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.

(Buzzfeed)   News: A registry of gun owners across the nation has secretly been created. Fark: By the NRA   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 380
    More: Ironic, NRA, Richard Feldman, Iowa Legislature, Virginia State Police, Department of Wildlife, information broker, databases  
•       •       •

5622 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 8:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



380 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-21 08:33:46 AM
This will be great! When we finally takeover all the markets we can then use the list the NRA compiled and begin to target the gun users for re-education! I think possibly even get some free labor out of them too when they fight back and we have to put them in prison!
 
2013-08-21 08:33:57 AM
I sure hope none of them fall down on that slippery slope with all of that ordinance they're carrying.
 
2013-08-21 08:34:23 AM
And the NRA took all their guns away, and everyone lived happily ever after.

T H E   E N D
 
2013-08-21 08:34:27 AM
I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.
 
2013-08-21 08:34:28 AM
The NSA also has one, its called "anyone who has Googled ffor dock enlargement pills"
 
2013-08-21 08:35:06 AM
Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-21 08:35:52 AM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-08-21 08:36:50 AM
   The NRA is an organization secretly created by the government in order to control both sides of the gun control debate.  It is just show opposition to give the illusion of freedom.  The government knew the would never be able to collect the data by legislation but people will voluntarily give up that information to supposed opposition to the government.
   Well now they have is suckers and they will come in their jack boots to take your guns.
   LOL you thought that large organizations and corporations were different than the government.
 
2013-08-21 08:37:04 AM
I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.
 
2013-08-21 08:37:18 AM

Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.


If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.
 
2013-08-21 08:38:07 AM
NRA members won't care as long as it isn't the fedrul gub'mint amassing a database.

Now, if we find out that the NSA has access to this database . . .

Oh wait, they still won't care.
 
2013-08-21 08:38:13 AM
Yeah, but that's totally different.
 
2013-08-21 08:38:30 AM
Well, someone has to have all the names for that well-regulated militia.
 
2013-08-21 08:38:34 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The NSA also has one, its called "anyone who has Googled ffor dock enlargement pills"


Pills for dock enlargement.  When I got a larger boat I had to hire a crew of red necks (Central Missouri Ozarks) to build a larger dock.  How would a pill do that, do you toss it in the water by end of the dock?
 
2013-08-21 08:38:44 AM
thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com
The NRA is conspiring with the Soviets, the Cubans, and the Nicaraguans.  I knew it all along.
 
2013-08-21 08:38:45 AM

Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.


I'll bet the EFF and ACLU do, too. Hell, the NAACP as well.

Just send 'em all a national security letter.
 
2013-08-21 08:38:51 AM

CPennypacker


I sure hope none of them fall down on that slippery slope with all of that ordinance ordnance they're carrying.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:48 AM
Quite a difference between a NRA secret data base compared to a mandated government secret data base.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:51 AM
Yes, but the NRA is using the database only for good. As defenders of freedom, truth and gun safety, they will never allow this information to be used to hurt the best interests of Wayne LaPierre.
 
2013-08-21 08:41:20 AM

The Name: NRA members won't care as long as it isn't the fedrul gub'mint amassing a database.

Now, if we find out that the NSA has access to this database . . .

Oh wait, they still won't care.


You're right. The NRA having a list of people they send emails and newsletters to is totally the same as the government creating a list of serialized firearms every American owns. This article has a garbage premise.
 
2013-08-21 08:42:25 AM
It means they don't really fear that an authoritarian American government will use such a list against gun owners.
Even an idiot knows that it would be pretty damn easy for the government to get that entire database if it was willing to engage in less than ethical means.
 
2013-08-21 08:42:25 AM
The only thing to stop bad guys with a huge database is a good guy with a huge database.
 
2013-08-21 08:43:05 AM
What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.
 
2013-08-21 08:43:26 AM
I haven't been a member of the NRA since I was on my high school rifle team in 1970, and they still send me e-mails every couple days.
Hey! How the hell did they get my e-mail address?
 
2013-08-21 08:43:37 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: CPennypacker

I sure hope none of them fall down on that slippery slope with all of that ordinance ordnance they're carrying.


No. They carry laws. Yeah.
 
2013-08-21 08:43:42 AM

Deep Contact: Quite a difference between a NRA secret data base compared to a mandated government secret data base.


Exactly, it's perfectly fine for the NRA to do this. It's not like the NSA and FBI will have access to the list at any time... oops.
 
2013-08-21 08:43:47 AM

TheMysteriousStranger: It means they don't really fear that an authoritarian American government will use such a list against gun owners.
Even an idiot knows that it would be pretty damn easy for the government to get that entire database if it was willing to engage in less than ethical means.


And do what? Getting an email from the NRA says nothing about whether you own guns and what type of guns you own.
 
2013-08-21 08:44:03 AM

Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.



Yeah it goes a little further than a simple "mailing list."  I hunt and own guns, and get unwanted crap from the NRA all the time, even though it'd be a cold day in hell before I'd join up.
 
2013-08-21 08:44:37 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?


It sounds like this includes people who have not joined the NRA, including    lists of attendees of gun show , or gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructor ...

I'm not sure all of those people signed up to be on the NRA mailing list.
 
2013-08-21 08:44:53 AM

AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.


Yet the NRA supported Romney over Obama, because it is all about the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-08-21 08:45:24 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.



That's the crazy part of it.  The government barely needs to maintain its databases, because private companies already maintain massive databases that they can just subpoena.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-21 08:46:21 AM
I would be less concerned if the NRA had not become of front for gun manufacturers.

Anyone that thinks they are a group for gun owners is deluded past the point of reasoning with them.
 
2013-08-21 08:46:35 AM

Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.


This.

As an NRA instructor, I can guarantee you that no where on our class registration and attendance reports does it ever ask if a person owns a firearm nor does it ask for any information about firearms they own.  It's pretty much just name, address, phone number and email.  The NRA has a vast list of people interested in shooting sports or firearms.  It does not have a record of who owns firearms or what firearms they own.
 
2013-08-21 08:46:45 AM
The slipperiness of this slope must not be under-estimated. Srsly. Super Cereal here.
 
2013-08-21 08:47:04 AM
Step 1: Convince gun owners the NRA is secretly tracking their gun purchases
Step 2: Warglebargle
Step 3: NRA membership drains, and it's almost impossible for them to keep records for what members remain

BRILLIANT!
 
2013-08-21 08:47:13 AM
Nothing like the pants wetting fear of the right wing authoritarian followers.  What's so fricken scary about a frickin gun registry?  They're going to take urr guns!

No, they're not, not any more than your car, your house, your boat or anything else.

ObOnTopic:  This is exactly why my paranoid uncle would never join the NRA.  He always said that the government would just take the membership roll from the NRA when they wanted to know who owned most of the guns.

Of course, the NRA membership if a minor fraction of the American population (a little over 1%), and a fairly minor fraction of the gun owning population, which is more and more concentrated.  A group that makes people who own guns soil their nethers at the sight of their own shadow routinely.  They have an outsized, or thing they do, over the politics, and after being for reasonable gun regulation, their flip to unfettered gun ownership is more likely to result in over regulation and seizure in the future.  They've been perturbing the pendulum so much that when it swings free it will go so far in the direction they abhor, that they'll welcome something as small as a national gun registry.
 
2013-08-21 08:47:35 AM

El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.

Yet the NRA supported Romney over Obama, because it is all about the 2nd amendment?



It's funny when people pretend that the NRA is something more than a gun industry lobbying group / political partner of the GOP.
 
2013-08-21 08:49:11 AM
Where's your god now, barrel-strokers?
 
2013-08-21 08:50:06 AM
They may have a list of people that have shown interest in firearms, but that is a bit different than knowing who owns what firearm.
 
2013-08-21 08:50:40 AM

Chummer45: It's funny when people pretend that the NRA is something more than a gun industry lobbying group / political partner of the GOP.


They aren't even a partner for the GOP, it just so happens the GOP supports their industry. The NRA is all about selling more guns, period..end of story

Chummer45: That's the crazy part of it. The government barely needs to maintain its databases, because private companies already maintain massive databases that they can just subpoena.


Exactly, and thanks to the Patriot Act commerce records can easily be obtained because of its wide berth in the language.
 
2013-08-21 08:51:09 AM
You mean the NRA has a secret list of people who signed up for stuff with the NRA?

SAY IT AIN"T SO!!1!
 
2013-08-21 08:51:27 AM

El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.

Yet the NRA supported Romney over Obama, because it is all about the 2nd amendment?


Which has what to do with the ACLU treating the 2nd amendment as a scarlet letter?
 
2013-08-21 08:51:56 AM
Not every gun owner is a member of the NRA, and not every NRA member owns a gun. The data they've compiled either comes from voluntary sources (mailing list, membership) or was originally collected by the government anyway.

The same government that is listening to your voicemail and reading your emails has probably been absent minded about destroying background check and ownership transfer records.

I'm thinking that the NRA isn't a problem since they have no power to confiscate weapons or the interest in doing so. The only way their data becomes a problem is if the government takes it.
...but since it has even more detailed information, there wouldn't be much sense in doing so.
 
2013-08-21 08:51:58 AM
State of Florida forbids any kind of gun registry.
 
2013-08-21 08:53:57 AM

jayhawk88: Step 1: Convince gun owners the NRA is secretly tracking their gun purchases
Step 2: Warglebargle
Step 3: NRA membership drains, and it's almost impossible for them to keep records for what members remain

BRILLIANT!


You missed the part where even if you quit the NRA they still keep you on their mailing lists, which they actively SELL to Republican candidate election campaigns.
 
2013-08-21 08:55:49 AM
Sure is a lot of rationalizing going in in this thread.

You ammosexuals do realize, given recent revelations about the NSA, that if there's a giant database about guns and their owners, the government already has a copy, don't you?
 
2013-08-21 08:57:26 AM

AngryDragon: El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.

Yet the NRA supported Romney over Obama, because it is all about the 2nd amendment?

Which has what to do with the ACLU treating the 2nd amendment as a scarlet letter?


The rank and file NRA member would never support the ACLU is pretty much the point
 
2013-08-21 08:58:21 AM

KyngNothing: Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?

It sounds like this includes people who have not joined the NRA, including    lists of attendees of gun show , or gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructor ...

I'm not sure all of those people signed up to be on the NRA mailing list.



I've been to gun shows, and nobody ever asked my name, nobody was wandering around taking attendance, and if they were I'm sure all of the bunker-builders would freak the fark out. As for the others, if the NRA has your mailing address, it is extraordinarily likely that you gave it to them.
 
2013-08-21 09:00:03 AM
When I bought my gun I had to have a back ground check.  No way the government didn't put me on a list, and I don't care.  I don't care if the NRA or the NYT also has a list.   Why should you?
 
2013-08-21 09:00:20 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: This will be great! When we finally takeover all the markets we can then use the list the NRA compiled and begin to target the gun users for re-education! I think possibly even get some free labor out of them too when they fight back and we have to put them in prison!


Right, let's bring back slavery under a new name.

And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?
 
2013-08-21 09:02:02 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?


Came to say something similar...Seeing as you have to join this association one would assume that the list of members is their "secret" database?
 
2013-08-21 09:02:48 AM

El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.

Yet the NRA supported Romney over Obama, because it is all about the 2nd amendment?

Which has what to do with the ACLU treating the 2nd amendment as a scarlet letter?

The rank and file NRA member would never support the ACLU is pretty much the point


I'm fairly certain you're wrong there.  Many gun owners, like me, are socially very liberal, educated, and progressive.  I maintain an NRA membership specifically because they defend the 2nd amendment.  It's pretty painful actually to be associated with the closed-minded, xenophobic, "god-fearing" type that the NRA seems to be associated with.  Since there is no powerful alternative, I stay.

If the ACLU supported the 2nd, there would be a complete exodus by people like me.  It is fairly hypocritical for them not to.
 
2013-08-21 09:02:56 AM
Wait, a "club" with a "membership" keeps a "list" of its "members"?

OMG!

Stupid farking article is farking stupid.
 
2013-08-21 09:03:08 AM

give me doughnuts: KyngNothing: Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?

It sounds like this includes people who have not joined the NRA, including    lists of attendees of gun show , or gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructor ...

I'm not sure all of those people signed up to be on the NRA mailing list.


I've been to gun shows, and nobody ever asked my name, nobody was wandering around taking attendance, and if they were I'm sure all of the bunker-builders would freak the fark out. As for the others, if the NRA has your mailing address, it is extraordinarily likely that you gave it to them.


In short, the NRA lobbyist quoted in the article is lying about how they got their information.
 
2013-08-21 09:03:16 AM

bmongar: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The NSA also has one, its called "anyone who has Googled ffor dock enlargement pills"

Pills for dock enlargement.  When I got a larger boat I had to hire a crew of red necks (Central Missouri Ozarks) to build a larger dock.  How would a pill do that, do you toss it in the water by end of the dock?


It's amazing where modern medicine is heading these days.
 
2013-08-21 09:06:27 AM

Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.


An extremely influential organization has a huge database that rivals the databases of recent presidential campaigns and uses it to influence public discourse and policy. Said organization has built up numerous ways of gathering information including gun safety classes run under its auspices.

Also, there is a lot of overlap between anti-government types and NRA members, who apparently don't mind being manipulated by the gun industry.

There, FTFY.
 
2013-08-21 09:06:27 AM

Don_cos: Princess Ryans Knickers: This will be great! When we finally takeover all the markets we can then use the list the NRA compiled and begin to target the gun users for re-education! I think possibly even get some free labor out of them too when they fight back and we have to put them in prison!

Right, let's bring back slavery under a new name.

And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?


Ever hear of police, National Guard, or military? What now tough guy?
 
2013-08-21 09:06:54 AM

Don_cos: And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?


Giant magnets.
 
2013-08-21 09:07:20 AM

Serious Black: In short, the NRA lobbyist quoted in the article is lying about how they got their information.


Most gun shows have a table right up front where you can sign up for a door prize.  Guess where the information from all those signup cards goes.
 
2013-08-21 09:08:00 AM

Wyalt Derp: Don_cos: And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?

Giant magnets.


OK.  That was funny.

*golf clap*
 
2013-08-21 09:08:00 AM

AngryDragon: El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.

Yet the NRA supported Romney over Obama, because it is all about the 2nd amendment?

Which has what to do with the ACLU treating the 2nd amendment as a scarlet letter?

The rank and file NRA member would never support the ACLU is pretty much the point

I'm fairly certain you're wrong there.  Many gun owners, like me, are socially very liberal, educated, and progressive.  I maintain an NRA membership specifically because they defend the 2nd amendment.  It's pretty painful actually to be associated with the closed-minded, xenophobic, "god-fearing" type that the NRA seems to be associated with.  Since there is no powerful alternative, I stay.

If the ACLU supported the 2nd, there would be a complete exodus by people like me.  It is fairly hypocritical for them not to.


The UNRA.
 
2013-08-21 09:08:40 AM

AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.


LOL. Oh you. The NRA, much like a church, needs its members to generate revenue. They don't care about gun laws because they think the2nd amendment will allow you, Rusty, and the boys at the VFW to win the battle of Shiatkick Hill in a war against the government. They need your dues. They advocate for the rights of gun MANUFACTURERS to make sure they're allowed to keep selling you death. If Congress passed a law that said, "All NRA members are allowed to own whatever guns they want too, but non-members are forbidden from owning a firearm", do you think the NRA would fight for the rights of the non-members on the grounds that they believe in the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-08-21 09:08:44 AM

KyngNothing: Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?

It sounds like this includes people who have not joined the NRA, including    lists of attendees of gun show , or gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructor ...

I'm not sure all of those people signed up to be on the NRA mailing list.


Actually they probably did.  You know when they click on "accept Terms" without reading them.
 
2013-08-21 09:08:58 AM

Don_cos: Princess Ryans Knickers: This will be great! When we finally takeover all the markets we can then use the list the NRA compiled and begin to target the gun users for re-education! I think possibly even get some free labor out of them too when they fight back and we have to put them in prison!

Right, let's bring back slavery under a new name.

And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?


there are many liberals who own guns who aren't NRA members, muhahahaha. Oh you didn't get the memo on that from your Teabagger overlords?
 
2013-08-21 09:10:32 AM

d23: I would be less concerned if the NRA had not become of front for gun manufacturers.

Anyone that thinks they are a group for gun owners is deluded past the point of reasoning with them.


Kinda like those people who think modern day unions are for the workers.
 
2013-08-21 09:11:05 AM

Wyalt Derp: Don_cos: And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?

Giant magnets.


What your posse might look like:
media.oregonlive.com
 
2013-08-21 09:11:20 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?


way south: Not every gun owner is a member of the NRA, and not every NRA member owns a gun. The data they've compiled either comes from voluntary sources (mailing list, membership) or was originally collected by the government anyway.

The same government that is listening to your voicemail and reading your emails has probably been absent minded about destroying background check and ownership transfer records.

I'm thinking that the NRA isn't a problem since they have no power to confiscate weapons or the interest in doing so. The only way their data becomes a problem is if the government takes it.
...but since it has even more detailed information, there wouldn't be much sense in doing so.


That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines and more, BuzzFeed has learned.

Candy coat it all you want kids. They have been collecting gun registration info from counties and states. WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION!!!
 
2013-08-21 09:12:31 AM

give me doughnuts


As for the others, if the NRA has your mailing address, it is extraordinarily likely that you gave it to them.


Not quite. I am not an NRA member, have never been to an NRA event, and have never entered into any correspondence with the NRA, but I receive snail mail from them occasionally.

It's possible an online vendor provided my info to them but that was not due to any action on my part. I always decline the 'NRA round-up' (rounding the order price to the next dollar as a donation to the NRA) and decline being added to mailing lists, etc.
 
2013-08-21 09:13:49 AM

Click Click D'oh: Serious Black: In short, the NRA lobbyist quoted in the article is lying about how they got their information.

Most gun shows have a table right up front where you can sign up for a door prize.  Guess where the information from all those signup cards goes.


And guess who is giving away the door prize? Like I said: If the NRA has your name and mailing address, it's because you gave it to them.
 
2013-08-21 09:14:37 AM
FB Graph Search is a good tool to find your local loud mouthed gun nutters too.
 
2013-08-21 09:14:46 AM

CPennypacker: I sure hope none of them fall down on that slippery slope with all of that ordinance tiny penis compensation they're carrying.

 
2013-08-21 09:16:02 AM
Most people called that a CRM not a registry
 
2013-08-21 09:16:24 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.

LOL. Oh you. The NRA, much like a church, needs its members to generate revenue. They don't care about gun laws because they think the2nd amendment will allow you, Rusty, and the boys at the VFW to win the battle of Shiatkick Hill in a war against the government. They need your dues. They advocate for the rights of gun MANUFACTURERS to make sure they're allowed to keep selling you death. If Congress passed a law that said, "All NRA members are allowed to own whatever guns they want too, but non-members are forbidden from owning a firearm", do you think the NRA would fight for the rights of the non-members on the grounds that they believe in the 2nd amendment?


That wasn't my point either.  The fact remains that the NRA is the only organization with enough political clout actively defending the 2nd amendment.  Anyone who believe in that constitutional right has no other alternative than to support them.  The ACLU could change that almost overnight by changing their position.

Don't worry, that will NEVER happen.
 
2013-08-21 09:18:16 AM

Wyalt Derp: Don_cos: And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?

Giant magnets.


img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-08-21 09:19:35 AM

Wyalt Derp: Don_cos: And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?

Giant magnets.


That's a good one!
 
2013-08-21 09:19:40 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: LOL. Oh you. The NRA, much like a church, needs its members to generate revenue. They don't care about gun laws because they think the2nd amendment will allow you, Rusty, and the boys at the VFW to win the battle of Shiatkick Hill in a war against the government.


You of all people.

The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.
 
2013-08-21 09:21:40 AM

AngryDragon: The fact remains that the NRA is the only organization with enough political clout actively defending the 2nd amendment.


'Cos it's under attack, right? Just any day now, the gub'mint's gonna come git yer guns!!!! If it weren't for that brave, brave, lobbying group, GeneralissimObama's death squads would have us all relegated to FEMA camps!

Could I interest you in an fantastic investment opportunity involving these extraordinary -- others have gone so far as to call them magic -- beans?
 
2013-08-21 09:21:43 AM

give me doughnuts: And guess who is giving away the door prize?


