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.

(Talking Points Memo)   NRA board member refuses to attend anti-gun control rally due to fear of violent rhretoric   ( divider line
    More: Ironic, National Rifle Association, board members, gun control rally, New York, gun controls, Carl Paladino, Rob Astorino, Andrew Cuomo  
•       •       •

1529 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Mar 2014 at 4:49 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-31 08:55:53 PM  
3 votes:

Frank N Stein: ITT: farkers discussing what they imagine gun owners to be

I don't have to. I am a gun owner. I support gun rights. I want absolutely nothing to do with the NRA any more, or with what passes for pro-gun activists these days.
Look at those rallys - those people are just plain nuts. These drooling, shrieking maniacs are far more likely to cost me my gun rights than preserve them - and I would no more enter a crowd of them than I would a baboon cage at the zoo.
2014-03-31 08:52:33 PM  
2 votes:

The_Sponge: but I will keep supporting lobbyist groups that support my rights.

That's all well and good - no seriously, I mean that. But how do you square that with the fact that most politicians who actively listen to such lobbyist groups that "support your rights" vis a vis firearms are trying desperately to take away even more fundamental rights of a good chunk of other Americans, yourself included in some cases? Because, let's just go through some examples. The politicians who are most favored by gun lobbying groups, such as the NRA, tend to be rather conservative, and typically Republican. Those same politicians, above and beyond their nigh-universal rejection of restrictions on firearm ownership (which is truly a debatable subject where the many sides have valid points to make, I believe), also tend to align themselves thusly:

-Preventing the recognition of same sex marriage, thereby prevents hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions, of Americans from enjoying some pretty simple rights and freedoms that most others take for granted, including (but not limited to) visiting sick/dying partner in the hospital, and tax breaks (which could help stimulate the economy if those couples could get the benefits of filing jointly)
-Bans on abortion and contraceptives for women, thereby preventing the rights of tens of millions of women from having the choice about how to govern her body; in many cases a husband or boyfriend is involved too, thereby preventing him from enjoying those same rights about family planning
-Massive support for various hurdles and restrictions on voting - the most basic of civic rights - that have the planned effects on impeding also tens of millions of citizens in the lower socioeconomic brackets from being able to voice their opinion about who should lead the country
-Anti-regulatory stances supported by the bulk of the "pro gun-rights" politicians have resulted in countless environmental disasters that have affected both the entire stability of the natural world and the health and livelihoods of millions of Americans who just want to be able to drink clean water and breath safe air, or, you know, work at a place that won't kill them when it blows up around them because no one has bothered to inspect all the pipes in over two or three decades
-Trying, very hard, nearly 50 times, to deny tens of millions of Americans access to affordable healthcare, which gets at the very first part of the big three in the Declaration of Independent (i.e., "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness")
-Massive amounts of outsourcing by companies that is supported by them, that take jobs away from the United States to places like China and India that exploit essentially slave-labor, because lobbyists for those companies managed to shovel a few extra bucks into those politicians' pockets
-Rampant support that those politicians have given to the Citizens United ruling, which gives a vastly disproportionate amount of political clout to an almost absurd minority of alleged "people" by taking it away from nearly every other individual adult citizen in this country
-Almost universal rejection of most fundamental scientific conclusions, including the teaching of evolution in science classes, instead favoring a very narrow and select religious dogma that is totally and completely unsupported by any set of empirical data to be forced onto the minds of children and teenagers

So, honestly, I am completely and totally in support of firearm rights. I am for commonsense regulation when necessary, and I acknowledge that some regulations and policies that currently exist are not only stupid, but ineffective and need to be rescinded. But, on the other hand, when I have to weigh the pros and cons... yea, I think we're better off, generally speaking, as a country, with the political party that may be a little moonbatty about gun restrictions on occasion, but isn't f*cking evil on damn near every other topic of equal or greater importance. I want to know, truly I am curious, how you can square those things away. Because, me? I can't support the NRA or similar groups because I know the types of politicians they tend to support are simply f*cking wrong for keeping American a f*cking amazing country to live in. I'm willing to make a tiny sacrifice to one of my rights if it means preventing me sacrificing half a dozen or more other rights, and preventing people I care about from losing (or never gaining) enough rights to even remotely be considered equal.
2014-03-31 07:43:15 PM  
2 votes:

BSABSVR: Isitoveryet: The_Sponge: Or are you one of those Fudds who doesn't care when your rights are taken away?

such as?

