, all while sending his own children to a private school protected by at least 11 armed sentries not counting Secret Service agents:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Dau g hters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

So, Obama is "skeptical" of an armed presence at your children's school, but not his own children's school? Yes, it's incredibly hypocritical. My question to the president would be: If armed guards don't make a difference, why have your children surrounded by them? I would be interested to hear his response. Perhaps he believes his children are more important than our own...

Then there's that wretched gun grabbing swamp hag, Senator Diane Feinstein; a true anti-gun zealot who has openly admitted that if she thought she could get away with it, she would pursue the complete disarmament of the entire U.S. citizenry. The same zealot who after the Oklahoma City bombing had this to say at a senate hearing:

"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me..."
Apparently she saw the need for firearms in the defense of her own life, but not the need for the average citizen to have the same opportunity.

And what about Senator Chuck Schumer, who called for the president to use the excuse of "national security" and terrorism to force through restrictive gun legislation? The man who also voted against a bill which would have prevented outside entities like the UN from asserting gun control treaties that affect the American public? Well, Chuck has his own concealed carry permit in the state of New York, of all places, and still continues his antigun rhetoric. Again, do they see themselves as part of a higher and more valuable class of people? How do they explain these contradictions in their position?

What about media gigolo Michael Moore and his theater of the absurd? Playing the role of gun fan while at the same time incessantly promoting gun control rhetoric using skewed information and disingenuous talking points? The same man who suggested that the sound of a racking shotgun on tape is as effective as having the real thing uses bodyguards armed with THE REAL THING, one of whom was recently arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon into JFK Airport:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html#ixzz2FnQC65J3

But anti-gun propagandists with armed bodyguards are nothing new. In fact, anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg travels with a cadre of five to six bodyguards, all packing heat. Why do these people who say they despise guns and gun ownership continue surrounding themselves with the same "devilish weaponry"? It's simple; because the mere reality of gun ownership deters criminal attack. If it didn't, they wouldn't rely on firearms at all.

Apparently, this same fact has suddenly dawned on The Journal News in New York, which has received a flurry of attention (mostly negative) for their insane idea of publishing maps of New York suburban neighborhoods "outing" the names and addresses of all those who have concealed carry permits. The Journal News has yet to officially address why they chose to do this, but the paper is, needless to say, anti-gun; publishing articles that call for ALL firearms owners, not just those with CCW, to be cataloged and mapped:

http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056/The-gun-owner- n ext-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-the-weapons-in-your-neighborhood

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130104/OPINION/301040031/Editorial-Pus h -more-permit-data-free-gun-locks-too

Their rationale? All gun owners should be mapped so that anti-gun citizens can "know who their neighbors are" and the "possible danger that surrounds them". The assertion that the newspaper is making is that all gun owners should be treated as potential threats, like convicted pedophiles. Their philosophy is to consider us guilty until proven innocent.

It is an interesting and manipulative strategy. The intent is first to promote a national firearms database, which just happens to be a primary part of Diane Feinstein's coming gun control legislation, as well as to cultivate a kind of "culture of shame" surrounding gun ownership. The Journal News motto should be: "Own a gun? We'll make sure everyone knows what a monster you are..."

The paper follows with the argument that people should be allowed to know who in a neighborhood is armed so that they can make an "informed decision" on whether or not they want to live there. As I have stated in recent articles on the gun control issue, the anti-gun fears of terrified yuppies are not our concern. They should be required to control THEIR fear, not allowed to control OUR guns. Their fears do not and should not override our constitutional liberties, and frankly, I couldn't care less if they want to live in a gun free neighborhood or not.

Using the gun map philosophy, a universe of invasive collectivist enforcement becomes available. Why not, for instance, create a map of every person who has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist and given psychotropic medications? Since almost every person who has committed atrocities like Sandy Hook in the course of the past two decades was under the influence of psychotropics at the time it only follows that everyone on these drugs is a potential threat according to the logic of The Journal News. I suspect though that at least half of their staff, just like half of New York, is highly medicated, and probably would not endorse such a measure.

