Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Daily Caller)   NRA has compiled a list of every organization, journalist, actor, and corporation who funds the "anti-second amendment movement". What could possibly go wrong?   (dailycaller.com) divider line 1048
    More: Interesting, funds, hate, Sara Lee, journalists, 57th Street, parkways  
•       •       •

21124 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1048 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-06 08:37:07 PM  

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 304x135]
====
[ACLU.jpg]
==

Turds like to complain, but notice how they never actually address the succinct legal and policy reasons the ACLU gives for its views on the 2nd Amendment. Also note that the NRA's own list includes the ACLU merely for daring to take a collective rather than an individualist position on gun ownership--as advocated by the SCOTUS in the 1939 Miller case. This apparently is called "hating guns." Among all the other reasons cited, this is how the NRA gives fodder to its critics. By acting as if everyone else must either agree or be blacklisted.


It can seem confusing if you begin with the assumption that the NRA is an organization focused on "protecting the 2nd Amendment". But it makes a lot more sense if you understand the NRA to be nothing more than another fund raising branch of the GOP, and this is just another campaign to get money from members.
 
2013-01-06 08:37:37 PM  
i487.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-06 08:37:46 PM  

tblax: And how did that work out for him?


Other than the car ride how was your visit to Texas?
 
2013-01-06 08:38:42 PM  

topcon: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Because so many people die to so called "assault rifles." 323 rifle murders in 2011 vs 6220 handgun murders. Many of the rifles most likely weren't even "assault rifles."

Get rid of $125 Saturday Night Special pistols in the ghetto, and the murder rate with guns will keep dropping...not that it isn't drastically dropping every year anyway.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Link

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


shtfplan.com
www.cdc.gov

Also, a good vid on the subject:

Choose Your Own Crime Stats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

The data confirms the blindingly obvious:

1) crime is concentrated in urban centers of more than 250,000 people. The US has almost 200 such places.

2)overall violent crime rate in the US is actually rather low, roughly half per capita the rate in England and Wales and falling

3) murder rate is VERY high

4) guns have been legal during both the rise and fall of crime rates, and quite likely don't impact those rates to the degree either side would have you believe

The overwhelming majority of the US violence is gang related, specifically drug-gang related. Decriminalize or even legalize drugs and there won't be anything worth killing over any longer. The US is actually a very safe country, and if government were made to recognize a person's right to ingest whatever chemical they wish because they own their body, this simply wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-01-06 08:38:51 PM  

Watubi: I don't believe in gun control. I think illegal immigrant terrorist felons should be allowed to buy fully automatic weapons with silencers and armor piercing bullets with no background checks out of the back of any car. Because THAT'S what the founding fathers intended as proven by the fwd email I received


Actually they would have to go through Obama and Holder to get that kind of thing. Every other FFL would have to do a NICS and would be denied.
 
2013-01-06 08:39:29 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: In other words, I wish we (liberals) could make up our minds if mining personal data, and then publishing (or selling) it is acceptable or not. Seems like a very slippery slope many liberals are defending out of political convenience lately.


What is this "we," kemosabe?

I hate to break it to you, but you're not a liberal.
 
2013-01-06 08:39:57 PM  
I guess you could put the leadership of the NRA to that list, because no one has done more help to get new gun control laws put into place them those guy. Then again they also endorsed the even bigger gun control guy in the election because he had the right letter after the name.
 
2013-01-06 08:41:50 PM  
Nice list of dumbasses you got there.
 
2013-01-06 08:42:10 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Perfectly, one of the worst presidents in history for dragging us into Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, etc.


Staring down the Russians in Cuba. I guess that little matter doesn't count.

I'll give you the Pigs fiasco but you have to give back the Johnson Viet war. Then we can walk away even.

Deal?
 
2013-01-06 08:42:27 PM  
they can add my name too.
 
2013-01-06 08:42:28 PM  

TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]


I bet your neighbor with an AR and a tiny penis (I won't ask how you know) won't come help you and your tiny penis from being murdered.

Must be a big man posting a pic about people you have no idea about.
 
