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.

(Think Progress)   "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period". Was this the a) anti-gun Brady Campaign, b) mainstream Democrats, or c) National Rifle Association, after Columbine?   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line
    More: Followup, NRA, Brady Campaign, orbital period, safe schools, guns  
•       •       •

2470 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Feb 2013 at 7:46 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-16 07:36:04 AM  
Just more evidence of how the right wing in America has moved much much farther to the right in the last decade or so.
 
2013-02-16 07:51:27 AM  
Those Commies want to take our guns!
 
2013-02-16 07:51:55 AM  
So the NRA are hypocrites?  Who knew?
 
2013-02-16 07:51:57 AM  
Rachel Maddow called the current NRA a Heat Shield for the gun manufacturers.  Someone known to take the heat, instead of the CEOs who profit off of gun sales.
 
2013-02-16 07:52:41 AM  
Yeah, but they didn't mean any of that garbage when they said it.
 
2013-02-16 07:57:01 AM  
I wouldn't say they are hypocrites for changing their political stance over decades.  They're simply taking advantage of a shifting political landscape that allows for incredibly polarized issues to be occurring simultaneously - the rapid acceptance of gay marriage on the left while the 2nd amendment of all the amendments seems to be limitless on the right.  We live in interesting times.

Dunno how much more interesting it can get before we start filming Civil War II, though.
 
2013-02-16 08:00:47 AM  
Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?
 
2013-02-16 08:03:00 AM  

Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?


There's a ni-BONG in the White House. Duh! Pull your head out of your ass.

/yes, I know you were being sarcastic
 
2013-02-16 08:05:27 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: I wouldn't say they are hypocrites for changing their political stance over decades.


I think the NRA of the late '90s would say they are hypocrites, and that's good enough for me.
 
2013-02-16 08:17:45 AM  

Serious Black: Yeah, but they didn't mean any of that garbage when they said it.


This.

The right wing in America has repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be negotiated with in good faith. Which I suppose makes their recent shift to refusing to negotiate over anything an improvement of sorts. At least we see where they really stand on issues like crashing America's economy, rape and pandering to fascists and fanatics.
 
2013-02-16 08:19:59 AM  

Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?




Ten years of playing ball with Democrats only to end up targeted by another effort at magazine, assault weapon, and private sale bans.

/of course, many NRA members were upset about this at the time.
/the current situation was predictable.
 
2013-02-16 08:21:03 AM  

way south: Ten years of playing ball with Democrats


Which fantasy world did this happen in?
 
2013-02-16 08:24:55 AM  
How long, do you think, will it take for poor republicans to realize they are only serving the "rich" interests, and they will soon be abandoned by these "leaders" when they start getting what "they" want?
 
2013-02-16 08:25:22 AM  

Alphax: Rachel Maddow called the current NRA a Heat Shield for the gun manufacturers.  Someone known to take the heat, instead of the CEOs who profit off of gun sales.


Sounds like the RIAA.
 
2013-02-16 08:26:28 AM  

way south: Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?

Ten years of playing ball with Democrats only to end up targeted by another effort at magazine, assault weapon, and private sale bans.

/of course, many NRA members were upset about this at the time.
/the current situation was predictable.


Yes, increasing numbers of mass shootings, especially of children, was predictable. THANKS NRA!
 
2013-02-16 08:27:45 AM  
So once you state a position, how long before you can change that position?
 
2013-02-16 08:28:02 AM  

Pichu0102: Alphax: Rachel Maddow called the current NRA a Heat Shield for the gun manufacturers.  Someone known to take the heat, instead of the CEOs who profit off of gun sales.

Sounds like the RIAA.


Yeah, I guess that works, too.
 
2013-02-16 08:28:10 AM  

Alphax: Rachel Maddow called the current NRA a Heat Shield for the gun manufacturers.  Someone known to take the heat, instead of the CEOs who profit off of gun sales.


What a heat shield might look like:

i47.tinypic.com



/The metal thingy.
 
2013-02-16 08:32:19 AM  

DoomPaul: So once you state a position, how long before you can change that position?


I'm of the opinion that you can change your mind at any time, but there better be a damn good reason behind it.

Example of a bad reason: numerous Republicans all of a sudden decide "you know, I can support kids whose parents dragged them over the border as kids getting citizenship if they graduate from college or join the military" the day after Barack Obama cleans their clock among Hispanics.

Example of a good reason: Richard Muller claimed for years that there was no evidence that man was warming the planet, but after his BEST project showed that the planet was warming and that man-made emissions were almost solely responsible for the warming, he changed his mind.
 
2013-02-16 08:35:42 AM  

Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?


