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 82
    More: Scary, National Rifle Association, NPR, Pickering, Noblesville, shooting sports, wild pigs  
•       •       •

10044 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2014 at 2:43 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-04-27 11:04:47 AM  
12 votes:
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.
2014-04-27 11:45:55 AM  
9 votes:
If you are a gun-owner with an IQ over 65... Why are you a member of the NRA?
2014-04-27 11:40:34 AM  
7 votes:
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.
2014-04-27 03:08:05 PM  
6 votes:

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.
2014-04-27 12:10:51 PM  
6 votes:

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.
2014-04-27 11:28:59 AM  
6 votes:
I'm sorry, but what's so scary about this article?  None of the quotes were political, and none of the people they talked to were foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.

Is it just scary because "ZOMG GUNS!"?
2014-04-27 11:35:30 AM  
5 votes:
The NRA is the lobbying arm for the firearms manufacturing industry - if you want the pure, uncut derp you gotta go to one of those Gun Shows at the rural county fairgrounds.
2014-04-27 02:02:38 PM  
4 votes:

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


IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the nerve to tell other people that they should not be allowed to legally own one?
2014-04-27 04:03:59 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-04-27 03:11:13 PM  
3 votes:

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?
2014-04-27 03:09:45 PM  
3 votes:

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

Because despite the chucklefarks they have as the public face, the NRA actually fights for gun rights that elected goofballs like this would take away


We do not ridicule lawmakers with absolutely no understanding of how the Internet works who attempt to regulate electronic communication and copyright.

We do not insult lawmakers with no scientific training who are put on science and technology committees.

We do not suggest that lawmakers who are demonstrably ignorant of womens' reproductive health issues have no credibility when authoring laws regulating access to abortion and birth control.

For what reason, then, do gun nuts become extremely upset when legislators who are demonstrably ignorant of fundamental firearms technology propose sweeping bans on firearms?
2014-04-27 05:00:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:55:52 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:51:57 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:06:22 PM  
2 votes:
Deep thoughts by Sarah Palin at NRA convention:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-talks-waterboarding-guns-at- nr a-convention/

Spoiler: "...we baptize terrorists by waterboarding them".
2014-04-27 03:57:55 PM  
2 votes:

Fark It: I'm sorry, but what's so scary about this article?  None of the quotes were political, and none of the people they talked to were foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.

Is it just scary because "ZOMG GUNS!"?


Libs are scared shiatless of everything from a pocket knife to a Derringer, yet it's apparently the pro-gun crowd who "live in fear."
2014-04-27 03:25:56 PM  
2 votes:

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?
2014-04-27 03:18:31 PM  
2 votes:
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...
2014-04-27 03:17:32 PM  
2 votes:

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

Because despite the chucklefarks they have as the public face, the NRA actually fights for gun rights that elected goofballs like this would take away

We do not ridicule lawmakers with absolutely no understanding of how the Internet works who attempt to regulate electronic communication and copyright.

We do not insult lawmakers with no scientific training who are put on science and technology committees.

We do not suggest that lawmakers who are demonstrably ignorant of womens' reproductive health issues have no credibility when authoring laws regulating access to abortion and birth control.

For what reason, then, do gun nuts become extremely upset when legislators who are demonstrably ignorant of fundamental firearms technology propose sweeping bans on firearms?


This must be a parody post, because we make fun of all of those people with regularity.
2014-04-27 02:58:34 PM  
2 votes:

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Without them there is the strong possibility that there would be few gun owners of any IQ.


Meanwhile, in reality, there were millions of gun owners in the US before the NRA went full retard.

However there were far fewer who believed that they "needed" a gun because of the "big black guy" lurking around very corner.
2014-04-27 02:52:19 PM  
2 votes:
Oh God. I can only imagine the Con Funk there.

