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

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

5622 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 8:32 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 11:05:12 AM

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


LOL! you just were favorited.  I am going to model that statement as a hypothetical and then post it with this story on Facebook to fark with my friends who are gun nuts, that beleive all the whacko conspiracy theories.
 
2013-08-21 11:06:45 AM

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

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

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

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

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

This is why the argument about "gun control" laws is always so asinine.  Most people have Zero clue what the law actually says, but are more than willing to suggest ways to fix it.


You didn't read the article, did you?  You just immediately started pooping out a response.  Hey Corky, try reading the article first before diarrheaing your Mongoloidism all over a thread.
 
2013-08-21 11:08:24 AM

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


If it is an electronic database then thanks to the NSA, the government probably already has it.  Especially idf it ever was sent by e-mail or other electronic means to other NRA offices and stuff.
 
2013-08-21 11:08:26 AM

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


You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.
 
2013-08-21 11:10:46 AM

This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.


DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).
 
2013-08-21 11:10:53 AM

Click Click D'oh: This is why the argument about "gun control" laws is always so asinine.  Most people have Zero clue what the law actually says, but are more than willing to suggest ways to fix it


This is the most intelligent comment in the whole thread.
 
2013-08-21 11:13:20 AM
saw this article linked elsewhere. stupid article is stupid. FTFA: Others in the business of big political data, however, say the NRA is using similar tools to those employed by the campaigns of its nemesis, President Barack Obama.

are we done here?  faux outrage by the left is no better than faux outrage by the right.
 
2013-08-21 11:15:04 AM
I would like this to be a weapon free country. Not just guns, nukes and everything else. I don't want to shoot people. I don't want to nuke people. I don't want to do anything to people.

Then, reality sinks in. As a single female (who is TOTALLY blowing off work today...) This country does not effectively control the criminal aspect....thugs have guns, period.

Lets raise this to nuke level, because that's what can really do some world scale damage. We have nukes, you don't. We have nukes, you do. Who's gonna give it up?

I'm probably out of scope here. Imma let you finish, just want to chalk all this up to human ego problems.
 
2013-08-21 11:16:11 AM

redmid17: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.

DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).


It overturned handgun bans in federal territory, of which DC was a part.
 
2013-08-21 11:18:00 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Really? You are going to pretend the NRA hasn't used slipery slope arguments for decades regarding any form of a database of gun owners? You're going to pretend that they didn't actually write the legislation that mandates the NICS system deleted successful buys within a certain time period?
 
2013-08-21 11:21:04 AM

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

LOL! you just were favorited.  I am going to model that statement as a hypothetical and then post it with this story on Facebook to fark with my friends who are gun nuts, that beleive all the whacko conspiracy theories.


Let me know how that goes.  I'd love to see the derpflow from that eruption.
 
2013-08-21 11:21:10 AM

This text is now purple: redmid17: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.

DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).

It overturned handgun bans in federal territory, of which DC was a part.


It overturned handgun bans which pertained to prohibition of possession and ownership of handguns on private property within federal enclaves. No one lives in national parks or national forests. DC still does not have a CHL program, yet one can carry in national parks. The two are not related whatsoever.
 
2013-08-21 11:21:18 AM

coeyagi: You didn't read the article, did you?  You ...


I read the article.  It's nothing but the usual derp:  No Federal Requirement for private sales background checks, some states have imposed them, background checks for internet sales (which proves even more people don't know what the hell they are talking about)

Was there supposed to be something new and informative in there?
 
2013-08-21 11:22:30 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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


So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.
 
2013-08-21 11:26:02 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.



Yeah. I said it.


/we've come full circle.
 
2013-08-21 11:26:36 AM

sammyk: Really? You are going to pretend the NRA hasn't used slipery slope arguments for decades regarding any form of a database of gun owners?


I guess this needs to be covered REALLY SLOWLY.  The NRA does not have a database of gun owners.  There is absolutely ZERO positive connection between people in the NRA mailing database and gun ownership.   Think through it.  Where is the NRA information gathered from?  Does attending a gun show mean a person owns a gun?  Does purchasing items from certain vendors mean a person owns a gun? Does being an NRA member mean a person owns a gun?  No, No and No.  Heck, even attending an NRA course doesn't mean you own a gun.

The NRA does not have a firearms owners, or firearms database.  It has a database of people likely to agree with their cause.
 
2013-08-21 11:27:49 AM

This text is now purple: redmid17: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: Can you take a gun in to a national park today due to the legislation signed by President Obama?

