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.

(Politico)   Obama campaign to shame gun owners working so well that the National Rifle Association has gained more than 100,000 new members in the last 18 days   (politico.com) divider line 343
    More: Amusing, NRA, obama, gun owners, Obama campaign, Vice President Joe Biden, 2nd amendment, second amendment, real Americans  
•       •       •

872 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2013 at 4:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-10 01:50:08 PM
Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.
 
2013-01-10 01:53:12 PM
Frankly, anyone who looks at a mass shooting of little children and says "now's the perfect time to join the NRA" should move to the top of the list for mental exams pursuant to future eligibility to own a firearm.
 
2013-01-10 01:54:19 PM
Their Pop-Up ads for  "HOW YOU TOO CAN BECOME FAMOUS OVERNIGHT WITH JUST A GUN!" probably helped.
 
2013-01-10 01:54:38 PM
Oh, look... more knee-jerk reactionary assholes
 
2013-01-10 01:58:06 PM

Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.


When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.
 
2013-01-10 02:01:01 PM
Can't wait for this thread to heat up.

It's going to be just like a level of Doom.
 
2013-01-10 02:02:35 PM

Nabb1: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.


*Eyeroll* So a president deciding we shouldn't interpret the second amendment in the broadest terms possible is scaremongering, huh? Maybe to those that piss themselves at loud noises.
 
2013-01-10 02:03:09 PM

Nabb1: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.


Be fair.  The NRA was doing it well-before Newtown, when Obama said and did nothing to restrict arms.  In fact, he expanded the ability to use them on federal lands.

The executive order stuff may be reactionary - I'm not going to debate that here.  But you can't deny the NRA's MO since he took office (and probably before).
 
2013-01-10 02:03:43 PM
Interestingly enough, further research has demonstrated that at least 100 of those new members aren't actually guns themselves.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:04:12 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Frankly, anyone who looks at a mass shooting of little children and says "now's the perfect time to join the NRA" should move to the top of the list for mental exams pursuant to future eligibility to own a firearm.


It would be great if there was some way for the NRA and all it's members to secede.
 
2013-01-10 02:04:53 PM

Nabb1: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.


Citation please. I've heard rumors of a possible EO on the subject of gun CONTROL, but this is the first I've heard of "unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right ". What are you expecting, jackbooted thugs breaking down doors to confiscate your guns? No, don't answer, I do realize that is the EXACT fear of many out there.
 
2013-01-10 02:05:48 PM

Nabb1: When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right


i.imgur.com
==
Don't worry. I'm sure Senator Magnum will filibuster that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:06:02 PM
I guess it took 18 days because they were in their bunks for the first couple of weeks.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:15 PM
Wondering why more non-crazy people don't join the NRA.  And vote in its elections....
 
2013-01-10 02:09:21 PM

vudutek: Nabb1: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.

Citation please. I've heard rumors of a possible EO on the subject of gun CONTROL, but this is the first I've heard of "unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right ". What are you expecting, jackbooted thugs breaking down doors to confiscate your guns? No, don't answer, I do realize that is the EXACT fear of many out there.


Not jackbooted thugs, but NOPD seized thousands of weapons from citizens days after Katrina on orders from Ray Nagin.  I have seen it happen.  Don't tell me it hasn't happened, because it has.  The City got its ass handed to it in federal court afterwards, too.  NPR snippet on Biden's comments about potential action by the White House:  http://plus.google.com/+nprpolitics/posts/C3ET6xC1Khc
 
2013-01-10 02:12:34 PM

Bladel: Wondering why more non-crazy people don't join the NRA.  And vote in its elections....


They did a great job of flushing sane gun-owners (like myself and my 73-old father) out of the organization in the late 1980's and early 90's. I'm not going back.
 
2013-01-10 02:13:01 PM

Diogenes: Nabb1: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.

Be fair.  The NRA was doing it well-before Newtown, when Obama said and did nothing to restrict arms.  In fact, he expanded the ability to use them on federal lands.