It must smell like sweaty feet wrapped in burned, leathery bacon.
2014-04-27 02:31:29 PM  
2 votes:

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


Because despite the chucklefarks they have as the public face, the NRA actually fights for gun rights that elected goofballs like this would take away
2014-04-27 01:18:30 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-04-27 12:28:07 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Do you have a reason to feel insecure about this discussion?
2014-04-27 12:11:13 PM  
2 votes:

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


paranoid schizophrenia?
2014-04-27 11:53:47 AM  
2 votes:

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...
2014-04-27 10:43:30 AM  
2 votes:
i61.tinypic.com
2014-04-28 03:19:16 AM  
1 votes:

Brainsick: redmid17: lewismarktwo: redmid17: pedrop357: John Buck 41: pedrop357: DeArmondVI: John Buck 41: DeArmondVI: csb: I manage at a used bookstore that, for many years, had a no guns allowed sign posted up. However, after the gun crowd became even more belligerant than usual after that guy mowed down an entire 1st grade classroom we took the damn thing down.

Cut to: last week some yahoo showed up doing the whole open carry thing along with a giant knife strapped to his leg.

After multiple complaints about said yahoo, the sign went back up again.

I guess I just don't understand the need/desire to be able to kill someone while browsing some used books.

So, you work in a place with a 'No guns allowed' signs on premises. I'm sure that must be VERY comforting.

It's tough at times, I must concede. Bad guys with guns come in at least twice a day and pilfer our registers and assualt our customers.

Sounds like the sign isn't working.

They never do.I know the phrase I bolded was sarcastic. but think it through, antis. Given 2 choices, where is a bad guy gonna go?

Going further, if such a sign worked, why stop there?  Why spend a bunch of money on exit scanners, surveillance, etc. when simply putting up "No Shoplifting" signs would work just as well for 1/100th the price?

Because the largest source of shoplifting is employees and it behooves the the employer to have access to those videos in case they need to prove cause for termination, though stealing is hardly the only reason to do so.

Popular fiction.  Most shoplifting is not done by employees. It's done by walk in customers.  Employees that DO shoplift do it a lot tho so they account for a large percentage if you carve it up by individual.

/hello, I'd like to return this very small and very expensive item for store credit because I lost my receipt.

http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=News&op=viewlive&sp_id=1136

"According to the preliminary survey findings, the majority of retail shrinkage last year was due to emp ...


Their words, not mine, but a plurality is called a relative majority for a reason.
2014-04-28 03:02:07 AM  
1 votes:

lewismarktwo: redmid17: pedrop357: John Buck 41: pedrop357: DeArmondVI: John Buck 41: DeArmondVI: csb: I manage at a used bookstore that, for many years, had a no guns allowed sign posted up. However, after the gun crowd became even more belligerant than usual after that guy mowed down an entire 1st grade classroom we took the damn thing down.

Cut to: last week some yahoo showed up doing the whole open carry thing along with a giant knife strapped to his leg.

After multiple complaints about said yahoo, the sign went back up again.

I guess I just don't understand the need/desire to be able to kill someone while browsing some used books.

So, you work in a place with a 'No guns allowed' signs on premises. I'm sure that must be VERY comforting.

It's tough at times, I must concede. Bad guys with guns come in at least twice a day and pilfer our registers and assualt our customers.

Sounds like the sign isn't working.

They never do.I know the phrase I bolded was sarcastic. but think it through, antis. Given 2 choices, where is a bad guy gonna go?

Going further, if such a sign worked, why stop there?  Why spend a bunch of money on exit scanners, surveillance, etc. when simply putting up "No Shoplifting" signs would work just as well for 1/100th the price?

Because the largest source of shoplifting is employees and it behooves the the employer to have access to those videos in case they need to prove cause for termination, though stealing is hardly the only reason to do so.

Popular fiction.  Most shoplifting is not done by employees. It's done by walk in customers.  Employees that DO shoplift do it a lot tho so they account for a large percentage if you carve it up by individual.

/hello, I'd like to return this very small and very expensive item for store credit because I lost my receipt.


http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=News&op=viewlive&sp_id=1136

"According to the preliminary survey findings, the majority of retail shrinkage last year was due to employee theft, at $16.2 billion, accounting for 43.7 percent of total losses. "
2014-04-28 12:04:29 AM  
1 votes:

Man On Pink Corner: Yeah, one or two psychos a week compared to a half-dozen murders every week in Chicago alone.  Bulletproof case you've got there, bro.