Clinton supported armed officers in schools, while Obama doesn't. It's pretty much that simple. Nothing Democrats propose will ever fix the problem, so best to offer an alternative you know they'll balk at to justify inaction while not seeming to pursue inaction.
 
2013-02-16 08:38:46 AM  

DoomPaul: So once you state a position, how long before you can change that position?


As Serious Black said above, you can change your position any time (and I'd maintain you can do it for whatever reason you damn well please), but you're not free from people calling you on it.
 
2013-02-16 08:39:00 AM  

Grungehamster: Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?

Clinton supported armed officers in schools, while Obama doesn't. It's pretty much that simple. Nothing Democrats propose will ever fix the problem, so best to offer an alternative you know they'll balk at to justify inaction while not seeming to pursue inaction.


18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

And magically, Republicans decided having armed guards at schools was a bad idea.
 
2013-02-16 08:43:01 AM  
Quick, dig up a quote from what was at that time an almost unprecedented occurrence, and act as if it still completely relevant today. I mean it's almost like we've had going on 14 years of learning and experience after Columbine to figure these things out. One of the things we seem to be figuring out is that "zero tolerance" and acting like everyone with more than a fingernail file is going on a killing spree hasn't worked out quite the way we liked since, as usual, it lost all semblance of sanity a long time ago.

Shall I start digging up quotes from liberals from the late 90s so you can explain to us all why they still feel that way today? Because clearly they could have learned nothing in more than a decade. You can never, ever, reevaluate an opinion on anything by this logic. Once you say it you must believe it forever. I know! All those good Democrats who voted for that Iraq war must absolutely still believe they did the right thing huh? They said they supported it once... That means they support it forever no matter what changes... Right?
 
2013-02-16 08:46:41 AM  

Serious Black: Grungehamster: Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?

Clinton supported armed officers in schools, while Obama doesn't. It's pretty much that simple. Nothing Democrats propose will ever fix the problem, so best to offer an alternative you know they'll balk at to justify inaction while not seeming to pursue inaction.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

And magically, Republicans decided having armed guards at schools was a bad idea.


Is "arming teachers" still considered a viable option by the right?  I mean, they're lazy libtards that are indoctrinating our kids with the evolutions and hate Jesus and that don't deserve any of the money they make because they get the whole summer off (so let's eliminate their unions and cut their salaries), but if they're willing to carry, I guess we could give them temporary "real American" cards.
 
2013-02-16 08:47:41 AM  

Serious Black: Grungehamster: Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?

Clinton supported armed officers in schools, while Obama doesn't. It's pretty much that simple. Nothing Democrats propose will ever fix the problem, so best to offer an alternative you know they'll balk at to justify inaction while not seeming to pursue inaction.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

And magically, Republicans decided having armed guards at schools was a bad idea.


There were genuinely people who tried to say "Obama didn't say that the incentive was for school resource officers to be armed with guns!" Of course, these are the same people who said that Obama was a hypocrite for sending his daughters to Sidwell Friends School which has school resource officers, and then when told the school denies letting any of them carry guns doubted that they would be there unless armed.
 
2013-02-16 08:48:03 AM  

randomjsa: Quick, dig up a quote from what was at that time an almost unprecedented occurrence, and act as if it still completely relevant today. I mean it's almost like we've had going on 14 years of learning and experience after Columbine to figure these things out. One of the things we seem to be figuring out is that "zero tolerance" and acting like everyone with more than a fingernail file is going on a killing spree hasn't worked out quite the way we liked since, as usual, it lost all semblance of sanity a long time ago.

Shall I start digging up quotes from liberals from the late 90s so you can explain to us all why they still feel that way today? Because clearly they could have learned nothing in more than a decade. You can never, ever, reevaluate an opinion on anything by this logic. Once you say it you must believe it forever. I know! All those good Democrats who voted for that Iraq war must absolutely still believe they did the right thing huh? They said they supported it once... That means they support it forever no matter what changes... Right?


Wow...you're really getting worked up over nothing aren't you?

There's more to life than this.
 
2013-02-16 08:51:36 AM  
Yeah, but since then they got a new thing that goes *pew* *pew* *pew* and now they like totes can't live without it.
 
2013-02-16 08:53:39 AM  

Alphax: Rachel Maddow called the current NRA a Heat Shield for the gun manufacturers.  Someone known to take the heat, instead of the CEOs who profit off of gun sales.


I don't know. They attacked and boycotted Smith and Wesson when the company agreed that more gun restrictions were required.
 
2013-02-16 08:56:51 AM  

Karac: Hmm, I wonder what's different about 2012 and 1999?


