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.

(NPR)   A look inside one of the most terrifying, vile places known to NPR: An NRA convention   (npr.org) divider line 265
    More: Scary, National Rifle Association, NPR, Pickering, Noblesville, shooting sports, wild pigs  
•       •       •

10089 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2014 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-27 04:20:25 PM  

arentol: zerkalo: I'm sure the NRA will have decent convention. Unless something weird happened. Like, I don't know, they paid Sarah Palin to give a speech celebrating torture. But that would never happen, would it?

Oh dear...

In my experience the people that are the loudest in their complaints about water-boarding and other methods of torture practiced by the US government are the same ones that are pro-baby murder. Somehow none of them seem to have any understanding of how hypocritical their position is on these two subjects... Harming an adult to get information is "bad", but viciously murdering a baby before it can have a real chance at life is just fine. Sorry, if you hold the latter position then you have no moral ground to stand upon regarding any subject at all.


I don't know of anyone who is pro-baby murder. What the hell are you talking about?
 
2014-04-27 04:21:21 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Are you sure about that? Are they out to protect gun owners or gun sellers?


Gun sellers need a market to sell guns into.  If they're free to sell, then we're free to buy (and, by extension, own).  Yes, there may be some room to quibble around the edges of that statement, but in general, transactions require buyers and sellers.
 
2014-04-27 04:21:24 PM  

Enemabag Jones: jshine
Because the ACLU will fight for any and all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment? Therefore, the NRA is required in order to fill in the gap and provide a well-rounded defense of all of our individual rights.

Are you sure about that? Are they out to protect gun owners or gun sellers?

And the fact that they endorsed Romney instead of just opting out of endorsing either candidate, sure does not help them as just a gun rights organization.


Romney was a yes man. He'd have done as they said.

/probably should not have supported either
 
2014-04-27 04:21:39 PM  

jshine: NewportBarGuy: If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?

Because the ACLU will fight for any and all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment?  Therefore, the NRA is required in order to fill in the gap and provide a well-rounded defense of all of our individual rights.


This. And is why I belong to both organizations.
 
2014-04-27 04:23:04 PM  

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: I don't know of anyone who is pro-baby murder.


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-04-27 04:24:43 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Bob Robert: We'd have federal total bans because of reasons. You convinced me.

I didn't say anything about federal total bans, though they were certainly a possibility. As for convincing you, I'm not trying to convince you. If the changes in the regulatory landscape and the rhetoric of gun-control advocates hasn't convinced you there is nothing I can do about it on a message board.

Is there something about the subject that makes it impossible for people to argue in good faith without cheap rhetoric?



Nice projection.

But in my lifetime I've seen enough to know that without people pushing back we'd have total bans.

People should be afraid of total bans except in no state sans maybe CA and NY. You use scare tactics to pretend every state would see bans and after I call you on it you play semantics about what you really meant.
 
2014-04-27 04:24:56 PM  

jshine: Enemabag Jones: Are you sure about that? Are they out to protect gun owners or gun sellers?

Gun sellers need a market to sell guns into.  If they're free to sell, then we're free to buy (and, by extension, own).  Yes, there may be some room to quibble around the edges of that statement, but in general, transactions require buyers and sellers.


The NRA defends gun manufacturers and dealers because those groups are being targeted by the grabbers.

But I have yet to see an example where the NRA sided against gun owners when the interests of owners and the industry were opposed.

That is why the deep meme about the NRA being the industry's lobbying arm is so laughable.
 
2014-04-27 04:25:06 PM  
jshine ,
Gun sellers need a market to sell guns into. If they're free to sell, then we're free to buy (and, by extension, own). Yes, there may be some room to quibble around the edges of that statement, but in general, transactions require buyers and sellers.

redmid17,
Romney was a yes man. He'd have done as they said.
/probably should not have supported either


Both reasonable points, directly answered. I like this thread.
 
2014-04-27 04:25:20 PM  

Tom_Slick: I'm a hunter and competition shooter, I enjoy shooting, I own several guns, and I will not join the NRA those gun crazed loonies scare the shiat out of me.


Seconded.
 