It's pretty good proof that white, middle-aged men DO commit gun crimes. Why, what did you think my 'case' was about?
2014-04-27 11:46:01 PM  
1 votes:
pedrop357: going further, if such a sign worked, why stop there?  Why spend a bunch of money on exit scanners, surveillance, etc. when simply putting up "No Shoplifting" signs would work just as well for 1/100th the price?

The sign 'works' because it allows the business owner to enforce a posted rule, should the need arise. Shoplifting is already a crime, open carry is not, but a business owner is allowed to establish rules for their business, provided they are not discriminatory against a protected class. If there was no sign, someone carrying open in the store would rightfully be able to refuse to leave, or sue the store owner for infringing on their constitutional rights, which could definitely lead to bigger problems for everyone involved.


/you knew that, didn't you?
//I feel soiled...
2014-04-27 11:40:58 PM  
1 votes:

Deep Contact: Article says everyone was white and middle aged. Funny you never hear who's killing each other over sneakers in the news.



Ok, I think you're trying to argue that young black men kill each other over shoes, and that's NOT reported on, which is patently false, so much so that 'killing over sneakers' has become a dog whistle for black on black crime... but if you're trying to say that 'white and middle aged' men never commit gun crimes?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting /
http://beverly-mtgreenwood.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/unneig hb orly-feud-turns-deadly-as-cop-shoots-elderly-man-and-woman
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/04/26/police-man-shoots-woman-at -n atomas-home-then-turns-gun-on-himself/
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/lincoln-county-authorities-inv es tigate-report-shoo/nfhMN/
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/25336541/deputies-man-dead-after-sh oo ting-in-central
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/28/scott-roeder-abortion-d oc tor-killer

You've got some homework to do.
2014-04-27 11:28:55 PM  
1 votes:

pedrop357: John Buck 41: pedrop357: DeArmondVI: John Buck 41: DeArmondVI: csb: I manage at a used bookstore that, for many years, had a no guns allowed sign posted up. However, after the gun crowd became even more belligerant than usual after that guy mowed down an entire 1st grade classroom we took the damn thing down.

Cut to: last week some yahoo showed up doing the whole open carry thing along with a giant knife strapped to his leg.

After multiple complaints about said yahoo, the sign went back up again.

I guess I just don't understand the need/desire to be able to kill someone while browsing some used books.

So, you work in a place with a 'No guns allowed' signs on premises. I'm sure that must be VERY comforting.

It's tough at times, I must concede. Bad guys with guns come in at least twice a day and pilfer our registers and assualt our customers.

Sounds like the sign isn't working.

They never do.I know the phrase I bolded was sarcastic. but think it through, antis. Given 2 choices, where is a bad guy gonna go?

Going further, if such a sign worked, why stop there?  Why spend a bunch of money on exit scanners, surveillance, etc. when simply putting up "No Shoplifting" signs would work just as well for 1/100th the price?


Because the largest source of shoplifting is employees and it behooves the the employer to have access to those videos in case they need to prove cause for termination, though stealing is hardly the only reason to do so.
2014-04-27 10:03:52 PM  
1 votes:
Submitter is a tard and has some sort of issue with NPR.  I actually read the article.  There was nothing in it that gave me the impression that NPR finds a gun show to be a terrifying place.  Contrary to the belief of a certain subset of the population NPR is not especially liberally biased.  The article was straight forward reporting.  If anything it humanized the faceless "gun nuts" that some other news sources try to get everyone scared about.  While it might seem like a pointless bit of writing to anyone familiar with gun shows, it is an interesting article for those of us not in the habit of attending them.
2014-04-27 08:41:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

I'm a gun owner, with an IQ well over twice that, and am a life member of the NRA, as is my wife.  So, what's your point?


Y'all ain't too bright.
2014-04-27 08:07:18 PM  
1 votes:
Liberty lovers will quit being activist and litigious when fascists stop being control-freak scofflaws.