1999 was a pre-9/11 world, before terrorists existed?
 
2013-02-16 08:58:15 AM  
lol, someone in this thread needs a little of this:

www.amothersthoughts.com
 
2013-02-16 08:58:49 AM  
Why bother owning a gun, the criminals are going to kill us anyway.
 
2013-02-16 08:59:12 AM  

thatboyoverthere: Alphax: Rachel Maddow called the current NRA a Heat Shield for the gun manufacturers.  Someone known to take the heat, instead of the CEOs who profit off of gun sales.

I don't know. They attacked and boycotted Smith and Wesson when the company agreed that more gun restrictions were required.


Well, obviously the S&W check didn't clear.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from "corporate partners" come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.


Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it "is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition," NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.


In a recent promotional brochure, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre promises that the "National Rifle Association's newly expanded Corporate Partners Program is an opportunity for corporations to partner with the NRA....This program is geared toward your company's corporate interests."


Among the NRA's "corporate partners" who gave $25,000 or more to the organization are 22 that manufacture firearms, including such well-known gunmakers as: Arsenal, Inc.; Benelli; Beretta USA Corporation; Browning; DPMS Panther Arms; FNH USA; Glock, Inc.; H&R 1871, LLC; Marlin Firearms; Remington Arms Co., Inc.; SIGARMS, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Corporation; Springfield Armory; and, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Of the 22 gunmakers, 12 manufacture assault weapons. Also among the NRA's "corporate partners" are numerous high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or vendors.


One manufacturer, Beretta, donated one million dollars to the NRA to work to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller" (which for the first time ever recognized an individual right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense).
 
2013-02-16 09:01:35 AM  

Frozboz: So the NRA are hypocrites?  Who knew?


Doubtful. Like any other organization (or person) circumstances and/or time can change one's opinions.

Hypocrisy would be calling for a gun ban whilst having a concealed carry permit at the same time. *coughFeinsteincough*
 
2013-02-16 09:02:10 AM  

born_yesterday: Is "arming teachers" still considered a viable option by the right?


The GOP's "options" and "ideas" are just verbal chaffe. Any attempt to seriously engage them is just an opportunity for them to fall back to a different argument, because none of them have any substance or structure.
 
2013-02-16 09:04:19 AM  
still no buzz about the whole 'addressing mental health' thing and still just guns.  i'm shocked, shocked i say, that liberals are again more interested in creating a nanny state than solving a problem.
 
2013-02-16 09:04:26 AM  

TerminalEchoes: Frozboz: So the NRA are hypocrites?  Who knew?

Doubtful. Like any other organization (or person) circumstances and/or time can change one's opinions.

Hypocrisy would be calling for a gun ban whilst having a concealed carry permit at the same time. *coughFeinsteincough*


She's carrying a concealed Assault Weapon?
 
2013-02-16 09:04:37 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Wow...you're really getting worked up over nothing aren't you?

There's more to life than this.


Hence... why I don't have a TF account. I just don't spend enough time here to make it worth it. That's also half the reason I don't do follow up posts, which causes people to whine that I must either be a troll or that I don't stick around to back it up. The other half being that when I do come back, there's nothing worth responding to.

Do you suppose the person who originally wrote that article spent four or five times more time getting worked up over an irrelevant quote from 14 years ago than I did bursting their bubble effortlessly? Remind me again whose getting worked up over nothing?
 
2013-02-16 09:05:29 AM  

BlippityBleep: still no buzz about the whole 'addressing mental health' thing and still just guns.  i'm shocked, shocked i say, that liberals are again more interested in creating a nanny state than solving a problem.


How would one "address mental health"?

Because to me the term sounds kind of hollow to me to be honest with you.
 
2013-02-16 09:06:56 AM  

Mrtraveler01: BlippityBleep: still no buzz about the whole 'addressing mental health' thing and still just guns.  i'm shocked, shocked i say, that liberals are again more interested in creating a nanny state than solving a problem.

How would one "address mental health"?

Because to me the term sounds kind of hollow to me to be honest with you.


Dude, come on, just... address it. C'mon. Do it. Address it.
 
2013-02-16 09:09:39 AM  

Mrtraveler01: BlippityBleep: still no buzz about the whole 'addressing mental health' thing and still just guns.  i'm shocked, shocked i say, that liberals are again more interested in creating a nanny state than solving a problem.

How would one "address mental health"?

Because to me the term sounds kind of hollow to me to be honest with you.


Be assured it would never involve screening mentally ill people to prevent them from having guns .... because 99% of gun nuts couldn't pass a Paranoid Personality Disorder screening.
 