2013-01-06 08:44:14 PM  

KIA: Murder - illegal
Premeditated murder - illegal
Multiple malicious homicide - illegal x number of victims
Attempted homicide - illegal x number of people endangered
Attempted malicious wounding - illegal x number of people shot at
Malicious wounding - illegal x number of people wounded
Assault - illegal x number of people put in fear
Battery - illegal x number of people struck
Theft - illegal
Breaking and entering - illegal
Use of a firearm in a crime - illegal
Violation of Operation Exile (mandatory 5 years hard time for gun violations) - illegal - btw, take a look at some of the testimony from Columbine survivor's family in suppoer of Project Exile here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=832

News reports suggest that 17 federal laws were violated at Columbine. There were probably at least as many violated at Newtown so once again the question is raised: do you really expect drug dealers and criminals to follow even more laws? Do you expect crazy people to have any comprehension of the laws or regard for them? Of course not, because you're not a crazy person.

So, don't give crazy people or criminals guns. Dandy. Done.


It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is? It ignores the basic premise of laws acting as deterents.
 
2013-01-06 08:45:48 PM  
They get one demonstrability wrong and they get sued for Bible?
 
2013-01-06 08:45:56 PM  

TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]


DRINK!
 
2013-01-06 08:48:05 PM  

BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.


You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.
 
2013-01-06 08:48:41 PM  

justtray: It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is?


Way to stick your foot directly in your mouth.

Sounds(to the intelligent and rational at any rate) that he's saying to not keep making new useless laws.

That concept, and the one you put forth are entirely different. Do you really not see how stupid and invalid you are?

Your intelligence and rationality are on par with the psycho's who kill people.
 
2013-01-06 08:49:32 PM  
So what?
 
2013-01-06 08:49:40 PM  

BGates: TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]

I bet your neighbor with an AR and a tiny penis (I won't ask how you know) won't come help you and your tiny penis from being murdered.

Must be a big man posting a pic about people you have no idea about.


Probably not, because he's a small penis coward, as that guy's pic states.. What's your point exactly? Are you under the delusion that people with AR-15s are stopping crimes for people (or even themselves)? Lol.
 
2013-01-06 08:50:26 PM  
Stallone is on that list? What a hypocritical two-faced jackass.
 
2013-01-06 08:51:12 PM  
Thanks! That gives me a lot of choices for donations.
 
2013-01-06 08:51:14 PM  

Ow My Balls: Kome: When your list of "opponents" includes the American Medical Association, American Bar Association, and American Psychological Association, and we haven't even gotten out of the "A" letters, you may seriously need to re-think your position.

THIS. Lots of smart, book learnin' types on that list.


smart book learning types... that are... um... what? going to throw a textbook at a home invader. honey, duck, i'm going to toss a copy of the anatomy book at the bad guy.

thunk.

he's still coming at us... ah!!!
 
2013-01-06 08:51:48 PM  
I'm not anti gun, but I'm probably anti gun nut. Gun nuts dont make sense to me. They're crazy. It would be so much more satisfying to kill someone or something with your bare hands while watching their very being disappear from their eyes from fewer than inches away. You can inhale their last breath and taste their mortality. Then you finally ensure that laughter is the very last sound they hear. Guns are for pussies.
 
2013-01-06 08:52:00 PM  

RevMercutio: BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.

You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.


So you're saying it was a choice of the lesser of two evils?
 
2013-01-06 08:52:05 PM  

omeganuepsilon: justtray: It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is?

Way to stick your foot directly in your mouth.

Sounds(to the intelligent and rational at any rate) that he's saying to not keep making new useless laws.

That concept, and the one you put forth are entirely different. Do you really not see how stupid and invalid you are?

Your intelligence and rationality are on par with the psycho's who kill people.


Ah, baseless ad hominem. I explained his point. It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths, across the world, so the argument that laws against guns are useless is also factually false.

It wasn't me who stuck his foot in his mouth. Your anger at my logical rebuttal tells me all I need to know about your psyche however.
 
2013-01-06 08:52:24 PM  

BGates: jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion

Like the 500 people who were killed in Chicago by Obama's insane followers?


How many of those people were on a published hit list distributed to armed paranoid bedwetters?
 
2013-01-06 08:53:06 PM  

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.


Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.
 
2013-01-06 08:54:40 PM  

ciberido: I hate to break it to you, but you're not a liberal.


Heh, and by what criteria do you reach that conclusion. My advocacy for civil rights, including for gays and all minorities? My outspoken support for reducing the budget and role of the military? My two votes for Obama?

I think what you mean is that I am unusual, for a liberal, in not holding ridiculous and glaring double standards.

