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.

(Denver Channel)   NRA takes a shot at making robocalls in Newtown, CT   (thedenverchannel.com) divider line 647
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Newtown, Connecticut, Sandy Hook Elementary School  
•       •       •

6170 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 9:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 10:33:46 PM

davidphogan: Doom MD: Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd

Apparently since they're the victims that's okay. They're victims, so only they have a valid opinion. Otherwise you're just intimidating them.


You don't need to be an expert on intimidation or constitutional rights to know that from a PR perspective, this is someone between Hindenburg and Lindsay Lohan.
 
2013-03-25 10:34:21 PM

dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?


You lose. Swallow your ego/pride and move on brah.
 
2013-03-25 10:34:32 PM

dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?


If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes.  Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.

You do know that explosive destructive devices were largely unregulated before 1968 right?
 
2013-03-25 10:35:05 PM

Abox: firefly212: The other problem with the NRA is they could get what they want, they could stop the AWB and magazine limits in just about every state... if they weren't so batshiat crazy against background checks.

The NRA, as the gun industry lobby, wants as many guns sold as possible.  A background check may prevent a gun sale.


When you can get either 90% of what you want, or alienate a crapton of people and get 30% of what you want... you're not doing a very good job if you choose the second option.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:09 PM
You know, if liberals actually hated America, they'd be all for the proliferation of handguns.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:55 PM
Just send in Ted Nugent.  That'll make it all better.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:59 PM
Once again.  Thank God, the NRA is protecting my right to murder children.  Just like Jesus would.
 
2013-03-25 10:36:20 PM

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: Yep. Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

And howitzers, and flamethrowers and F-16s?

Howizters and jets can indeed be owned and if the police and military are using them, it would seem that the 2nd amendment protections apply to them being kept and beared by the people who empower those groups in the first place.

Flamethrowers are not regulated by the ATF or any other agency of the federal government that I can find.  As such, they're easier to purchase, construct, possess than a firearm.

Damn.  Even for a gun nut, you're bonkers.

That's cool...the loonier you and the Wayne LaPierres get, the more people support gun control.


For pointing out the truth, and suggesting that the people have a right possess the same arms used by those they empower and employ?

In that case, I'm proud to be a nut.  it's infinitely better then being endorsed or supported by a loon like you.
 
2013-03-25 10:36:23 PM

Giltric: dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

You lose. Swallow your ego/pride and move on brah.


Do you have a problem with people selling rocket-propelled grenades at Wal-Mart?

Guns don't kill people. Grenades don't either.
 
2013-03-25 10:36:30 PM

James F. Campbell: You know, if liberals actually hated America, they'd be all for the proliferation of handguns.


How will they ever live out their fantasy of marching people to the gallows or guillotine over "fairness" without firearms.  Strong words?
 
2013-03-25 10:37:37 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BGates: POS liberal media making something out of nothing.

Yes, clearly the NRA is the victim in Newtown.


So again, do only the victims get a voice?
 
2013-03-25 10:37:53 PM

pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes.  Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.

You do know that explosive destructive devices were largely unregulated before 1968 right?


You see no problem with selling explosives at Wal-Mart?
 
2013-03-25 10:38:03 PM

pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms


Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.
 
2013-03-25 10:38:27 PM

dave2198: You see no problem with selling explosives at Wal-Mart?


They do now.
 
2013-03-25 10:39:17 PM

pedrop357: phalamir: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Maybe because the right to a speedy trial pretty much can't injure anyone

That's only relevant if you think that the people drafting the 2nd amendment had no idea that arms could be lethal.


Well, logically then, the Second protects all killings done with the guns.  If we hold that the lethality was intrinsic in the Amendment, then the use of that lethality must also be protected.  To not protect the killing is to render the Amendment useless.  No killing by a gun can ever been seen as a crime, for to do so nullifies the right to bear arms.  In the same way, saying you can have free speech, but just not use it in public, makes the First Amendment moot.  The parents of the slain children should be executed for treason, since their children died as part of the patriotic execution of the Second Amendment - to feel anything but orgasmic joy for their children's deaths is to defile the Constitution.  Any gun owner who hasn't killed another person is personally defaming the Founding Fathers
 
2013-03-25 10:39:33 PM

pedrop357: dave2198: You see no problem with selling explosives at Wal-Mart?