Usually the promoter that's putting on the gunshow.
 
2013-08-21 09:22:20 AM
They're calling 3rd parties, including local governments to mine data about CCW permit holders to compile a database. THIS ISN'T JUST THEIR MEMBERSHIP ROLES!

I know the gun-nut hive mind has told all its rugged individualist members that these types of databases will lead to an instant comprehensive campaign by the feds to seize all firearms. So why are you folks so complicit?
 
2013-08-21 09:23:11 AM

Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.


It's one of two reasons that I have never joined, the other being that the NRA is as idiotic of an organization as PETA, but 'Not being on a list' is actually the #1 reason...
 
2013-08-21 09:23:49 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Ever hear of police, National Guard, or military? What now tough guy?


Yep, been a member of all three.  And the majority of them support the 2nd Amendment.

Also;
The military (including the Gaurd and Reserve) are not allowed to be used domestically in this manner.
The Police aren't even allowed to properly round up the illegal guns.
 
2013-08-21 09:24:56 AM
So everyone is fine if the Brady Campaign uses the same tactics to compile a database of guns and their owners?
 
2013-08-21 09:25:27 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The NSA also has one, its called "anyone who has Googled ffor dock enlargement pills"


I don't even live on a waterway, let alone own a boat.
 
2013-08-21 09:25:39 AM

This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: LOL. Oh you. The NRA, much like a church, needs its members to generate revenue. They don't care about gun laws because they think the2nd amendment will allow you, Rusty, and the boys at the VFW to win the battle of Shiatkick Hill in a war against the government.

You of all people.

The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.



This guy. If i support an organization simply because they've supported blacks it means I'm a racist. But, if I don't take race into consideration when commenting it means that I SHOULD have taken race into consideration. Make up your mind.

Also, the fact that they were once on the right side of history doesn't mean they're not profiteers now.***


/***See Sharpton, Al; Jackson, Jesse
 
2013-08-21 09:27:17 AM

EyeballKid: AngryDragon: The fact remains that the NRA is the only organization with enough political clout actively defending the 2nd amendment.

'Cos it's under attack, right? Just any day now, the gub'mint's gonna come git yer guns!!!! If it weren't for that brave, brave, lobbying group, GeneralissimObama's death squads would have us all relegated to FEMA camps!

Could I interest you in an fantastic investment opportunity involving these extraordinary -- others have gone so far as to call them magic -- beans?


Jesus, why does anyone who states that the 2nd amendment needs to be defended have to be categorized as a prepper?  I don't hear people screaming about the 1st or 4th being labeled as communists or terrorists, at least not by sane people.

Every amendment in the Bill of Rights should be defended vigorously, no exceptions.  The fact that the ACLU, which I consider to be a reputable and valuable organization, avoids the 2nd opens opportunities for other more radical groups to step into the void.
 
2013-08-21 09:28:15 AM

tennesseemike: When I bought my gun I had to have a back ground check.  No way the government didn't put me on a list, and I don't care.  I don't care if the NRA or the NYT also has a list.   Why should you?


Because they're gonna use the list to come and take yer guns!
 
2013-08-21 09:29:06 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: They're calling 3rd parties, including local governments to mine data about CCW permit holders to compile a database. THIS ISN'T JUST THEIR MEMBERSHIP ROLES!

I know the gun-nut hive mind has told all its rugged individualist members that these types of databases will lead to an instant comprehensive campaign by the feds to seize all firearms. So why are you folks so complicit?


I am going to let you finish Skippy but I must interject that the comprehensive listing of firearms to their owners is what gun nuts dont want.  This is not that.
 
2013-08-21 09:29:16 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: So everyone is fine if the Brady Campaign uses the same tactics to compile a database of guns and their owners?


Shocking that someone on Fark is uninformed...  Nah.  NEWSFLASH:  The NRA doesn't have a database of guns and their owners.  They have a database of people who through direct or indirect action have expressed interest in firearms, firearms related items or activities or the shooting sports

If you ever bought anything from Cheaperthandirt.com or sportsmansguide.com, the NRA has you in their database.
 
2013-08-21 09:29:47 AM

Egalitarian: there are many liberals who own guns who aren't NRA members, muhahahaha. Oh you didn't get the memo on that from your Teabagger overlords?


I never said anything about Liberals vs. Conservatives.  It's gun owners vs. civil rights violating do gooders.

Oh, you didn't get the memo on that from your drug muddled union masters?
 
2013-08-21 09:31:29 AM

AngryDragon: Jesus, why does anyone who states that the 2nd amendment needs to be defended have to be categorized as a prepper? I don't hear people screaming about the 1st or 4th being labeled as communists or terrorists, at least not by sane people.

Every amendment in the Bill of Rights should be defended vigorously, no exceptions. The fact that the ACLU, which I consider to be a reputable and valuable organization, avoids the 2nd opens opportunities for other more radical groups to step into the void.


Here's a little tip. You know when would have been a great time to offer some sort of gun control? After two children shot up fellow students during class at an affluent neighborhood high school in Colorado. And, do you know how many gun control measures were enacted as a result of the Columbine shooting? None. Nada. Not one. The NRA even had ran a victory lap in Denver shortly after the shootings. If the gun lobby was too powerful for any gun control measures to pass after Columbine, I think it's safe to say they have nothing to worry about.

But, please, remind me how we're just a 300-round clip away from TURRANY!!!
 
2013-08-21 09:31:36 AM

Don_cos: Princess Ryans Knickers: Ever hear of police, National Guard, or military? What now tough guy?

Yep, been a member of all three.  And the majority of them support the 2nd Amendment.

Also;
The military (including the Gaurd and Reserve) are not allowed to be used domestically in this manner.
The Police aren't even allowed to properly round up the illegal guns.


Laws change. Both the military and the police follow the law. Bend over cracker.
 
2013-08-21 09:32:26 AM
I am a gun owner. I will not give a penny to the NRA. Not one cent. Especially after the last presidential campaign in which they gave an F to Obama (grading candidates based on 2A policies, etc.) and an A to Romney. Obama, early in his first term, legalized the carry of firearms in National Parks, and enacted no anti gun legislation during his first term. Romney, on the other hand, enacted an assault weapons ban in 2004 in his home state. Now, we can bicker all day about whether or not these are good or bad things. That is not the point. The point is that the NRA decided to ignore the fact that Romney signed the bill into law, and decided to support him (Cuz Republican, that's why), and conveniently forgot that Obama took the opposite route. The NRA doesn't care what you actually do, they only care about what you say you will do. Absolutely ridiculous. Want to support gun rights? Join GOA or JPFO, or something similar. And dont vote for idiots. And dont make reasonable gun owners look like morons. And I am running out of steam and I am done now.
 
2013-08-21 09:32:41 AM

Saiga410: They may have a list of people that have shown interest in firearms, but that is a bit different than knowing who owns what firearm.


Exactly. The NRA's "database" is good, the BATFE's is better.
 
2013-08-21 09:34:53 AM

jdcgonzalez: I am a gun owner. I will not give a penny to the NRA. Not one cent. Especially after the last presidential campaign in which they gave an F to Obama (grading candidates based on 2A policies, etc.) and an A to Romney. Obama, early in his first term, legalized the carry of firearms in National Parks, and enacted no anti gun legislation during his first term. Romney, on the other hand, enacted an assault weapons ban in 2004 in his home state. Now, we can bicker all day about whether or not these are good or bad things. That is not the point. The point is that the NRA decided to ignore the fact that Romney signed the bill into law, and decided to support him (Cuz Republican, that's why), and conveniently forgot that Obama took the opposite route. The NRA doesn't care what you actually do, they only care about what you say you will do. Absolutely ridiculous. Want to support gun rights? Join GOA or JPFO, or something similar. And dont vote for idiots. And dont make reasonable gun owners look like morons. And I am running out of steam and I am done now.


You know what? Dont support JPFO, I just looked at their website and they are as batshiat crazy as the other guys. Sigh. This is why we cant have nice guns.
 
2013-08-21 09:35:37 AM
If you're a licensed gun owner, wouldn't you already be on a database?  Is it really any different than having a driver's license?

/Serious question
 
2013-08-21 09:36:54 AM

Snatch Bandergrip: If you're a licensed gun owner, wouldn't you already be on a database?  Is it really any different than having a driver's license?

/Serious question


There is no licensing requirement for ownership (in a general sense, restrictions apply).
 
2013-08-21 09:36:59 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: This will be great! When we finally takeover all the markets we can then use the list the NRA compiled and begin to target the gun users for re-education! I think possibly even get some free labor out of them too when they fight back and we have to put them in prison!


Given their capabilities, the NSA could know everyone who has sent or received email (or mail) to the NRA.   It would be nice to see the NRA combat this by extending their lobbying clout to privacy issues.
 
2013-08-21 09:37:03 AM
The password for said database is quite tricky. Instead of password, it is secret. No wonder the NSA, CIA, USDA and BSA haven't been able to crack it.
 
2013-08-21 09:38:39 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: So everyone is fine if the Brady Campaign uses the same tactics to compile a database of guns and their owners?


Nah, Brady's easy to stop. Just put a non-handicapped accessible entrance into your file room.
 
2013-08-21 09:39:18 AM
HAHAHAAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

*breathe*

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
 
2013-08-21 09:39:41 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.


This guy. If i support an organization simply because they've supported blacks it means I'm a racist. But, if I don't take race into consideration when commenting it means that I SHOULD have taken race into consideration. Make up your mind.

Also, the fact that they were once on the right side of history doesn't mean they're not profiteers now.***


/***See Sharpton, Al; Jackson, Jesse


Point of order -- when was Jesse on the right side of history? Are does he receive credit for using MLK as a kevlar kid?
 
2013-08-21 09:39:59 AM
NRA is a good organization and I'm happy with the work they've done countering gun control legislation in the past few decades. However, the only way I'd become a member is if they work to liberalize import rules and end the Hughes amendment.
 
2013-08-21 09:40:40 AM
Princess Ryans Knickers: Bend over cracker.

So does this kind of racism make you think you have won the debate?  This is actually a sign of defeat.  Your defeat.

Thanks for playing.
 
2013-08-21 09:41:08 AM

Frank N Stein: NRA is a good organization


You're a funny man sometimes.
 
2013-08-21 09:42:06 AM

LasersHurt: Snatch Bandergrip: If you're a licensed gun owner, wouldn't you already be on a database?  Is it really any different than having a driver's license?

/Serious question

There is no licensing requirement for ownership (in a general sense, restrictions apply).


Offer not valid in IL
 
2013-08-21 09:43:04 AM
buying lists of attendees of gun shows


That's not a thing.
 
2013-08-21 09:43:35 AM

Click Click D'oh: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

This.

As an NRA instructor, I can guarantee you that no where on our class registration and attendance reports does it ever ask if a person owns a firearm nor does it ask for any information about firearms they own.  It's pretty much just name, address, phone number and email.  The NRA has a vast list of people interested in shooting sports or firearms.  It does not have a record of who owns firearms or what firearms they own.


There is overwhelming overlap in the Venn diagram of people-interested-in-shooting-sports-or-firearms and gun owners.  So what if it's not 100%, it certainly increases the probability that you're kicking in the right door when it comes time for the big confiscation.
 
2013-08-21 09:44:57 AM

Don_cos: Princess Ryans Knickers: This will be great! When we finally takeover all the markets we can then use the list the NRA compiled and begin to target the gun users for re-education! I think possibly even get some free labor out of them too when they fight back and we have to put them in prison!

Right, let's bring back slavery under a new name.

And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?


Armed drones, of course.
 
2013-08-21 09:45:38 AM

LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: NRA is a good organization

You're a funny man sometimes.


They've stood tall and helped kill a lot of gun control measures, which I do not support, on the State and federal level. They also do pretty good work with gun safety classes.
 
2013-08-21 09:45:47 AM

The Name: NRA members won't care as long as it isn't the fedrul gub'mint amassing a database.


Which is, of course, their downfall.  Private entities having your information is just as dangerous as the government having your information.  If you trust any private organization more than you trust the federal government (which I suspect is a number pretty close to 0), then you're deluding yourself.
 
2013-08-21 09:46:07 AM

This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.


This guy. If i support an organization simply because they've supported blacks it means I'm a racist. But, if I don't take race into consideration when commenting it means that I SHOULD have taken race into consideration. Make up your mind.

Also, the fact that they were once on the right side of history doesn't mean they're not profiteers now.***


/***See Sharpton, Al; Jackson, Jesse

Point of order -- when was Jesse on the right side of history? Are does he receive credit for using MLK as a kevlar kid?



When you're wrong, the noble thing to do is to admit it and move on. Or, you can try to change the subject with a corny ass joke.


/weaksauce
 
2013-08-21 09:48:32 AM
Gun rights only come under fire when gun nuts reveal how mentally unstable they are.
 
2013-08-21 09:48:39 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.


This guy. If i support an organization simply because they've supported blacks it means I'm a racist. But, if I don't take race into consideration when commenting it means that I SHOULD have taken race into consideration. Make up your mind.

Also, the fact that they were once on the right side of history doesn't mean they're not profiteers now.***


/***See Sharpton, Al; Jackson, Jesse

Point of order -- when was Jesse on the right side of history? Are does he receive credit for using MLK as a kevlar kid?


When you're wrong, the noble thing to do is to admit it and move on. Or, you can try to change the subject with a corny ass joke.


It's a serious question. Jesse has a rep as this great civil rights leader, but I struggled to come up with something he's actually done, beyond riding the right set of coat-tails. He's like the black GB2.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.
 
2013-08-21 09:49:06 AM

Frank N Stein: LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: NRA is a good organization

You're a funny man sometimes.

They've stood tall and helped kill a lot of gun control measures, which I do not support, on the State and federal level. They also do pretty good work with gun safety classes.


A lot of horrible people have done one or two good things, too. I think they're a ridiculous farce of an organization which has grown corrupt and politicized beyond repair. I think they knowingly abuse peoples' emotions, and I think the philosophy they actively or tacitly support about guns is dangerous.

Give me a more tempered organization who fights honestly and I can get behind it, but the NRA is slimy these days.
 
2013-08-21 09:49:11 AM
This was pretty obvious.

AngryDragon: I don't hear people screaming about the 1st or 4th being labeled as communists or terrorists, at least not by sane people.


Well, that qualifier knocks out about half of America.
 
2013-08-21 09:50:12 AM

This text is now purple: You're a single-issue voter, except for this.


"You're a single issue voter, except when you're not. JUSTIFY THIS TO ME"
 
2013-08-21 09:51:04 AM
Screw the NRA, they're a bunch of fear mongers. Join the Second Amendment Foundation, they are your friends, they fight for freedom.
 
2013-08-21 09:51:24 AM

IlGreven: The Name: NRA members won't care as long as it isn't the fedrul gub'mint amassing a database.

Which is, of course, their downfall.  Private entities having your information is just as dangerous as the government having your information.  If you trust any private organization more than you trust the federal government (which I suspect is a number pretty close to 0), then you're deluding yourself.


The fact that the database even exists means it's one hell of a lot easier for the government to get it's hands on it.  They can simply bribe someone with access, or send in a spy, or kick in a door, or get a warrant from a hidden court.  The NRA has done all the work for them.
 
2013-08-21 09:52:22 AM

Saiga410: LasersHurt: Snatch Bandergrip: If you're a licensed gun owner, wouldn't you already be on a database?  Is it really any different than having a driver's license?

/Serious question

There is no licensing requirement for ownership (in a general sense, restrictions apply).

Offer not valid in IL


There is a license to carry a gun in most states but not one to own one. There are a lot of states where handgun purchases are registered but there is a gun show and private sale loophole where guns can be bought and sold outside of the state's system.
 
2013-08-21 09:54:50 AM

LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: NRA is a good organization

You're a funny man sometimes.

They've stood tall and helped kill a lot of gun control measures, which I do not support, on the State and federal level. They also do pretty good work with gun safety classes.

A lot of horrible people have done one or two good things, too. I think they're a ridiculous farce of an organization which has grown corrupt and politicized beyond repair. I think they knowingly abuse peoples' emotions, and I think the philosophy they actively or tacitly support about guns is dangerous.

Give me a more tempered organization who fights honestly and I can get behind it, but the NRA is slimy these days.


Well I disagree. In fact, it's telling that you think opposing gun control is "dangerous", and shows that the preceding arguments you made are based on that bias.

It seems to me that the NRA, to you, is too hard-nose. You want a pro-gun organization that is less effective and will roll over.
 
2013-08-21 09:55:16 AM
1) The "list" described in tfa is not "a secret list of gun owners." For example, a list of those with hunting permits =/= a list of gun owners.
2) If the NRA is, in fact, attempting to obtain a list of folks who may be interested in joining their organization, I'd rather the NRA have this list than a President and a political party which seems to think the function of government is to pass as many restrictions on the U.S. Constitution as possible
3) Non-story is non-
 
2013-08-21 09:56:29 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?
 
2013-08-21 09:56:40 AM

Frank N Stein: In fact, it's telling that you think opposing gun control is "dangerous"


I think it's telling that you can't avoid conflating two different things to make a false accusation against me.
 
2013-08-21 09:57:08 AM
Mail order conservatism.
 
2013-08-21 09:57:42 AM

El_Frijole_Blanco: AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.

Yet the NRA supported Romney over Obama, because it is all about the 2nd amendment?


Romney pushed for MA legislation to include the language of the federal legislation.

MA proposed an all out ban. Romney pushed to allow MA residents to purchase models manufactured previous to 1994 that didn't have folding/telescoping stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs etc....

You can buy an AR 15 today in MA. Without Romneys input you could not.

Obama stated multiple times during his campaign that you should not be able to own an AR15. Guns should all be registered, Smith and Wesson should be sued if someone who could have been his son uses one of their products to rape and murder a 90 year old woman etc....


So yes, for them it was all about the second amendment.
Do you have proof otherwise?
 
2013-08-21 09:58:09 AM

Aristocles: 1) The "list" described in tfa is not "a secret list of gun owners." For example, a list of those with hunting permits =/= a list of gun owners.
2) If the NRA is, in fact, attempting to obtain a list of folks who may be interested in joining their organization, I'd rather the NRA have this list than a President and a political party which seems to think the function of government is to pass as many restrictions on the U.S. Constitution as possible
3) Non-story is non-


When it's time to kick in the doors these lists may not correspond 1:1 with gun owners but they will be damn close.
 
2013-08-21 09:58:56 AM

hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?


www.addictinginfo.org
 
2013-08-21 09:59:09 AM

This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.


This guy. If i support an organization simply because they've supported blacks it means I'm a racist. But, if I don't take race into consideration when commenting it means that I SHOULD have taken race into consideration. Make up your mind.

Also, the fact that they were once on the right side of history doesn't mean they're not profiteers now.***


/***See Sharpton, Al; Jackson, Jesse

Point of order -- when was Jesse on the right side of history? Are does he receive credit for using MLK as a kevlar kid?


When you're wrong, the noble thing to do is to admit it and move on. Or, you can try to change the subject with a corny ass joke.

It's a serious question. Jesse has a rep as this great civil rights leader, but I struggled to come up with something he's actually done, beyond riding the right set of coat-tails. He's like the black GB2.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.
 
2013-08-21 10:00:05 AM
This text is now purple:

It's a serious question. Jesse has a rep as this great civil rights leader, but I struggled to come up with something he's actually done, beyond riding the right set of coat-tails. He's like the black GB2.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.



And I'm sure you've spend countless hours studying the life of Jesse Jackson to come to that determination. I called him a profiteer and I'm still supposed to defend him because ...black? I don't know. Do you think we walk around with lists of every organization that's said something positive about a black person to determine who to support? I don't go to McDonalds just because they have a black kid in the commercial breakdancing with a McGriddle in his mouth. But, I think the real takeaway from your comments is that you finally realize that there is a disparity in America between how whites and blacks are treated. You're coming along, son.
 
2013-08-21 10:00:34 AM

LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: In fact, it's telling that you think opposing gun control is "dangerous"

I think it's telling that you can't avoid conflating two different things to make a false accusation against me.


Oh, then do tell me how the NRA is dangerous.
 
2013-08-21 10:01:03 AM

This text is now purple


There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?
 