County Officials in New York State are now revolting against the gun map initiatives of The Journal News, denying them further information on permit holders in other counties in order to avoid possible danger to those citizens. Reuters has responded to this unexpectedly reasonable response by, surprise, attacking it:

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/01/02/lets-not-go-crazy-over - publishing-gun-lists/

State officials denying The Journal access to permit holder names and addresses is so far one of the only sane things being done in the state of New York when it comes to the gun debate, but according to the Reuters opinion piece, such an action is "crazy". Is permit holder information a matter of public record? Yes, for now. Does that mean that The Journal News should be allowed to exploit that information to satiate their own personal zealotry while making it easy for criminals to devise threat assessments? The State of New York doesn't seem to think so. Honestly, if I was a non-gun owning citizen in New York, I would be much more upset at The Journal than if I was on their list. Essentially, the newspaper has just advertised who on their map is a potentially easy target...

Finally, displaying their own grand level of hypocrisy, The Journal News has hired ARMED security guards to protect them from the possible wrath of the angry populace they put at risk:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-usa-guns-newspaper-idUSB R E9010R820130102

Is the staff of the newspaper in danger? Well...yes, of course they are! That kind of blind idiocy and hubris tends to attract wild fury in response. However, the point remains; when faced with conceivable violence, they turned to the practical solution of armed intervention, just like ANYONE with any sense would. They admonish us for wanting the right to defend ourselves in the most efficient way available (private firearms ownership) while at the same time surrounding themselves with a shield of guns.

The gun grabber personality is interminably flawed, but it could be summarized thus:

They believe the whole of society should cater to their personal concerns. That we should give up our rights just to make them feel safer. And, that they are somehow a step above the rest of us, and do not need to practice what they preach. My question is, why should we go out of our way to please such weaklings and frauds? I have yet to hear a good reason...


http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1254-anti-gun-newspaper-hires-arme d -guards--reveals-its-own-hypocrisy
2013-01-05 05:20:10 PM
3 votes:

TV's Vinnie: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or


B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]


As the first picture depicts soldiers in the military at a federal level... that would mean that out of the two choices you presented, it would be intended for selection (B).
Or do people really still believe that the founding fathers felt it necessary to include an amendment, within the Bill of Rights mind you, that guarantees the ability of the government to arm members of their own military? Seriously? Yea. I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking when they were whipping up those first few amendments: "Hey, guys? You know this will probably never come up, but let's just say... what if, what if someone tries to make it illegal for our troops or law enforcement to possess firearms? Or to prevent the government of this shiny new nation from possessing and distributing arms as they see fit? See where I'm going with this guys? That could be a trainwreck if the civilian population decided to do that to us. We need to make sure this sort of thing is covered in one of these riders we're gonna attach to the front."

Right.
2013-01-05 05:08:28 PM
3 votes:
cdn3.socialnewsdaily.com

Well, when you've got one organization with 4 million dues paying members, and another that has at most a 28,000 person mailing list that they count as "members", then you're bound to see a discrepancy like that.
2013-01-05 01:54:32 PM
3 votes:

vpb: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yep.  Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


Yes, people who don't line up behind Feinstein and Bloomberg hate children.

Just like people who don't support the Patriot Act hate America and freedum.
2013-01-06 03:40:40 PM
2 votes:

ArtemisGoldfish: What do NRA member/2nd amendment nuts and religious wingnuts have in common?

They don't understand historical context.


Thankfully you spared us all from a detailed explanation of whatever delusions you're embracing.
2013-01-05 06:01:10 PM
2 votes:
My $0.02:

The police are only a reactionary response force. They are not there to prevent crime from happening. All gun control policies do is strip law abiding citizens from the ability to legally defend themselves. I have never been mugged, and for that I am happy. But I will never again live in a place that prevents law abiding people the ability to use a hand gun for self defense. If some asshole pulls a gun on me for any reason, I will pull one on them. That should be my legal right, that should be everyone's legal right. If you decide that you do not want to carry a gun or if you don't like them, that's fine. Don't use your hatred of guns to take away my right, and everyone else's, to properly defend themselves if they so choose.

Remember, it's not the law abiding population that you have to fear. It's the population that uses guns to commit crimes that you have to fear.