They do now.


herpa drrrr.

You know what I mean. Since you're trying to avoid the question, I think I have my answer.
 
2013-03-25 10:39:34 PM

Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.


Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.
 
2013-03-25 10:39:41 PM

davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.


Both sides are bad so do what the NRA wants.

Thanks for the calm, reasoned advice.
 
2013-03-25 10:40:10 PM

Giltric: Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?

Any love of the gun control crowd exploting children and even surrounding themselves with children during the signing of executive orders for the purpose of selling gun control?


I see that you're trying to use a hysterical example to somehow "prove" your point. I don't know how to address your piece of crap "point". Let's put it this way: I'm a gun owner who thinks that it should be more difficult to buy guns. I'm OK with background checks, and I'm OK with removing the "gun-show loopholes". I'm the only non-cop in a cop family, so I've been raised to respect firearms. I don't want any speculative gub'mint to "take yer guns", but jesuschrist, have a little perspective.
 
2013-03-25 10:40:17 PM

pedrop357: So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes. Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.



i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-25 10:40:17 PM

phalamir: Well, logically then, the Second protects all killings done with the guns. If we hold that the lethality was intrinsic in the Amendment, then the use of that lethality must also be protected. To not protect the killing is to render the Amendment useless. No killing by a gun can ever been seen as a crime, for to do so nullifies the right to bear arms. In the same way, saying you can have free speech, but just not use it in public, makes the First Amendment moot. The parents of the slain children should be executed for treason, since their children died as part of the patriotic execution of the Second Amendment - to feel anything but orgasmic joy for their children's deaths is to defile the Constitution. Any gun owner who hasn't killed another person is personally defaming the Founding Fathers


0/10
 
2013-03-25 10:41:03 PM

pedrop357: Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.

Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.


but not every single thing that can destroy or kill. You can bear arms without owning assault rifles. banning them does nothing to infringe on your rights, if you are still allowed to carry other arms.
 
2013-03-25 10:41:16 PM

davidphogan: So again, do only the victims get a voice?


Someone said it earlier. It's not a matter of whether the NRA can do this, it's a matter of whether they should do this. Criticizing these calls isn't an attempt to stifle free speech, it's just more free speech.
 
2013-03-25 10:41:20 PM

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes. Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.


[i159.photobucket.com image 400x304]


Well reasoned response.

Do you dispute that they were largely unregulated prior to 1968?
 
2013-03-25 10:42:09 PM

dave2198: pedrop357: Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.

Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.

but not every single thing that can destroy or kill. You can bear arms without owning assault rifles. banning them does nothing to infringe on your rights, if you are still allowed to carry other arms.


So the government can ban you from fark.com and that's not a 1st amendment violation because you can post at other sites?
 
2013-03-25 10:42:10 PM

Craptastic: Giltric: Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?

Any love of the gun control crowd exploting children and even surrounding themselves with children during the signing of executive orders for the purpose of selling gun control?

I see that you're trying to use a hysterical example to somehow "prove" your point. I don't know how to address your piece of crap "point". Let's put it this way: I'm a gun owner who thinks that it should be more difficult to buy guns. I'm OK with background checks, and I'm OK with removing the "gun-show loopholes". I'm the only non-cop in a cop family, so I've been raised to respect firearms. I don't want any speculative gub'mint to "take yer guns", but jesuschrist, have a little perspective.


You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.
 
2013-03-25 10:42:28 PM

James F. Campbell: You know, if liberals actually hated America, they'd be all for the proliferation of handguns.


If "liberals" were actually liberal they wouldn't be trying to shiat on rights they don't like.
 
2013-03-25 10:43:11 PM

firefly212: davidphogan: Doom MD: Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd

Apparently since they're the victims that's okay. They're victims, so only they have a valid opinion. Otherwise you're just intimidating them.

You don't need to be an expert on intimidation or constitutional rights to know that from a PR perspective, this is someone between Hindenburg and Lindsay Lohan.