The executive order stuff may be reactionary - I'm not going to debate that here.  But you can't deny the NRA's MO since he took office (and probably before).


I'm not big on the NRA.  I think they do some positive things, but some negative things, too.  I am not a member.  But, if the Executive starts looking for ways to limit rights under, say, the First Amendment or the Fourth or Fifth, there are problems, IMO.  I've had a problem with limitations put in place since Bush with regard to Sixth Amendment rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, for example, although Congress has been completely complicit in that.
 
2013-01-10 02:17:54 PM

Nabb1: Not jackbooted thugs, but NOPD seized thousands of weapons from citizens days after Katrina on orders from Ray Nagin. I have seen it happen.


And do you have any reason to think that Obama would do something like that?

I just think it's funny that people are getting so upset about what amounts to time, place, and manner restrictions and obscenity restrictions on weaponry.
 
2013-01-10 02:19:44 PM

Nabb1: Diogenes: Nabb1: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.

Be fair.  The NRA was doing it well-before Newtown, when Obama said and did nothing to restrict arms.  In fact, he expanded the ability to use them on federal lands.

The executive order stuff may be reactionary - I'm not going to debate that here.  But you can't deny the NRA's MO since he took office (and probably before).

I'm not big on the NRA.  I think they do some positive things, but some negative things, too.  I am not a member.  But, if the Executive starts looking for ways to limit rights under, say, the First Amendment or the Fourth or Fifth, there are problems, IMO.  I've had a problem with limitations put in place since Bush with regard to Sixth Amendment rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, for example, although Congress has been completely complicit in that.


And on both we agree.  On point #1, I think it's very important to distinguish a difference between gun owners and the activities and philosophy of the NRA.

On point #2, Congress can go fark itself.  Those where in favor of those Constitutional transgressions, and those who remain silent about them.

But I think I'm required to call you an asshat or something to keep it more interesting here.  So shut up you poopy-head!
 
2013-01-10 02:21:43 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Not jackbooted thugs, but NOPD seized thousands of weapons from citizens days after Katrina on orders from Ray Nagin. I have seen it happen.

And do you have any reason to think that Obama would do something like that?


I think it's substantially less likely than with C. Ray, but then I guess if it does, I can always join a Mexican drug cartel and get my guns back (all of two, one of which is a very old single-shot .22).  Maybe even some better ones, too.

I just think it's funny that people are getting so upset about what amounts to time, place, and manner restrictions and obscenity restrictions on weaponry.

But then, I'm pretty much a First Amendment absolutist along the lines of Hugo Black, too.
 
2013-01-10 02:22:57 PM

Somacandra: Bladel: Wondering why more non-crazy people don't join the NRA.  And vote in its elections....

They did a great job of flushing sane gun-owners (like myself and my 73-old father) out of the organization in the late 1980's and early 90's. I'm not going back.


That's because the NRA has always been about the gun makers, not the gun owners.
 
2013-01-10 02:23:43 PM
Before long gun makers won't care if they're banned or not. They'll have scared so much money from the gun folks their great, great grandkids will be set
 
2013-01-10 02:24:55 PM
This figure is meaningless without knowing how many people drop their membership, which we won't know for a while as memberships lapse.

The real measure of the NRA's standing will be the net gain or loss in membership a year or so from Sandy Hook.

My guess is LaPierre's bizarre tirades will cause attrition more or less equal to the membership gains.
 
2013-01-10 02:26:46 PM

Nabb1: vudutek: Nabb1: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

When the White House has publicly stated it may use executive orders to unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right, I'd say they are handling the fear mongering much more adeptly than the NRA could ever hope to.

Citation please. I've heard rumors of a possible EO on the subject of gun CONTROL, but this is the first I've heard of "unilaterally abrogate a Constitutional right ". What are you expecting, jackbooted thugs breaking down doors to confiscate your guns? No, don't answer, I do realize that is the EXACT fear of many out there.

