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.

(NewsBusters)   88% of FoxNews.com readers support the right for people to carry guns in public...oh, sorry.. I meant MSNBC.com readers   (newsbusters.org) divider line 547
    More: Strange, prisoner swap  
•       •       •

2682 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-08-07 01:58:11 AM  
Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.
 
2014-08-07 02:22:50 AM  
Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.


Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?
 
2014-08-07 04:44:11 AM  
Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.
 
2014-08-07 05:38:44 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


Progs? Wasn't that something to do with the Power Rangers?

I'm not surprised at that poll. It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun. It's more like anti-crazy people getting guns, which the NRA is all for. Too bad the NRA has been taken over by gun manufacturers and zealots.
 
2014-08-07 05:55:40 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


I'm a liberal gun-owner, have been for over 10 years and I support gun control. I will never, EVER join or give the NRA a single penny.
 
2014-08-07 07:14:11 AM  
what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":

d1odfg5a9rhrg8.cloudfront.net

To "conservatives":

a57.foxnews.com
 
2014-08-07 08:33:39 AM  
I'm a liberal gun owner who used to be an NRA member but quit 10 years ago when they went insane.
 
2014-08-07 08:34:06 AM  

enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.


The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.
 
2014-08-07 08:41:00 AM  

enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.


Back when I was into guns about once a week someone would post a poll in gun forums and say "lets go vote in this poll" and magically the progun votes would skyrocket.
 
2014-08-07 08:45:28 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


Liberals, now in prog form.
 
2014-08-07 08:50:01 AM  

Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.


Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.
 
2014-08-07 09:22:55 AM  
A lot depends on how you word the question.

I support people's right to own and carry guns.  I also support limits on that right.


/I also think carrying a gun all the time would be a pain, I hate carrying a big cell or wallet, I can't imagine a two pound gun.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-07 09:26:36 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


You really do live in your own universe don't you?
 
2014-08-07 09:37:17 AM  

enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.


The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances
 
2014-08-07 09:41:15 AM  
MSNBC viewers really exist? They can read?

Color me doubtful.
 
2014-08-07 09:41:34 AM  
My shiny new American-made Glock didn't come with any NSSF literature.
 
2014-08-07 09:41:34 AM  
Not strange to me, subby.
 
2014-08-07 09:42:09 AM  
Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.
 
2014-08-07 09:42:10 AM  
Starting your blog off with "It's not scientific by any means" is an invitation for anyone who understands even the basics of science to stop reading.
 
2014-08-07 09:43:56 AM  
So....what's the point?  That liberals aren't the horrible gun-grabbers that everyone seems to think they are?  That there's a big damn difference between saying people should have to get background checks before buying a gun, and saying that people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns at all?

Nah, forget that.  Just keep being afraid of the "liberals" that live in your head.  They're much less complex and nuanced than the ones in the real world.
 
2014-08-07 09:45:03 AM  

OregonVet: My shiny new American-made Glock didn't come with any NSSF literature.


Glock has their own "Glock Sport Shooting Foundation."  And they're Glock, they don't really need to lobby, they have 60% of the law enforcement market and a similarly huge market share in the civilian world.
 
2014-08-07 09:45:54 AM  

doublesecretprobation: what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":

[d1odfg5a9rhrg8.cloudfront.net image 480x467]

To "conservatives":

[a57.foxnews.com image 850x478]


yeah.  and if that prog decided to rob that bakery, he'd kill both those morons before either of them had time to aim and fire their weapon.
 
2014-08-07 09:46:06 AM  

revrendjim: I'm a liberal gun owner who used to be an NRA member but quit 10 years ago when they went insane.


I tend to be on the liberal side and I own a few guns but I never felt the need to join a gun club or gun lobbying organization.
//I guess I just don't feel as oppressed or threatened as many other gun owners.
 
2014-08-07 09:46:19 AM  

Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances


Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html
 
2014-08-07 09:46:46 AM  
People can both support the rights to carry arms in public AND certain gun control measures. The two are not mutually exclusive. I suspect most gun owners recognize this.
 
2014-08-07 09:46:57 AM  

revrendjim: I'm a liberal gun owner who used to be an NRA member but quit 10 years ago when they went insane.



Same here.  The NRA went from an attitude recognizing that firearms are deadly weapons that require training to handle responsibly to "OMG GUNS ARE SO COOL!  EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN!  ANY GUN REGULATIONS = NAZI GERMANY!  IF YOUR DOCTOR ASKS YOU ABOUT GUNS IN THE HOUSE HE IS A NAZI AND SHOULD LOSE HIS RIGHT TO PRACTICE MEDICINE!"
 
2014-08-07 09:47:28 AM  

PreMortem: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Progs? Wasn't that something to do with the Power Rangers?

I'm not surprised at that poll. It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun. It's more like anti-crazy people getting guns, which the NRA is all for. Too bad the NRA has been taken over by gun manufacturers and zealots.


http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gunm akers-really
 
2014-08-07 09:47:30 AM  
Here in Texas you can buy your gun in the same store you buy your beer. And they don't sell coffins. But they do sell condoms. Almost one stop shopping for that first date with a Goth.