2013-08-21 10:02:03 AM

PopularFront: Aristocles: 1) The "list" described in tfa is not "a secret list of gun owners." For example, a list of those with hunting permits =/= a list of gun owners.
2) If the NRA is, in fact, attempting to obtain a list of folks who may be interested in joining their organization, I'd rather the NRA have this list than a President and a political party which seems to think the function of government is to pass as many restrictions on the U.S. Constitution as possible
3) Non-story is non-

When it's time to kick in the doors these lists may not correspond 1:1 with gun owners but they will be damn close.


You're persistent.
 
2013-08-21 10:02:11 AM

Frank N Stein: LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: In fact, it's telling that you think opposing gun control is "dangerous"

I think it's telling that you can't avoid conflating two different things to make a false accusation against me.

Oh, then do tell me how the NRA is dangerous.


Tell me how they are not.
 
2013-08-21 10:02:41 AM

Frank N Stein: LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: In fact, it's telling that you think opposing gun control is "dangerous"

I think it's telling that you can't avoid conflating two different things to make a false accusation against me.

Oh, then do tell me how the NRA is dangerous.


Because: 

LasersHurt: I think they knowingly abuse peoples' emotions, and I think the philosophy they actively or tacitly support about guns is dangerous.


If you're capable of the reading comprehension necessary to ask an accurate question, I await it.
 
2013-08-21 10:02:55 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?


Is Obama the only black guy you know of?
 
2013-08-21 10:03:20 AM

wildcardjack: jayhawk88: Step 1: Convince gun owners the NRA is secretly tracking their gun purchases
Step 2: Warglebargle
Step 3: NRA membership drains, and it's almost impossible for them to keep records for what members remain

BRILLIANT!

You missed the part where even if you quit the NRA they still keep you on their mailing lists, which they actively SELL to Republican candidate election campaigns.


I cancelled my membership years ago and never got any propaganda from them afterwards nor did I receive any mailers from other gun related sources.

The politicians around here just get a list of property owners from the county clerk for mailing list purposes.

But I keep getting mail for some dude named Current with some wierd surname like Reident which seems German.
 
2013-08-21 10:03:59 AM

Frank N Stein: PopularFront: Aristocles: 1) The "list" described in tfa is not "a secret list of gun owners." For example, a list of those with hunting permits =/= a list of gun owners.
2) If the NRA is, in fact, attempting to obtain a list of folks who may be interested in joining their organization, I'd rather the NRA have this list than a President and a political party which seems to think the function of government is to pass as many restrictions on the U.S. Constitution as possible
3) Non-story is non-

When it's time to kick in the doors these lists may not correspond 1:1 with gun owners but they will be damn close.

You're persistent.


So was Cassandra.
 
2013-08-21 10:04:20 AM

LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: In fact, it's telling that you think opposing gun control is "dangerous"

I think it's telling that you can't avoid conflating two different things to make a false accusation against me.

Oh, then do tell me how the NRA is dangerous.

Because:  LasersHurt: I think they knowingly abuse peoples' emotions, and I think the philosophy they actively or tacitly support about guns is dangerous.

If you're capable of the reading comprehension necessary to ask an accurate question, I await it.


"I think the I think the philosophy they...support about guns is dangerous"

So, what philosophy is that?
 
2013-08-21 10:04:59 AM

PopularFront: Aristocles: 1) The "list" described in tfa is not "a secret list of gun owners." For example, a list of those with hunting permits =/= a list of gun owners.
2) If the NRA is, in fact, attempting to obtain a list of folks who may be interested in joining their organization, I'd rather the NRA have this list than a President and a political party which seems to think the function of government is to pass as many restrictions on the U.S. Constitution as possible
3) Non-story is non-

When it's time to kick in the doors these lists may not correspond 1:1 with gun owners but they will be damn close.


I think the lists that are mentioned in the article (and not all of them may actually exist, e.g. list of attendees at a gun show, I've never had to sign-in to be admitted) will correspond more to folks who have the same or similar views and beliefs as the NRA. However, while it may be close, it will still not be a 1 to 1 ratio.

It seems like the NRA is doing what numerous other organizations do, namely, compiling a mailing list.
 
2013-08-21 10:05:20 AM

Aristocles: hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?

[www.addictinginfo.org image 604x453]


Yes totally stupid to not understand how a database that could be used to instantly identify the owner of a gun used in a crime is a bas thing. The question is more, why NOT have a database like that rather than why have one?
 
2013-08-21 10:05:22 AM

KyngNothing: Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?

It sounds like this includes people who have not joined the NRA, including    lists of attendees of gun show , or gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructor ...

I'm not sure all of those people signed up to be on the NRA mailing list.


They kinda suck at their job then.  I used to be an NRA-certified rifle instructor.  And I never got any mail from them (which is fine with me, I would have probably burned it in the yard or sent it back with fecal matter smeared all over it so that someone, anyone there would get sick, near death, then rethink their lives working for the worst organization EVER).
 
2013-08-21 10:06:21 AM

Frank N Stein: LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: NRA is a good organization

You're a funny man sometimes.

They've stood tall and helped kill a lot of gun control measures, which I do not support, on the State and federal level. They also do pretty good work with gun safety classes.


You're still knocking us dead, Frank.  Tell us again how the NRA is all angelic and sh*t.  I need a belly laugh.
 
2013-08-21 10:06:36 AM

hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?


And this is why "history" classes in school don't cover more than the civil rights era nowadays.
 
2013-08-21 10:07:26 AM

LasersHurt: Give me a more tempered organization who fights honestly and I can get behind it, but the NRA is slimy these days


Like the ACLU, which has been my contention all along.
 
2013-08-21 10:08:19 AM

hobberwickey: Aristocles: hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?

[www.addictinginfo.org image 604x453]

Yes totally stupid to not understand how a database that could be used to instantly identify the owner of a gun used in a crime is a bas thing. The question is more, why NOT have a database like that rather than why have one?


Philadelphia was able to change the percentage of unsolved murders from 80% or so to 10% or so without needing a database of gun owners. They hired a new chief who focused on police work....like asking questions and whatnot.
 
2013-08-21 10:08:34 AM

Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?


No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA
 
2013-08-21 10:08:54 AM

Click Click D'oh: Uranus Is Huge!: So everyone is fine if the Brady Campaign uses the same tactics to compile a database of guns and their owners?

Shocking that someone on Fark is uninformed...  Nah.  NEWSFLASH:  The NRA doesn't have a database of guns and their owners.  They have a database of people who through direct or indirect action have expressed interest in firearms, firearms related items or activities or the shooting sports

If you ever bought anything from Cheaperthandirt.com or sportsmansguide.com, the NRA has you in their database.


Nice dodge.
 
2013-08-21 10:10:40 AM

hobberwickey: Aristocles: hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?

[www.addictinginfo.org image 604x453]

Yes totally stupid to not understand how a database that could be used to instantly identify the owner of a gun used in a crime is a bas thing. The question is more, why NOT have a database like that rather than why have one?


Well, see, it's 'cause, for one, the "database" or which you speak would not contain the names of those who purchased guns on the black-market. You know, the guns that are purchased by criminals...
 
2013-08-21 10:10:40 AM

Frank N Stein


Is Obama the only black guy you know of?


Yes, that's it! I am familiar with only one such person!

Or I was providing an example of the NRA *not* supporting such a person in arguably the highest-profile election in the country, in clear contradiction to an earlier post from give me doughnuts.

Romney - sponsored AWB in MA
Obama - nothing of the sort

NRA endorses Romney. Well, that makes sense. *eyeroll*
 
2013-08-21 10:10:46 AM

Aristocles: PopularFront: Aristocles: 1) The "list" described in tfa is not "a secret list of gun owners." For example, a list of those with hunting permits =/= a list of gun owners.
2) If the NRA is, in fact, attempting to obtain a list of folks who may be interested in joining their organization, I'd rather the NRA have this list than a President and a political party which seems to think the function of government is to pass as many restrictions on the U.S. Constitution as possible
3) Non-story is non-

When it's time to kick in the doors these lists may not correspond 1:1 with gun owners but they will be damn close.

I think the lists that are mentioned in the article (and not all of them may actually exist, e.g. list of attendees at a gun show, I've never had to sign-in to be admitted) will correspond more to folks who have the same or similar views and beliefs as the NRA. However, while it may be close, it will still not be a 1 to 1 ratio.

It seems like the NRA is doing what numerous other organizations do, namely, compiling a mailing list.


Compiling a mailing list makes perfect sense in terms of fund raising.  I don't dispute that at all.  It's just that this particular list is likely to have a very high correlation with gun owners.  If the creation of a government database of gun owners is a real problem then, given the governments ability to access private information, why isn't it a problem that any database of gun owners exists?   It's likely trivial for the government to get their hands on it.
 
2013-08-21 10:11:28 AM

coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA


Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!
 
2013-08-21 10:12:12 AM

Frank N Stein: So, what philosophy is that?


The philosophy of giving lip service to the "real problems" (city handgun violence, mental health), but never supporting any changes or improvements of meaningful natures?

The philosophy of paranoia and victimization that leads to stalwart opposition to even the most well supported and innocuous of controls?

The coupling of said Paranoia and Victimization with relaxing laws about carry and about pre-emptive "defense"/stand your ground/no witnesses laws?

These people clearly don't want to help anything, they want to keep fears high so they stay in business and sell more guns. It's all a show, and one that encourages some bad habits and ideas in people along the way (while arming them).
 
2013-08-21 10:12:59 AM
Why the deuce are Romney's and Obama's records on destroying the 2nd amendment being discussed?
 
2013-08-21 10:13:35 AM
They also give out stickers which members proudly display as an invitation to rob their home when they are away.
 
2013-08-21 10:15:08 AM

Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!


Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.
 
2013-08-21 10:15:18 AM

LasersHurt: These people clearly don't want to help anything


They've spent years and millions of dollars constraining and undercutting the ATF, making the country less safe, then turn around and use the poor state of operations at the ATF as a marketing tool to sell more guns. Link
 
2013-08-21 10:15:29 AM

AngryDragon: hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?

And this is why "history" classes in school don't cover more than the civil rights era nowadays.


That's for explaining it o' wise one. You've made everything so clear to this poor confused idiot.
 
2013-08-21 10:15:43 AM

PopularFront: It's likely trivial for the government to get their hands on it.


Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.
 
2013-08-21 10:16:08 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Romney - sponsored AWB in MA


No.

The MA legislature put forward a bill that banned outright all "assault weapons".

He said no way I'm signing that, marry the bill to the language of the federal legislation.

The bill he signed did not ban assault weapons, the bill he signed allowed MA residents to purchase assault weapons manufactured prior to 1994.

Would you like to know more?
 
2013-08-21 10:17:22 AM

Giltric: hobberwickey: Aristocles: hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?

[www.addictinginfo.org image 604x453]

Yes totally stupid to not understand how a database that could be used to instantly identify the owner of a gun used in a crime is a bas thing. The question is more, why NOT have a database like that rather than why have one?

Philadelphia was able to change the percentage of unsolved murders from 80% or so to 10% or so without needing a database of gun owners. They hired a new chief who focused on police work....like asking questions and whatnot.


Only 10% of murders go unsolved in Philly? Why that's a low number, I guess we should just be happy with that. Still doesn't answer the question though, why NOT have a database of the tool used to commit the vast quantity of those murders?
 
2013-08-21 10:17:25 AM
Argument by bumper sticker - so simple anyone can do it, and usually does.
 
2013-08-21 10:18:09 AM

Giltric: Englebert Slaptyback: Romney - sponsored AWB in MA

No.

The MA legislature put forward a bill that banned outright all "assault weapons".

He said no way I'm signing that, marry the bill to the language of the federal legislation.

The bill he signed did not ban assault weapons, the bill he signed allowed MA residents to purchase assault weapons manufactured prior to 1994.

Would you like to know more?


How about you?  Would you like to know more?

"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal," he said on Fox News in 2004.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/20/romney-once-supported-assau lt -weapons-ban/
 
2013-08-21 10:19:16 AM

HotWingConspiracy: WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.


People have been using this one a lot lately, that the NRA helped pass gun control laws in a racist fit to disarm the Black Panthers.    Of course, what they won't tell you is that the law in question is the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was brought about not because of the Black Panthers but because of the murders of Martin Luther King and the Kennedys.

To make things even more muddy, the NRA did support and even help write portions of the act, such as prohibiting felons from owning firearms, or the mentally ill.  Yet the NRA helped defeat certain portions of the act, such as a mandatory national registry that was originally included.

So no, it's not quite as clear as "NRA hates black people" or "NRA has always opposed all gun laws"... both of which are lies that come from people that are either too lazy to learn the truth or know the truth and don't want to let it be known.
 
2013-08-21 10:19:57 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: LasersHurt: These people clearly don't want to help anything

They've spent years and millions of dollars constraining and undercutting the ATF, making the country less safe, then turn around and use the poor state of operations at the ATF as a marketing tool to sell more guns. Link


If the NRA would wave a wand and make the 2nd amendment unrestrictable they wouldn't do it.  It would put them out of business and that's against their interest as an organization.  They are like Rush Limbaugh, they make more money when a Democrat is in power.
 
2013-08-21 10:20:50 AM
I find it hilarious that (a) people actually think the government will be "kicking in their doors" looking for guns and (b) that their armed resistance to such an action will result in anything other than them being shot many times.
 
2013-08-21 10:23:08 AM
As someone who is contemplating buying a handgun or two in the near future (there is a gun range opening near my house) what manufacturers would other gun owners recommend.

I am looking at getting a .22 pistol, a .44 magnum and something in between. Budget for all three would be about $3,000
 
2013-08-21 10:23:59 AM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.


He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.
 
2013-08-21 10:24:38 AM
Uranus Is Huge!:Nice dodge.

So wait... you honestly want me to answer if I would be upset with a different organization for using the same tactics to accomplish a completely different goal so that you can claim that I have a double standard because I'm not upset at the NRA?  ... Despite them using the data for a completely different purpose

Really?

And if you think the Brady Campaign doesn't maintain a mailing list your insane.  And I'm not upset with them for doing so.
 
2013-08-21 10:25:14 AM

Aristocles: PopularFront: It's likely trivial for the government to get their hands on it.

Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.


I would consider most of the NSA privacy transgressions to be unconstitutional yet they remain the law.  Given their capabilities, getting this list (or recreating it from tracked email) would be trivial.  Why isn't the NRA lobbying to restrict the NSA's mandate?
 
2013-08-21 10:25:22 AM

Giltric: voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home


Ah yes, the "lie back and let it happen" law. I remember when that never happened.

/hyperbole gets you nowhere son
 
2013-08-21 10:25:50 AM

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.


You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.
 
2013-08-21 10:26:46 AM
Englebert Slaptyback:
Romney - sponsored AWB in MA
Obama - nothing of the sort


Obama two months after the election tries to ban everything.  It's almost as if the NRA saw that one coming....
 
2013-08-21 10:27:15 AM

Aristocles: PopularFront: It's likely trivial for the government to get their hands on it.

Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.


Even if ebil govt gets access to the information and violates the 5th amendment via no warrant searches there is not the manpower to do it at one time.  Plenty of time for most to hide their firearms against an unwarranted govt action.
 
2013-08-21 10:27:23 AM

Giltric


Would you like to know more?


You didn't actually watch the Presidential debates, did you? Romney stated very clearly that he sponsored and co-wrote an AWB for Massachusetts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b29cMrOlrvE

Romney's part starts at 2:40. His AWB admission starts at 5:27.
 
2013-08-21 10:27:55 AM

Click Click D'oh: Obama two months after the election tries to ban everything.


What universe do you live in?
 
2013-08-21 10:29:52 AM

Aristocles: Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.


So.... Bad NRA because they haven't taken precautions to protect themselves from tyrannical and over-reaching government which could unconstitutionally violate everyone rights?

If only there was and Amendment to deal with that sort of thing...and an organization to defend it.
 
2013-08-21 10:30:01 AM

coeyagi: Giltric: Englebert Slaptyback: Romney - sponsored AWB in MA

No.

The MA legislature put forward a bill that banned outright all "assault weapons".

He said no way I'm signing that, marry the bill to the language of the federal legislation.

The bill he signed did not ban assault weapons, the bill he signed allowed MA residents to purchase assault weapons manufactured prior to 1994.

Would you like to know more?

How about you?  Would you like to know more?

"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal," he said on Fox News in 2004.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/20/romney-once-supported-assau lt -weapons-ban/


Wait a second.....Am I supposed to go by what Romeny says?

Can I use Obamas words against him or only bills he has signed as "executive"?

Not sure if you are trying to move the goalposts here, but I would like some clarifications on the rules.
 
2013-08-21 10:30:24 AM

BitwiseShift: The password for said database is quite tricky. Instead of password, it is secret. No wonder the NSA, CIA, USDA and BSA haven't been able to crack it.


Boy Scouts of America?
 
2013-08-21 10:30:51 AM
Subby, I hate to tell you this...but...Readers Digest also has a list.  And you know who else had lists?  That's right...

static.giantbomb.com
 
2013-08-21 10:31:11 AM

there their theyre: As someone who is contemplating buying a handgun or two in the near future (there is a gun range opening near my house) what manufacturers would other gun owners recommend.

I am looking at getting a .22 pistol, a .44 magnum and something in between. Budget for all three would be about $3,000


What's your experience with guns? If you have little experience, get a decent .22 first.
 
2013-08-21 10:31:16 AM

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: Englebert Slaptyback: Romney - sponsored AWB in MA

No.

The MA legislature put forward a bill that banned outright all "assault weapons".

He said no way I'm signing that, marry the bill to the language of the federal legislation.

The bill he signed did not ban assault weapons, the bill he signed allowed MA residents to purchase assault weapons manufactured prior to 1994.

Would you like to know more?

How about you?  Would you like to know more?

"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal," he said on Fox News in 2004.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/20/romney-once-supported-assau lt -weapons-ban/

Wait a second.....Am I supposed to go by what Romeny says?

Can I use Obamas words against him or only bills he has signed as "executive"?

Not sure if you are trying to move the goalposts here, but I would like some clarifications on the rules.


Yes, this seems ripe for a "But but but GITMO!" swipe, doesn't it?  Proceed, governor.  I am sure we won't all rape your ass for that one.
 
2013-08-21 10:31:46 AM

LasersHurt: Frank N Stein: So, what philosophy is that?

The philosophy of giving lip service to the "real problems" (city handgun violence, mental health), but never supporting any changes or improvements of meaningful natures?

The philosophy of paranoia and victimization that leads to stalwart opposition to even the most well supported and innocuous of controls?

The coupling of said Paranoia and Victimization with relaxing laws about carry and about pre-emptive "defense"/stand your ground/no witnesses laws?

These people clearly don't want to help anything, they want to keep fears high so they stay in business and sell more guns. It's all a show, and one that encourages some bad habits and ideas in people along the way (while arming them).


I'll give you the fact that we should address poverty and mental health issues...this is outside the context of gun control.
There is no statistical evidence that gun control reduces gun violence in America.  None. Despite relaxed laws for concealed carry and paranoia about "blood in the streets", gun violence has dropped dramatically.  "Stand your ground" is a common sense position to indemnify someone forced to defend themselves.  Again, despite the handwringing over it, there are very few cases where the legal precedent has even been invoked much less successfully used as a legal shield.

So basically we end up in this odd equilibrium point between the people who want no gun laws anywhere and the people who want no guns anywhere.  The bottom line is that neither side is right.
 
2013-08-21 10:32:08 AM

LasersHurt: What universe do you live in?


The one where I've had to become part of a rather silly network of people that visit ever gun store within 200 miles to get enough ammunition to run our classes because the President and a huge chunk of the Senate went insane last December.
 
2013-08-21 10:32:48 AM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.


No I don't, can you refresh my memory?

You used a quote by Romney to show how he was in favor of banning assault weapons, but here you are saying an endorsement by Obama doesn't count, only what he has done as executive.

That sounds like you have a different set of rules for the person based on the letter R or D after their name.
 
2013-08-21 10:32:55 AM

Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.


Yeah, major anti-gun bias here.

The NRA has a list of people who own guns--the sort of people who would be their constituents.  What they do not have is a list of what guns those people own.  It's the latter that would be much more useful for gun-grabbers.

EyeballKid: Here's a little tip. You know when would have been a great time to offer some sort of gun control? After two children shot up fellow students during class at an affluent neighborhood high school in Colorado. And, do you know how many gun control measures were enacted as a result of the Columbine shooting? None. Nada. Not one. The NRA even had ran a victory lap in Denver shortly after the shootings. If the gun lobby was too powerful for any gun control measures to pass after Columbine, I think it's safe to say they have nothing to worry about.