ALL fundamental liberties need to be defended vigorously, at all times, because control freaks are never appeased, never sated, no matter how much petty interference they're able to indulge in in other people's lives, they always want more.

Rabid libertarians are also functionally destructive of civil society--or would be if we did what they wanted. Since their ideology makes them cooperate like a herd of cats in a bird sanctuary, they're not generally a threat.

Control freaks need to be opposed, constantly, because they tend to get organized. Throughout recorded history, when regular people get complacent, Kiplings "Little Tin Gods" take over and do unto others, good and hard.
2014-04-27 08:05:12 PM  
1 votes:

udhq: Meh.  Gun rights are probably not going anywhere for the foreseeable future.  That being the case, I think we clearly need to reinforce the responsibilities that buttress the right to bear arms, meaning doing better at prosecuting people who commit crimes with guns and make threats with guns.

The folks at Bunkerville, for instance, went out of their way to use their guns to break the law and threaten public safety.  No one who went down there should ever see the outside of a prison cell again.  And if you're a gun owner who supported those chucklefarks, congratulations, you are officially no longer a "good guy with a gun."


I don't have a dog in that fight, I view ranchers as some of the wors't offenders of tax evasion in the 1%.  It pisses me off that they pay less property tax on their million acres because it is zoned agricultural than I do on my 120 acres of swamp that generates zero income for me and I have to pay $140 for a license every time I harvest one of the animals that were raised on that land.  But was he just out of the blue billed $1,000,000 for grazing fees or did it add up over time?

Also those farkers should be required to build fences and underpasses for their cows or they should have to pay ME when one of their farking black angus cows gets in the way of my truck at 12:00 am as opposed to the other way around.
2014-04-27 07:41:32 PM  
1 votes:
Meh.  Gun rights are probably not going anywhere for the foreseeable future.  That being the case, I think we clearly need to reinforce the responsibilities that buttress the right to bear arms, meaning doing better at prosecuting people who commit crimes with guns and make threats with guns.

The folks at Bunkerville, for instance, went out of their way to use their guns to break the law and threaten public safety.  No one who went down there should ever see the outside of a prison cell again.  And if you're a gun owner who supported those chucklefarks, congratulations, you are officially no longer a "good guy with a gun."
2014-04-27 07:36:49 PM  
1 votes:
dok9874
They're "balking" against restrictive registration laws by NOT registering. I don't live anywhere near New York or Connecticut but even the casual observer should have taken note of the news reports (clearly you haven't). From openly burning registration forms (NY) to not bothering to register the estimated large numbers of high capacity mags in CT. It's hard to take your comments seriously when you're not even paying attention to reality and hard facts that are easily found with a modicum of google skills. And Sandy Hook was a pretty damn big news story for you not to have any idea how many kids were slaughtered, other than you're just not paying attention, not that you have "different sources" than I do.


Regarding the unregistered guns in NYC, or the unregistered large capacity mags in CT, they don't have to. But if they get caught it is their ass. I have heard this "the law is the law" line from people with authoritarian lines of thought. But it never applies to restrictive gun laws.

Doing a google search for '"balking" against restrictive registration laws' failed me. It is entirely possible we choose different sources of news.

Regarding Sandy Hook, I know what that is. I am making a slightly subtle point.

We probably won't agree on much, so I respect your opinion, and we don't communicate terribly well.
2014-04-27 06:44:27 PM  
1 votes:

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.


They are not Fox, so, by definition, they are liberal.

Liberal is anything to the left of Attila the Hun.
2014-04-27 06:17:07 PM  
1 votes:

Bob Robert: thisisarepeat: yep you're right "poll" I have no education what so ever.

That's right, you equated a tactic used to disenfranchise minority voters with restrictions on guns. That by itself makes you uneducated. But then you used pole and that sealed it.


What you call a "tactic used to disenfranchise ", others might call a "reasonable restriction".

Perhaps we should just respect all rights equally...
2014-04-27 05:45:47 PM  
1 votes:

CruiserTwelve: Enemabag Jones:

What the heck is "vodka"?