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-07 09:47:30 AM  
Has 4chan been vote bombing again?
 
2014-08-07 09:47:50 AM  

TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.


Maybe we should start a database.
 
2014-08-07 09:48:26 AM  
HOw else are you gonna protect yourself from all the other crazies out there with guns?
 
2014-08-07 09:48:27 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's ...


Progs?

www.progarchives.com
 
2014-08-07 09:48:57 AM  

Arkanaut: People can both support the rights to carry arms in public AND certain gun control measures. The two are not mutually exclusive. I suspect most gun owners recognize this.


No, much like supporting traffic laws means you are anti-automobile, supporting gun laws makes you anti-gun.
 
2014-08-07 09:49:15 AM  

enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.


The National Rifle Association is not, as is commonly believed, a firearm manufacturer lobby. Their leadership sincerely believes the claims that they issue.

That is, in fact, the biggest problem with the organization.
 
2014-08-07 09:49:23 AM  
Prog's
 
2014-08-07 09:49:34 AM  
Gun grabber. Penis Comparison. Whatever Markley's Law is. 2nd amendment. Libtard. Psychopath with fear issues. Mancard.jpg. Fatguyincamo.jpg. Thread covered. We can all go home.
 
2014-08-07 09:49:36 AM  

Arkanaut: People can both support the rights to carry arms in public AND certain gun control measures. The two are not mutually exclusive. I suspect most gun owners recognize this.


wrong.  if you own a gun that must mean you want to wave it around in public!
 
2014-08-07 09:49:43 AM  
It's almost as if.... and bear with me here... this country isn't as divided and 2 sided as news outlets want you to think, and very few people are actually on the extreme sides of an issue.
 
2014-08-07 09:50:06 AM  

karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.


This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.
 
2014-08-07 09:51:06 AM  

doublesecretprobation: what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":



To "conservatives":


Bingo. Liberals can be fine with gun ownership and concealed carry without LARPing the movie Red Dawn.
 
2014-08-07 09:51:06 AM  
You should have the right to carry guns in public. I think most people genuinely agree if they really think about it.

However, consider that you also have the right to fart in an elevator. (call it freedom of expression)

Understanding the difference between a right and a good idea is important.
 
2014-08-07 09:51:47 AM  
An online poll returning an unlikely outcome? Someone let President RON PAUL know, I'm sure he'll do something about it.
 
2014-08-07 09:52:21 AM  

uber humper: HOw else are you gonna protect yourself from all the other crazies out there with guns?



The Ebola Squirt Gun always worked for me.

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-07 09:52:22 AM  

doublesecretprobation: what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":

[d1odfg5a9rhrg8.cloudfront.net image 480x467]

To "conservatives":

[a57.foxnews.com image 850x478]


The guys in the 2nd pic look to be figuring out which scones to pair with their caramel macchiato
 
2014-08-07 09:52:24 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-08-07 09:52:35 AM  
These bait-and-switch headlines are so clever...oh, sorry.. I meant retarted.
 
2014-08-07 09:52:57 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


Jesus Christ; laying it on a little thick in the profile, aren't you?
 
2014-08-07 09:52:58 AM  

Itstoearly: It's almost as if.... and bear with me here... this country isn't as divided and 2 sided as news outlets want you to think, and very few people are actually on the extreme sides of an issue.


You are mistaken. I have been assured that -- despite believing that same sex marriage should be legal, that women should be free to determine their own reproductive health choices (up to and including abortion), that health care should be available and affordable to all (and that affordable health care should include coverage for the aforementioned reproductive health choices) and that demands for reduction of the federal deficit that are coupled with refusals to increase revenue rates are indicative of mental illness -- that I am a "bagger" because I also believe that a complete ban on civilian ownership of .50 caliber rifles (including mandatory surrender of currently owned rifles) is not a viable means of reducing violent crime.
 
2014-08-07 09:53:34 AM  
oh boy, another main page crosspost
 
2014-08-07 09:53:34 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


Yeah, but in the real world I don't know anyone that regularly carries a gun around, except my brother who kept one with him when he was stationed in Alaska, and in his case it was more for protection from bears. Despite so fee people I know carrying, I've never heard of anyone being mugged. Hell, I've walked around downtown New York City and Chicago unarmed by myself at night and have not even FELT threatened. The United States, by and large, just isn't that dangerous a place.
 
2014-08-07 09:53:36 AM  

TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.


HAH!  Yeah, I'm told that I'm about as liberal a deadhead as anyone, but we still have guns... not that I'm pretending like I'm going to ride off with them to DC to save 'Murica  like the idiot teabagger militia fools around here.  It takes a particular kind of dumb to think that the 2nd Amendment and your Grampa's 12 gauge are going to somehow help fat people on hoverrounds "take back the country" from "Obummer"... seriously, these people do know that even Hummers are armor plated ... and that 1000 people with AR-15s < 1 Apache helicopter... right?

I just don't get the whole 2nd amendment angle.  If it ever came down to the people versus the army,
guess who's going to win (overwhelmingly, I might add)...
 