Any measure proposed in such a situation should be assumed bad.  For an example see the Patriot Act.
 
2013-08-21 10:33:49 AM

hobberwickey: Am I the only one who doesn't understand why the government WOULDN'T have a database of all guns and who they belong to? How is that a bad thing?



They are pretty useless, and maintaining/updating the registry would be expensive. Ask Canada. They had one for a while, but gave it up.
 
2013-08-21 10:34:41 AM
meh. Voluntary vs. Mandatory. Apples vs. Oranges.
 
2013-08-21 10:35:16 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Giltric

Would you like to know more?


You didn't actually watch the Presidential debates, did you? Romney stated very clearly that he sponsored and co-wrote an AWB for Massachusetts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b29cMrOlrvE

Romney's part starts at 2:40. His AWB admission starts at 5:27.


Yes, and I have explained to you the difference in the bills. One of which he refused to sign without any changes and the other with changes that he actually signed.
 
2013-08-21 10:35:27 AM

AngryDragon: There is no statistical evidence that "gun control" reduces gun violence in America.


This feels like "Generic Republican" and is so vague as to be meaningless.

AngryDragon: So basically we end up in this odd equilibrium point between the people who want no gun laws anywhere and the people who want no guns anywhere.  The bottom line is that neither side is right.


The thing is, I don't think this is all that true. I think there are some of each, of course, but I think most people would be more accommodating and middle-ground if the rhetoric could be toned down.
 
2013-08-21 10:36:19 AM

theknuckler_33: meh. Voluntary vs. Mandatory. Apples vs. Oranges.


My bad.

/DNRTFA
 
2013-08-21 10:36:46 AM

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

No I don't, can you refresh my memory?

You used a quote by Romney to show how he was in favor of banning assault weapons, but here you are saying an endorsement by Obama doesn't count, only what he has done as executive.

That sounds like you have a different set of rules for the person based on the letter R or D after their name.


No, the rules haven't changed.  He made an endorsement and backed it up with legislation.  That's called a "difference", it means that things "are not the same".  The sky is blue.  Water is wet.  The L I referred to is "liar", and I am starting to think that is unfair because maybe I'm playing cards with someone who only brought half a deck.
 
2013-08-21 10:37:00 AM
That is without question the LEAST ironic thing I've ever read.
 
2013-08-21 10:37:02 AM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.


Fun fact: Before Obama signed the Credit Card act, which included the national parks CCW rider introduced by Coburn, his administration declined to defend this action started by the Bush administration but which had been blocked by a federal judge.

So before Obama signed a piece of legislation that was a cornerstone of his domestic economic policy, he decided that he didn't want guns in national parks.
 
2013-08-21 10:37:49 AM

Click Click D'oh: Aristocles: Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.

So.... Bad NRA because they haven't taken precautions to protect themselves from tyrannical and over-reaching government which could unconstitutionally violate everyone rights?

If only there was and Amendment to deal with that sort of thing...and an organization to defend it.


If the ACLU were funded like the NRA we might see more progress there.
 
2013-08-21 10:37:57 AM

PopularFront: If the NRA would wave a wand and make the 2nd amendment unrestrictable they wouldn't do it.  It would put them out of business and that's against their interest as an organization.  They are like Rush Limbaugh, they make more money when a Democrat is in power.


No, they wouldn't do it because the NRA has always supported certain "gun control" measures and always will.  They just have a line where they consider things to go from acceptable to unacceptable.  The NRA has always supported restrictions on who can posses firearms.

The perception that the NRA is opposed to all "gun control" measures isn't just shared by liberals though.  It's pervasive.  Almost every class I teach, I have the same exchange based on our rules:

Me:  This is an NRA firearms course.  The NRA prohibits the possession of live ammunition in the classroom portion.  Anyone that has a CHL or is a police officer, please take any ammunition you have out of the classroom

Random Student.:  But, I have a CHL.  I'm allowed to carry a gun

Me:  Quite so, but you can't have any ammunition for it while in class

Random Student:  But, you're the NRA.  I don't get it.

Me:  Please, ammunition out of class

Random Student:  But I have a right!!!!!!

It's quite tiresome.
 
2013-08-21 10:38:09 AM
This is as valid as equating NORML keeping a list of people interested in marijuana legalization and the DEA keeping one.
 
2013-08-21 10:38:25 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: I don't go to McDonalds just because they have a black kid in the commercial breakdancing with a McGriddle in his mouth.


That mental image made me laugh.
Then I pictured somebody like Redd Foxx saying it, and it made me laugh again.

Am I a bad person?
 
2013-08-21 10:38:53 AM

PopularFront: Aristocles: PopularFront: It's likely trivial for the government to get their hands on it.

Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.

I would consider most of the NSA privacy transgressions to be unconstitutional yet they remain the law.  Given their capabilities, getting this list (or recreating it from tracked email) would be trivial.  Why isn't the NRA lobbying to restrict the NSA's mandate?


The last I heard, Obama has not ordered the unConstitutional seizure of these "lists."

Plus, tfa says that, if the NRA is really compiling a mailing list, they're requesting the information via FOIA requests or just friendly emails to event organizers, this is not unConstitutional, in other words, the NSA is just as, if not more, capable as the NRA at obtaining this information via Constitutional means.
 
2013-08-21 10:39:41 AM

redmid17: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

Fun fact: Before Obama signed the Credit Card act, which included the national parks CCW rider introduced by Coburn, his administration declined to defend this action started by the Bush administration but which had been blocked by a federal judge.

So before Obama signed a piece of legislation that was a cornerstone of his domestic economic policy, he decided ...


Yes, all true.  But again, how can you argue that Romney as an executive was better for guns than Obama?  Obama may not have liked that part of the legislation but he still signed it?  Are you really trying to tell me that the NRA is not a wing of the GOP? Romney actually signed the AWB in 2004 and they still endorsed him.
 
2013-08-21 10:40:14 AM
Because no private organization has ever taken advantage of their customer's information, or changed hands to someone who would.  No private organization has ever accidentally mailed out customer's information, or gotten hacked, or left a laptop in a taxi.
 
2013-08-21 10:40:29 AM
 
2013-08-21 10:40:54 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Or I was providing an example of the NRA *not* supporting such a person in arguably the highest-profile election in the country, in clear contradiction to an earlier post from give me doughnuts.



When the fark did I say anything about who the NRA supported in an election?
 
2013-08-21 10:41:00 AM

Click Click D'oh: PopularFront: If the NRA would wave a wand and make the 2nd amendment unrestrictable they wouldn't do it.  It would put them out of business and that's against their interest as an organization.  They are like Rush Limbaugh, they make more money when a Democrat is in power.

No, they wouldn't do it because the NRA has always supported certain "gun control" measures and always will.  They just have a line where they consider things to go from acceptable to unacceptable.  The NRA has always supported restrictions on who can posses firearms.

The perception that the NRA is opposed to all "gun control" measures isn't just shared by liberals though.  It's pervasive.  Almost every class I teach, I have the same exchange based on our rules:

Me:  This is an NRA firearms course.  The NRA prohibits the possession of live ammunition in the classroom portion.  Anyone that has a CHL or is a police officer, please take any ammunition you have out of the classroom

Random Student.:  But, I have a CHL.  I'm allowed to carry a gun

Me:  Quite so, but you can't have any ammunition for it while in class

Random Student:  But, you're the NRA.  I don't get it.

Me:  Please, ammunition out of class

Random Student:  But I have a right!!!!!!

It's quite tiresome.


The bolded text would suggest they would support a universal background check.  They do not even when 90% of the country does.
 
2013-08-21 10:41:00 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?


He seemed pretty popular to me...
 
2013-08-21 10:42:32 AM

AngryDragon: LasersHurt: What universe do you live in?

Now, now.  Let's not be totally disingenuous...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-shoul d- have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obama-gun-prop os als/index.html


Did they change the word "all"? Because I'm going on what he said, which was "all."
 
2013-08-21 10:43:34 AM

coeyagi: redmid17: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

Fun fact: Before Obama signed the Credit Card act, which included the national parks CCW rider introduced by Coburn, his administration declined to defend this action started by the Bush administration but which had been blocked by a federal judge.

So before Obama signed a piece of legislation that was a cornerstone of his domestic economic policy, h ...


I wasn't a fan of Romney at all, and his gun rights stance is pretty abysmal. That said Obama has a pretty clear history of a view on gun rights I drastically disagree with.

You're also glossing over the fact that the Mass legislature would have overridden his veto of any AWB, so you could probably spin it that he was trying to mitigate the number of restrictions or something to that effect.

Either way the NRA picked Romney because he would have been a "yes man" in office on gun rights, not because he had a sweet history of supporting the NRA.

Then again I voted for neither of them, so I'm not even sure why I'm debating the point.
 
2013-08-21 10:44:01 AM

AngryDragon: Serious Black: I bet I can count how many NRA members who oppose a national gun database enough to give up their own membership in the NRA on zero hands.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment the NRA would go back to what it was originally intended to be, a shooting club.  Gun owners flock to the NRA because it's the only 2A rights organization with any clout.


this!
 
2013-08-21 10:44:16 AM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

No I don't, can you refresh my memory?

You used a quote by Romney to show how he was in favor of banning assault weapons, but here you are saying an endorsement by Obama doesn't count, only what he has done as executive.

That sounds like you have a different set of rules for the person based on the letter R or D after their name.

No, the rules haven ...


So you have republican obstructionism to thank for your ability to argue Obamas stance on firearms?
 
2013-08-21 10:44:16 AM

Giltric


Yes, and I have explained to you the difference in the bills. One of which Assault Weapon Ban he refused to sign without any changes and the other Assault Weapon Ban with changes that he actually signed.


Yeah, that's a big difference. *eyeroll*

Romney himself used the term 'Assault Weapon Ban' to describe his piece of legislation. If you want to argue that it wasn't an AWB, knock yourself out. I'll be over here making sense. HAND.
 
2013-08-21 10:45:24 AM

LasersHurt: AngryDragon: LasersHurt: What universe do you live in?

Now, now.  Let's not be totally disingenuous...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-shoul d- have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obama-gun-prop os als/index.html

Did they change the word "all"? Because I'm going on what he said, which was "all."


No, but let's not pretend that the President hasn't rattled the cage or pressed for legislation at all.
 
2013-08-21 10:46:34 AM
Until effective laws are in place controlling criminal gun ownership, I will have guns. And know how to use them.

This felon who recently shot up a school....I don't think he gives a shiat about your ideas on gun control.
 
2013-08-21 10:46:38 AM

Frank N Stein: there their theyre: As someone who is contemplating buying a handgun or two in the near future (there is a gun range opening near my house) what manufacturers would other gun owners recommend.

I am looking at getting a .22 pistol, a .44 magnum and something in between. Budget for all three would be about $3,000

What's your experience with guns? If you have little experience, get a decent .22 first.


Thousands of rounds worth of experience. Shoot w/ friends and relatives whenever I get the chance. Just never bought one since there was no where nearby to go, but now there is.
 
2013-08-21 10:46:59 AM

This text is now purple


Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

He seemed pretty popular to me...


In general, yes, but not popular with the NRA membership.
 
2013-08-21 10:47:06 AM

Aristocles: PopularFront: Aristocles: PopularFront: It's likely trivial for the government to get their hands on it.

Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.

I would consider most of the NSA privacy transgressions to be unconstitutional yet they remain the law.  Given their capabilities, getting this list (or recreating it from tracked email) would be trivial.  Why isn't the NRA lobbying to restrict the NSA's mandate?

The last I heard, Obama has not ordered the unConstitutional seizure of these "lists."


If he had (or has) ordered the seizure of these lists it's unlikely you'd hear about it until someone involved leaked the info to the press.  You seem fixated on Obama but if we don't restrict the capability, who's to say one of the next few administrations doesn't order the seizure?
 
2013-08-21 10:47:14 AM

AngryDragon: LasersHurt: AngryDragon: LasersHurt: What universe do you live in?

Now, now.  Let's not be totally disingenuous...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-shoul d- have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obama-gun-prop os als/index.html

Did they change the word "all"? Because I'm going on what he said, which was "all."

No, but let's not pretend that the President hasn't rattled the cage or pressed for legislation at all.


Nobody is pretending that. Someone is pretending he tried to ban all guns. That's what's being pretended.
 
2013-08-21 10:47:22 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Giltric

Yes, and I have explained to you the difference in the bills. One of which Assault Weapon Ban he refused to sign without any changes and the other Assault Weapon Ban with changes that he actually signed.


Yeah, that's a big difference. *eyeroll*

Romney himself used the term 'Assault Weapon Ban' to describe his piece of legislation. If you want to argue that it wasn't an AWB, knock yourself out. I'll be over here making sense. HAND.


Can you purchase an AR 15 in MA today due to the legislation signed by Mitt Romney.

Yes or no will suffice.
 
2013-08-21 10:47:24 AM

coeyagi: The bolded text would suggest they would support a universal background check.  They do not even when 90% of the country does.


The NRA helped create the background checks that are in place for the purchase of a firearm from a dealer.  The NRA won't support backgrounds checks for transfers between private citizens until and unless some solid protections are put in place to define a transfer in a solid manner that won't criminalize a person for going out of town for business without conducting a background check on his wife for all the firearms he leaves in the house... which the ATF currently defines as a transfer.
 
2013-08-21 10:47:31 AM

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

No I don't, can you refresh my memory?

You used a quote by Romney to show how he was in favor of banning assault weapons, but here you are saying an endorsement by Obama doesn't count, only what he has done as executive.

That sounds like you have a different set of rules for the person based on the letter R or D after their name.

No, the ru ...


Only in the land of strawmen which apparently you rule.  I was illustrating a point, not a mechanism.  If you really want to debate Romney's words vs. Obama's words (and how each has changed stances and positions), you will absolutely lose and you know it.  Romney has flipped more times than the entire U.S. Olympic Diving Team in their entire history.
 
2013-08-21 10:48:00 AM

Witness99: This felon who recently shot up a school....I don't think he gives a shiat about your ideas on gun control.


This is an argument against all laws. Criminals generally don't care about laws. That's why they are criminals.
 
2013-08-21 10:48:34 AM

Click Click D'oh: HotWingConspiracy: WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

People have been using this one a lot lately, that the NRA helped pass gun control laws in a racist fit to disarm the Black Panthers.    Of course, what they won't tell you is that the law in question is the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was brought about not because of the Black Panthers but because of the murders of Martin Luther King and the Kennedys.

To make things even more muddy, the NRA did support and even help write portions of the act, such as prohibiting felons from owning firearms, or the mentally ill.  Yet the NRA helped defeat certain portions of the act, such as a mandatory national registry that was originally included.

So no, it's not quite as clear as "NRA hates black people"


It's more about what their members like and hate. The NRA is just fishing for dollars, and will pander accordingly.
 
2013-08-21 10:49:10 AM

LasersHurt: Did they change the word "all"? Because I'm going on what he said, which was "all."


1) I said "everything" not "all".
2) Lighten up Francis.
 
2013-08-21 10:50:11 AM

Click Click D'oh: LasersHurt: Did they change the word "all"? Because I'm going on what he said, which was "all."

1) I said "everything" not "all".
2) Lighten up Francis.


Words are crucial when describing the manner in which bullets are held for placement into a gun; but not when discussion the President's actions.
 
2013-08-21 10:50:35 AM

EyeballKid: Here's a little tip. You know when would have been a great time to offer some sort of gun control? After two children shot up fellow students during class at an affluent neighborhood high school in Colorado. And, do you know how many gun control measures were enacted as a result of the Columbine shooting? None. Nada. Not one. The NRA even had ran a victory lap in Denver shortly after the shootings. If the gun lobby was too powerful for any gun control measures to pass after Columbine, I think it's safe to say they have nothing to worry about.



By "ran a victory lap" do you mean "cancelled pretty much everything at their national convention except for the board of directors meeting that was required by their by-laws"?
 
2013-08-21 10:50:47 AM

Giltric: Englebert Slaptyback: Giltric

Yes, and I have explained to you the difference in the bills. One of which Assault Weapon Ban he refused to sign without any changes and the other Assault Weapon Ban with changes that he actually signed.


Yeah, that's a big difference. *eyeroll*

Romney himself used the term 'Assault Weapon Ban' to describe his piece of legislation. If you want to argue that it wasn't an AWB, knock yourself out. I'll be over here making sense. HAND.

Can you purchase an AR 15 in MA today due to the legislation signed by Mitt Romney.

Yes or no will suffice.


LOL

Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

Yes or no will suffice.
 
2013-08-21 10:50:50 AM

give me doughnuts


Englebert Slaptyback: Or I was providing an example of the NRA *not* supporting such a person in arguably the highest-profile election in the country, in clear contradiction to an earlier post from give me doughnuts.


When the fark did I say anything about who the NRA supported in an election?


Sorry about that - I meant this text is now purple.
 
2013-08-21 10:51:12 AM

Click Click D'oh: coeyagi: The bolded text would suggest they would support a universal background check.  They do not even when 90% of the country does.

The NRA helped create the background checks that are in place for the purchase of a firearm from a dealer.  The NRA won't support backgrounds checks for transfers between private citizens until and unless some solid protections are put in place to define a transfer in a solid manner that won't criminalize a person for going out of town for business without conducting a background check on his wife for all the firearms he leaves in the house... which the ATF currently defines as a transfer.


Yeah, most states don't require a background check at a gun show.  Shucks, NRA, I know you just happened to forget about that.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-b an kground-checks-state-laws-map.html
 
2013-08-21 10:51:43 AM

bmongar: The NRA is an organization secretly created by the government in order to control both sides of the gun control debate.  It is just show opposition to give the illusion of freedom.  The government knew the would never be able to collect the data by legislation but people will voluntarily give up that information to supposed opposition to the government.
   Well now they have is suckers and they will come in their jack boots to take your guns.
   LOL you thought that large organizations and corporations were different than the government.


Nice to know someone is as stoned right now as I wish I were.
 
2013-08-21 10:51:52 AM

PopularFront: Aristocles: PopularFront: Aristocles: PopularFront: It's likely trivial for the government to get their hands on it.

Indeed, I agree with you. It's not a problem for the NRA to compile a list for fundraising and the like. The problem is that it's now a trivial act for Obama to access this information unConstitutionally.

I would consider most of the NSA privacy transgressions to be unconstitutional yet they remain the law.  Given their capabilities, getting this list (or recreating it from tracked email) would be trivial.  Why isn't the NRA lobbying to restrict the NSA's mandate?

The last I heard, Obama has not ordered the unConstitutional seizure of these "lists."

If he had (or has) ordered the seizure of these lists it's unlikely you'd hear about it until someone involved leaked the info to the press.  You seem fixated on Obama but if we don't restrict the capability, who's to say one of the next few administrations doesn't order the seizure?


True, true. If the public ever got word of Obama's ordering the NSA to unConstitutionally spy on the NRA, or if Obama unConstitutionally ordered the compilation of all known gun owners, there'd be hell to pay. The same goes for any other administration.
 
2013-08-21 10:52:23 AM
I'm shocked to learn that the junior members of the Fark Militia fail at understanding how data mining works.

If they weren't such disingenuous shiats, they wouldn't want any organization compiling any type of database about their hobby. It's just a few steps away from a V for Vendetta-type dystopia.
 
2013-08-21 10:53:23 AM

give me doughnuts: By "ran a victory lap" do you mean "cancelled pretty much everything at their national convention except for the board of directors meeting that was required by their by-laws"?


4.bp.blogspot.com
11 days after Columbine, in Denver, CO. Those poor, opwessed gun owners!
 
2013-08-21 10:53:23 AM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

No I don't, can you refresh my memory?

You used a quote by Romney to show how he was in favor of banning assault weapons, but here you are saying an endorsement by Obama doesn't count, only what he has done as executive.

That sounds like you have a different set of rules for the person based on the letter R or D after their name.

N ...


It doesn't matter if Romney flip flopped on firearm related issues if Obama has remained consistent on the issue.

I am sure that point will go right over your head and you would probably claim that Obamas consistent stance on further restricting and regulating and banning firearms would be a win........even though this started out as a discussion about who was a bigger friend to the RKBA.
 
2013-08-21 10:53:42 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Witness99: This felon who recently shot up a school....I don't think he gives a shiat about your ideas on gun control.