Not jackbooted thugs, but NOPD seized thousands of weapons from citizens days after Katrina on orders from Ray Nagin.  I have seen it happen.  Don't tell me it hasn't happened, because it has.  The City got its ass handed to it in federal court afterwards, too.  NPR snippet on Biden's comments about potential action by the White House:  http://plus.google.com/+nprpolitics/posts/C3ET6xC1Khc


So, your evidence for the federal government seizing weapons is the fact that a locally elected mayor did it.

If it was even possible to put a "should the federal government forcibly seize weapons" measure on a national referendum, it would fail in huge margins, even in the bluest of states. Maybe in a couple of the tiny hippie centers of the country it might gain a little traction, but I'd still wager at least 85% of the population would vote it down.
 
2013-01-10 02:29:59 PM
I just want to let all the paranoid gun owners know that in no way will the Obama administration ever consider using the NRA membership database to identify the people they will start taking guns away from.

That would be very unreasonable and you should no way think they would be capable of that.  Rest easy and go about your day citizen and encourage other gun owners to join the NRA if they haven't done so already.
 
2013-01-10 02:33:09 PM

mrshowrules: I just want to let all the paranoid gun owners know that in no way will the Obama administration ever consider using the NRA membership database to identify the people they will start taking guns away from.

That would be very unreasonable and you should no way think they would be capable of that.  Rest easy and go about your day citizen and encourage other gun owners to join the NRA if they haven't done so already.


I like you.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:33:47 PM

Bladel: Wondering why more non-crazy people don't join the NRA.  And vote in its elections....


Or any?
 
2013-01-10 02:34:10 PM

Nabb1: But then, I'm pretty much a First Amendment absolutist along the lines of Hugo Black, too.


Look, it's going to be hard to argue with you if you insist on being consistent.
 
2013-01-10 02:34:14 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So, your evidence for the federal government seizing weapons is the fact that a locally elected mayor did it.

If it was even possible to put a "should the federal government forcibly seize weapons" measure on a national referendum, it would fail in huge margins, even in the bluest of states. Maybe in a couple of the tiny hippie centers of the country it might gain a little traction, but I'd still wager at least 85% of the population would vote it down.


What difference does it make who does it?  When its Lord of the Flies outside and armed soldiers (or in this case, mercenaries) show up at your door and disarm you at gunpoint, you're just as defenseless.

The point is it can happen.  It HAS happened.  The veneer of polite society is thin indeed.  It can literally vanish overnight.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:38 PM
n....nooooooooooo


- Obama might "strengthen the database that the FBI uses to perform background checks on gun buyers. Many federal agencies that don't currently contribute to the database, such as the Social Security Administration, have access to mental competence information about prospective buyers, or details about failed drug tests and other issues that might prevent a sale to the wrong person. ... The president could also demand that the states share more information from their crime and mental-health databases." (The New York Times)

- "It is unclear what specific executive orders Obama is contemplating, though one Democratic aide with insight into the talks said Obama could sidestep Congress and bolster federally funded mental-health programs." (The Hill)

- "The coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has called for Obama to consider several measures that they said could be implemented without congressional approval: Step up prosecution by the Justice Department of felons and others prohibited from buying weapons when they attempt to buy them. ... Require federal agencies to report records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems. ... Appoint an ATF director. The federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws has gone without a confirmed director for six years." (USA Today)
 
2013-01-10 02:36:36 PM
Everyone likes to feel like they're the morally-correct, embattled underdogs facing off against the evil empire.
 
2013-01-10 02:36:39 PM

mrshowrules: I just want to let all the paranoid gun owners know that in no way will the Obama administration ever consider using the NRA membership database to identify the people they will start taking guns away from.

That would be very unreasonable and you should no way think they would be capable of that.  Rest easy and go about your day citizen and encourage other gun owners to join the NRA if they haven't done so already.


kristinhoppe.files.wordpress.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:38:30 PM

gilgigamesh: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So, your evidence for the federal government seizing weapons is the fact that a locally elected mayor did it.