2014-08-07 09:54:35 AM  
s2.quickmeme.com
 
2014-08-07 09:55:19 AM  
i58.tinypic.com
I bet Jeremy did it.
 
2014-08-07 09:55:25 AM  
In other news, people who respond to internet news surveys are 88% more likely to be wrong about pretty much everything ever
 
2014-08-07 09:55:27 AM  

Wellon Dowd: Trailltrader: Prog's ...

Progs?

[www.progarchives.com image 382x266]


img.fark.net

Yes, Progs
 
2014-08-07 09:56:36 AM  

Jackson Herring: Prog's


*Ribbit*
 
2014-08-07 09:56:48 AM  
I think you'll find most Americans don't mind people carrying guns so long as they A) have sufficient reason to and B) aren't obnoxious or dangerous about it.

A hunter, during hunting season, possibly even wearing hunter's orange, has his rifle with him when he gets gas or grabs some McDonald's so no one swipes it out of the back of his truck? Most people would fail to see an issue.
Waltzing into the downtown Chipotle of a metropolitan area dressed like you're ready to hit the bars, making a spectacle of yourself by brandishing the weapon, all because MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Conceal carry? Keep your pistol on you for whatever reason you feel, but don't advertise it and don't intentionally escalate any conflict? I doubt most people would take offense.
Wear your pistol on your hip so everyone can see you're packing, and strut around like this is the Wild West, because you're that afraid you need a visible deterrent to crime, or again, MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?
 
2014-08-07 09:57:10 AM  

dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?


You have lost.  Get over it.

jpfo.org
 
2014-08-07 09:57:15 AM  

enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html

"Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control. "


For an organization with an operating budget that exceeds $200,000,000 annually, this is small potatoes.  The rest of the article is garbage propaganda from the mouths of anti-gun activists.

"The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmaster rifle and Glock pistol. These clips increase the lethality of weapons by allowing dozens of shots to be fired before the shooter has to reload. According to its website, Midway has donated about $7.7 million to the NRA through another fundraising program that dates back to 1992. Under this program, customers who buy Midway products are asked to "round up" the price to the next dollar, with the company donating the difference to the NRA."

This is not "the gun industry" giving money to the NRA, and it's extremely dishonest to claim such.  These are users giving money to the NRA.  Midway is just holding the collection pot.  And of course the gun industry and the NRA would ally when it comes to frivolous, agenda-driven lawsuits against gun makers and dealers.  When they get stymied by the courts and can't get their way through the legislature, anti-gun advocates tried to bankrupt the gun industry through lawsuits alleging that gun manufacturers are the ones responsible for crime.  If the antis sue gun makers into oblivion then they've effectively done an end-run around the 2nd Amendment.

If you're complaining about the (still relatively small) fraction of funding the NRA receives from the gun industry, blame the antis.  They're the ones who drove the NRA and gun industry to circle the wagons when they tried to bankrupt the industry.
 
2014-08-07 09:57:31 AM  

Arkanaut: People can both support the rights to carry arms in public AND certain gun control measures. The two are not mutually exclusive. I suspect most gun owners recognize this.


PICK A SIDE FENCE SITTER!
 
2014-08-07 09:57:51 AM  

enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.


False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.
 
2014-08-07 09:57:53 AM  

Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.


Thank God they don't collect and store any personal information when they do background checks!
 
2014-08-07 10:00:04 AM  

Trailltrader: OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".


symonsez.files.wordpress.com

I like "open carry," because it makes it easier for me to spot the pants-pissing cowards.
 
2014-08-07 10:00:19 AM  

AngryDragon: dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?

You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]


Once the public is made aware of the massive spike in violent crime directly attributable to these concealed carry laws, that trend will begin to reverse.

/Just like the trend of same-sex marriages support will reverse once the damage of same-sex marriage is exposed.
 
2014-08-07 10:01:08 AM  

AngryDragon: dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?

You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]


You are aware this isn't a competition, yes?
 
2014-08-07 10:01:20 AM  

Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html

"Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control. "

For an organization with an operating budget that exceeds $200,000,000 annually, this is small potatoes.  The rest of the article is garbage propaganda from the mouths of anti-gun activists.

"The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmaster rifle and Gl ...


I never made the claim that NRA gets some/most/all/any funding from gun manufacturers.
 
2014-08-07 10:01:32 AM  
88% of those polled don't understand the second amendment. It says nothing about carrying in public, open or concealed, and only guarantees the right of ownership for the purposes of a "well regulated militia".
 
2014-08-07 10:01:32 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: I think you'll find most Americans don't mind people carrying guns so long as they A) have sufficient reason to and B) aren't obnoxious or dangerous about it.

A hunter, during hunting season, possibly even wearing hunter's orange, has his rifle with him when he gets gas or grabs some McDonald's so no one swipes it out of the back of his truck? Most people would fail to see an issue.
Waltzing into the downtown Chipotle of a metropolitan area dressed like you're ready to hit the bars, making a spectacle of yourself by brandishing the weapon, all because MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Conceal carry? Keep your pistol on you for whatever reason you feel, but don't advertise it and don't intentionally escalate any conflict? I doubt most people would take offense.
Wear your pistol on your hip so everyone can see you're packing, and strut around like this is the Wild West, because you're that afraid you need a visible deterrent to crime, or again, MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?