You can take a gun into a national park today thanks to DC v. Heller.

DC v Heller was not the cause of legal concealed carry in national parks. It overturned a handgun ban in DC and declared mandatory locks unconstitutional (except in cases where prohibited (ie felon) or non-authorized (ie minor) parties might gain access).

It overturned handgun bans in federal territory, of which DC was a part.


Seems odd that the GOP bothered to put that amendment in a bill about credit cards then. Still though, signed by:

i.usatoday.net

Second Amendment Hero
 
2013-08-21 11:29:11 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.


NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.
 
2013-08-21 11:30:37 AM
FTFA: "The NRA is not only able to understand people who their members are but also people who are not their members

Can anyone parse this sentence for me? I've read it about 10 times and now my head hurts.
 
2013-08-21 11:33:13 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

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

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

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

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

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

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.


Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.
 
2013-08-21 11:33:41 AM

Witness99: I would like this to be a weapon free country. Not just guns, nukes and everything else. I don't want to shoot people. I don't want to nuke people. I don't want to do anything to people.


Unfortunately everyone is not an enlightened pacifist like you.

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.
 
2013-08-21 11:35:48 AM

PanicMan: Because no private organization has ever taken advantage of their customer's information, or changed hands to someone who would.  No private organization has ever accidentally mailed out customer's information, or gotten hacked, or left a laptop in a taxi.


The article mentions where the database is stored, their national headquarters in 22030 - or is it on some cloud out there?

So, someone going to grab and post it as a torrent for the lulz?
 
2013-08-21 11:35:55 AM

BayouOtter: To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities


We live in that world and there are guns everywhere.
 
2013-08-21 11:38:53 AM

mod3072: FTFA: "The NRA is not only able to understand people who their members are but also people who are not their members

Can anyone parse this sentence for me? I've read it about 10 times and now my head hurts.


move the first "are" over two words.  What you expect editors to look over blog posts?
 
2013-08-21 11:40:13 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it


Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.
 
2013-08-21 11:40:15 AM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

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

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

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

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

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

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.

Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.


How does representing resident aliens in the fight for a CCW benefit the NRA? It's not as if the resident aliens can give them political support and votes. 

What if minorities show up to a Tea Party rally with an AR-15 or participate in an open carry march? Both have happened. If a black militia wanted to do an open carry march, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of support the NRA would give.

People think the NRA is some shadow organization that foisted gun control on minorities and then somehow fail to realize, while sometimes extolling, how much the organization changed after the leadership got ousted in the late 70s. It's not the same people or even type of people running the show.
 
2013-08-21 11:41:06 AM

BayouOtter: ...getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill.


toolwizard.com

From my cold dead... uh... hands.
 
2013-08-21 11:43:37 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: This text is now purple: DROxINxTHExWIND: The one time the NRA was behind a group actively opposing the government, it was in support of black suffrage. I would think that's the sort of thing you could get behind.

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

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

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

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

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

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.

NRA has stepped in for black plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago and Ezell v Chicago. They also supported resident aliens being permitted to have a CCW in nebraska and missouri.

Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it.

How does representing resident aliens in the fight for a CCW benefit the NRA? It's not as if the resident aliens can give them political support and votes.


You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

What if minorities show up to a Tea Party rally with an AR-15 or participate in an open carry march? Both have happened. If a black militia wanted to do an open carry march, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of support the NRA would give.

They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

People think the NRA is some shadow organization that foisted gun control on minorities and then somehow fail to realize, while sometimes extolling, how much the organization changed after the leadership got ousted in the late 70s. ...

Actually they did it out in the open, again, because at the time it served them to.
 
2013-08-21 11:44:43 AM

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

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


There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.
 
2013-08-21 11:44:57 AM

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

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

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

Ever hear of police, National Guard, or military? What now tough guy?


There are, conservatively, roughly 20 million active shooters in the US. The entire US military (as of May 2011) stood at roughly 1.5 million. Add maybe another half-million for police. Guard probably accounts for another million or so. Now, factor in that not all of them will be 100% on board with the plan. It's crazy, but not all of those folks are gonna agree with something as monumentally stupid as attempting to disarm the USA.

Yes! They have really cool tools and weapons, but attrition and lack of a popular base will mean they'll eventually give up in the face of overwhelming numbers. Talk about tanks, jet planes, and drones all you want, but they still need people to operate and maintain them. And if those people are dead, injured, hungry or isolated, they won't matter a hill of beans.