2014-04-27 04:25:28 PM  
craigdamage:
I should like to point out though, I usually carry a tiny little J-frame .38 "snub"

That makes me moist
 
2014-04-27 04:28:01 PM  

Enemabag Jones: What is my point, pretty soon someone smart enough is going to take a AR, do the math, kill 55 primary schoolchildren, and that will be all she wrote. The NRA will no longer be able to defend any reasonable gun rights and since they are the only game in town, many; many gun rights will be lost.


So after the next inevitable mass shooting the only people we should be sorry for are the nutjob gun owners who want no limits and regulation and think their hobby and collections fall under an amendment designed to arm state militias.
 
2014-04-27 04:28:27 PM  

gad: Pokey.Clyde: K3rmy: I want to go to an NRA convention to ask what is the appropriate firearm for someone who is hung like a horse?  Do other people have to turn in their firearms to compensate for my generous endowment?  I mean, it is huge enough that the first four rows of the auditorium where they give speeches would have to leave unarmed and give up there jacked up trucks to boot.

Fewer than a dozen posts in a gun thread, and someone has already brought up penis size. If nothing, you folks sure are predictable.

Predictable because it's soo true.


Curious. Do you have a link to a study that supports this?

Although, as seen throughout most of history, claiming a group of people you disagree with are less-endowed was used as a means to degrade and diminish said group.
 
2014-04-27 04:30:19 PM  

arentol: but viciously murdering a baby before it can have a real chance at life is just fine.


Science says it is not a baby. It feels no pain and has no consciousness. Good emotional appeal fallacy though. Really gets the ignorant in the feels.
 
2014-04-27 04:32:18 PM  
Enemabag Jones: What is my point, pretty soon someone smart enough is going to take a AR, do the math, kill 55 primary schoolchildren, and that will be all she wrote. The NRA will no longer be able to defend any reasonable gun rights and since they are the only game in town, many; many gun rights will be lost.

So after the next inevitable mass shooting the only people we should be sorry for are the nutjob gun owners who want no limits and regulation and think their hobby and collections fall under an amendment designed to arm state militias.


I am not sure where you are going with this, but I don't think that is my point.
 
2014-04-27 04:34:29 PM  

Gone In 26 Minutes: You make Pocket Ninja's dumb shiat look like amateur hour.


2 posts in 2 threads in 2 days dissing PN...I guess he's been hitting a nerve amongst Fark IndependentsTM
 
2014-04-27 04:34:48 PM  

jshine: NewportBarGuy: If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?

Because the ACLU will fight for any and all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment?  Therefore, the NRA is required in order to fill in the gap and provide a well-rounded defense of all of our individual rights.


They don't ignore it. They understand the proper definition and intent. They are what you call educated and with no skin in the game like all the gun supporters who feel they are constantly under threat.
 
2014-04-27 04:35:09 PM  
jaytkay:However there were far fewer who believed that they "needed" a gun because of the "big black guy" lurking around very corner.

It seems you're missing quite a bit of background on the gun-control movement.
 
2014-04-27 04:35:40 PM  

Bob Robert: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Bob Robert: We'd have federal total bans because of reasons. You convinced me.

I didn't say anything about federal total bans, though they were certainly a possibility. As for convincing you, I'm not trying to convince you. If the changes in the regulatory landscape and the rhetoric of gun-control advocates hasn't convinced you there is nothing I can do about it on a message board.

Is there something about the subject that makes it impossible for people to argue in good faith without cheap rhetoric?


Nice projection.

But in my lifetime I've seen enough to know that without people pushing back we'd have total bans.

People should be afraid of total bans except in no state sans maybe CA and NY. You use scare tactics to pretend every state would see bans and after I call you on it you play semantics about what you really meant.


That right there disproves your statement, but we could also include New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and that's right now, in today's regulatory climate. Take it back to the late '80s-early/mid '90s, when Dianne Feinstein was pushing a total ban on "assault weapons" and Daniel Patrick Moynahan proposed legislation to tax ammunition at a 1000% rate.

Your attempt to pretend none of that happened (or continues to happen) is belied by the evidence.