I suppose, to you, someone who criticizes something about America isn't a real American either, right?
 
2013-01-06 08:54:49 PM  

John Buck 41: Stallone is on that list? What a hypocritical two-faced jackass.


And Al Gore flew on a plane so global warming isn't real. Wake up sheeple. A plane!
 
2013-01-06 08:55:01 PM  
Every time a "Sandy Hook" shows up, it causes lots of negativity towards gun rights. Why not add Jared Loughner, the DC Sniper, or John Hinkley to the list as well? Those guys are much more damaging to gun rights. They'd go a long way by pointing out their own apples.

/Of course, that would viewed as cannibalism.
 
2013-01-06 08:56:11 PM  

Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.


I think it's an analogy to McCarthyism.

Oddly both sides are suffering under the same type of tarring: if you would like any curbs at all on guns, then you are a liberal boogeyman out to steal guns and trash the 2nd Amendment or if you don't want any control on guns, then you are some kind of unreasonable whacko who believes they will need to enter an armed conflict with their own government.

Neither of which is true of either group.
 
2013-01-06 08:56:24 PM  
It's nice when you have the high ground of Founding Fathers agreement. It means that I'm not the one with the unamerican view.
 
2013-01-06 08:57:05 PM  

Gunny Walker: Every time a "Sandy Hook" shows up, it causes lots of negativity towards gun rights. Why not add Jared Loughner, the DC Sniper, or John Hinkley to the list as well? Those guys are much more damaging to gun rights. They'd go a long way by pointing out their own apples.

/Of course, that would viewed as cannibalism.



Sounds like Grandpa missed his Citrical today.
 
2013-01-06 08:57:08 PM  
we the nra need to make a list of every employer that opposes carry-at/to-work.
 
2013-01-06 08:58:27 PM  

violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.


Sigh.

Who do (the vocal majority of) people on both sides of this debate persist in reducing the discussion to all or nothing? There is a middle ground that respects all the amendments, and civil liberty.
 
2013-01-06 08:59:21 PM  

Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.


It's the difference bewteen making a list of groups that support planned parenthood and a list of names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions.
 
2013-01-06 08:59:34 PM  

Kome: ciberido: jso2897: I have views about gun control, but I'm not passionate about them, and don't feel like getting screamed at by both "sides", which is what usually happens when you have a moderate opinion on a highly controversial subject.

I feel your pain.  In pretty much every Fark thread about religion, actually.

Then why participate in them?


Mainly for the same reasons I'm in any Fark thread.  Partly for entertainment, partly to learn, partly because I think the "middle ground" needs to be represented.  And there's always the chance that one or two people reading the thread will think I made a good point or at least said something amusing.

I also have a few goals (if you want to call them that) specific to religion threads:

1. As a gay-friendly Christian I encounter in almost every thread about religion or homosexuality the assumption that "Christian = homophobe" and "gay rights = atheism."  It's guaranteed that someone will say something that at least implies as much.  So it becomes my "duty" (if you will) to counter that misconception.

2. Along similar lines, in a lot of threads there's going to be someone who says, "Where's the Christian outrage about X" or "Where are all the Christians who don't support X?" where X is some bad thing.  And unless somebody actually pipes up and says, "Yes, actually, I'm a Christian who doesn't support X" the poster (plus some other less-clear--thinking people reading the thread) will think that the silence proves that poster's point.

3. In the interest of fairness I also find myself defending Islam a lot.  It's not my religion, but it gets slammed by all the Farkers who also hate Christianity AS WELL AS a lot of the Farkers who defend / support /promote Christianity.  There aren't a lot of Muslim Farkers, so I do what I can to help out my fellow Abrahamists.

4. Lastly, and least importantly, people say a lot of stupid nonsense about Buddhism in Fark threads, such as how it's "more a philosophy than a religion" or that it is "the only religion that doesn't have X" for some X which exists in all religions, including Buddhism.  I have nothing against Buddhism, but I dislike all the myths about it Farkers seem to love.
 
2013-01-06 09:00:58 PM  

BGates: TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]

I bet your neighbor with an AR and a tiny penis (I won't ask how you know) won't come help you and your tiny penis from being murdered.

Must be a big man posting a pic about people you have no idea about.