This is an argument against all laws. Criminals generally don't care about laws. That's why they are criminals.


That's a good point. I will think about that some more.

However, if this country wants to follow the lead of Australia and Japan, then put the barriers in place that will prevent thugs from getting guns that they can invade my home with. If we don't do that, then I have no choice but to have a gun to protect myself.
 
2013-08-21 10:53:46 AM

redmid17: I wasn't a fan of Romney at all, and his gun rights stance is pretty abysmal. That said Obama has a pretty clear history of a view on gun rights I drastically disagree with.

You're also glossing over the fact that the Mass legislature would have overridden his veto of any AWB, so you could probably spin it that he was trying to mitigate the number of restrictions or something to that effect.

Either way the NRA picked Romney because he would have been a "yes man" in office on gun rights, not because he had a sweet history of supporting the NRA.


That endorsement was the picking of the nicest looking turd.  I do not see how Romney deserved an A but he was the better gun candidate because he would be constrained by his party which has shown to be more in line with the NRAs gun stances.
 
2013-08-21 10:53:50 AM

Snatch Bandergrip: If you're a licensed gun owner, wouldn't you already be on a database?  Is it really any different than having a driver's license?

/Serious question


The difference is that your drivers license doesn't track what kind of car you drive, how many cars you own, and it isn't searchable by everyone.
I have a concealed carry permit and I don't mind that the government had me in a database, they issue the card. I don't like that they want to know and manage everything about my firearms.

Imagine if you had to get a special permit to get gas for your car. That car couldn't seat more than 2 people, and you had to ask for permission to keep it every 5 years. That is what Connecticut is trying to do.
/lives in CT
//not a member of the nra
 
2013-08-21 10:53:56 AM

HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.


http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.
 
2013-08-21 10:54:24 AM

sammyk: Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?

way south: Not every gun owner is a member of the NRA, and not every NRA member owns a gun. The data they've compiled either comes from voluntary sources (mailing list, membership) or was originally collected by the government anyway.

The same government that is listening to your voicemail and reading your emails has probably been absent minded about destroying background check and ownership transfer records.

I'm thinking that the NRA isn't a problem since they have no power to confiscate weapons or the interest in doing so. The only way their data becomes a problem is if the government takes it.
...but since it has even more detailed information, there wouldn't be much sense in doing so.

That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines and more, BuzzFeed has learned.

Candy coat it all you want kids. They have been collecting gun registration info from counties and states. WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION!!!




Even at that, they are a lobby who uses that information to contact prospective supporters. The NRA will never come knocking to inspect my safe, publish my address in the papers, or file charges for my prosecution.
Governments use their information to send cops to your door and enforce laws, bans, and confiscations. If they were benign or even helpful then I could care less about having my information stored with the atf. It would be no different than keeping it at the IRS or with the postmaster.

Its sort of like being ok with knowing my address is on a high times mailing list but not being ok with it being listed by the DEA as a prospective target. There's a difference in potential use that defines whether I would be upset or not.
 
2013-08-21 10:54:29 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: I'm shocked to learn that the junior members of the Fark Militia fail at understanding how data mining works.

If they weren't such disingenuous shiats, they wouldn't want any organization compiling any type of database about their hobby. It's just a few steps away from a V for Vendetta-type dystopia.


The biggest challenge for them is knowing how to filter the emails.  Do you set up a filter on FOUR "FW:"s or FIVE "FW:"s?

Oh, who am I kidding, they don't filter, they forward!
 
2013-08-21 10:54:59 AM

Click Click D'oh: PopularFront: If the NRA would wave a wand and make the 2nd amendment unrestrictable they wouldn't do it. It would put them out of business and that's against their interest as an organization. They are like Rush Limbaugh, they make more money when a Democrat is in power.

No, they wouldn't do it because the NRA has always supported certain "gun control" measures and always will. They just have a line where they consider things to go from acceptable to unacceptable. The NRA has always supported restrictions on who can posses firearms.

The perception that the NRA is opposed to all "gun control" measures isn't just shared by liberals though. It's pervasive.


The NRA will always set the line they defend to be whatever it needs to be to maximize fundraising.   They've had a decade with little opposition from gun grabbers so they've had to move the line into the crazy zone and put the rhetoric machine into overdrive in order to drum up some opposition.
 
2013-08-21 10:55:17 AM
I hear the NAACP is also compiling a secret list of black people.
 
2013-08-21 10:56:45 AM

Witness99: Dusk-You-n-Me: Witness99: This felon who recently shot up a school....I don't think he gives a shiat about your ideas on gun control.

This is an argument against all laws. Criminals generally don't care about laws. That's why they are criminals.

That's a good point. I will think about that some more.

However, if this country wants to follow the lead of Australia and Japan, then put the barriers in place that will prevent thugs from getting guns that they can invade my home with. If we don't do that, then I have no choice but to have a gun to protect myself.


Well if we want to follow Japan's example, we're going to have to get a time machine to go back about 350 years, institute a feudal society, and make sure that only the ruling faction has the capacity to create weapons. I don't think that one is very feasible. Nor do I think Australia's path is very feasible either. Gun ownership there was never nearly as popular a cause or as widespread as it was here.
 
2013-08-21 10:57:12 AM

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

No I don't, can you refresh my memory?

You used a quote by Romney to show how he was in favor of banning assault weapons, but here you are saying an endorsement by Obama doesn't count, only what he has done as executive.

That sounds like you have a different set of rules for the person based on the letter R or D after their ...


Yes, it doesn't matter if Romney flip-flopped, because he's a Republican and a panderer of the highest order?  Is that your point?  He can't help it - it's in his nature?  Why can people be pathological liars from birth but you can't be gay from birth?
 
2013-08-21 10:58:04 AM
So that's why the tempest van has been sitting outside of NRA's HQ.
 
2013-08-21 10:58:31 AM

halB: I hear the NAACP is also compiling a secret list of black people.


They'll be sorry when the pigment confiscation begins!
 
2013-08-21 10:59:09 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: give me doughnuts

Englebert Slaptyback: Or I was providing an example of the NRA *not* supporting such a person in arguably the highest-profile election in the country, in clear contradiction to an earlier post from give me doughnuts.


When the fark did I say anything about who the NRA supported in an election?


Sorry about that - I meant this text is now purple.


It's cool.
It just had me comfused for a moment. Thought the alzheimers was kicking in a few decades early.
 
2013-08-21 10:59:38 AM

This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.


For anyone who think the NRA cares a whit about color, they should check to see who the plaintiffs were in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago.
 
2013-08-21 11:01:24 AM

LasersHurt:Words are crucial when describing the manner in which bullets are held for placement into a gun; but not when discussion the President's actions.

I could care less if you try to cram a clip into a magazine well.

As for the President.  Despite jokingly saying that he wants to ban everything, we all know that's not true.  He probably, backed by his own words, wants to ban everything that isn't a hunting rifle or farmers shotgun, but knows damn well that he doesn't have the political clout to do so.  That hasn't stopped him from testing the waters, and making a good run at it when opinion was swung by emotion in his direction.  Of course, that causes the backlash reaction from the opposing party.  As does every controversial action.

coeyagi: Yeah, most states don't require a background check at a gun show. Shucks, NRA, I know you just happened to forget about that.


Anywhere in the nation, background checks are required for any sale from a dealer.  Be it at a gunshow or a store.   Do you have a point other than to demonstrate that you don't know the difference between a sale from a licensed dealer and a private transfer?  Do you know the difference between a private transfer in a gun show, in a wal-mart parking lot or in the privacy of ones home?  Hint, there is none.  If you pass a law requiring a background check for private transfers, that covers those at a gun show, in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart of in the home.  Since the ATF currently considers it a transfer if the owner of the firearm leaves the household for more than a few days and another person is in residence there, anyone leaving for business would need to do a background check on their wife or kids, then do another on themselves upon returning home.

This is why the argument about "gun control" laws is always so asinine.  Most people have Zero clue what the law actually says, but are more than willing to suggest ways to fix it.
 
2013-08-21 11:02:07 AM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: Englebert Slaptyback: This text is now purple

There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.


Like when the NRA endorsed President Obama during the 2012 Presidential election?

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?

No, but um, he had a much better pro-gun track record than Romney.  "But he's a black librul!  ZOMG!  Vote for Romney who voted for an assault weapons ban! DUURRRRRRR HERRRR!" -NRA

Obamas voting record was not pro gun. Obamas stance on firearms was not pro gun.

unless you can prove it was through the use of citations.

in before NASHUNAL PARKS!!!

Obama as an executive has never done anything to roll back rights for gun owners.  Romney as an executive has.  You lose.

You misspelled national parks, btw, and not in an ironic hipster liberal kinda way.  You're a conservative, I am sure it was an intentional deliberate misspelling based on ignorance and lack of education.

He endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, voted to prevent people from defending themselves in their home, feels that the 2nd doesn't apply to states allowing states to ban firearms outright, stated Bush erred in letting the AWB expire, wanted to ban all semi automatics.

Obama has done nothing to ban firearms as a white person either. Or as an Oklahoman....I am technically correct, deal with it.

You are technically incorrect.  Endorsing sh*t does not mean he has actually done anything as an executive.  Remember that L word I kept calling you last week?  You're being one of those again.

No I don't, can you refresh my memory?

You used a quote by Romney to show how he was in favor of banning assault weapons, but here you are saying an endorsement by Obama doesn't count, only what he has done as executive.

That sounds like you have a different set of rules for the person based on the letter R or D af ...


Romney changes his opinion and he's a flip flopper, Obama changes his opinion and they call it "evolving", not pandering (like at a fundraising dinner consisting of gay rights supporters) or flip flopping.

we get it....republicans are made of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails, democrats are made of sugar and spice and everything nice yadda yadda something something.
 
2013-08-21 11:02:43 AM

EyeballKid: give me doughnuts: By "ran a victory lap" do you mean "cancelled pretty much everything at their national convention except for the board of directors meeting that was required by their by-laws"?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x267]
11 days after Columbine, in Denver, CO. Those poor, opwessed gun owners!



One year after Columbine, in Charlotte, NC.

Really?
 
2013-08-21 11:02:49 AM

EyeballKid: 11 days after Columbine, in Denver, CO. Those poor, opwessed gun owners!


Oh god, not another M. Moore brain dead moron.
 
2013-08-21 11:03:37 AM
August 20th, 2013:  "NO!!  ANY list of gun owners is BAD because in the wrong hands it could be used to disarm the public, which is Unconstitutional.  No lists.  Period.  "

*Buzzfeed Story*

August 21st, 2013:  "The NRA can have a secret list of gun owners.  The real problem is Obama."


/derrrup
 
2013-08-21 11:05:12 AM

bmongar: The NRA is an organization secretly created by the government in order to control both sides of the gun control debate.  It is just show opposition to give the illusion of freedom.  The government knew the would never be able to collect the data by legislation but people will voluntarily give up that information to supposed opposition to the government.
   Well now they have is suckers and they will come in their jack boots to take your guns.
   LOL you thought that large organizations and corporations were different than the government.


LOL! you just were favorited.  I am going to model that statement as a hypothetical and then post it with this story on Facebook to fark with my friends who are gun nuts, that beleive all the whacko conspiracy theories.
 
2013-08-21 11:06:45 AM

Click Click D'oh: LasersHurt:Words are crucial when describing the manner in which bullets are held for placement into a gun; but not when discussion the President's actions.

I could care less if you try to cram a clip into a magazine well.

As for the President.  Despite jokingly saying that he wants to ban everything, we all know that's not true.  He probably, backed by his own words, wants to ban everything that isn't a hunting rifle or farmers shotgun, but knows damn well that he doesn't have the political clout to do so.  That hasn't stopped him from testing the waters, and making a good run at it when opinion was swung by emotion in his direction.  Of course, that causes the backlash reaction from the opposing party.  As does every controversial action.

coeyagi: Yeah, most states don't require a background check at a gun show. Shucks, NRA, I know you just happened to forget about that.

Anywhere in the nation, background checks are required for any sale from a dealer.  Be it at a gunshow or a store.   Do you have a point other than to demonstrate that you don't know the difference between a sale from a licensed dealer and a private transfer?  Do you know the difference between a private transfer in a gun show, in a wal-mart parking lot or in the privacy of ones home?  Hint, there is none.  If you pass a law requiring a background check for private transfers, that covers those at a gun show, in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart of in the home.  Since the ATF currently considers it a transfer if the owner of the firearm leaves the household for more than a few days and another person is in residence there, anyone leaving for business would need to do a background check on their wife or kids, then do another on themselves upon returning home.

This is why the argument about "gun control" laws is always so asinine.  Most people have Zero clue what the law actually says, but are more than willing to suggest ways to fix it.


You didn't read the article, did you?  You just immediately started pooping out a response.  Hey Corky, try reading the article first before diarrheaing your Mongoloidism all over a thread.
 
2013-08-21 11:08:24 AM

TheMysteriousStranger: It means they don't really fear that an authoritarian American government will use such a list against gun owners.
Even an idiot knows that it would be pretty damn easy for the government to get that entire database if it was willing to engage in less than ethical means.


If it is an electronic database then thanks to the NSA, the government probably already has it.  Especially idf it ever was sent by e-mail or other electronic means to other NRA offices and stuff.
 
2013-08-21 11:08:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?


You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.
 
2013-08-21 11:10:46 AM

This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.


DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).
 
2013-08-21 11:10:53 AM

Click Click D'oh: This is why the argument about "gun control" laws is always so asinine.  Most people have Zero clue what the law actually says, but are more than willing to suggest ways to fix it


This is the most intelligent comment in the whole thread.
 
2013-08-21 11:13:20 AM
saw this article linked elsewhere. stupid article is stupid. FTFA: Others in the business of big political data, however, say the NRA is using similar tools to those employed by the campaigns of its nemesis, President Barack Obama.

are we done here?  faux outrage by the left is no better than faux outrage by the right.
 
2013-08-21 11:15:04 AM
I would like this to be a weapon free country. Not just guns, nukes and everything else. I don't want to shoot people. I don't want to nuke people. I don't want to do anything to people.

Then, reality sinks in. As a single female (who is TOTALLY blowing off work today...) This country does not effectively control the criminal aspect....thugs have guns, period.

Lets raise this to nuke level, because that's what can really do some world scale damage. We have nukes, you don't. We have nukes, you do. Who's gonna give it up?

I'm probably out of scope here. Imma let you finish, just want to chalk all this up to human ego problems.
 
2013-08-21 11:16:11 AM

redmid17: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.

DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).


It overturned handgun bans in federal territory, of which DC was a part.
 
2013-08-21 11:18:00 AM

way south: sammyk: Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?

way south: Not every gun owner is a member of the NRA, and not every NRA member owns a gun. The data they've compiled either comes from voluntary sources (mailing list, membership) or was originally collected by the government anyway.

The same government that is listening to your voicemail and reading your emails has probably been absent minded about destroying background check and ownership transfer records.

I'm thinking that the NRA isn't a problem since they have no power to confiscate weapons or the interest in doing so. The only way their data becomes a problem is if the government takes it.
...but since it has even more detailed information, there wouldn't be much sense in doing so.

That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines and more, BuzzFeed has learned.

Candy coat it all you want kids. They have been collecting gun registration info from counties and states. WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION!!!

Even at that, they are a lobby who uses that information to contact prospective supporters. The NRA will never come knocking to inspect my safe, publish my address in the papers, or file charges for my prosecution.
Governments use their information to send cops to your door and enforce laws, bans, and confiscations. If they were benign or even helpful then I could care less about having my information stored with the atf. It would be no different than keeping it at the IRS or with the postmaster.

Its sort of like being ok with knowing my address is on a high times mailing list but not being ok with it being listed by the DEA as a prospective target. There's a difference in potential use that defines whether I would be upset or not.


Really? You are going to pretend the NRA hasn't used slipery slope arguments for decades regarding any form of a database of gun owners? You're going to pretend that they didn't actually write the legislation that mandates the NICS system deleted successful buys within a certain time period?
 
2013-08-21 11:21:04 AM

heavymetal: bmongar: The NRA is an organization secretly created by the government in order to control both sides of the gun control debate.  It is just show opposition to give the illusion of freedom.  The government knew the would never be able to collect the data by legislation but people will voluntarily give up that information to supposed opposition to the government.
   Well now they have is suckers and they will come in their jack boots to take your guns.
   LOL you thought that large organizations and corporations were different than the government.

LOL! you just were favorited.  I am going to model that statement as a hypothetical and then post it with this story on Facebook to fark with my friends who are gun nuts, that beleive all the whacko conspiracy theories.


Let me know how that goes.  I'd love to see the derpflow from that eruption.
 
2013-08-21 11:21:10 AM

This text is now purple: redmid17: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.

DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).

It overturned handgun bans in federal territory, of which DC was a part.


It overturned handgun bans which pertained to prohibition of possession and ownership of handguns on private property within federal enclaves. No one lives in national parks or national forests. DC still does not have a CHL program, yet one can carry in national parks. The two are not related whatsoever.
 
2013-08-21 11:21:18 AM

coeyagi: You didn't read the article, did you?  You ...


I read the article.  It's nothing but the usual derp:  No Federal Requirement for private sales background checks, some states have imposed them, background checks for internet sales (which proves even more people don't know what the hell they are talking about)

Was there supposed to be something new and informative in there?
 
2013-08-21 11:22:30 AM

This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.


So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.
 
2013-08-21 11:26:02 AM

HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.



Yeah. I said it.


/we've come full circle.
 
2013-08-21 11:26:36 AM

sammyk: Really? You are going to pretend the NRA hasn't used slipery slope arguments for decades regarding any form of a database of gun owners?


I guess this needs to be covered REALLY SLOWLY.  The NRA does not have a database of gun owners.  There is absolutely ZERO positive connection between people in the NRA mailing database and gun ownership.   Think through it.  Where is the NRA information gathered from?  Does attending a gun show mean a person owns a gun?  Does purchasing items from certain vendors mean a person owns a gun? Does being an NRA member mean a person owns a gun?  No, No and No.  Heck, even attending an NRA course doesn't mean you own a gun.

The NRA does not have a firearms owners, or firearms database.  It has a database of people likely to agree with their cause.
 
2013-08-21 11:27:49 AM

This text is now purple: redmid17: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.

DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).

It overturned handgun bans in federal territory, of which DC was a part.


Seems odd that the GOP bothered to put that amendment in a bill about credit cards then. Still though, signed by:

i.usatoday.net

Second Amendment Hero
 
2013-08-21 11:29:11 AM

HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.


NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.
 
2013-08-21 11:30:37 AM
FTFA: "The NRA is not only able to understand people who their members are but also people who are not their members

Can anyone parse this sentence for me? I've read it about 10 times and now my head hurts.
 
2013-08-21 11:33:13 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.


Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.
 
2013-08-21 11:33:41 AM

Witness99: I would like this to be a weapon free country. Not just guns, nukes and everything else. I don't want to shoot people. I don't want to nuke people. I don't want to do anything to people.


Unfortunately everyone is not an enlightened pacifist like you.

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.
 
2013-08-21 11:35:48 AM

PanicMan: Because no private organization has ever taken advantage of their customer's information, or changed hands to someone who would.  No private organization has ever accidentally mailed out customer's information, or gotten hacked, or left a laptop in a taxi.


The article mentions where the database is stored, their national headquarters in 22030 - or is it on some cloud out there?

So, someone going to grab and post it as a torrent for the lulz?
 
2013-08-21 11:35:55 AM

BayouOtter: To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities


We live in that world and there are guns everywhere.
 
2013-08-21 11:38:53 AM

mod3072: FTFA: "The NRA is not only able to understand people who their members are but also people who are not their members

Can anyone parse this sentence for me? I've read it about 10 times and now my head hurts.


move the first "are" over two words.  What you expect editors to look over blog posts?
 
2013-08-21 11:40:13 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it


Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.
 
2013-08-21 11:40:15 AM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.

Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.


How does representing resident aliens in the fight for a CCW benefit the NRA? It's not as if the resident aliens can give them political support and votes. 

What if minorities show up to a Tea Party rally with an AR-15 or participate in an open carry march? Both have happened. If a black militia wanted to do an open carry march, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of support the NRA would give.

People think the NRA is some shadow organization that foisted gun control on minorities and then somehow fail to realize, while sometimes extolling, how much the organization changed after the leadership got ousted in the late 70s. It's not the same people or even type of people running the show.
 