Open carriers are the bronies of the gun rights world.  Sure, you can do it, but people are going to shield their kids from you and keep an eye on you until you leave the area.
 
2014-08-07 10:01:42 AM  

born_yesterday: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.

Thank God they don't collect and store any personal information when they do background checks!


How else are they going to confiscate them?
 
2014-08-07 10:02:40 AM  

Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.



Looks as if someone projected their derp all over your face. Here's a tissue.  Clean yourself up.
 
2014-08-07 10:02:46 AM  
So this assumes that all/most readers of MSNBC.com are lefties.

Stupid article is stupid.
 
2014-08-07 10:02:50 AM  

Fark It: Sergeant Grumbles: I think you'll find most Americans don't mind people carrying guns so long as they A) have sufficient reason to and B) aren't obnoxious or dangerous about it.

A hunter, during hunting season, possibly even wearing hunter's orange, has his rifle with him when he gets gas or grabs some McDonald's so no one swipes it out of the back of his truck? Most people would fail to see an issue.
Waltzing into the downtown Chipotle of a metropolitan area dressed like you're ready to hit the bars, making a spectacle of yourself by brandishing the weapon, all because MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Conceal carry? Keep your pistol on you for whatever reason you feel, but don't advertise it and don't intentionally escalate any conflict? I doubt most people would take offense.
Wear your pistol on your hip so everyone can see you're packing, and strut around like this is the Wild West, because you're that afraid you need a visible deterrent to crime, or again, MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Open carriers are the bronies of the gun rights world.  Sure, you can do it, but people are going to shield their kids from you and keep an eye on you until you leave the area.


 That's about the best analogy I've heard so far.
 
2014-08-07 10:03:11 AM  

uber humper: HOw else are you gonna protect yourself from all the other crazies out there with guns?


I have been alive for 50 years and the only person to point a gun at me was a cop (now admittedly I feel this cop does qualify as one of those "crazies" you referred to, it was a traffic stop for speeding with no aggravating circumstances but if I would have shot him I would be in jail or executed)
 
2014-08-07 10:03:26 AM  

dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.


Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.
 
2014-08-07 10:03:43 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Yeah, but in the real world I don't know anyone that regularly carries a gun around, except my brother who kept one with him when he was stationed in Alaska, and in his case it was more for protection from bears. Despite so fee people I know carrying, I've never heard of anyone being mugged. Hell, I've walked around downtown New York City and Chicago unarmed by myself at night and have not even FELT threatened. The United States, by and large, just isn't that dangerous a place.


So. Much. This.

It begs the question ... WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING? I've lived in New York City, I've lived in Chicago, I've lived in LA and I've lived in the middle of the Appalachia Mountains and not even once have I ever felt the need to carry a gun.  It's like being prepared for an asteroid impact - the chances of it happening are so remote, so infinitesimal - that it doesn't even bear thinking about.

However, if you want to prance around with your gun - you're more than welcome to under today's laws and our Constitution - but please just remember that your antics not only are making people hate you - but increasing the very chance that the 28th Amendment is a repeal of the 2nd ...
 
2014-08-07 10:04:52 AM  
It's like Back To The Future; when you get up to 88% you go back in time to the Wild West.
 
2014-08-07 10:05:01 AM  

AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]


One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.
 
2014-08-07 10:05:17 AM  
There is no foolproof way to end gun violence. Those who support gun rights and the 2nd amendment typically believe that the benefits of an armed populace outweigh the drawbacks, and history tends to side with this viewpoint. Even today in the US the cities with the highest levels of gun regulation tend to be the most violent, and the mass shootings that gun control activists rally their talking points around typically happen in areas where it is illegal to have a gun... The gun control debate is ultimately not about keeping people safe from crime, it's about power.
 
2014-08-07 10:05:41 AM  

Jaden Smith First of His Name: Starting your blog off with "It's not scientific by any means" is an invitation for anyone who understands even the basics of science to stop reading.


And it's a badge of honor for conservatives!  Everybody gets a trophy!
 
2014-08-07 10:06:11 AM  

Trailltrader: OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".


Whose real world is this?  Yours?  Funny, every time I've been held at gunpoint, "gee, if I'd only had a gun" has never crossed my mind.  You see, my real world doesn't have movie physics, choppy editing, or a hero arc that ensures my survival.

How many times have you had a gun pointed at your face?
 
2014-08-07 10:06:13 AM  

Dimensio: Once the public is made aware of the massive spike in violent crime directly attributable to these concealed carry laws, that trend will begin to reverse.

/Just like the trend of same-sex marriages support will reverse once the damage of same-sex marriage is exposed.


You almost had it, then blew it in the end.  Nice try.

3/10
 
2014-08-07 10:06:47 AM  

nocturnal001: So this assumes that all/most readers of MSNBC.com are lefties.

Stupid article is stupid.



Some would say "so are the lefties".

Not me, of course....but some.
 
2014-08-07 10:07:20 AM  

BlindRaise: The gun control debate is ultimately not about keeping people safe from crime, it's about power.