If it was even possible to put a "should the federal government forcibly seize weapons" measure on a national referendum, it would fail in huge margins, even in the bluest of states. Maybe in a couple of the tiny hippie centers of the country it might gain a little traction, but I'd still wager at least 85% of the population would vote it down.

What difference does it make who does it?  When its Lord of the Flies outside and armed soldiers (or in this case, mercenaries) show up at your door and disarm you at gunpoint, you're just as defenseless.

The point is it can happen.  It HAS happened.  The veneer of polite society is thin indeed.  It can literally vanish overnight.


That's why we need to get the weapons out of the hands of the dangerously paranoid.
 
2013-01-10 02:39:47 PM

vpb: That's why we need to get the weapons out of the hands of the dangerously paranoid.


Well... I agree with that.  But I don't know what that has to do with the fact that "gun grabbing" is a real thing.
 
2013-01-10 02:40:45 PM

vpb: gilgigamesh: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So, your evidence for the federal government seizing weapons is the fact that a locally elected mayor did it.

If it was even possible to put a "should the federal government forcibly seize weapons" measure on a national referendum, it would fail in huge margins, even in the bluest of states. Maybe in a couple of the tiny hippie centers of the country it might gain a little traction, but I'd still wager at least 85% of the population would vote it down.

What difference does it make who does it?  When its Lord of the Flies outside and armed soldiers (or in this case, mercenaries) show up at your door and disarm you at gunpoint, you're just as defenseless.

The point is it can happen.  It HAS happened.  The veneer of polite society is thin indeed.  It can literally vanish overnight.

That's why we need to get the weapons out of the hands of the dangerously paranoid.


By... validating their paranoia?  Well, I guess like the old saying goes - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you.
 
2013-01-10 02:40:47 PM

neritz: Somacandra: Bladel: Wondering why more non-crazy people don't join the NRA.  And vote in its elections....

They did a great job of flushing sane gun-owners (like myself and my 73-old father) out of the organization in the late 1980's and early 90's. I'm not going back.

That's because the NRA has always been about the gun makers, not the gun owners.


This makes sense.

/also gun owner
//will never join NRA
 
2013-01-10 02:41:29 PM
I find it extremely distasteful that I have to depend on the NRA to stop politicians from banning guns and/or magazines.
 
2013-01-10 02:42:32 PM

Nabb1: By... validating their paranoia?  Well, I guess like the old saying goes - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you.


Or, as my dear departed Mom used to say, "Give [them] something to REALLY cry about."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:47:01 PM
Nabb1:
By... validating their paranoia?  Well, I guess like the old saying goes - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you.

So it's paranoid to worry about the tinfoil hat wearing lunatics building their arsenals but thinking that the UN occupation army is going to invade and take your Precious or that there will be a race war is sensible preparation.

Got it.
 
2013-01-10 02:50:08 PM

vpb: Nabb1:
By... validating their paranoia?  Well, I guess like the old saying goes - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you.

So it's paranoid to worry about the tinfoil hat wearing lunatics building their arsenals but thinking that the UN occupation army is going to invade and take your Precious or that there will be a race war is sensible preparation.

Got it.


Well, I'm not sure I would lose any sleep over them, though they are nut cases.  How are you going to go about getting guns out of the hands of the dangerously paranoid?  It seems to me you would have to adjudicate them as dangerously paranoid first.  And, another thing, I don't recall specifically any of the recent mass shooters to fall into that category you described.  They seemed to be garden-variety nut cases without any real clear political motives.
 
2013-01-10 02:53:37 PM
If I wanted to win a debate judged by a group of majority neutral individuals, I'd want the opposition represented by the loudest most extremist lunatic available.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:05 PM

Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.


Because it's not like the governor of the 3rd-largest state has said that confiscation is on the table.