Also, I speak precisely for a reason. You would do well to do the same, because when you speak in generalities someone will take an exception and try to beat you to death with it.
 
2014-04-27 04:37:45 PM  
Why is it gun fetishists always seem to be the kind of people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns?
 
2014-04-27 04:37:59 PM  

Bob Robert: jshine: NewportBarGuy: If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?

Because the ACLU will fight for any and all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment?  Therefore, the NRA is required in order to fill in the gap and provide a well-rounded defense of all of our individual rights.

They don't ignore it. They understand the proper definition and intent. They are what you call educated and with no skin in the game like all the gun supporters who feel they are constantly under threat.


The Supreme Court has determined the proper definition and intent. It's a done deal.
 
2014-04-27 04:39:08 PM  

ghare: Why is it gun fetishists always seem to be the kind of people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns?


Because you suffer from confirmation bias.
 
2014-04-27 04:43:36 PM  

steklo: [img.fark.net image 332x500][img.fark.net image 640x850][img.fark.net image 275x400]


Poor trigger discipline on the pic of the smokin' bride
 
2014-04-27 04:46:32 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: jaytkay: Meanwhile, in reality, there were millions of gun owners in the US before the NRA went full retard.

And since then, since 1977 when the NRA went "full retard", there has been the Hughes Amendment, the Assault Weapons Ban, the import ban of 1989, and thousands of local/regional ordinances passed. It's because the NRA went "full retard" that gun rights aren't severely proscribed.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. What do we need NARAL for?


Remember that they helped write the 1934 NFA, the Milroy Act and the 1968 GCA. They only came out against gun control pretty recently when it was turned into a wedge issue.
 
2014-04-27 04:47:15 PM  
This avid NPR listener is also a multi-gun owner... and some swords and other things too...

WTF headline
 
2014-04-27 04:49:04 PM  

doyner: whistleridge: sammyk: Funny, I didn't notice NPR taking a stand either way. Maybe I missed something, but I just can't find a shred of bias in the article.

They rarely if ever do. It's more of a sort of benign bemusement, whether they're talking guns, Nicaraguan coffee plantations, public school riots in Paris, or cancer treatment. I always think of them of having a sort of 'huh...check this out' kind of tone.

Except for The Soise. They  always have to have the background Soise for whatever it is they're doing:

"I'm standing here in this gay llama farm..." *sound of gay llamas chortling in the background*

"Here in Bangladesh, nine year olds work 120 hour weeks..." *the sound of a nine year old working 120 weeks*

Other that The Sound, I love NPR. But I HATE The Sound...

Same here.  I especially hate when they fold in cars honking their horns while I'm driving.


Crying babies to let us know that the situation is serious, or to prove the food or drink is delicious, getting that mic right up to the mouth...
 
2014-04-27 04:49:48 PM  
ghare
Why is it gun fetishists always seem to be the kind of people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns?


You could say that for anything that people can love too much. Booze, drugs, My Little Pony.
 
2014-04-27 04:51:57 PM  

FizixJunkee: Doktor_Zhivago: NPR goes to NRA convention and reports the words of people actually in attendance like a good news source should.

Somehow this makes them anti-gun because libruls or something.

This.

My experience is that NPR is pretty centrist in their reporting.  You have to be far, far right-wing to consider them liberal.


"National Polite Republican?" They've been accused of being partisan so much that the chilling effect has them talk to more Republicans and conservatives than liberals and Democrats.
 
2014-04-27 04:53:22 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: NewportBarGuy: If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?

Because as "extreme" as they are, what with being a single-issue lobbying group whose sole purpose is to defeat gun-control legislation, they have been extremely effective. Without them there is the strong possibility that there would be few gun owners of any IQ.

That said, I'm not a fan. There are some things that I wish they wouldn't oppose, like universal background checks. They also pissed me off by trying to settle Heller before it made the Supreme Court because they were afraid of losing. But they don't give an inch on anything, and it's paid off for them.