Yeah, it's all about power. There's no desire to reduce the high incidence of mass shootings when compared to the rest of the developed world or preventing people like Adam Lanza from having easy and immediate access to military-grade weaponry.

You've figured it all out. Good job.
 
2014-08-07 10:07:29 AM  

enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html

"Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control. "

For an organization with an operating budget that exceeds $200,000,000 annually, this is small potatoes.  The rest of the article is garbage propaganda from the mouths of anti-gun activists.

"The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmaster rif ...


You just claimed that the NRA "represents" gun manufacturers, despite being an organization made up of 5,000,000 users, which derives most of its operating budget from these users, and used a misleading HuffPo propaganda piece to claim that the NRA gets its backing from the "gun industry."

/gun control advocates wail and moan constantly about the big bad NRA and want to beat them, but steadfastly and pridefully fail to understand the NRA
//you're only seeking to drive a wedge between the industry and the users because in the past your gun control efforts have driven them together
 
2014-08-07 10:08:14 AM  

bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.


upload.wikimedia.org

You are clearly making progress in repealing the right to carry.
 
2014-08-07 10:08:46 AM  

Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html

"Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control. "

For an organization with an operating budget that exceeds $200,000,000 annually, this is small potatoes.  The rest of the article is garbage propaganda from the mouths of anti-gun activists.

"The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmast ...


You are asserting that the NRA does not encourage behavior that is of direct benefit to gun manufacturers?
 
2014-08-07 10:09:04 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


Welcome to closing the barn door after the horse is gone.  What is the point of buying a gun after a mugging, except to sooth hurt feelings and build self-esteem, two things that conservatives just love.
 
2014-08-07 10:10:32 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


If MSNBC's audience are "progs," and they are the ones saying they want public carry, why would you need to tell them? Who, exactly, would be disagreeing with you? Are you saying that MSNBC is conservative (I guess cons, by your naming style) and therefore this has nothing to do with liberal opinion? Or are you saying the poll is fixed and should be disregarded? In either case, you don't really seem to be making a point here.
 
2014-08-07 10:12:18 AM  

qorkfiend: You are asserting that the NRA does not encourage behavior that is of direct benefit to gun manufacturers?


The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization whose primary mission is "[to] protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...", especially the right to keep and bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

No, and neither does the NRA.
 
2014-08-07 10:13:20 AM  

Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html

"Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control. "

For an organization with an operating budget that exceeds $200,000,000 annually, this is small potatoes.  The rest of the article is garbage propaganda from the mouths of anti-gun activists.

"The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmast ...


You can call it a hit piece, but that doesn't change the basic facts, which you have yet to refute with any amount of evidence.  If the NRA were really representative of its members it would be in favor of background checks for all gun sales, which is supported by 74% of NRA members.  But NRA leadership is firmly against that.  Who stands to lose from reduced gun sales?
 
2014-08-07 10:13:38 AM  

qorkfiend: BlindRaise: The gun control debate is ultimately not about keeping people safe from crime, it's about power.

Yeah, it's all about power. There's no desire to reduce the high incidence of mass shootings when compared to the rest of the developed world or preventing people like Adam Lanza from having easy and immediate access to military-grade weaponry.

You've figured it all out. Good job.


Actually others figured it out for me I simply paid attention while you were too busy sipping the kool aid. OHHH YEAHHH
 
2014-08-07 10:14:38 AM  

nocturnal001: So this assumes that all/most readers of MSNBC.com are lefties.

Stupid article is stupid.


You would assume that the ones who can read are lefties.
 
2014-08-07 10:14:58 AM  

Dimensio: bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 368x254]

You are clearly making progress in repealing the right to carry.


So then what explains the insanity and conspiracy theories we get from the gun crowd?

Bad meds? Too many chromosomes?
 
2014-08-07 10:15:24 AM  

doublesecretprobation: what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":

[d1odfg5a9rhrg8.cloudfront.net image 480x467]

To "conservatives":

[a57.foxnews.com image 850x478]



I agree. I tend to vote liberal, and I like guns - but my handgun is concealed, and my CCW is in my wallet. I carry because I want to be able to defend myself if I have to, not because I want to intimidate people or make some kind of public statement.
 
2014-08-07 10:15:26 AM  

qorkfiend: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html

"Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control. "

For an organization with an operating budget that exceeds $200,000,000 annually, this is small potatoes.  The rest of the article is garbage propaganda from the mouths of anti-gun activists.

"The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmast ...

You are asserting that the NRA does not encourage behavior that is of direct benefit to gun manufacturers?


No were saying the nra doesn't rep them. You don't normally organize boycotts for groups you represent.

If anything the relationship between them is like cousins. They're close but can't marry.
 
2014-08-07 10:15:28 AM  
"It's not scientific by any means, and there is the possibility that an influx of non-regular MSNBC.com readers have contributed to this result"

Gee,ya think? Does everyone understand that online polls are posted to get clicks on a website and have nothing to do with reality?
 
