Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

5650 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 8:32 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



376 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 [BareFark]
2013-08-21 08:35:52 AM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size

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 [BareFark]
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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?


addictinginfo.orgView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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 10:46:38 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.comView Full Size

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 10:53:46 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 11:16:11 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.netView Full Size


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?