Just the refugee problem will overwhelm the authorities, as those with no stomach to fight will either flee or demand protection that can't be given. Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against. It wouldn't be a toe-to-toe slugging match by any means. Death by a thousand pinpricks would be more appropriate.
 
2013-08-21 11:45:56 AM

AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it

Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.


So you agree.
 
2013-08-21 11:46:22 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?


No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.


except when they have?

HotWingConspiracy:
Actually they did it out in the open, again, because at the time it served them to.Did what out in the open?
 
2013-08-21 11:48:10 AM

redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.


And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.
 
2013-08-21 11:48:31 AM

HotWingConspiracy: AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it

Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.

So you agree.


No, it's a stupid premise.  I can't say what would happen in your hypothetical, but to suggest that the NRA is any different in their motivations than any other political group is disingenuous.
 
2013-08-21 11:49:39 AM

HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.


Gonna pull a Philly PD maneuver?  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/survivor-remembers-bombin g -of-philadelphia-headquarters/

Civilians don't like collateral damage too much.
 
2013-08-21 11:50:34 AM
A few years ago I bought a shotgun at Gander Mountain and then started getting stuff in the mail and calls from the NRA. How did they know? I didn't give out anything except what was needed for the application.
 
2013-08-21 11:50:43 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.


It's about creating legal cover and precedent.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

except when they have?


Which black militia did this and got support from NRA members?

HotWingConspiracy:
Actually they did it out in the open, again, because at the time it served them to.Did what out in the open?


Went against their supposed mission and supported gun control when it came to the Black Panthers.
 
2013-08-21 11:50:57 AM

mod3072: IdBeCrazyIf: What's funny is that more than likely one could use existing commerce data to extrapolate who might be existing gun owners based on your age, race, location, purchases, and online activity.

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

There is a big difference between a general list of possible/probable gun owners and a specific database of gun owners and what guns they own.


And if the fear is the government is going to come knocking on your door after getting said list, and if acquiring guns legally or illegally makes no difference, then what IS the "big difference" here?

Let's put it this way...if the government had this same list and not the NRA, and you were on it, would you be concerned?
 
2013-08-21 11:52:12 AM

AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: Those actions currently benefit them, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Lets see where they stand when a black militia emerges to do some patrols. Their backers sure as shiat won't stand for it

Name ANY political action that isn't undertaken because it benefits the advocate in some way.

So you agree.

No, it's a stupid premise.  I can't say what would happen in your hypothetical, but to suggest that the NRA is any different in their motivations than any other political group is disingenuous.


Good thing I never suggested that.
 
2013-08-21 11:53:03 AM
redmid17:

How does representing resident aliens in the fight for a CCW benefit the NRA? It's not as if the resident aliens can give them political support and votes. 

What if minorities show up to a Tea Party rally with an AR-15 or participate in an open carry march? Both have happened. If a black militia wanted to do an open carry march, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of support the NRA would give.

People think the NRA is some shadow organization that foisted gun control on minorities and then somehow fail to realize, while sometimes extolling, how much the organization changed after the leadership got ousted in the late 70s. ...



No, we don't think the NRA is some shadow organization. We think its an organization of retarded Conservatives. The same folks who wanted to see the President's birth certificate. The same foks who carried guns to the Capital to "show Obama" what time it was. The same folks who watch Fox News, vote mostly Tea Party and have bumper stickers like, "Don't Re-Nig in 2012". You can't seperate an organization from its derp-filled members. And they don't fool anyone just because they set a few semi-articulate folks out in front to deliver their message that they may have to kill Obama if he tries to pass Sharia law.


First question...why do you think that I should be more supportive of the NRA just because they helped non-whites get guns?
 
2013-08-21 11:55:12 AM

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.

Gonna pull a Philly PD maneuver?  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/survivor-remembers-bombin g -of-philadelphia-headquarters/

Civilians don't like collateral damage too much.


Civilians also generally support authorities. You take a shot at one of them, and most average folk won't miss you and will actually cheer for your death. Have you read some of the threads on this site?
 
2013-08-21 11:57:13 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

So they only support 2nd Amendment rights for their supporters. Super.

Someone said that upthread as a joke I think, I guess it's true.


Yeah. I said it.


/we've come full circle.


You're like a wizard.
 
2013-08-21 11:57:32 AM

HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.


I'm saying this because that's the model they're trained to follow. Of course there will be variances, but those will only result in more people taking up arms when they see cops kicking in their neighbor's doors. I only illustrated that to point out the disparities in numbers they'd be facing should they ever do something so stupid. House to house searches become costly when they're losing people each time the go in.
 