So because they failed at effective marketing they should lose their right to free speech?

They obviously should have targeted their efforts better, but it doesn't mean they can't do the advocacy thing that's at the core of their mission?

compared to the mom who did an open casket for her son this seems kind of mild.
 
2013-03-25 10:43:15 PM

pedrop357: Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes. Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.


[i159.photobucket.com image 400x304]

Well reasoned response.

Do you dispute that they were largely unregulated prior to 1968?


I save those for reasonable people.
 
2013-03-25 10:44:55 PM

davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.


Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.
 
2013-03-25 10:47:59 PM

Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.


Oh no, you solved the mystery.  Those millions of members and tens of thousands of people they get to attend their conferences have nothing to do with the NRA's existence.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:01 PM

pedrop357: dave2198: pedrop357: Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.

Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.

but not every single thing that can destroy or kill. You can bear arms without owning assault rifles. banning them does nothing to infringe on your rights, if you are still allowed to carry other arms.

So the government can ban you from fark.com and that's not a 1st amendment violation because you can post at other sites?


The government regulates broadcast airwaves through the FCC, and owners are prohibited from saying certain things or broadcasting into specific areas. Their rights are restricted and regulated.

Yet we still have free speech.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:26 PM

Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.


NRA has only collected between 14 and 34 million dollars from the firearms industry since 2004.

They have collected over 2 BILLION dollars from private citizens in the same time frame.

tired talking point is tired.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:54 PM

Bonzo_1116: I'm not sure how the background check system can be made available to the general public without compromising people's privacy, though.


That's one of the big problems.
I understand your concern, and I agree that it would be nice to know I'm dealing with people who can be trusted.  But this system runs through government and I'm not satisfied that they can pass up turning this into a giant "gotcha" to harass legitimate traders or milk us for transfer fees.

Then there is the practicality of it.
This is the same background check system that allowed sales to Loughner, Holmes and Cho while flagging 3% of buyers in error. A forced check isn't fool proof and doesn't account for a sellers patience.  If there are too many hurdles more people might sell illegally.

What we have now isn't that bad, but I'm not convinced we're going to get much better until we tighten up the known loose ends.
Take known violators to court and make sure the headcases are flagged. You'll also  get more mileage from putting officers in a gun show to look for felons than by shaking down the private sellers.

UBC is about passing up the big fish to look for a handful of small timers.  It makes a good political promise, but its not the kind of enforcement we need.
 
2013-03-25 10:49:16 PM

Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.


I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight
 
2013-03-25 10:49:20 PM

Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.


WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?
 
2013-03-25 10:51:05 PM

Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?



So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.
 
2013-03-25 10:52:33 PM

davidphogan: firefly212: davidphogan: Doom MD: Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd

Apparently since they're the victims that's okay. They're victims, so only they have a valid opinion. Otherwise you're just intimidating them.

You don't need to be an expert on intimidation or constitutional rights to know that from a PR perspective, this is someone between Hindenburg and Lindsay Lohan.

So because they failed at effective marketing they should lose their right to free speech?

They obviously should have targeted their efforts better, but it doesn't mean they can't do the advocacy thing that's at the core of their mission?

compared to the mom who did an open casket for her son this seems kind of mild.


Nope, they should just be aware it's in bad taste, and that a whole lot of folks are going to think they're assholes.  There's been a lot of posturing and crisis-mongering both pro- and anti-.  I know people who've bought their first gun because of the noises that "you better buy one now while you still can. omg omg omg"...And I also know folks who've dropped their NRA memberships over their crass behaviour.


/And God help you if you get on the NRA's mailing/phone lists.  All the goddamn time asking for money.
It's like a giant festival of You're Not HelpingTM.
 
2013-03-25 10:53:27 PM

pedrop357: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.

Oh no, you solved the mystery.  Those millions of members and tens of thousands of people they get to attend their conferences have nothing to do with the NRA's existence.


Well, without those rubes to send them money and horde guns where would all the profit be?  Wayne's not going to pull down a seven-figure salary by being calm and reasonable, and nothing fills the pocketbook of the gun manufacturers than a bunch of frenzied teabaggers.