2013-08-21 11:41:06 AM

BayouOtter: ...getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill.


toolwizard.com

From my cold dead... uh... hands.
 
2013-08-21 11:43:37 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.

Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.

How does representing resident aliens in the fight for a CCW benefit the NRA? It's not as if the resident aliens can give them political support and votes.


You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

What if minorities show up to a Tea Party rally with an AR-15 or participate in an open carry march? Both have happened. If a black militia wanted to do an open carry march, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of support the NRA would give.

They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

People think the NRA is some shadow organization that foisted gun control on minorities and then somehow fail to realize, while sometimes extolling, how much the organization changed after the leadership got ousted in the late 70s. ...

Actually they did it out in the open, again, because at the time it served them to.
 
2013-08-21 11:44:43 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.


There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.
 
2013-08-21 11:44:57 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Don_cos: Princess Ryans Knickers: This will be great! When we finally takeover all the markets we can then use the list the NRA compiled and begin to target the gun users for re-education! I think possibly even get some free labor out of them too when they fight back and we have to put them in prison!

Right, let's bring back slavery under a new name.

And how do you unarmed fools, plan to round up these gun owners?

Ever hear of police, National Guard, or military? What now tough guy?


There are, conservatively, roughly 20 million active shooters in the US. The entire US military (as of May 2011) stood at roughly 1.5 million. Add maybe another half-million for police. Guard probably accounts for another million or so. Now, factor in that not all of them will be 100% on board with the plan. It's crazy, but not all of those folks are gonna agree with something as monumentally stupid as attempting to disarm the USA.

Yes! They have really cool tools and weapons, but attrition and lack of a popular base will mean they'll eventually give up in the face of overwhelming numbers. Talk about tanks, jet planes, and drones all you want, but they still need people to operate and maintain them. And if those people are dead, injured, hungry or isolated, they won't matter a hill of beans.

Just the refugee problem will overwhelm the authorities, as those with no stomach to fight will either flee or demand protection that can't be given. Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against. It wouldn't be a toe-to-toe slugging match by any means. Death by a thousand pinpricks would be more appropriate.
 
2013-08-21 11:45:56 AM

AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it

Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.


So you agree.
 
2013-08-21 11:46:22 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?


No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.


except when they have?

HotWingConspiracy:
Actually they did it out in the open, again, because at the time it served them to.Did what out in the open?
 
2013-08-21 11:48:10 AM

redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.


And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.
 
2013-08-21 11:48:31 AM

HotWingConspiracy: AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it

Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.

So you agree.


No, it's a stupid premise.  I can't say what would happen in your hypothetical, but to suggest that the NRA is any different in their motivations than any other political group is disingenuous.
 
2013-08-21 11:49:39 AM

HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.


Gonna pull a Philly PD maneuver?  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/survivor-remembers-bombin g -of-philadelphia-headquarters/

Civilians don't like collateral damage too much.
 
2013-08-21 11:50:34 AM
A few years ago I bought a shotgun at Gander Mountain and then started getting stuff in the mail and calls from the NRA. How did they know? I didn't give out anything except what was needed for the application.
 
2013-08-21 11:50:43 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.


It's about creating legal cover and precedent.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

except when they have?


Which black militia did this and got support from NRA members?

HotWingConspiracy:
Actually they did it out in the open, again, because at the time it served them to.Did what out in the open?


Went against their supposed mission and supported gun control when it came to the Black Panthers.
 
2013-08-21 11:50:57 AM

mod3072: IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.

There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.


And if the fear is the government is going to come knocking on your door after getting said list, and if acquiring guns legally or illegally makes no difference, then what IS the "big difference" here?

Let's put it this way...if the government had this same list and not the NRA, and you were on it, would you be concerned?
 
2013-08-21 11:52:12 AM

AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it

Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.

So you agree.

No, it's a stupid premise.  I can't say what would happen in your hypothetical, but to suggest that the NRA is any different in their motivations than any other political group is disingenuous.


Good thing I never suggested that.
 
2013-08-21 11:53:03 AM
redmid17:

How does representing resident aliens in the fight for a CCW benefit the NRA? It's not as if the resident aliens can give them political support and votes. 

What if minorities show up to a Tea Party rally with an AR-15 or participate in an open carry march? Both have happened. If a black militia wanted to do an open carry march, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of support the NRA would give.

People think the NRA is some shadow organization that foisted gun control on minorities and then somehow fail to realize, while sometimes extolling, how much the organization changed after the leadership got ousted in the late 70s. ...



No, we don't think the NRA is some shadow organization. We think its an organization of retarded Conservatives. The same folks who wanted to see the President's birth certificate. The same foks who carried guns to the Capital to "show Obama" what time it was. The same folks who watch Fox News, vote mostly Tea Party and have bumper stickers like, "Don't Re-Nig in 2012". You can't seperate an organization from its derp-filled members. And they don't fool anyone just because they set a few semi-articulate folks out in front to deliver their message that they may have to kill Obama if he tries to pass Sharia law.


First question...why do you think that I should be more supportive of the NRA just because they helped non-whites get guns?
 
2013-08-21 11:55:12 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.

Gonna pull a Philly PD maneuver?  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/survivor-remembers-bombin g -of-philadelphia-headquarters/

Civilians don't like collateral damage too much.


Civilians also generally support authorities. You take a shot at one of them, and most average folk won't miss you and will actually cheer for your death. Have you read some of the threads on this site?
 
2013-08-21 11:57:13 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.


Yeah. I said it.


/we've come full circle.


You're like a wizard.
 
2013-08-21 11:57:32 AM

HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.


I'm saying this because that's the model they're trained to follow. Of course there will be variances, but those will only result in more people taking up arms when they see cops kicking in their neighbor's doors. I only illustrated that to point out the disparities in numbers they'd be facing should they ever do something so stupid. House to house searches become costly when they're losing people each time the go in.
 
2013-08-21 12:00:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.

It's about creating legal cover and precedent.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

except when they have?

Which black militia did this and got support from NRA members?


It's about creating legal cover and precedent for everyone who can legally possess and use a gun.

I never specified black militia. Plenty of black, hispanic, and asian people have taken part in Tea Party rallies armed or done open carry marches. I've seen the latter. The news has poorly reported the first. Maybe you remember this from a Fark thread:  http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/19/shameless/  http://www.azcent ral.com/insiders/phxbeat/2009/08/17/man-with-ar-15-ri fle-at-obama-rally-sparks-concerns/


The NRA was a sporting club until the late 1970s. Everything they did prior to the leadership change was gun control (NFA, GCA, no help for Miller in US v Miller). Those are all things they likely would not have done had the current style of leadership been in place back then.
 
2013-08-21 12:03:26 PM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.

Gonna pull a Philly PD maneuver?  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/survivor-remembers-bombin g -of-philadelphia-headquarters/

Civilians don't like collateral damage too much.

Civilians also generally support authorities. You take a shot at one of them, and most average folk won't miss you and will actually cheer for your death. Have you read some of the threads on this site?


I have. I have also seen a lot of people pissed off when the police shot up the Hispanic women delivering newspapers because the cops were shiatting themselves over a vehicle which didn't match Dorner's nor did the women look like a large black man. If the police or national guard start dropping bombs or using overwhelming firepower on people who are resisting gun confiscation, there is going to be a *lot* of collateral damage, and you'll find that erodes goodwill rather quickly.
 
2013-08-21 12:10:40 PM

Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.


It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.
 
2013-08-21 12:16:08 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.


I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.
 
2013-08-21 12:18:29 PM

redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.

I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.


So this list is imaginary.  That's the angle now?
 
2013-08-21 12:20:08 PM

BayouOtter: Witness99: I would like this to be a weapon free country. Not just guns, nukes and everything else. I don't want to shoot people. I don't want to nuke people. I don't want to do anything to people.

Unfortunately everyone is not an enlightened pacifist like you.

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.


Well, I don't consider myself an "enlightened pacifist." I'm more of a realist, though I can still express what is "ideal."

Bottom line is, we humans are assholes. We've got competing, ancient books of religion that we want to kill eachother over. We focus on our differences and not out similarities. Men and women want to kill eachother. We're on a tiny little ball, spinning through space with very limited resources.

I don't think that we, as a SPECIES, are smart enough to get out of this alive.

That said, yes, I will pop a cap in any mofo that assaults me.
 
2013-08-21 12:20:44 PM

lordjupiter: redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.

I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

So this list is imaginary.  That's the angle now?


Is not being able to read or understand context hard for you?
 
2013-08-21 12:24:34 PM
Anyone with a brain knew this, anyone with a brain knew the government has this list.
 
2013-08-21 12:27:35 PM

redmid17: I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show. I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.


What brands?  All Smith and Wesson, Taurus, Remington, and Ruger all come with NRA pamphlets.

And what does any of that answer my question?  You never supplied your address to them when buying a gun in person or at a shooting range.   I said "buy online or through a catalog."  A majority of the major stores do sell their info to the NRA.
 
2013-08-21 12:27:59 PM
1) Oh my farking god it's a mailing lisy, get over it.

2)ITT people can't tell the difference between yhe NRA and the NRA-ILA. If it WAS a registry (which it isn't), it would only be ironic if done by the latter.
 
2013-08-21 12:28:14 PM

Click Click D'oh: sammyk: Really? You are going to pretend the NRA hasn't used slipery slope arguments for decades regarding any form of a database of gun owners?

I guess this needs to be covered REALLY SLOWLY.  The NRA does not have a database of gun owners.  There is absolutely ZERO positive connection between people in the NRA mailing database and gun ownership.   Think through it.  Where is the NRA information gathered from?  Does attending a gun show mean a person owns a gun?  Does purchasing items from certain vendors mean a person owns a gun? Does being an NRA member mean a person owns a gun?  No, No and No.  Heck, even attending an NRA course doesn't mean you own a gun.

The NRA does not have a firearms owners, or firearms database.  It has a database of people likely to agree with their cause.


Go back and read the article again if you even bothered to in teh first place. Read it real slow or try to get an adult to read and explain it to you.

The NRA is mining data from counties and states for people who have gun permits and/or CCW permits. They are doing this without your knowledge or permission. They have very publicly and very loudly spoken against the dangers of a gun database and made slippery slope arguments for years and years. Again, they are doing what they speak loudly about. They have not stated what they use the data for because they are collecting it without the knowledge of the farking people they are adding to the database.

You bullet counters are a riot when you try to talk down to people.
 
2013-08-21 12:37:36 PM

Satanic_Hamster: redmid17: I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show. I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

What brands?  All Smith and Wesson, Taurus, Remington, and Ruger all come with NRA pamphlets.

And what does any of that answer my question?  You never supplied your address to them when buying a gun in person or at a shooting range.   I said "buy online or through a catalog."  A majority of the major stores do sell their info to the NRA.


Remington 870 - Neither the gun nor the rifled barrel I bought as an addition came with any NRA material
Mossberg 500 - same deal
Mosin-Nagant - that box was straight from the Russian armory and that was a small gun shop. I don't even remember seeing NRA stuff there


You didn't actually have any question beyond these:

You ever buy a new gun?
Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?


I've bought ammo, cleaning materials, gun locks, targets, and other stuff from places like cheaperthandirt.com and impactguns.com I've bought similar stuff from places like Dick's, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro, Cabela's, and smaller gun shops. These shops all have my name, what I bought, and can tie that back to a billing or shipping address.

I answered those questions as an affirmative, and I stated I hadn't gotten any NRA material.  I've ticked pretty much every way possible for the NRA to get a hold of me, yet I have only received a flier from a person handing them out to people at a gun show. I'm certain the NRA has my information in their database. They'd be completely incompetent if they didn't, but it doesn't mean they are mass mailing everyone and everything to death.
 
2013-08-21 12:37:42 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: Frank N Stein

Is Obama the only black guy you know of?


Yes, that's it! I am familiar with only one such person!

Or I was providing an example of the NRA *not* supporting such a person in arguably the highest-profile election in the country, in clear contradiction to an earlier post from give me doughnuts.

Romney - sponsored AWB in MA
Obama - nothing of the sort

NRA endorses Romney. Well, that makes sense. *eyeroll*


You're absolutely right, Obama has been hugely pro-gun in the White House. Romney would've pushed for much more stringent gun control legislation.
 
2013-08-21 12:45:16 PM

sammyk: The NRA is mining data from counties and states for people who have gun permits and/or CCW permits.


Oh TFA.  I thought you were talking about the other article that got linked.  The one about background checks.  Moving on...


sammyk: They are doing this without your knowledge or permission.


Nobody need your knowledge or permission to data mine.  Why is it suddenly bad when the NRA does it?  Every major organization does it.

sammyk: They have very publicly and very loudly spoken against the dangers of a gun database and made slippery slope arguments for years and years.


This is not a gun database.  If you can't figure that out, you're an idiot.  None of the information they are gathering is a positive connection to actual firearms ownership.

sammyk: Again, they are doing what they speak loudly about.


No they are not.  None of the NRAs data actually indicates ownership of a firearm and most certainly does not tie any specific firearms by make, model, type, serial number or another other identifying information to any individuals.  At most, it indicates people likely to own firearms.  Nothing more.

That is not a registration by any stretch of the imagination

.

sammyk: They have not stated what they use the data for because they are collecting it without the knowledge of the farking people they are adding to the database.


It's their mailing list you idiot.
 
2013-08-21 12:50:20 PM

lordjupiter: mod3072: IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.

There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.

And if the fear is the government is going to come knocking on your door after getting said list, and if acquiring guns legally or illegally makes no difference, then what IS the "big difference" here?

Let's put it this way...if the government had this same list and not the NRA, and you were on it, would you be concerned?


You don't see a difference between a list that says "this guy might own a gun" and a detailed inventory of every gun that everyone owns? If the government chooses to compile a list of people they think might own guns and my name ends up on it, so be it. My biggest concern with that would be that it's a huge waste of time and money.
 
2013-08-21 12:54:04 PM

redmid17: lordjupiter: redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.

I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

So this list is imaginary.  That's the angle now?

Is not being able to read or understand context hard for you?



Speak for yourself.  Your anecdote does not negate reality here, sparky.
 
2013-08-21 12:56:50 PM

lordjupiter: redmid17: lordjupiter: redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.

I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

So this list is imaginary.  That's the angle now?

Is not being able to read or understand context hard for you?

Speak for yourself.  Your anecdote does not negate reality here, sparky.


Did I say it did? Did I say the list was imaginary?

I will repeat the question and actually make it grammatically correct this time:    Is not being able to read or not being able to understand context hard for you?
 
2013-08-21 01:02:20 PM

sammyk: way south: sammyk: Pants full of macaroni!!: Wouldn't that be, um, their mailing list?

way south: Not every gun owner is a member of the NRA, and not every NRA member owns a gun. The data they've compiled either comes from voluntary sources (mailing list, membership) or was originally collected by the government anyway.

The same government that is listening to your voicemail and reading your emails has probably been absent minded about destroying background check and ownership transfer records.

I'm thinking that the NRA isn't a problem since they have no power to confiscate weapons or the interest in doing so. The only way their data becomes a problem is if the government takes it.
...but since it has even more detailed information, there wouldn't be much sense in doing so.

That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines and more, BuzzFeed has learned.

Candy coat it all you want kids. They have been collecting gun registration info from counties and states. WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION!!!

Even at that, they are a lobby who uses that information to contact prospective supporters. The NRA will never come knocking to inspect my safe, publish my address in the papers, or file charges for my prosecution.
Governments use their information to send cops to your door and enforce laws, bans, and confiscations. If they were benign or even helpful then I could care less about having my information stored with the atf. It would be no different than keeping it at the IRS or with the postmaster.

Its sort of like being ok with knowing my address is on a high times mailing list but not being ok with it being listed by the DEA as a prospective target. There's a difference in potential use that defines whether I would be upset or not.
...




For the sake of discussion lets assume it is as bad as you say and the NRA has a complete database of all gun owners and their possession.

You are asking me if the slippery slope argument against governments abuse of data applies when a private entity collects the same data. I don't believe it does, because its specially government overreach that is the problem.

Am I happy about it? Not particularly. I'd fear the government could muscle its way into taking ownership of that treasure trove.
...But again its back to government abuse. Remove that aspect and even the most absurd accusations of NRA data collection turn out to be no more troublesome than Facebook.
 
2013-08-21 01:03:25 PM

mod3072: lordjupiter: mod3072: IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.

There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.

And if the fear is the government is going to come knocking on your door after getting said list, and if acquiring guns legally or illegally makes no difference, then what IS the "big difference" here?

Let's put it this way...if the government had this same list and not the NRA, and you were on it, would you be concerned?

You don't see a difference between a list that says "this guy might own a gun" and a detailed inventory of every gun that everyone owns? If the government chooses to compile a list of people they think might own guns and my name ends up on it, so be it. My biggest concern with that would be that it's a huge waste of time and money.


So you're saying you don't trust the government with a list of gun owners, but you trust them to not investigate or harass people who PROBABLY have guns?  Given the expansion of probable cause over the years?

Again, when the concern is the gubment knocking on your door and not believing you when you say you don't have the guns they're looking for, what's this "BIG difference" you're talking about? Especially in a system where groups like the NRA fight AGAINST accurate reporting of who owns what, and the assertion is constantly made that gun ownership can't accurately be tracked nor should gun owners be responsible for what happens to their guns after they're lost or stolen or sold.

So the best information may be that list of "this guy might own a gun", and the best way to handle it might be to search everyone.  What better excuse to go door to door?  Isn't that why the NRA has fought registering ANY gun for ANY reason for so long?  Targeting people for blanket searches or confiscations?

And if this corrupt secret government decides to steal that list from the NRA, or have them turn it over legally somehow, then what?

Let's see some consistency instead of slavery to the NRA, people.  Aren't we always being told that the NRA doesn't control gun owners, it just works FOR them?  Now you find out they're screwing you over, and you still defend them.  Why?
 
2013-08-21 01:04:28 PM

redmid17: I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.


So yes, you are suggesting this doesn't really exist.
 
2013-08-21 01:04:54 PM

redmid17: Remington 870 - Neither the gun nor the rifled barrel I bought as an addition came with any NRA material


I would be very, very surprised that there wasn't a NRA flyer with the Remington.  Don't know about the other brands.

redmid17: I've bought ammo, cleaning materials, gun locks, targets, and other stuff from places like cheaperthandirt.com and impactguns.com I've bought similar stuff from places like Dick's, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro, Cabela's, and smaller gun shops. These shops all have my name, what I bought, and can tie that back to a billing or shipping address.


And given that, I'm willing to bet that NRA has your address then.
 
2013-08-21 01:05:55 PM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.

It's about creating legal cover and precedent.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

except when they have?

Which black militia did this and got support from NRA members?

It's about creating legal cover and precedent for everyone who can legally possess and use a gun.

I never specified black militia.


I did.

Plenty of black, hispanic, and asian people have taken part in Tea Party rallies armed or done open carry marches.

I think we probably have a different notion of "plenty", but this isn't what I'm talking about. If the New Black Panthers start marching down the streets of Whitelandia with loaded guns, the NRA and their supporters will not be smiling.

I've seen the latter. The news has poorly reported the first. Maybe you remember this from a Fark thread:  http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/19/shameless/  http://www.azcent ral.com/insiders/phxbeat/2009/08/17/man-with-ar-15-ri fle-at-obama-rally-sparks-concerns/


The NRA was a sporting club until the late 1970s. Everything they did prior to the leadership change was gun control (NFA, GCA, no help for Miller in US v Miller). Those are all things they likely would not have done had the current style of leadership been in place back then.


Yes, many organizations have been co-opted by right wing cranks. People are catching on though, look what happened to Komen.
 
2013-08-21 01:09:27 PM

lordjupiter: And if this corrupt secret government decides to steal that list from the NRA, or have them turn it over legally somehow, then what?


What makes you think the government doesn't have the same list?  The NRA is getting it's information from public sources that the government can data mine too.

lordjupiter: Now you find out they're screwing you over, and you still defend them. Why?


Do you apply the standard that having a mailing list is screwing someone over to all corporations and organizations?  Can we take this to mean that you have broken ties with everything?
 