2014-08-07 10:15:46 AM  
FTFA: In a poll at the bottom of Michele Richinick's story, "A children's book to teach kids about gun rights," MSNBC.com asks "Do you think people should be allowed to carry guns in public?" Eighty-eight percent of respondents selected the answer, "Yes! The Second Amendment guarantees it." and an additional 4 percent staked out a middle-ground position, "Only for self defense." Only 8 percent answered "No, it's too dangerous." [see screen capture below page break]

I am sure of that 88%, if part of America's sensible liberal gun owner population, would also agree you shouldn't walk around with a gun out in the open in public (excluding shooting ranges, hunting, and other common sense places) like a douche-bag moran scaring the hell out of innocent people and their children.
 
2014-08-07 10:17:11 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 10:18:03 AM  

The Voice of Doom: [i.imgur.com image 558x981]


Well that's a smoking gun right there.
 
2014-08-07 10:18:42 AM  

The Voice of Doom: [i.imgur.com image 558x981]


Hahahahahahahahahah ... epic.
 
2014-08-07 10:19:17 AM  

Great_Milenko: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Welcome to closing the barn door after the horse is gone.  What is the point of buying a gun after a mugging, except to sooth hurt feelings and build self-esteem, two things that conservatives just love.



That's is why you buy the gun BEFORE the mugging
 
2014-08-07 10:19:33 AM  
88% of FoxNews.com readers support the right for people to carry guns in public...oh, sorry.. I meant MSNBC.com readers people who voted in a poll on MSNBC.com

FTFSubby. Most of them probably don't even visit MSNBC.com except to stuff the online ballot box.

enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

This is absolutely one of the ways the right "works the refs." Convince thousands of drones to vote anonymously in these polls, then turn around and cite the results as proof that the people agree with this.
 
2014-08-07 10:19:46 AM  
I believe that people have a right to. I just think it's paranoid and stupid and that the true reasons behind the open carry movement have more to do with them getting a kick out of the fear and discomfort it causes regular citizens. I also think private property owners have a right to tell you to stow it before stepping on to said property. I certainly wouldn't want someone with a dick compensator (yeah yeah, Malarkey's Law, fark off. It's not a thing. It'll never be a thing.) hanging on their person in my house.

In short, I don't think open carry nutters are wrong, Constitutionally speaking, they're just assholes.
 
2014-08-07 10:20:00 AM  
I don't care if people carry. I care they they know how to do it safely and effectively.

img.fark.netThese two assholes are using their rifles as protest signs. Any unarmed person could easily get the jump on them, and turn their protest signs against them. They aren't treating their weapons with the respect they require.

I bet both of them have have broken muzzle discipline, and pointed their weapons at people(even just their feet).
 
2014-08-07 10:20:03 AM  

grokca: Liberals, now in prog form.


it's like regular liberal but with a bunch of noodly guitar solos that go nowhere
 
2014-08-07 10:20:58 AM  

enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.


Man, that's some cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.

"The NRA represents gun manufacturers, even though the NRA calls all the shots, but it's *TOTALLY* a puppet of the gun industry".

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.
 
2014-08-07 10:21:02 AM  

Dimensio: bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 368x254]

You are clearly making progress in repealing the right to carry.


No one said anything about progress in the respect of gun laws, but demographics change, public opinion changes, and the only loser is the person who can't understand that.
 
2014-08-07 10:21:06 AM  
Because only a lefty libby mclib would answer a poll on msnbc.com. No way could conservatives possibly answer it. That's never, ever happened before, ever.
 
2014-08-07 10:21:55 AM  

enry: You can call it a hit piece, but that doesn't change the basic facts, which you have yet to refute with any amount of evidence. If the NRA were really representative of its members it would be in favor of background checks for all gun sales, which is supported by 74% of NRA members. But NRA leadership is firmly against that. Who stands to lose from reduced gun sales?


Gun manufacturers care about new gun sales.  Banning private sales would primarily affect the secondary market.  It would have no effect on new guns, which all require NICS checks at the point of sale.  And sure, 74% of NRA members support background checks for all gun sales.  That's before the antis add whatever poison pill they want to a new background check bill while failing to open up the NICS to non-FFLs.
 
2014-08-07 10:21:59 AM  

born_yesterday: Jesus Christ; laying it on a little thick in the profile, aren't you?


Holy crap look at this rapist mantra "Remember, you get more cooperation with a gun and a smile than you do just the smile alone!"
 
2014-08-07 10:22:19 AM  
As i have been assured by Farkers that gun ownership equates to small penises.

All this poll does is show how many small penises there are in the liberal community.
 
2014-08-07 10:22:45 AM  

Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances


From that link:

Finances
Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.
 
2014-08-07 10:24:35 AM  

Chris Ween: nocturnal001: So this assumes that all/most readers of MSNBC.com are lefties.

Stupid article is stupid.

You would assume that the ones who can read are lefties.


To be fair they probably aren't reading, more likely just scanning the headline and posting angry things about Obama in the comments.
 
2014-08-07 10:25:02 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-07 10:25:16 AM  

sprawl15: grokca: Liberals, now in prog form.

it's like regular liberal but with a bunch of noodly guitar solos that go nowhere


Where are my 360 degrees of drums Obama
 
2014-08-07 10:25:19 AM  

eagles95: caramel macchiato


That shiat is nasty.