Unlike you, I don't live in fear. and if somebody actually did break into my house, I don't need some asshole trying to live his greatest wet dream coming to "help" me, I'll be just fine.
AR-15s are not particularly useful in such a situation.
 
2013-01-06 09:00:58 PM  
img442.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-06 09:01:00 PM  

BGates: jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion

Like the 500 people who were killed in Chicago by Obama's insane followers?


You'll have to provide some sort of citation for this claim or I think most of us will just assume you're making stuff up.
 
2013-01-06 09:01:35 PM  

justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths


Citation needed.
 
2013-01-06 09:03:15 PM  

Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.


Because while private citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, public figures do not. Public figures expose themselves by their actions that, taken publicly, constitute an attempt to influence opinion. A person holding a CCW permit does not do that with any eye on influencing the public.

It's also a question of ethics. That the press have the legal right to publish something does not mean that they should publish it. By doing so, by putting themselves out into the public eye with what was clearly an act with political implications, they opened themselves up to criticism.

But you knew all that, didn't you? You were just playing dumb. I can't wait until the response to this where we get Act II of your playing coy routine.
 
2013-01-06 09:04:53 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.


Its simple physics man. If you keep making the guns smaller and smaller then eventually the bullets wont even break the skin.
 
2013-01-06 09:05:17 PM  

Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.


1) While I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, a fair number of NRA supporters wouldn't hesitate to do so, it should be noted that this list consists of organizations and celebrity individuals whose addresses are already difficult to obtain (if not impossible). The idiots running the newspaper last week obtained and posted names and addresses of people with valid gun permits for little reason other than making a political point that probably didn't need any more reinforcing. And regardless of how you may feel about it, doing so did indeed expose those people to a higher risk of burglary, theft, and harassment (among other things).

2) Damn you for making me come anywhere close to taking the side of the idiots running the NRA.
 
2013-01-06 09:06:18 PM  

Giltric: RevMercutio: BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.

You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.

So you're saying it was a choice of the lesser of two evils?


I'm saying one candidate specifically said he wouldn't take your guns away and another one had already done so while in power. The NRA financially backed the gungrabber.
 
2013-01-06 09:08:25 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: ciberido: I hate to break it to you, but you're not a liberal.

Heh, and by what criteria do you reach that conclusion. My advocacy for civil rights, including for gays and all minorities? My outspoken support for reducing the budget and role of the military? My two votes for Obama?


The homophobia, racism, machismo, and conservative viewpoints you've expressed in other Fark threads.  Though to be fair, you've also been know to show compassion and fair-mindedness, and to sometimes make lucid and rational arguments and back them up with solid data.

You understand, of course, that I can only go by what you've posted on Fark, and any real-world actions (such as who you voted for in an election) can carry no weight for this.
 
2013-01-06 09:09:22 PM  
img42.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-06 09:11:43 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.


No matter what I cite, you will say either, "we're different," "but violent crime," or "but Heller."

But I will anyway, brb.
 
2013-01-06 09:12:38 PM  

Silly Jesus: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Do you know what the scary word semi-automatic means? It means that the gun fires one bullet at a time. OH NOES!


Do you know what the word semi-automatic means?

I'm pretty sure that since only one object can occupy any given point in space at any given time, that all bullets come out one at a time - the difference is in how many can come out in a given span of time, how many come out before you have to squeeze the trigger again, and how many times you can squeeze the trigger in a given span of time.
 
2013-01-06 09:13:33 PM  

dogfather_jr: Holy sweet Jeebus the comments after that article are terrifying. Above all others the one where the poster says that "It's OK to lose a few individuals in these situations to save the much bigger whole". I think Newtown might disagree. Unless the common thought is that it's important enough for unstable people to have access to ridiculous amounts of firepower that children need to die?

Is there ANYBODY out there that is both pro-gun and is sane enough to think there's room for improvement? All I've seen so far is the extreme: anybody that wants a gun has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to get one, no questions asked (or training required).

Surely there's got to a modicum of common sense. Somewhere? Please?


Ok so what we need is better mental health screening and better training with fire arms, as studies show those with better training and understanding are less likely to use firearms in an irresponsible way. My solution... mandatory military service. If you get washed out by metal health screenings you can't purchase a firearm as a civilian. Everyone else gets trained in proper maintenance and operation of several styles of firearms.
 
2013-01-06 09:13:58 PM  

Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]


Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?
 
Displayed 50 of 1048 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report