He meant vodak. He must be new here
2014-04-27 05:44:26 PM  
1 votes:

Bob Robert: Next week's Tom Sawyer: LOL. An accusation of derp without even knowing what I was talking about. Here's a clue: the AOPA has nothing to do with regional airlines. They are an advocate for general aviation. And yes, regulation presents a significant burden to general aviation.

So making the profession of pilot completely unrealistic unless you can finance the 50k or more required for all the proper ratings has nothing to do with the number of people who want to get their license and ratings? I know exactly what you're talking about, you blame "over regulation" but have no clue what you are talking about. Thanks for making this debate quick and easy though. Usually the uneducated will run in circles and throw out more insults before just repeating their talking point phrase like it means something without facts.


For the second time, he is talking about general aviation, not what you want him to be talking about. The chutzpah of you hurling insults when you can't even stay on topic is mind-blowing.
2014-04-27 05:29:20 PM  
1 votes:

Maul555: Bob Robert: Maul555: Bob Robert: 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.

oooooh... and your a nobody too... who the fark cares?

/I cite NPR radio... just turn it on


So your response is to study it out. Glad we figured that one out quick.

I am not going to get caught up in your circle of trolling...  Right now you are trying to reel me in.  Glad I figured that one out quick.


So you make a claim about the reporting of NPR, when I ask you for examples, all you can do is tell me to study it out. And now you are labeling me as the troll. How drunk are you right now?
2014-04-27 05:23:10 PM  
1 votes:

Maul555: Bob Robert: 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.

oooooh... and your a nobody too... who the fark cares?

/I cite NPR radio... just turn it on



So your response is to study it out. Glad we figured that one out quick.
2014-04-27 05:22:06 PM  
1 votes:

maldinero: 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.


The AOPA will vehemently opposes new aviation regulations if they pose additional costs to pilots or owners. Like the NRA, they know the death of their sport will come gradually with government making flying ever more difficult and expensive.
2014-04-27 05:17:38 PM  
1 votes:

ZeroPly: /no, not a conservative


lol "libertarians" lol

/ We're not laughing with you
2014-04-27 05:13:16 PM  
1 votes:

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
2014-04-27 05:08:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:56:29 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:53:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:53:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:53:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:46:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:37:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:35:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:30:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:24:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:21:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:20:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:18:27 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2014-04-27 04:16:07 PM  
1 votes:
I joined the NRA to specifically help fund the counterbalance to groups and politicians who want to ban access to guns.

/Own 8, none of them AR-style.
//Yet--they look like fun to shoot at the range.
///Not afraid of any shadow-dwelling boogy-man or the gub'mint--guns are simply fun to learn how to shoot properly and use for hunting.
2014-04-27 04:12:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-27 04:11:56 PM  
1 votes:

PapaChester: I'll never understand gun people. They (you) are sick people. Gun enthusiasts make bronies look normal.


I am not even a little bit sick. I don't hurl random insults, either, or make judgments that I am not equipped to make, unlike yourself.
2014-04-27 04:04:05 PM  
1 votes:

TerminalEchoes: Libs are scared shiatless of everything from a pocket knife to a Derringer, yet it's apparently the pro-gun crowd who "live in fear."


I'm a liberal living in Chicago. I shoot guns but I have not reason to carry one around town. The frightened clowns are the bed-wetting conservatives who "need" a gun to visit the 7-11 in the suburbs.
2014-04-27 03:50:56 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-27 03:48:50 PM  
1 votes:

jaytkay: 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"

What did the NRA do in 1977 that you think I think is "full retard"?


The NRA was not an active lobbying group or a political powerhouse until the 1977 NRA convention in Cincinnati.
2014-04-27 03:44:31 PM  
1 votes:
I am actually pro-gun, but I think the NRA does a huge disservice to the gun-owning public by saying that the second amendment is for Barrett .50-Cal's and grenade launchers as much as it is for Winchester rifles. Can't we all come to the table with some sort of middle ground compromise that says you can own as many handguns and rifles as you want, but there are certain weapons that aren't appropriate in the hands of civilians?