As for taking lobbyist money:

The rules that Congress runs on needs to change. It should be viewed as accepting money from a lobbyist is no different than accepting a bribe, and in doing so, they should instantly forfeit their congressional seat, charges placed against them, no less than 10 years in prison and an emergency election held to find someone to fill that seat. Congress should not be an entity that is for sale to the corporations to serve corporate interests, but rather an entity that serves the people of the United States. Hell, when it comes to Congress, I think the best things we can do is to change their pay to simply what the average American makes, make their benefits no different than average American worker benefits (2 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick leave, travel covered only if it's for business), and upon leaving office the benefits expire (just like the average job out there for the average American). Do that and will see a radical shift in who serves in Congress from the self serving people currently in power to those who really have a calling to make this a better nation.
2013-01-05 05:27:18 PM
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or


B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]



And which of those two are more likely to shoot someone?
2013-01-05 05:18:37 PM
2 votes:
images.encyclopediadramatica.se
2013-01-05 05:10:21 PM
2 votes:

radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.


My spidey sense is telling me that you were pro gun control all along. Sorry, but while the gun control people are content to ignore the top 6 preventable causes of death, they're not convincing anyone who is truly impartial that they care about life, and they have absolutely no evidence to support the idea that an assault weapons ban will work, even though we tried one for 10 years.
2013-01-05 05:05:25 PM
2 votes:
Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.
2013-01-05 05:04:15 PM
2 votes:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
www.usmilitary.com

or


B: Guys like this
i48.tinypic.com
2013-01-05 04:59:55 PM
2 votes:

The Face Of Oblivion: vpb: Yep. Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.

Which of the 5 million terrible policy prescriptions offered on the basis of "Think of the children!" are you advocating here, precisely?


Most likely every one that doesn't inconvenience his current lifestyle.
2013-01-05 04:56:22 PM
2 votes:

vpb: Yep. Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


Which of the 5 million terrible policy prescriptions offered on the basis of "Think of the children!" are you advocating here, precisely?
2013-01-05 04:55:52 PM
2 votes:

vpb: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yep.  Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


And that's why we as a society are willing to let 80,000 people die every year in exchange for the freedom to drink beer.
2013-01-06 12:23:20 AM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Fail in Human Form: TV's Vinnie: Azlefty: TV's Vinnie: Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???

Actually THEY ARE NOT THE MILITIA, they are part of the US Military which most definitely is not the militia

Compare the number of foreign invaders repelled by privately owned handguns to the number of heads blown off due to "nubian Moments".

I really don't see how the 2nd Amendment has come in handy.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it won't be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

You sound like you have at least two Bushmasters (and a map of local schools with escape routes marked).


[Smart] [Funny] [TARD]


See?
2013-01-05 11:38:15 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Fail in Human Form: TV's Vinnie: Azlefty: TV's Vinnie: Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???

Actually THEY ARE NOT THE MILITIA, they are part of the US Military which most definitely is not the militia

Compare the number of foreign invaders repelled by privately owned handguns to the number of heads blown off due to "nubian Moments".

I really don't see how the 2nd Amendment has come in handy.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it won't be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

You sound like you have at least two Bushmasters (and a map of local schools with escape routes marked).


You're an idiot
2013-01-05 11:09:33 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???


Actually THEY ARE NOT THE MILITIA, they are part of the US Military which most definitely is not the militia
2013-01-05 10:44:19 PM
1 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-01-05 06:22:43 PM
1 votes:

WhoIsWillo: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.


What is it with gun-grabbers and their fixation on penises and penis size? Something Freudian? Afraid to come out of the closet? Latent anxiety over your own size? Is it just a phase like Jonah Hill's character in "Superbad" where they just envision being surrounded by dicks?

/Dicks
2013-01-05 06:00:58 PM
1 votes:

vpb: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yep.  Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


BZZZZT!
Appeal to emotion! Try again
2013-01-05 05:45:48 PM
1 votes:

dennysgod: Taking bribes from the gun lobby, or any lobby for that matter, will not get a "job well done" from me.


So you oppose the Electronics Frontier Foundation, the group that lobbies against warrentless "wiretapping" of Internet communications, among other causes?