What exactly, is "extreme" about supporting the 2nd amendment? I joined last year just to donate some money. So far, the most "extreme" thing I have seen is them sending me emails detailing current gun legislation being put forth in my state. Without the NRA, 2nd amendment would probably be completely gone, and when that goes, other amendments have to as well (to enforce confiscation and registration laws).

NRA is absolutely dwarfed by the anti-gun lobby. Why are they not "extreme"?
 
2014-04-27 04:53:50 PM  

Enemabag Jones: jshine
Because the ACLU will fight for any and all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment? Therefore, the NRA is required in order to fill in the gap and provide a well-rounded defense of all of our individual rights.

Are you sure about that? Are they out to protect gun owners or gun sellers?

And the fact that they endorsed Romney instead of just opting out of endorsing either candidate, sure does not help them as just a gun rights organization.


Oh, they stopped any pretense of being fair a long time ago. Republicans who don't even bother to send in the questionnaire get "A" rated. Democrats like my former Congressman who have always pushed hard for gun owners' rights get a "C" at best. They are the short arm of the Republican Party.
 
2014-04-27 04:53:51 PM  

Bob Robert: jshine: NewportBarGuy: If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?

Because the ACLU will fight for any and all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment?  Therefore, the NRA is required in order to fill in the gap and provide a well-rounded defense of all of our individual rights.

They don't ignore it. They understand the proper definition and intent. They are what you call educated and with no skin in the game like all the gun supporters who feel they are constantly under threat.


SCOTUS has defined the second amendment.  Nobody has to speculate about it any longer.
 
2014-04-27 04:55:52 PM  
You know why the gun rights side is unwilling to compromise? Because every proposal that is labeled a compromise is a move from the status quo, towards more gun control. Agreeing to universal background checks (which would start accumulating the paperwork for registration) wont stop the calls for magazine bans, or bans on modern sporting rifles. At best it might delay the push on them for another year or two, but it wont stop it.

You want a real compromise? How about this: National Conceal Carry Reciprocity in exchange for a Universal Background check system where all records are destroyed 2 years after the transaction, and not accessible to the government at all without a search warrant?
 
2014-04-27 04:56:29 PM  
Firearm regulation is no more equivalent to a banning gun ownership, than the existence of F.A.R.s equate to banning aircraft ownership. Own whatever you want and can afford, but be prepared to be held accountable and qualified to use, store and transport what you own. I could afford to obtain a surplus L-39, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to fly it before meeting a set of rules deemed legal by society at large. If only we could get past the bifurcated ideals of all-or-nothing campers, things could actually get better. Excuse me now while I finish my beer and take my home-built hydrogen zeppelin for a spin over the nearest outdoor festival.
 
2014-04-27 04:57:01 PM  
I own guns and have been a member of the NRA on and off for many years.  I like to shoot competitively.  I used to hunt as well.  I have a Beretta 9mm in my nightstand and a 12 Gauge pump in the closet loaded with Double 00 buckshot in case anyone decides to break in. I'm getting a CHL.
i63.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-27 04:58:11 PM  
No gun porn, WTF fark?
 
2014-04-27 04:59:15 PM  

NewportBarGuy: If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?


It entitles you to free entry into gun shows where you can handle weapons and get an erection.
 
2014-04-27 04:59:53 PM  
Monty845
You want a real compromise? How about this: National Conceal Carry Reciprocity in exchange for a Universal Background check system where all records are destroyed 2 years after the transaction, and not accessible to the government at all without a search warrant?


I don't think NYC would allow that to happen. Although I am curious what would happen if the right to conceal carry was treated more like a drivers license where skill would have to be proven. And then states would start getting into what types of criminal records would prevent concealed carry licenses.

Interesting thought.
 
2014-04-27 05:00:03 PM  

Monty845: You know why the gun rights side is unwilling to compromise? Because every proposal that is labeled a compromise is a move from the status quo, towards more gun control. Agreeing to universal background checks (which would start accumulating the paperwork for registration) wont stop the calls for magazine bans, or bans on modern sporting rifles. At best it might delay the push on them for another year or two, but it wont stop it.

You want a real compromise? How about this: National Conceal Carry Reciprocity in exchange for a Universal Background check system where all records are destroyed 2 years after the transaction, and not accessible to the government at all without a search warrant?