/pro-gun, pro-death penalty
//call me a lib all you want
///anyone else hate posting comments in the iOS app, where you can't see what you're typing?
2014-04-27 03:28:10 PM  
1 votes:
The ideal thread for my rant:
Remember prohibition?  The Volstead Act was the law that provided the specifics for prohibition.  It was not just vodka, and other hard booze.  It included bottled wine beer.  Compromise might have allowed the Volstead Act to continue to exist if they will willing to compromise with 3% beer and wine, but the prohibitionists did not want to allow the sale of any wine or beer.  And they were effective with making sure what representatives survived and didn't.

Then people got sick of the stupidity, and all alcohol was legal again.

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.

If the NRA is the only game in town continuing to act like they are, this will end badly for the rights of gun owners that are not profiting from the sale of more and more guns.

\Not that I am against booze, just works as an example.
2014-04-27 03:27:18 PM  
1 votes:

Fark It: I'm sorry, but what's so scary about this article?  None of the quotes were political, and none of the people they talked to were foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.

Is it just scary because "ZOMG GUNS!"?


Well, you gotta remember that to the right-wingers, this is the strawman NPR we're dealing with; with is the libbiest liberal leftist lefty hitsquad to ever lefty-lib.
2014-04-27 03:19:20 PM  
1 votes:

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


We'd have federal total bans because of reasons. You convinced me.
2014-04-27 03:18:19 PM  
1 votes:
NRA members, who pay anywhere from $10 to join for a year to $500 for a lifetime membership.

50 years up front for a lifetime membership?

That's a really shiat bulk buy deal.
2014-04-27 03:15:36 PM  
1 votes:

Bob Robert: It makes people feel powerful and special that they have the lives of others in their hands. Also smarter conservatives love to feel oppressed and under threat, example:


I don't feel oppressed. I'm not even one of those "the 2nd protects the 1st" sorts. I'm even reasonable about regulation. But in my lifetime I've seen enough to know that without people pushing back we'd have total bans. Gun-control people weren't always coy about their endgame. It's only been in the last 15-20 years that they learned to be coy about it so they could make incremental progress.
2014-04-27 03:13:11 PM  
1 votes:

Dimensio: We do not ridicule lawmakers with absolutely no understanding of how the Internet works who attempt to regulate electronic communication and copyright.

We do not insult lawmakers with no scientific training who are put on science and technology committees.

We do not suggest that lawmakers who are demonstrably ignorant of womens' reproductive health issues have no credibility when authoring laws regulating access to abortion and birth control.

For what reason, then, do gun nuts become extremely upset when legislators who are demonstrably ignorant of fundamental firearms technology propose sweeping bans on firearms?



Are you sure about that?  It seems to me that we make fun of science-ignorant congresscritters all the time...
2014-04-27 03:11:44 PM  
1 votes:

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


What advocacy group do you recommend then?
2014-04-27 03:08:41 PM  
1 votes:

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


It makes people feel powerful and special that they have the lives of others in their hands. Also smarter conservatives love to feel oppressed and under threat, example:

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Without them there is the strong possibility that there would be few gun owners of any IQ.

2014-04-27 03:01:02 PM  
1 votes:

jaytkay: However there were far fewer who believed that they "needed" a gun because of the "big black guy" lurking around very corner.


img.fark.net
2014-04-27 02:59:35 PM  
1 votes:
The headline is written the way it is because it got you to click on the link and/or post a comment. Is that really a surprise any more?
gad
2014-04-27 02:56:45 PM  
1 votes:

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. And as predictable as someone thinking that mentioning that it's predictable makes it less true. Followed by my predictable 'lol you're overcompensating for something lol'
2014-04-27 02:55:35 PM  
1 votes:
When they all leave town tonite the iq of Indy will go up a couple points. But not much more than that.
2014-04-27 02:47:21 PM  
1 votes:

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


It pisses off the libs.
2014-04-27 01:20:18 PM  
1 votes:
Pardon me, I was referring to the ILA, their lobbying arm.
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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