/this is what happens when you try to overreach and you demonize 80 million people
 
2013-01-10 02:54:10 PM
What a fearsome political foe!! Their PAC had an almost 1% success rate!

i159.photobucket.com

Oooh, the NRA is mad at me. I'm so scared! Oooh, the NRA! Uh oh, the NRA is going to get me! Don't let the NRA come after me. Oh no, the NRA is coming after me! No! They're so big and strong!


They make Karl Rove look like a smashing success.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:09 PM

Fark It: Diogenes: Probably has more to do with the NRA using unfounded scaremongering as an advertising philosophy.

Because it's not like the governor of the 3rd-largest state has said that confiscation is on the table.

/this is what happens when you try to overreach and you demonize 80 million people


Except, as I said earlier, the NRA has been employing that tactic long before either Obama or said governor were in office.  And I'm not demonizing 80 million people.  I'm criticizing the strategy of the people who run the organization.  If I were demonizing gun owners I'd be demonizing myself.
 
2013-01-10 02:59:25 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: If I wanted to win a debate judged by a group of majority neutral individuals, I'd want the opposition represented by the loudest most extremist lunatic available.


I'll grant that at the national political/media level, neither side has really disappointed.

/you included

I'm no fan of the NRA, but I don't think they deserved the level of vitriolic condemnation for their "armed guards in schools" idea, especially when the Clinton White House tried to get cops in schools (hurr the answer is more guns!!!) after Columbine and Barbara Boxer proposed deploying the military to schools....
 
2013-01-10 02:59:45 PM

gilgigamesh: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So, your evidence for the federal government seizing weapons is the fact that a locally elected mayor did it.

If it was even possible to put a "should the federal government forcibly seize weapons" measure on a national referendum, it would fail in huge margins, even in the bluest of states. Maybe in a couple of the tiny hippie centers of the country it might gain a little traction, but I'd still wager at least 85% of the population would vote it down.

What difference does it make who does it?  When its Lord of the Flies outside and armed soldiers (or in this case, mercenaries) show up at your door and disarm you at gunpoint, you're just as defenseless.

The point is it can happen.  It HAS happened.  The veneer of polite society is thin indeed.  It can literally vanish overnight.


We've also never had government rape squads kicking down doors and doing their thing either. Clearly we need to be prepared for the possibility.

/Fun fact: the UN uses white helicopters, not black ones
 
2013-01-10 03:03:13 PM

Diogenes: Except, as I said earlier, the NRA has been employing that tactic long before either Obama or said governor were in office.


And people like Feinstein, Bloomberg, and Cuomo have just validated that tactic for another 20 years and given the NRA (a grassroots, user-group, despite what some wish to believe) hundreds of thousands of new members and tens of millions in cash.

Bad ideas are not better than no ideas.
 
2013-01-10 03:06:10 PM
cdn.thesandtrap.com
 
2013-01-10 03:08:23 PM

mrshowrules: I just want to let all the paranoid gun owners know that in no way will the Obama administration ever consider using the NRA membership database to identify the people they will start taking guns away from.

That would be very unreasonable and you should no way think they would be capable of that.  Rest easy and go about your day citizen and encourage other gun owners to join the NRA if they haven't done so already.


I would favourite you again if I could.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 03:09:04 PM

Nabb1: vpb: Nabb1:
By... validating their paranoia?  Well, I guess like the old saying goes - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you.

So it's paranoid to worry about the tinfoil hat wearing lunatics building their arsenals but thinking that the UN occupation army is going to invade and take your Precious or that there will be a race war is sensible preparation.

Got it.

Well, I'm not sure I would lose any sleep over them, though they are nut cases.  How are you going to go about getting guns out of the hands of the dangerously paranoid?  It seems to me you would have to adjudicate them as dangerously paranoid first.  And, another thing, I don't recall specifically any of the recent mass shooters to fall into that category you described.  They seemed to be garden-variety nut cases without any real clear political motives.


Ban the more dangerous types for everyone, then you don't need to locate them individually.
 
Displayed 50 of 343 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report