And since people have been deemed "safe" through this background check, we can drop the restrictions on caliber, automatic weapons, explosives and suppressors.
 
2014-04-27 05:02:24 PM  

Thunderpipes: NRA is absolutely dwarfed by the anti-gun lobby


I'm pregnant

That's bad even by your standards.
 
2014-04-27 05:03:19 PM  

jaytkay: Thunderpipes: NRA is absolutely dwarfed by the anti-gun lobby

I'm pregnant

That's bad even by your standards.


Danged filter!

What I wrote was "zero for ten [troll score]. That's bad even by your standards."
 
2014-04-27 05:04:01 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: That right there disproves your statement


No it doesn't. CA and NY would have a very tough time voting in a complete and total gun ban. That's 2 out of 50 and in reality it would never happen. The SCOTUS would never approve of it even if it miraculously passed. So your scare tactic really turns into a delusion not based in reality. That right there disproves YOUR statement.
 
2014-04-27 05:04:54 PM  
Duke_leto_Atredes No gun porn, WTF fark? http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures
static.fjcdn.com

I like this.
 
2014-04-27 05:04:58 PM  

thisisarepeat: SCOTUS has defined the second amendment. Nobody has to speculate about it any longer.


Because no court has ever changed the meaning or removed a previous courts ruling in the history of America.
 
2014-04-27 05:06:13 PM  
This thread is now passing the derp point.  It has been fun.
 
2014-04-27 05:06:56 PM  

Monty845: Agreeing to universal background checks (which would start accumulating the paperwork for registration) wont stop the calls for magazine bans, or bans on modern sporting rifles. At best it might delay the push on them for another year or two, but it wont stop it.


Your logic here is you can't compromise because once you do, some people might still want more strict regulations. I do not believe setting a speed limit is the right thing to do, because no matter what speed you set it at, someone will always want it lower or higher. You are another wonderful product of the American education system.
 
2014-04-27 05:06:57 PM  
Quick question.

I have a Porsche 911 Cabriolet as well as a firearm.

Both of these are considered 'anti dick size' .

Am a double small penis , or does the Porsche make me small dick and being the gun owner
counteract it and make it big dick again, like  multiplying a negative 1 twice?
 
2014-04-27 05:07:15 PM  

FizixJunkee: My experience is that NPR is pretty centrist in their reporting. You have to be far, far right-wing to consider them liberal.


No...  Liberals love to spout this line... Maybe its because they believe that they are really centrists themselves...

My biggest problem with NPR is that they have a hard time actually reporting the news.  NPR loves to paint a pretty picture, and take you on a verbal artistic journey through the news...  It sets off my bullshiat meter every damned time.  Its downright creepy.
 
2014-04-27 05:07:51 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Quick question.

I have a Porsche 911 Cabriolet as well as a firearm.

Both of these are considered 'anti dick size' .

Am a double small penis , or does the Porsche make me small dick and being the gun owner
counteract it and make it big dick again, like  multiplying a negative 1 twice?


You have a strange obsession with the male anatomy, not only from your posts but even your user name. You might want to get that checked out by a doctor.
 
2014-04-27 05:08:37 PM  
deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com

"They'll get my NPR when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
 
2014-04-27 05:08:40 PM  

Maul555: It sets off my bullshiat meter every damned time.


Without citations to prove your point, nobody is going to take your bullshiat meters word for it mostly because you are a nobody.
 
2014-04-27 05:13:16 PM  

NewportBarGuy: If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?


Because, unfortunately, it's the only game in town. Reason can be countered with reason. When the other side wants to ban bayonet lugs and 50 caliber weapons, both of which have nothing to do with crime, while not lifting a finger against handguns, you realize they are pandering idiots. At that point, there's no good reason to send in your scholars. So you send in your attack dogs.

I have no interest in having a "conversation" on guns with someone who's never fired one, any more than I'm interested in debating what good driving practices are with my nine year old nephew. $35 a year is a great price for someone else to deal with the cretins trying to ban high-capacity "clips".

/no, not a conservative
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





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.

Report