2013-02-16 09:09:43 AM  

randomjsa: Mrtraveler01: Wow...you're really getting worked up over nothing aren't you?

There's more to life than this.

Hence... why I don't have a TF account. I just don't spend enough time here to make it worth it. That's also half the reason I don't do follow up posts, which causes people to whine that I must either be a troll or that I don't stick around to back it up. The other half being that when I do come back, there's nothing worth responding to.

Do you suppose the person who originally wrote that article spent four or five times more time getting worked up over an irrelevant quote from 14 years ago than I did bursting their bubble effortlessly? Remind me again whose getting worked up over nothing?


That's funny; the amount of time you spend here is also a reason I cite for TF not being worth it.

/Was gifted
 
2013-02-16 09:10:59 AM  

randomjsa: Hence... why I don't have a TF account. I just don't spend enough time here to make it worth it. That's also half the reason I don't do follow up posts, which causes people to whine that I must either be a troll or that I don't stick around to back it up. The other half being that when I do come back, there's nothing worth responding to.


Posting and running doesn't really help your case there.

Do you suppose the person who originally wrote that article spent four or five times more time getting worked up over an irrelevant quote from 14 years ago than I did bursting their bubble effortlessly? Remind me again whose getting worked up over nothing?

Still not helping your case.

That being said, it's Think Progress. Even as a left-of-center kind of guy, I think they get wound up over some stupid and petty things.

That also being said, the NRA's "change of heart" seems quite coincidental to me, as others have pointed out.
 
2013-02-16 09:11:00 AM  

BlippityBleep: still no buzz about the whole 'addressing mental health' thing and still just guns.  i'm shocked, shocked i say, that liberals are again more interested in creating a nanny state than solving a problem.


Ask a woman what she thinks about the GOP creating nanny states and taking away their rights. Any woman at all.
 
2013-02-16 09:13:09 AM  

Mrtraveler01: TerminalEchoes: Frozboz: So the NRA are hypocrites?  Who knew?

Doubtful. Like any other organization (or person) circumstances and/or time can change one's opinions.

Hypocrisy would be calling for a gun ban whilst having a concealed carry permit at the same time. *coughFeinsteincough*

She's carrying a concealed Assault Weapon?


According to her very broad definition of what an "assault weapon" is, I'd say probably.
 
2013-02-16 09:14:16 AM  

LasersHurt: Mrtraveler01: BlippityBleep: still no buzz about the whole 'addressing mental health' thing and still just guns.  i'm shocked, shocked i say, that liberals are again more interested in creating a nanny state than solving a problem.

How would one "address mental health"?

Because to me the term sounds kind of hollow to me to be honest with you.

Dude, come on, just... address it. C'mon. Do it. Address it.


Has anyone from the pro-gun side ever come up with something more detailed than "address mental health"?

I mean funding keeps getting cut to it on a state level, my neighbor Illinois is a huge culprit at that. It along with education are the biggest whipping boys when it comes time to cut a state budget.

How is that going to help solve gun violence again?
 
2013-02-16 09:14:40 AM  
Are you guys so stupid that you don't understand the difference between an armed guard or person with authority and a metal detector? The difference between insisting that guns be locked away from children and telling them they can't own guns because of children??Have you really become THAT STUPID?
 
2013-02-16 09:16:17 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Has anyone from the pro-gun side ever come up with something more detailed than "address mental health"?

I mean funding keeps getting cut to it on a state level, my neighbor Illinois is a huge culprit at that. It along with education are the biggest whipping boys when it comes time to cut a state budget.

How is that going to help solve gun violence again?


I've certainly not seen any serious or detailed suggestions of any kind. If they're out there, they're not being pushed too hard. I think it is a convenient "quick fix" idea for a lot of people because it lets them dismiss the issue, and feel like they're still helping by supporting it.
 
2013-02-16 09:16:21 AM  

Frozboz: So the NRA are hypocrites?  Who knew?


Yeah, you can even quote Wayne LaPierre stating how much he loves the idea of universal background checks.  Now suddenly they're a bad thing in the eyes of the National Retard Association.
 
2013-02-16 09:16:46 AM  

InmanRoshi: Be assured it would never involve screening mentally ill people to prevent them from having guns .... because 99% of gun nuts couldn't pass a Paranoid Personality Disorder screening.


I heard a statistic that the number of gun owners is shrinking, but the number of guns per owner for the rest keeps climbing.. cause of the Zombie Apocalypse or something..
 
2013-02-16 09:16:55 AM  

Animatronik: telling them they can't own guns because of children?


What, pray tell, does this mean?
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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