Political advocacy is not inherently "evil", and all lobbyists are not sent from the shadows to corrupt and pervert all that is whole and good. It is what a given group advocates, and the ends by which they seek their means, which determines their charting on the alignment table. Not all lobbyists are on the same team, nor are they all "evil".
2013-01-05 05:42:01 PM
1 votes:

ElLoco: As the first picture depicts soldiers in the military at a federal level... that would mean that out of the two choices you presented, it would be intended for selection (B).
Or do people really still believe that the founding fathers felt it necessary to include an amendment, within the Bill of Rights mind you, that guarantees the ability of the government to arm members of their own military? Seriously? Yea. I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking when they were whipping up those first few amendments: "Hey, guys? You know this will probably never come up, but let's just say... what if, what if someone tries to make it illegal for our troops or law enforcement to possess firearms? Or to prevent the government of this shiny new nation from possessing and distributing arms as they see fit? See where I'm going with this guys? That could be a trainwreck if the civilian population decided to do that to us. We need to make sure this sort of thing is covered in one of these riders we're gonna attach to the front."

Right.


Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???
2013-01-05 05:38:37 PM
1 votes:

RandomAxe: I'm fond of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not fond of politicians taking money to suck Wayne LaPierre's crazy cock.

If you dislike "Assault Weapons Bans" and their ilk, you can blame the NRA for them. The NRA has gone so far right of center in its crazy Don't Ban Anything propaganda rush to whip up money from any paranoiac they can reach is what has generated the public backlash. They're far, far more to blame than any two or three nutjobs who grab headlines with a mass shooting.

If the NRA went centrist, gun regulation could stay centrist. But there's a lot less money in centrism. The 2nd Amendment has almost nothing to do with the discussion on either side of the aisle.


Let us know when you're willing to compromise your freedom to speak or consume alcohol. Why is it that law abiding gun owners are the only group that has to give up their right to become "reasonable"? Far more people die from alcohol related deaths, but I haven't ever heard a single person say that "nobody needs" beer, and that it should be far more restricted than it is.
2013-01-05 05:27:36 PM
1 votes:
I'm fond of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not fond of politicians taking money to suck Wayne LaPierre's crazy cock.

If you dislike "Assault Weapons Bans" and their ilk, you can blame the NRA for them. The NRA has gone so far right of center in its crazy Don't Ban Anything propaganda rush to whip up money from any paranoiac they can reach is what has generated the public backlash. They're far, far more to blame than any two or three nutjobs who grab headlines with a mass shooting.

If the NRA went centrist, gun regulation could stay centrist. But there's a lot less money in centrism. The 2nd Amendment has almost nothing to do with the discussion on either side of the aisle.
2013-01-05 05:17:00 PM
1 votes:
Interesting concept, I'd like to see it used for lobbying in general.
Maybe people could be spurred into action after seeing all of the money involved.
2013-01-05 05:16:43 PM
1 votes:
To suggest the second applies to state militias only requires an ignorance of history.

Can we show the fourth some love too?
2013-01-05 05:15:37 PM
1 votes:
uh... I might be wrong on this but I don't think being an advocate of second amendment rights disqualifies you from being a Democrat.

Also...

We're not going to take a side in the gun control debate,

Suuuure you're not. Especially with statements like this...

you can tweet these elected officials to demand gun control legislation, call them out for hypocrisy, or heck, tell them "job well done" if you're fond of the 2nd.

I do agree though that politicians should be called on their sh*t. However I'm sure you'll find a lot more sh*t on one side of the aisle than the other.

But I'm not going to take sides.
2013-01-05 05:12:45 PM
1 votes:
Still waiting on my app for oil funds, pharmaceuticals, and corn.
2013-01-05 05:10:17 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or


B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]


Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
2013-01-05 05:06:39 PM
1 votes:

WhoIsWillo: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.


Voiceofreason01's penis size has not been disclosed, and is of no relevance to this discussion. For what reason did you feel compelled to make reference to it and to speculate upon its size? Do you suffer a psychological obsession with male genitalia?
2013-01-05 05:05:04 PM
1 votes:

WhoIsWillo: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing keeping one's self from being killed is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis. realistic assessment that we are not in fact, all supreme martial artists.

2013-01-05 05:04:53 PM
1 votes:
Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.

Yes. And statements like these clearly show that you have a small brain.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report