So be a good little tool and go buy more guns, because some day you may need to throw off the shackles of oppression!!

Which should be any minute now, judging from the volume of whining from the gun nuts.  It's practically the Fourth Reich here!!
 
2013-03-25 10:54:08 PM

dave2198: The government regulates broadcast airwaves through the FCC, and owners are prohibited from saying certain things or broadcasting into specific areas. Their rights are restricted and regulated.

Yet we still have free speech.


Nice evasion.  Can you be banned from fark.com, or can the government regulate the content of cable TV?
 
2013-03-25 10:54:56 PM

Giltric: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.

NRA has only collected between 14 and 34 million dollars from the firearms industry since 2004.

They have collected over 2 BILLION dollars from private citizens in the same time frame.

tired talking point is tired.


I'm not sure what "talking point" I'm being accused of using. My only point is that I think that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and that the NRA is an organization full of dumb f*cks who are afraid that the "libruls" are going to take away their guns. WTF are you talking about?
 
2013-03-25 10:56:00 PM

Craptastic: I'm not sure what "talking point" I'm being accused of using. My only point is that I think that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and that the NRA is an organization full of dumb f*cks who are afraid that the "libruls" are going to take away their guns. WTF are you talking about?


Nice walkback.
 
2013-03-25 10:56:13 PM

Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.


Let's think of this a different way. Let's say a fire killed these kids. Arson. One robocall comes from a group trying to regulate access to the materials used to start the fire, in an attempt to limit future suffering, and one robocall comes from a group trying to protect the rights of arsonists.

You see no difference here?
 
2013-03-25 10:56:17 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.

I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight


According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.
 
2013-03-25 10:57:21 PM
Al Qaeda takes notes, writes email to it's NYC Outreach Coordinator.
 
2013-03-25 10:57:34 PM

dave2198: Let's think of this a different way. Let's say a fire killed these kids. Arson. One robocall comes from a group trying to regulate access to the materials used to start the fire, in an attempt to limit future suffering, and one robocall comes from a group trying to protect the rights of arsonists.

You see no difference here?


0/10

Nice try.
 
2013-03-25 10:58:10 PM

pedrop357: dave2198: The government regulates broadcast airwaves through the FCC, and owners are prohibited from saying certain things or broadcasting into specific areas. Their rights are restricted and regulated.

Yet we still have free speech.

Nice evasion.  Can you be banned from fark.com, or can the government regulate the content of cable TV?


Since our government doesn't have a track record of being capable to regulate much of anything on the internet, I chose an example that wasn't retarded.

Point still stands. Regulation does not kill free speech.
 
2013-03-25 10:59:14 PM

Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.


Huh? If you're trying to score some internet-points, you should be more precise. Otherwise, you just look like a drooling knuckle-dragger. What "principles" are you trying to "gauge"?
 
2013-03-25 10:59:48 PM

firefly212: They don't focus on protecting the second amendment... they focus on idiocy, stopping background checks, donating money to ALEC to fight against gay marriage and for lower corporate income taxes...


get a grip. the google doesn't bring up any ties to gay marriage pro or con by ALEC or the NRA. why you think the NRA cares about gay marriage is beyond me.
 
2013-03-25 11:00:40 PM

Craptastic: Giltric: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.

NRA has only collected between 14 and 34 million dollars from the firearms industry since 2004.

They have collected over 2 BILLION dollars from private citizens in the same time frame.

tired talking point is tired.

I'm not sure what "talking point" I'm being accused of using. My only point is that I think that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and that the NRA is an organization full of dumb f*cks who are afraid that the "libruls" are going to take away their guns. WTF are you talking about?


"They exist because they are paid by the firearms manufacturers"......your words are a little further up post. I'll bold them for you in case you don't remember.

Confiscation would be on the table but Feinstein claimed she didn't have enough votes to go ahead with it. Instead they wish to ban certain firearms but it doesn't look like that will succeed either....so yes they want to take away guns but are being met with resistance.
 
Displayed 50 of 647 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report