"Fudds" are the new "activist judge". It's a completely meaningless phrase designed to allow morons to identify as more pro gun than thou (without having to be articulate or logical).

thank you BSABSVR but what i really want to know (and i should have been more specific) is what rights have been taken away (or even threatened to be taken away for that matter).

and i had to google the Fudds because you sparked my interest in that & found the following Urban Dictionary meaning;
Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

so it's a word 2nd amendment nutters can use to disassociate themselves from people who own guns and are sane.
2014-03-31 06:24:53 PM  
2 votes:
Half of me is happy that there's a leader of a gun advocacy group stating that the violent rhetoric is bad juju. Half of me says fark him for being a part of what brought it to this point, as if he didn't expect it to grow out of control.

/someone link the oblig Fred Thompson picture.
2014-03-31 04:36:46 PM  
2 votes:
Pussies. Every single one of them.
2014-03-31 10:05:44 PM  
1 vote:
Did any of the NRA execs or Tea Party organizers ever read the ending of Frankenstein?

You can't create the monster and then call time out when it gets out of control.
2014-03-31 08:17:21 PM  
1 vote:

The_Sponge: Isitoveryet: The_Sponge: Or are you one of those Fudds who doesn't care when your rights are taken away?

such as?

Such as certain portions of the New York "SAFE" Act.

One example:

Bans possession of any "high-capacity magazines" regardless of when they were made or sold. The maximum capacity for all magazines is 10 rounds. .22 caliber tubular magazines are exempt from this limit. Previously legal "pre-1994-ban" magazines with a capacity of 30 rounds are not exempt, and must be sold within one year to an out-of-state resident or turned in to local authorities. The magazine limit took effect April 15, 2013.[8][9] Originally the law allowed only seven rounds to be loaded into a magazine, but this provision was struck down by a federal judge on December 21, 2013.[10]

listen Sponge, i like you (based on your profile page) and i've supported your 2nd amendment arguments in gun threads in the past BUT i knew you were going to take it in this direction.

can't you just enjoy the sport without the paranoia of bats attacking you?
2014-03-31 07:30:34 PM  
1 vote:

Isitoveryet: The_Sponge: Or are you one of those Fudds who doesn't care when your rights are taken away?

such as?

"Fudds" are the new "activist judge". It's a completely meaningless phrase designed to allow morons to identify as more pro gun than thou (without having to be articulate or logical).
2014-03-31 06:38:59 PM  
1 vote:
ITT: farkers discussing what they imagine gun owners to be
2014-03-31 05:39:20 PM  
1 vote:

Mikey1969: WOW, that sounds just like why someone who was anti gun wouldn't want to go on to the farking Limbaugh show.

...except all these people are supposed to be on the same side.  The "anti gun" guy and Limbaugh in your analogy are already sworn enemies.

To include Limbaugh in an analogy you'd have to say "This would be like a GOP politician refusing to go on Limbaugh's show because they consider him to be a divisive, reactionary, racist, gay-bashing, sexist, money-grubbing pompous pigman."

Of course GOP politicians don't often have a problem with those positions or with the way Rush "cleverly" outlines those positions.
2014-03-31 05:24:07 PM  
1 vote:

Mikey1969: Well, it's the same as someone that's anti-gun not wanting to appear on Limbaugh's show.

No..  It's actually the opposite of that.

(my advice:  try reading the headline and/or the article again.  ask an adult to help you sound-out the hard words)
2014-03-31 05:23:15 PM  
1 vote:

I just like this .gif, I dunno.

also this,
2014-03-31 05:06:52 PM  
1 vote:
Well, it's the same as someone that's anti-gun not wanting to appear on Limbaugh's show. Seriously, why scream into a wind tunnel stuck on "hurricane", no matter which side you take in this particular debate?

Neither side wants to give ground, and all they do is scream at each other.
2014-03-31 04:45:42 PM  
1 vote:

2014-03-31 04:36:10 PM  
1 vote:

2wolves: reprobate1125: Wonder how he'd handle a Fark forum?

He wouldn't.

True. A lot of posters can really hurt the delicate sensitivities of those fragile NRA members who need constant reassurance that they're manly men.
2014-03-31 04:31:58 PM  
1 vote:

reprobate1125: Wonder how he'd handle a Fark forum?

He wouldn't.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-31 03:43:59 PM  
1 vote:
Considering the sort of people who join the NRA I wouldn't want to be associate with them either.  They already threaten to kill people at the drop of a hat.
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.