2013-08-21 01:10:09 PM

Satanic_Hamster: redmid17: Remington 870 - Neither the gun nor the rifled barrel I bought as an addition came with any NRA material

I would be very, very surprised that there wasn't a NRA flyer with the Remington.  Don't know about the other brands.

redmid17: I've bought ammo, cleaning materials, gun locks, targets, and other stuff from places like cheaperthandirt.com and impactguns.com I've bought similar stuff from places like Dick's, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro, Cabela's, and smaller gun shops. These shops all have my name, what I bought, and can tie that back to a billing or shipping address.

And given that, I'm willing to bet that NRA has your address then.


I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe the BPS in Goshen, IN doesn't add them or something? I can ask some of my friends who've purchased guns there I suppose.

lordjupiter: redmid17: I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

So yes, you are suggesting this doesn't really exist.


The unsolicited mail is not as pervasive, not the list. Like I said, you either cannot read or cannot understand context .Take your pick. If I spend the preceding 4 sentences talking about fliers and junk mail and compare it to the mailings my parents got from the AARP, there is just a *tiny* chance that I meant the mailing and not the list. Just maybe anyway. How on Earth would *I* know what I meant though.
 
2013-08-21 01:10:14 PM
Every time a gun nut post a gun pic on Facebook, Obama grows stronger.
 
2013-08-21 01:12:20 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I never specified black militia.

I did.


And then you turned around and generalized with black guys walking down the streets with rifles on their back.
 
2013-08-21 01:14:37 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: And if this corrupt secret government decides to steal that list from the NRA, or have them turn it over legally somehow, then what?

What makes you think the government doesn't have the same list?  The NRA is getting it's information from public sources that the government can data mine too.

lordjupiter: Now you find out they're screwing you over, and you still defend them. Why?

Do you apply the standard that having a mailing list is screwing someone over to all corporations and organizations?  Can we take this to mean that you have broken ties with everything?


I'm very anti-spam but I'm realistic about what gets collected on the internet and by stores.  I don't like it but unlike NRA robots I don't belong to any organizations that lobby the government about it.  I haven't been betrayed by anyone, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend I'm the fanatic here.

Correction, I am sure.  It's a deflection.  You're trying to drag other people into your rationalization for excusing the NRA.
 
2013-08-21 01:17:09 PM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: I never specified black militia.

I did.

And then you turned around and generalized with black guys walking down the streets with rifles on their back.


I was still talking about a militia. Or we can play it your way if you want to parse in an attempt to avoid the obvious truth of what I'm saying.

ANY group of armed black people marching will not sit right with NRA backers, and the NRA likes their money.
 
2013-08-21 01:22:30 PM

redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: redmid17: Remington 870 - Neither the gun nor the rifled barrel I bought as an addition came with any NRA material

I would be very, very surprised that there wasn't a NRA flyer with the Remington.  Don't know about the other brands.

redmid17: I've bought ammo, cleaning materials, gun locks, targets, and other stuff from places like cheaperthandirt.com and impactguns.com I've bought similar stuff from places like Dick's, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro, Cabela's, and smaller gun shops. These shops all have my name, what I bought, and can tie that back to a billing or shipping address.

And given that, I'm willing to bet that NRA has your address then.

I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe the BPS in Goshen, IN doesn't add them or something? I can ask some of my friends who've purchased guns there I suppose.

lordjupiter: redmid17: I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

So yes, you are suggesting this doesn't really exist.

The unsolicited mail is not as pervasive, not the list. Like I said, you either cannot read or cannot understand context .Take your pick. If I spend the preceding 4 sentences talking about fliers and junk mail and compare it to the mailings my parents got from the AARP, there is just a *tiny* chance that I meant the mailing and not the list. Just maybe anyway. How on Earth would *I* know what I meant though.


So you offered a generally worthless anecdotal comment about whether or not the NRA has sent you something personally, when the issue being discussed was whether or not the list goes BEYOND a mere mailing list and whether your information is being given or sold to the NRA.

And this of course was in no way intended to diminish the issue or the culpability of the NRA.

And other people are the ones who have problems with context.

/d0rp
 
2013-08-21 01:24:03 PM

lordjupiter: I'm very anti-spam but I'm realistic about what gets collected on the internet and by stores.


...And yet you say that I'm "rationalization for excusing the NRA" when you just admitted they aren't doing anything that everyone else also does... That's amazing in a very special sort of way.

HotWingConspiracy: ANY group of armed black people marching will not sit right with NRA backers, and the NRA likes their money.


I'm confused... I thought the current talking point was that the NRA was the pawn of gun companies and that's where their funding comes from.  Are we now reversing that and saying that the NRA is the pawn of racists and that's where their money comes from?

Can we please try to keep the talking points straight?
 
2013-08-21 01:25:28 PM

lordjupiter: redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: redmid17: Remington 870 - Neither the gun nor the rifled barrel I bought as an addition came with any NRA material

I would be very, very surprised that there wasn't a NRA flyer with the Remington.  Don't know about the other brands.

redmid17: I've bought ammo, cleaning materials, gun locks, targets, and other stuff from places like cheaperthandirt.com and impactguns.com I've bought similar stuff from places like Dick's, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro, Cabela's, and smaller gun shops. These shops all have my name, what I bought, and can tie that back to a billing or shipping address.

And given that, I'm willing to bet that NRA has your address then.

I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe the BPS in Goshen, IN doesn't add them or something? I can ask some of my friends who've purchased guns there I suppose.

lordjupiter: redmid17: I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

So yes, you are suggesting this doesn't really exist.

The unsolicited mail is not as pervasive, not the list. Like I said, you either cannot read or cannot understand context .Take your pick. If I spend the preceding 4 sentences talking about fliers and junk mail and compare it to the mailings my parents got from the AARP, there is just a *tiny* chance that I meant the mailing and not the list. Just maybe anyway. How on Earth would *I* know what I meant though.

So you offered a generally worthless anecdotal comment about whether or not the NRA has sent you something personally, when the issue being discussed was whether or not the list goes BEYOND a mere mailing list and whether your information is being given or sold to the NRA.

And this of course was in no way intended to diminish the issue or the culpability of the NRA.

And other people are the ones who have problems with context.

/d0rp


I wasn't talking about the database. I was talking about their mailings. I even admitted I was probably in their database. How are you not getting this?
 
2013-08-21 01:25:46 PM

redmid17: I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe the BPS in Goshen, IN doesn't add them or something? I can ask some of my friends who've purchased guns there I suppose.


That or your purchases haven't triggered a mailing yet.  Some companies are paranoid about sending unsolicited material (pisses some people off).  At min you're in a database that's used to help determine their state spending/advertising/etc.

Like lordjupiter said, this type of information goes for uses far beyond direct mailings.
 
2013-08-21 01:25:57 PM
lordjupiter:And this of course was in no way intended to diminish the issue or the culpability of the NRA.

Culpability of the NRA?

This should be good...  What exactly is the NRA Culpable for?
 
2013-08-21 01:28:37 PM
Click Click D'oh: HotWingConspiracy: ANY group of armed black people marching will not sit right with NRA backers, and the NRA likes their money.

I'm confused... I thought the current talking point was that the NRA was the pawn of gun companies and that's where their funding comes from.  Are we now reversing that and saying that the NRA is the pawn of racists and that's where their money comes from?

Can we please try to keep the talking points straight?


They do take money from gun companies. I never once stated that their dullard membership was their only source of income. Their numbers actually offer them the clout they need to keep the industry toeing their line.

Can you please try to keep your phony umbrage straight?
 
2013-08-21 01:29:02 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: I'm very anti-spam but I'm realistic about what gets collected on the internet and by stores.

...And yet you say that I'm "rationalization for excusing the NRA" when you just admitted they aren't doing anything that everyone else also does... That's amazing in a very special sort of way.


I like how you completely ignored what I said in response to your horribly obvious "trap" hypothetical and then attacked with the "gotcha" angle you planned in the first place.  That's the mark of someone who's not as clever as he thinks he is.  I guess I should have just responded with a pancake bunny and saved myself the time.
 
2013-08-21 01:30:48 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Click Click D'oh: HotWingConspiracy: ANY group of armed black people marching will not sit right with NRA backers, and the NRA likes their money.

I'm confused... I thought the current talking point was that the NRA was the pawn of gun companies and that's where their funding comes from.  Are we now reversing that and saying that the NRA is the pawn of racists and that's where their money comes from?

Can we please try to keep the talking points straight?

They do take money from gun companies. I never once stated that their dullard membership was their only source of income. Their numbers actually offer them the clout they need to keep the industry toeing their line.

Can you please try to keep your phony umbrage straight?



No need.  Just trollin' at this point.  Lots of straw flyin'
 
2013-08-21 01:32:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Click Click D'oh: HotWingConspiracy: ANY group of armed black people marching will not sit right with NRA backers, and the NRA likes their money.

I'm confused... I thought the current talking point was that the NRA was the pawn of gun companies and that's where their funding comes from.  Are we now reversing that and saying that the NRA is the pawn of racists and that's where their money comes from?

Can we please try to keep the talking points straight?

They do take money from gun companies. I never once stated that their dullard membership was their only source of income. Their numbers actually offer them the clout they need to keep the industry toeing their line.



Well, their tax records are available to the public.

In 2010 they had an annual income of $227.8 million. $115 million came from fundraising, sales, advertising (they sell ads in their magazines and publications), and royalties. The remaining $112.8 million came from membership dues, making membership dues the largest single chunk of their income.

Between 2005-2010 they received $14.8 million from more than 50 different firearm-related firms, or just under $3 million per year on average. In 2010 their advertising income, most of it from industry, came to $20.9 million (9.2%). Assuming their total income from industry consists of advertising + corporate donations, that's $20.9 + $3 million = $23.9 million, or about 10.5% of their annual income.

Based on their publicly available finances, it sure looks like their mostly speaking for their dues-paying members.
If you're interested in the actual firearms industry trade group, that'd be the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
 
2013-08-21 01:32:53 PM

Satanic_Hamster: redmid17: I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe the BPS in Goshen, IN doesn't add them or something? I can ask some of my friends who've purchased guns there I suppose.

That or your purchases haven't triggered a mailing yet.  Some companies are paranoid about sending unsolicited material (pisses some people off).  At min you're in a database that's used to help determine their state spending/advertising/etc.

Like lordjupiter said, this type of information goes for uses far beyond direct mailings.


I'll be honest, I'd be interested in knowing what does trigger those mailings because I would prefer to avoid them. I get enough shiat from Chase, Comcast, RCN, and a ton of other businesses I've dealt with over the years. The only unsolicited gun thing I've ever gotten was a Benelli products DVD, and I think that came a huge box of shotgun shells I split with my dad.
 
2013-08-21 01:40:50 PM

lordjupiter: Herpa Derpa Derpa


Just double checking that yes, in fact you are holding it against the NRA that they engage in a practice that every other organization and company in the world engages in.

Still waiting to find out exactly what the NRA is culpable for...
 
2013-08-21 01:41:35 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: Herpa Derpa Derpa

Just double checking that yes, in fact you are holding it against the NRA that they engage in a practice that every other organization and company in the world engages in.

Still waiting to find out exactly what the NRA is culpable for...


Not mailing me unsolicited material?
 
2013-08-21 01:44:33 PM

redmid17: Not mailing me unsolicited material?


You know... I can take care of that for you....
 
2013-08-21 01:45:33 PM

Doom MD: The Name: NRA members won't care as long as it isn't the fedrul gub'mint amassing a database.

Now, if we find out that the NSA has access to this database . . .

Oh wait, they still won't care.

You're right. The NRA having a list of people they send emails and newsletters to is totally the same as the government creating a list of serialized firearms every American owns. This article has a garbage premise.


I heard the government also has a list of people who own motor vehicles. Surely the next step must be confiscation and a forcible return to a pedestrian lifestyle?
 
2013-08-21 01:48:48 PM

Click Click D'oh: redmid17: Not mailing me unsolicited material?

You know... I can take care of that for you....


No one is that evil..... are they?
 
2013-08-21 01:56:06 PM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.

Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.


They supported Robert F. Williams when the NAACP didn't.

http://books.google.com/books?id=i4YiA0jWz4EC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=Ma e+ Mallory&source=bl&ots=ylLsLgCB05&sig=mlQjFHZ02DjzNH4nRu6nep9dvOQ&hl=en &ei=5Lf9SrCTD43bnAfEkLCaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved= 0CBUQ6AEwAzg8#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
2013-08-21 01:58:13 PM
redmid17: No one is that evil..... are they?

Lol.  Honestly, I have no clue how the NRA chooses to send out their mailers.  On the brights side, if you somehow trigger their program and receive any unsolicited mail from the NRA, simply call the number on the mailer and ask to be removed.  They will put a block on your address to prevent it from happening again.
 
2013-08-21 02:00:11 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: Herpa Derpa Derpa

Just double checking that yes, in fact you are holding it against the NRA that they engage in a practice that every other organization and company in the world engages in.

Still waiting to find out exactly what the NRA is culpable for...


A) Wrong.  What they do goes way beyond basic customer data collection.  I don't like EITHER.
B) You can stop holding me to a standard I never set.  Hold the NRA to their own standards instead.
C) That should answer your last question.
 
2013-08-21 02:01:20 PM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.

It's about creating legal cover and precedent.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

except when they have?

Which black militia did this and got support from NRA members?

HotWingConspiracy:
Actually they did it out in the open, again, because at the time it served them to.Did what out in the open?

Went against their supposed mission and supported gun control when it came to the Black Panthers.


The Black Armed Guard circa 1958, Raleigh NC.

The NAACP suspended Williams chapter because he argued self reliance and self defense and not just letting the KKK shoot you to death as a form of non violent resistance.
 
2013-08-21 02:14:19 PM

Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.

Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.

They supported Robert F. Williams when the NAACP didn't.

http://books.google.com/books?id=i4YiA0jWz4EC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=Ma e+ Mallory&source=bl&ots=ylLsLgCB05&sig=mlQjFHZ02DjzNH4nRu6nep9dvOQ&hl=en &ei=5Lf9SrCTD43bnAfEkLCaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved= 0CBUQ6AEwAzg8#v=onepage&q&f=false


Williams' book Negroes with Guns (1962), published while he was in exile in Cuba, details his experience with violent racism and his disagreement with the pacifist Civil Rights Movement philosophies. Among others the book influenced Huey Newton, who founded the Black Panthers.

And what did the NRA do for the Black Panthers a decade or so later?

In 1959, Williams debated the merits of Martin Luther King Jr at the NAACP convention. The national NAACP office suspended his local chapter presidency for six months because of his outspoken disagreements with the national leadership.

There was a debate and he lost. He got a six month time out.


And then there is this:

In 1956, Williams took over leadership of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which was close to disbanding due to the Ku Klux Klan. Williams filed for a charter from the NRA and formed the Black Guard, an armed group committed to the protection of blacks.

It's unclear, however, whether the NRA provided any assistance, based on what Williams' widow, Mabel, said in a University of North Carolina oral history interview.


Mabel Williams said her husband altered the occupations of the members when applying for the NRA charter. "I'm sure when we joined and the years after then, had they known we were a black group, they would have revoked our charter," she said.
 
2013-08-21 02:19:35 PM

redmid17: I'll be honest, I'd be interested in knowing what does trigger those mailings because I would prefer to avoid them. I get enough shiat from Chase, Comcast, RCN, and a ton of other businesses I've dealt with over the years. The only unsolicited gun thing I've ever gotten was a Benelli products DVD, and I think that came a huge box of shotgun shells I split with my dad.


If you ever register your gun or get a warranty with Remington, Smith and Wesson, or Ruger you'll start getting them.  Buying spare parts directly from Ruger will tend to get you added.

I love the hell out of Ruger, but damn are they getting derpy.
 
2013-08-21 02:36:46 PM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.

It's about creating legal cover and precedent.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

except when they have?

Which black militia did this and got support from NRA members?

It's about creating legal cover and precedent for everyone who can legally possess and use a gun.

I never specified black militia.

I did.

Plenty of black, hispanic, and asian people have taken part in Tea Party rallies armed or done open carry marches.

I think we probably have a different notion of "plenty", but this isn't what I'm talking about. If the New Black Panthers start marching down the streets of Whitelandia with loaded guns, the NRA and their supporters will not be smiling.

I've seen the latter. The news has poorly reported the first. Maybe you remember this from a Fark thread:  http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/19/shameless/  http://www.azcent ral.com/insiders/phxbeat/2009/08/17/man-with-ar-15-ri fle-at-obama-rally-sparks-concerns/


The NRA was a sporting club until the late 1970s. Everything they did prior to the leadership change was gun control (NFA, GCA, no help for Miller in US v Miller). Those are all things they likely would not have done had the current style of leadership been in place back then.

Yes, many organizations have been co-opted by right wing cranks. People are catching on though, look what happened to Komen.


So if they don't condemn it you'll become a staunch advocate of the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-08-21 02:39:33 PM

lordjupiter: mod3072: lordjupiter: mod3072: IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.

There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.

And if the fear is the government is going to come knocking on your door after getting said list, and if acquiring guns legally or illegally makes no difference, then what IS the "big difference" here?

Let's put it this way...if the government had this same list and not the NRA, and you were on it, would you be concerned?

You don't see a difference between a list that says "this guy might own a gun" and a detailed inventory of every gun that everyone owns? If the government chooses to compile a list of people they think might own guns and my name ends up on it, so be it. My biggest concern with that would be that it's a huge waste of time and money.

So you're saying you don't trust the government with a list of gun owners, but you trust them to not investigate or harass people who PROBABLY have guns?  Given the expansion of probable cause over the years?

Again, when the concern is the gubment knocking on your door and not believing you when you say you don't have the guns they're looking for, what's this "BIG difference" you're talking about? Especially in a system where groups like the NRA fight AGAINST accurate reporting of who owns what, and the assertion is constantly made that gun ownership can't accurately be tracked nor should gun owners be responsible for what happens to their guns after they're lost or stolen or sold.

So the best information may be that list of "this guy might own a gun", and the best way to handle it might be to search everyone.  What better excuse to go door to door?  Isn't that why ...


I'm not defending anyone. I made one small, simple little point in my original post: Having a list of possible gun owners for marketing purposes is not the same as a national gun registry. End of sentence, end of point. Period. Got it? You're the one haring off into conspiracy-land. I never said a word about jack-booted government thugs kicking my door down. I never said anything about whether or not I support the NRA (I don't, BTW). You took your cartoonish caricature of what you believe a gun owner to be and created this little fantasy all on your own.
 
2013-08-21 02:40:07 PM

Rueened: Doom MD: The Name: NRA members won't care as long as it isn't the fedrul gub'mint amassing a database.

Now, if we find out that the NSA has access to this database . . .

Oh wait, they still won't care.

You're right. The NRA having a list of people they send emails and newsletters to is totally the same as the government creating a list of serialized firearms every American owns. This article has a garbage premise.

I heard the government also has a list of people who own motor vehicles. Surely the next step must be confiscation and a forcible return to a pedestrian lifestyle?


What's that gotta do with Ford's mailing list?
 
2013-08-21 02:54:54 PM

Doom MD: So if they don't condemn it you'll become a staunch advocate of the 2nd amendment?


No, it's hardly the only issue surrounding it.
 
2013-08-21 03:03:25 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The NSA also has one, its called "anyone who has Googled ffor dock enlargement pills"


DOCK enlargement pills? Well, whatever floats your boat I guess
 
2013-08-21 03:05:13 PM

mod3072: lordjupiter: mod3072: lordjupiter: mod3072: IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

Yet, people bemoan government databases and willfully ignore the private ones.

There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.

And if the fear is the government is going to come knocking on your door after getting said list, and if acquiring guns legally or illegally makes no difference, then what IS the "big difference" here?

Let's put it this way...if the government had this same list and not the NRA, and you were on it, would you be concerned?

You don't see a difference between a list that says "this guy might own a gun" and a detailed inventory of every gun that everyone owns? If the government chooses to compile a list of people they think might own guns and my name ends up on it, so be it. My biggest concern with that would be that it's a huge waste of time and money.

So you're saying you don't trust the government with a list of gun owners, but you trust them to not investigate or harass people who PROBABLY have guns?  Given the expansion of probable cause over the years?

Again, when the concern is the gubment knocking on your door and not believing you when you say you don't have the guns they're looking for, what's this "BIG difference" you're talking about? Especially in a system where groups like the NRA fight AGAINST accurate reporting of who owns what, and the assertion is constantly made that gun ownership can't accurately be tracked nor should gun owners be responsible for what happens to their guns after they're lost or stolen or sold.