Fark It: Open carriers are the bronies of the gun rights world. Sure, you can do it, but people are going to shield their kids from you and keep an eye on you until you leave the area.


I went to a street fair last Saturday. Lo and behold, a guy was open carrying at the parade (holstered Sig). Nobody shunned him, we and other families all lined up near him let our kids grab candy in front of him. Nobody got shot. Was he the only one carrying a gun besides the cops? Certainly not. Of the thousands of people at the fair, did he look the douchiest with his short pants, American flag iphone case, and sidearm? Absolutely. In a way I felt sorry for him. I questioned myself- if I felt the need to carry (I have a CHL) at my homecoming why would I even go?
 
2014-08-07 10:25:59 AM  

Publikwerks: I don't care if people carry. I care they they know how to do it safely and effectively.

[img.fark.net image 850x478]These two assholes are using their rifles as protest signs. Any unarmed person could easily get the jump on them, and turn their protest signs against them. They aren't treating their weapons with the respect they require.

I bet both of them have have broken muzzle discipline, and pointed their weapons at people(even just their feet).


All of this, right here.  These guys should be an embarrassment to any gun owner; I know they are to me.
 
2014-08-07 10:26:02 AM  

revrendjim: I'm a liberal gun owner who used to be an NRA member but quit 10 years ago when they went insane.


Ditto, when they started supporting republican candidates with worse gun rights record over blue dog democrats with a solid record I canceled my membership, there are other gun rights and conservation groups that can better use my money and support.
 
2014-08-07 10:26:49 AM  

Publikwerks: I don't care if people carry. I care they they know how to do it safely and effectively.

[img.fark.net image 850x478]These two assholes are using their rifles as protest signs. Any unarmed person could easily get the jump on them, and turn their protest signs against them. They aren't treating their weapons with the respect they require.

I bet both of them have have broken muzzle discipline, and pointed their weapons at people(even just their feet).


The one on the left is a girl and they are buying donuts....how bad can they be?
 
2014-08-07 10:27:00 AM  

Latinwolf: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

From that link:

Finances
Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.


How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?

/
 
2014-08-07 10:27:36 AM  

dittybopper: enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.

Man, that's some cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.

"The NRA represents gun manufacturers, even though the NRA calls all the shots, but it's *TOTALLY* a puppet of the gun industry".

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.


You have some serious reading comprehension problems.


Until that comment, I never said who was a puppet of whom.  And it doesn't matter.  The NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And I'll make this a bit clearer for you:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.  If anything, it means that the NSSF is doing a crappy job, or they just leave it to the NRA to do it for them.  Either way, the NSSF is not representing gun manufacturers, the NRA is.
 
2014-08-07 10:28:26 AM  
Latinwolf: Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.
 
2014-08-07 10:28:38 AM  

karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.


Looks as if someone projected their derp all over your face. Here's a tissue.  Clean yourself up.


Sick burn. I bet you're the funniest guy in detention.

Only paranoid people think there is any possible scenario where "leftists" come for your guns. It is a delusion you share with many other nut bags.
 
2014-08-07 10:29:42 AM  

enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.


Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
 
2014-08-07 10:30:08 AM  

qorkfiend: AngryDragon: dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?

You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

You are aware this isn't a competition, yes?


I am.

I'm also aware that the constant drive by many liberals to enact more gun laws, despite the country clearly being in favor of the lawful ownership and carrying of them, has a parallel.  That parallel is the retarded push to ban and restrict abortion and other reproductive rights by many conservatives.

They are both the law of the land.  The people have spoken, let's move on.
 
2014-08-07 10:30:11 AM  

Fark It: How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?


FTF Huff Po (bold by me):

While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA's annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.
 
2014-08-07 10:30:36 AM  
I'm a gun owner. To me, the NRA is just one more organization that claims to speak for me, and doesn't. Like the Klan, or Men's Rights advocates.
 
2014-08-07 10:31:25 AM  

dobro: 88% of those polled don't understand the second amendment. It says nothing about carrying in public, open or concealed, and only guarantees the right of ownership for the purposes of a "well regulated militia".


1/10 you might have had something with the first sentence but you completely blew it with the second.
 
2014-08-07 10:31:32 AM  

dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.



More like hate is overrepresented online.  Look at all of the anti-semetic shiat being circlejerked all over Reddit these past few weeks, for instance
 
2014-08-07 10:31:45 AM  

enry: You have some serious reading comprehension problems.


Until that comment, I never said who was a puppet of whom. And it doesn't matter. The NRA represents gun manufacturers. And I'll make this a bit clearer for you: If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF. If anything, it means that the NSSF is doing a crappy job, or they just leave it to the NRA to do it for them. Either way, the NSSF is not representing gun manufacturers, the NRA is.


I guess that settles it then.  Assuming you're correct, what does this mean exactly, other than that in the past, gun control activists targeted the gun industry when their efforts to target gun owners were stymied/not moving along fast enough?
 
2014-08-07 10:31:56 AM  

Epic Fap Session: karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.