2013-08-21 12:00:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: You can't discern how this supports their current goals?

No I can. It expands gun rights for everyone in the country, including people who can't vote for them.

It's about creating legal cover and precedent.

HotWingConspiracy: They would fall in line with the money behind them, which will most certainly not support black dudes with rifles slung on their backs walking through their towns.

except when they have?

Which black militia did this and got support from NRA members?


It's about creating legal cover and precedent for everyone who can legally possess and use a gun.

I never specified black militia. Plenty of black, hispanic, and asian people have taken part in Tea Party rallies armed or done open carry marches. I've seen the latter. The news has poorly reported the first. Maybe you remember this from a Fark thread:  http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/19/shameless/  http://www.azcent ral.com/insiders/phxbeat/2009/08/17/man-with-ar-15-ri fle-at-obama-rally-sparks-concerns/


The NRA was a sporting club until the late 1970s. Everything they did prior to the leadership change was gun control (NFA, GCA, no help for Miller in US v Miller). Those are all things they likely would not have done had the current style of leadership been in place back then.
 
2013-08-21 12:03:26 PM

HotWingConspiracy: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: redlegrick: Look at the 'average' response for a single shooter. Dozens of cars, trucks, and ambulances. Now multiply that by a factor of one million. That's what they'd be up against.

And you imagine this would be the method employed in a shooting war? There are simple ways to dispatch a shooter, the response you lay out is to hopefully take him alive.

Gonna pull a Philly PD maneuver?  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/survivor-remembers-bombin g -of-philadelphia-headquarters/

Civilians don't like collateral damage too much.

Civilians also generally support authorities. You take a shot at one of them, and most average folk won't miss you and will actually cheer for your death. Have you read some of the threads on this site?


I have. I have also seen a lot of people pissed off when the police shot up the Hispanic women delivering newspapers because the cops were shiatting themselves over a vehicle which didn't match Dorner's nor did the women look like a large black man. If the police or national guard start dropping bombs or using overwhelming firepower on people who are resisting gun confiscation, there is going to be a *lot* of collateral damage, and you'll find that erodes goodwill rather quickly.
 
2013-08-21 12:10:40 PM

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


It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.
 
2013-08-21 12:16:08 PM

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

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.


I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.
 
2013-08-21 12:18:29 PM

redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.

I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.


So this list is imaginary.  That's the angle now?
 
2013-08-21 12:20:08 PM

BayouOtter: Witness99: I would like this to be a weapon free country. Not just guns, nukes and everything else. I don't want to shoot people. I don't want to nuke people. I don't want to do anything to people.

Unfortunately everyone is not an enlightened pacifist like you.

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.


Well, I don't consider myself an "enlightened pacifist." I'm more of a realist, though I can still express what is "ideal."

Bottom line is, we humans are assholes. We've got competing, ancient books of religion that we want to kill eachother over. We focus on our differences and not out similarities. Men and women want to kill eachother. We're on a tiny little ball, spinning through space with very limited resources.

I don't think that we, as a SPECIES, are smart enough to get out of this alive.

That said, yes, I will pop a cap in any mofo that assaults me.
 
2013-08-21 12:20:44 PM

lordjupiter: redmid17: Satanic_Hamster: Doom MD: I love how intellectually dishonest this article is. The NRA has a mailing list, holy crap.

It's a bit "worse" then that.  You ever buy a new gun?  Good luck getting one that doesn't have a bunch of NRA fliers with the manual.  Ever buy a part for a gun online or from a catalog, or a gun accessory?   Good luck buying from a place that won't give/sell your info to the NRA.

I bought one shotgun from Bass Pro, another from Dick's (good sale but won't go back for a gun), and one from a small gun shop. I've bought ammo in 4 separate states and online. I've rented a lane for hours total at various gun ranges in multiple cities. I've gone skeet shooting at various DNR ranges in multiple states. I've had a hunting only license for the past 5 years, and hunting/fishing license combo before that.

I have never once seen an NRA pamphlet or flier sent to any of my addresses or included in anything I purchased. The only time I got an NRA flier was when someone handed me one at a gun show.  I believe that they send out a ton of shiat. What membership organizations don't? My parents started getting AARP stuff in their mid 40s. I just can't believe it's nearly as pervasive as people say it is. I'd have gotten *something* by now if it were.

So this list is imaginary.  That's the angle now?


Is not being able to read or understand context hard for you?
 
Displayed 50 of 380 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report