So the best information may be that list of "this guy might own a gun", and the best way to handle it might be to search everyone.  What better excuse to go door to door?  Is ...


Your small, simple little point is not accurate and doesn't address the entire issue.  Period.  got it?  Who cares what you think you meant.
 
2013-08-21 03:13:09 PM

lordjupiter: A) Wrong.  What they do goes way beyond basic customer data collection.  I don't like EITHER.


Yes, they probably also use if for targeted marketing and membership drives OMG!!!! PANIC!!!

lordjupiter: Hold the NRA to their own standards instead.

 
What standard of the NRA have they violated?  Oh wait, you guys are making the idiotic claim that this is tantamount to a firearm registration.  So no, the NRA hasn't violated their own standards against a national firearms registry, no matter how ignorant and retarded you are.
 
2013-08-21 03:24:09 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

As to the original point, I just want you to be consistent. You're a single-issue voter, except for this. There aren't that many organizations, that when the chips are down, will back an unpopular black guy. But the NRA is one of them.

WAS one of them. Haven't been for quite some time.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

http://mije.org/richardprince/nra-was-inspired-black-panthers

The NRA didn't abandon black voters. Black voters abandoned them.

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.

Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.

They supported Robert F. Williams when the NAACP didn't.

http://books.google.com/books?id=i4YiA0jWz4EC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=Ma e+ Mallory&source=bl&ots=ylLsLgCB05&sig=mlQjFHZ02DjzNH4nRu6nep9dvOQ&hl=en &ei=5Lf9SrCTD43bnAfEkLCaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved= 0CBUQ6AEwAzg8#v=onepage&q&f=false

Williams' book Negroes with Guns (1962), published while he was in exile in Cuba, details his experience with violent racism and his disagreement with the pacifist Civil Rights Movement philosophies. Among others the book influenced Huey Newton, who founded the Black Panthers.

And what did the NRA do for the Black Pant ...


THIS WAS ALMOST 60 YEARS AGO!  Most of the people involved are probably dead!

Jesus, talk about beating a dead horse.
 
2013-08-21 03:29:34 PM

AngryDragon: THIS WAS ALMOST 60 YEARS AGO! Most of the people involved are probably dead!

Jesus, talk about beating a dead horse.


I didn't bring it up.
 
2013-08-21 03:38:15 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: A) Wrong.  What they do goes way beyond basic customer data collection.  I don't like EITHER.

Yes, they probably also use if for targeted marketing and membership drives OMG!!!! PANIC!!!

lordjupiter: Hold the NRA to their own standards instead.
 
What standard of the NRA have they violated?  Oh wait, you guys are making the idiotic claim that this is tantamount to a firearm registration.  So no, the NRA hasn't violated their own standards against a national firearms registry, no matter how ignorant and retarded you are.



While not technically the same you're talking about a meaningless distinction.  It's close enough for the principle behind the idea to be violated.  Access to the NRA list could LEAD to a registry, or an attempt at one.  If they didn't think about that, then they don't deserve your dues.

If you fear a government enough to not want to be named, and the people supposedly protecting you are naming you, the distinction is unnecessary.  Unless you're just looking for semantic reasons to excuse the behavior. 

I realize this requires a level of thought you may never reach, so you'll have to trust me on this one.  Or stop trolling.  Either way.  Because nobody could be this dumb.
 
2013-08-21 03:41:55 PM
 Something makes me more than a bit nervous about a Right wing group who insist that the only reason for having such a database is to know whom to go after while keeping such a database themselves.
 
2013-08-21 03:52:15 PM

lordjupiter: While not technically the same you're talking about a meaningless distinction.


No, it's a pretty important distinction.  One is a list of people and the firearms they own.  The other is a list of people that shopped at stores or attended events that may be in some way connected to firearms.  That's a pretty frakking huge difference.

If you can't imagine how different they are, try this mental exercise:  Guns are magically outlawed and a law is passed saying that any firearms not turned in may be confiscated from a persons home upon probably cause that they have them.  Which of these two items is probable cause:

1) A list of people and the firearms they own
2) A list of people that have shopped at stores that are in some way connected to firearms.

--insert jeopardy theme song--

If you said (2), you're a moron.

.

lordjupiter: Access to the NRA list could LEAD to a registry, or an attempt at one. If they didn't think about that, then they don't deserve your dues.


Access to the NRA database won't provide any more information than the government already has access too.  Where do you think they sent the FOIA requested to get the lists of weapons permit holders from?  Duh, the issuing governments.  Do you really think the government isn't getting the customer databases from sporting goods companies and the NRA has a secret stranglehold on that information?  The only proprietary information the NRA has is their membership directory.  Are we really to believe that you think the NRA shouldn't maintain a list of their members because OMG TEH GOBERMENT MIGHT STEEL IT!!!!!one11!!!

And since you really are dense, I'll have to point out that you are validating the very thought that many people call the NRA crazy for.  If the government is so tyrannical that it's a rational fear for you that the government will seize the NRAs mailing list to persecute it's own citizens, then the NRA is right in suggesting the government might need to be fought off with force of arms and they aren't crazy after all.  Huh.. figure that...

So which is it?  Either you are a super government fearing prepper idiot, or your argument is so poorly thought out it implodes on itself at the slightest review.


lordjupiter: If you fear a government enough to not want to be named, and the people supposedly protecting you are naming you, the distinction is unnecessary


Once again for the criminally stupid.  The NRAs list does not name a single person as a gun owner.  I know you're dumb as a brick, but you will catch on to this sooner or later.
 
2013-08-21 03:52:53 PM

HypnozombieX: Something makes me more than a bit nervous about a Right wing group who insist that the only reason for having such a database is to know whom to go after while keeping such a database themselves.


Oh jesus for the love of god... Is all of Fark this stupid today?
 
2013-08-21 03:56:01 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Doom MD: So if they don't condemn it you'll become a staunch advocate of the 2nd amendment?

No, it's hardly the only issue surrounding it.


Not when the goalposts are this loose and fast
 
2013-08-21 04:00:30 PM
An extremist group hostile to the US government compiling a database of weapons and weapons enthusiasts? That's a tiny little Slip & Slide away from sedition.
 
2013-08-21 04:01:53 PM

monoski: Saiga410: LasersHurt: Snatch Bandergrip: If you're a licensed gun owner, wouldn't you already be on a database?  Is it really any different than having a driver's license?

/Serious question

There is no licensing requirement for ownership (in a general sense, restrictions apply).

Offer not valid in IL

There is a license to carry a gun in most states but not one to own one. There are a lot of states where handgun purchases are registered but there is a gun show and private sale loophole where guns can be bought and sold outside of the state's system.


You haven't read up on Mass. gun laws, have you? (Other states may be similar, but I only know Mass...)

To lawfully possess a handgun, you must have a valid LTC. ... To lawfully possess a rifle, shotgun, ammunition, or chemical propellant spray, you must possess a valid FID card.

Q: Do I need an FID Card or an LTC Firearms to possess a gun in my home?

A: Yes. At a minimum you need an FID Card for non-large capacity rifles and shotguns. For handguns you need either an LTC,, or an FID Card combined with a Permit to Purchase firearms for the particular handgun in question.
 
2013-08-21 04:03:48 PM

RobSeace: You haven't read up on Mass. gun laws, have you? (Other states may be similar, but I only know Mass...)

To lawfully possess a handgun, you must have a valid LTC. ... To lawfully possess a rifle, shotgun, ammunition, or chemical propellant spray, you must possess a valid FID card.

Q: Do I need an FID Card or an LTC Firearms to possess a gun in my home?

A: Yes. At a minimum you need an FID Card for non-large capacity rifles and shotguns. For handguns you need either an LTC,, or an FID Card combined with a Permit to Purchase firearms for the particular handgun in question.


Michigan just repealed their purchase permit requirement in the last couple of years.
 
2013-08-21 04:03:58 PM
I believe it.  Magically the NRA began sending me propaganda within a month of a gun purchase.  I don't need to tell you that I obviously didn't seek them out.
 
2013-08-21 04:23:41 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: While not technically the same you're talking about a meaningless distinction.

No, it's a pretty important distinction.  One is a list of people and the firearms they own.  The other is a list of people that shopped at stores or attended events that may be in some way connected to firearms.  That's a pretty frakking huge difference.

If you can't imagine how different they are, try this mental exercise:  Guns are magically outlawed and a law is passed saying that any firearms not turned in may be confiscated from a persons home upon probably cause that they have them.  Which of these two items is probable cause:

1) A list of people and the firearms they own
2) A list of people that have shopped at stores that are in some way connected to firearms.

--insert jeopardy theme song--

If you said (2), you're a moron.

.lordjupiter: Access to the NRA list could LEAD to a registry, or an attempt at one. If they didn't think about that, then they don't deserve your dues.

Access to the NRA database won't provide any more information than the government already has access too.  Where do you think they sent the FOIA requested to get the lists of weapons permit holders from?  Duh, the issuing governments.  Do you really think the government isn't getting the customer databases from sporting goods companies and the NRA has a secret stranglehold on that information?  The only proprietary information the NRA has is their membership directory.  Are we really to believe that you think the NRA shouldn't maintain a list of their members because OMG TEH GOBERMENT MIGHT STEEL IT!!!!!one11!!!

And since you really are dense, I'll have to point out that you are validating the very thought that many people call the NRA crazy for.  If the government is so tyrannical that it's a rational fear for you that the government will seize the NRAs mailing list to persecute it's own citizens, then the NRA is right in suggesting the government might need to be fought off with force of ...


You didn't even read this article or any others on the topic, I take it.

It's not just names of people who may have shopped somewhere related to guns... it's the NRA going to governments and soliciting the names of people who have applied for permits, AND fighting privacy laws that might prevent them from doing it.  They compile information against people's will and without their knowledge, and they throw vast resources at the issue at all levels of government.

It's not just an innocent little membership list, and it's exactly the kind of thing they fight against when anyone else does it.

I know it hurts your reptilian brain to admit this, but the NRA is not looking out for you.  You don't need to martyr yourself for them.
 
2013-08-21 04:40:04 PM
gnnaz.com
 
2013-08-21 04:51:51 PM

lordjupiter: . it's the NRA going to governments and soliciting the names of people who have applied for permits, AND fighting privacy laws that might prevent them from doing it. They compile information against people's will and without their knowledge, and they throw vast resources at the issue at all levels of government.


Jesus Christ you are a tool.  Fighting privacy laws?  It's called a FOIA request.  If it's a govenment record, anyone can get it with a FOIA request.  Your approval or notification is not required.  How do you think newspapers keep getting the lists?

And guess what Tool, if the NRA is getting the information from the government, the government doesn't need to steal it from the NRA... the government already has it to have given it to the NRA in the first place.  NUR NUR NUR NUR.

lordjupiter: It's not just an innocent little membership list, and it's exactly the kind of thing they fight against when anyone else does it.


I'd love to see an example of the NRA fighting against data mining.  Show us where the NRAs database has one bit of information on firearms actually owned by any person in the database or shut up and go away.
 
2013-08-21 04:59:41 PM

Doom MD: HotWingConspiracy: Doom MD: So if they don't condemn it you'll become a staunch advocate of the 2nd amendment?

No, it's hardly the only issue surrounding it.

Not when the goalposts are this loose and fast


wat
 
2013-08-21 05:19:35 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: . it's the NRA going to governments and soliciting the names of people who have applied for permits, AND fighting privacy laws that might prevent them from doing it. They compile information against people's will and without their knowledge, and they throw vast resources at the issue at all levels of government.

Jesus Christ you are a tool.  Fighting privacy laws?  It's called a FOIA request.  If it's a govenment record, anyone can get it with a FOIA request.  Your approval or notification is not required.  How do you think newspapers keep getting the lists?

And guess what Tool, if the NRA is getting the information from the government, the government doesn't need to steal it from the NRA... the government already has it to have given it to the NRA in the first place.  NUR NUR NUR NUR.

lordjupiter: It's not just an innocent little membership list, and it's exactly the kind of thing they fight against when anyone else does it.

I'd love to see an example of the NRA fighting against data mining.  Show us where the NRAs database has one bit of information on firearms actually owned by any person in the database or shut up and go away.


Ok, so you're fine with the NRA doing the dirty work for the federal government going state to state for all the information they're looking for.  Fine by me.

How can I tell you what's in the NRA database when they won't divulge how much detail is kept?  You clearly didn't read the article.  You don't even know what you're arguing about.  Just another NRA parrot squawking.

But since you asked, Polly, here:
 http://gawker.com/5987293/the-nra-wants-to-keep-gun-records-secret- fro m-everyone-except-the-nra


States across the nation have been rushing to change their gun laws to make gun permit information private, moves that have been furiously stoked by the NRA, which argues that the media has "no business possessing personal information" about gun owners. New York made gun information private earlier this year. Last week, Maine's governor signed an "emergency bill" shielding the identity of gun licensees after the Bangor Daily News-which was in the middle of a two-year investigation of domestic violence and drug abuse-backed down from a public records request for gun permit data. (Republican legislators had called an "emergency press conference" to shame the newspaper into submission.)

In Virginia, state lawmakers passed a bill to seal its gun permit records from public inspection. North Carolina may soon follow suit. A freshman lawmaker in Tennessee is pushing a similar bill in his statehouse.


But while the NRA has lately become one of the harshest critics of fourth estate access gun permit data-it has said "personal information regarding [permit] holders serves no public interest and only exposes law-abiding citizens to potential criminal acts" and places them at "risk to criminals who may target their home to steal firearms"-the group holds itself to a very different standard.

When Tennessee first tried to make gun records private in 2009, the effort died "amid fears that political groups and gun advocates would no longer be able to access addresses of handgun carry permit holders to add to their mailing list soliciting contributions," according to the Associated Press.


Indeed, in a survey of public records requests filed in 7 of the states that make (or formerly made) gun records public (we're still waiting on answers from 9 more), Gawker found multiple examples of the NRA and other conservative, "pro-gun" partisans seeking the lists for their own political and fundraising gain.
In 2009, for example, a North Carolina firm called Preferred Communications emailed the Virginia State Police to find out how much it could pay to buy a list of the state's gun permit holders. It was requesting the information on behalf of the NRA


 Proceed, Polly.
 
2013-08-21 05:20:01 PM
redmid17: If the police or national guard start dropping bombs or using overwhelming firepower on people who are resisting gun confiscation, there is going to be a *lot* of collateral damage, and you'll find that erodes goodwill rather quickly.

When the Guard worked with the Police (and probably Blackwater) to confiscate legally-owned guns after Katrina, it pissed off a few far-right web sites, but there wasn't any significant erosion of goodwill even from mainstream Republicans.

What about when Watertown PD seized legally-held guns in the name of "officer safety?"
 
2013-08-21 05:23:40 PM

Deep Contact: Quite a difference between a NRA secret data base compared to a mandated government secret data base.


/\  So much THIS /\
 
2013-08-21 05:25:42 PM
Well this pretty much wraps it up for the question as to why X was OK when Bush did it but ZOMGLZYBLKFRMUSSR when Obama does it.
 
2013-08-21 05:31:54 PM

lordjupiter: Proceed, Polly.


Annnndddd Click Click Do'h will never been seen in this thread again.
 
2013-08-21 05:54:55 PM

fnordfocus: When the Guard worked with the Police (and probably Blackwater) to confiscate legally-owned guns after Katrina, it pissed off a few far-right web sites, but there wasn't any significant erosion of goodwill even from mainstream Republicans.


That was a local decision by democrats to seize firearms. Not Bushs.

The NRA and GOoA sued New Orleans over it, not the feds.
 
2013-08-21 05:56:31 PM
After re-reading the article and the linked article, it looks like a typical marketing company attempted to compile a list for the NRA.  Associations buy lists constantly for marketing purposes.
 
2013-08-21 06:01:19 PM
Tomorrow's headline: How the NSA got its hands on a massive secret database of gun owners
 
2013-08-21 06:19:28 PM

lordjupiter: How can I tell you what's in the NRA database when they won't divulge how much detail is kept?


Wait... we've had like 300 replies now of people accusing the NRA of building a firearms registry... and now you tell us you don't even know what's in the database?  Doesn't that make you... Full of shiat?


lordjupiter: Proceed, Polly.


Yes, we all know the NRA does not want the media to be able to access the lists, because they have a habit of publishing the information.  The NRA, and anyone with a brain has always maintained that it's a bad idea to publish gun owner information.

Now, are you contending that the NRA has built this database with the intent to publish it?  Because, that's what would make them hypocrites.

Satanic_Hamster: Annnndddd Click Click Do'h will never been seen in this thread again.


Right here sweet cheecks.
 
2013-08-21 07:04:11 PM

Click Click D'oh: lordjupiter: How can I tell you what's in the NRA database when they won't divulge how much detail is kept?

Wait... we've had like 300 replies now of people accusing the NRA of building a firearms registry... and now you tell us you don't even know what's in the database?  Doesn't that make you... Full of shiat?


lordjupiter: Proceed, Polly.

Yes, we all know the NRA does not want the media to be able to access the lists, because they have a habit of publishing the information.  The NRA, and anyone with a brain has always maintained that it's a bad idea to publish gun owner information.

Now, are you contending that the NRA has built this database with the intent to publish it?  Because, that's what would make them hypocrites.

Satanic_Hamster: Annnndddd Click Click Do'h will never been seen in this thread again.

Right here sweet cheecks.


Trolly trolly trolly get your trolol here
Father, Son and Trolly get your trolol here
 
2013-08-21 08:25:06 PM

AngryDragon: RobSeace: You haven't read up on Mass. gun laws, have you? (Other states may be similar, but I only know Mass...)

To lawfully possess a handgun, you must have a valid LTC. ... To lawfully possess a rifle, shotgun, ammunition, or chemical propellant spray, you must possess a valid FID card.

Q: Do I need an FID Card or an LTC Firearms to possess a gun in my home?

A: Yes. At a minimum you need an FID Card for non-large capacity rifles and shotguns. For handguns you need either an LTC,, or an FID Card combined with a Permit to Purchase firearms for the particular handgun in question.

Michigan just repealed their purchase permit requirement in the last couple of years.


Sort of. They still require a NICS check or a valid CPL in place of it. A sales record is still created which must go to state and local officials.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:33 PM

Click Click D'oh: Now, are you contending that the NRA has built this database with the intent to publish it? Because, that's what would make them hypocrites.


Who said anything about publishing it?

And you were just given an example of the NRA taking the OPPOSITE position that you said they always take.  You're an ignorant bullshiat artist.
 
2013-08-21 08:52:13 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Who said anything about publishing it?


That's why the NRA opposes the news media getting their hands on lists of gun license holders.  Because the media has a habit of publishing them.  Now, if you want to accuse the NRA of being hypocrites for getting the lists, then you must contend that they are hypocrites because the NRA intends to use them for the same reason they say the news media should no longer be given them... Publishing them

So, do you think the NRA plans to publish the list of gun license holders, or do you concede that this is an apples/oranges issue and the NRA isn't being hypocrites because they have zero intent to publish them?

Satanic_Hamster: And you were just given an example of the NRA taking the OPPOSITE position that you said they always take.  You're an ignorant bullshiat artist.


Uh, no.  I'm giving a perfect example of the NRAs position throughout history.  That position is that some people can't be trusted with some things and therefore shouldn't have them while the rest of us should have access to those items.  Just as the NRA contends that felons and the insane shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, they contend the news media shouldn't be given lists of gun license holders because they can't be trusted with them either.

See how that works?
 
2013-08-21 10:14:24 PM

Click Click D'oh: Uh, no. I'm giving a perfect example of the NRAs position throughout history. That position is that some people can't be trusted with some things and therefore shouldn't have them while the rest of us should have access to those items. Just as the NRA contends that felons and the insane shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, they contend the news media shouldn't be given lists of gun license holders because they can't be trusted with them either.

See how that works?


So media can't be trusted....  But NRA CAN be trusted because they just want to take money from the gun owners, not their guns....?
 
2013-08-22 01:22:56 PM

Click Click D'oh: Just as the NRA contends that felons and the insane shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them


No they don't, liar.
 
2013-08-22 03:31:16 PM

Deep Contact: Quite a difference between a NRA secret data base compared to a mandated government secret data base.


in the NSA era? None. None Different
 
Displayed 380 of 380 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report