Looks as if someone projected their derp all over your face. Here's a tissue.  Clean yourself up.

Sick burn. I bet you're the funniest guy in detention.

Only paranoid people think there is any possible scenario where "leftists" come for your guns. It is a delusion you share with many other nut bags.


Ok Ok....it's kind of hard to have a serious conversation with you when you have that derp all over your face....wipe it off and then we can talk.
 
2014-08-07 10:32:50 AM  

dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?


you libs keep saying this but then turn around and say we have to ban guns because guns are running amok in the streets slaughtering children. so, which is it?
 
2014-08-07 10:33:12 AM  

bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.


Riiiiiiiiight
 
2014-08-07 10:33:26 AM  

enry: Fark It: How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?

FTF Huff Po (bold by me):

While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA's annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.


I asked "how much," not "what do magazines have?"
 
2014-08-07 10:33:52 AM  

sprawl15: grokca: Liberals, now in prog form.

it's like regular liberal but with a bunch of noodly guitar solos that go nowhere


And orchestra hits.


/owner of a compact Glock
//much better than a
 
2014-08-07 10:34:37 AM  
It's almost as if MSNBC readers, let's refer to them as 'liberals' for the point of this discussion, aren't willing to take away all your guns.
 
2014-08-07 10:35:12 AM  

Fark It: enry: You have some serious reading comprehension problems.


Until that comment, I never said who was a puppet of whom. And it doesn't matter. The NRA represents gun manufacturers. And I'll make this a bit clearer for you: If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF. If anything, it means that the NSSF is doing a crappy job, or they just leave it to the NRA to do it for them. Either way, the NSSF is not representing gun manufacturers, the NRA is.

I guess that settles it then.  Assuming you're correct, what does this mean exactly, other than that in the past, gun control activists targeted the gun industry when their efforts to target gun owners were stymied/not moving along fast enough?


Wat
 
2014-08-07 10:36:18 AM  

doublesecretprobation: what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":

[d1odfg5a9rhrg8.cloudfront.net image 480x467]

To "conservatives":

[a57.foxnews.com image 850x478]


THIS. I have no issue with carrying guns in public. My brother (24 years cop) does it every day, even off-duty. He just isn't an asshole about it. He is a trained officer and trains other officers on the firing range, and requires his weapon because of the people he has to deal with. What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

He's also planning to retire this year and move out of state, and you know what he's going to do with the three guns he has? He's going to sell them and never purchase another one again. They are part of his job, not his life.
 
2014-08-07 10:36:39 AM  

Trailltrader: OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged comes out gay, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun I guess all homos aren't demon-loving sociopaths bend on converting your children".

 
2014-08-07 10:36:42 AM  
"Do you support firearms?"
"Yes."
"How about like if I was hunting some deer."
"Sure."
"Or like shooting some pheasants with a gun."
"Yeah that's fine."
"Or like public carry at the gun range."
"Sure."
"Do you support public carry of firearms?"
"I suppose."
"How about like I'm on the street, just walking around with a weapon."
"Well, umm, I guess that's OK."
"How about like at the mall or grocery store?"
"Why do you need a gun at the mall?"
"Just in case one of them uppity blacks starts shooting people."
"What?
"OK, what if I had a large assault-style rifle, a big barreled gun in your supermarket?"
"I don't know."
"It's semi-automatic. It's not a REAL assault rifle hahaha. It's not an uzi. Come on. Just me. You know me. Hypothetically."
"Umm."
"What if I was at a bar. You know, I'd never drink at a bar, I'd just be walking around with my assault rifle making sure no fights break out."
"Huh?"
"What about if I brought it to your place of work?"
"I think we should stop talking."
"How about if I was at your kid's school? With a gun, you know, on my person. It could be a pistol. I have to admit it'd probably be a big ol assault rifle though."
"No, God no."
"How about if I came over for dinner and I had a big gun on me."
"I don't like where this is heading."
"What about if I was in your closet, carrying a firearm, while you were sleeping? You know, for protection."
"I don't want to talk to you anymore."
"Fine lady. What if I had it held up to your head sort of sideways like?"
"Go away from me!"
"What if I shot you in the face and blood spattered all over your head but I needed to because the apocalypse came and Jesus had returned for the Rapture and the world was all Mad Max and only the strong survive so f*ck everyone! WHAT THEN?"
 
2014-08-07 10:36:48 AM  

dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?


Yes, Fark is a perfect example of Conservatives being over represented online......
 
2014-08-07 10:36:58 AM  

Lord_Baull: It's almost as if MSNBC readers, let's refer to them as 'liberals' for the point of this discussion, aren't willing to take away all your guns.


It's almost as if the right wing always proves their own detractors' points for them.
 
2014-08-07 10:37:30 AM  

dobro: 88% of those polled don't understand the second amendment. It says nothing about carrying in public, open or concealed, and only guarantees the right of ownership for the purposes of a "well regulated militia".


<notsureifserious.jpg>
 
2014-08-07 10:39:05 AM  

bdub77: "Do you support firearms?"
"Yes."
"How about like if I was hunting some deer."
"Sure."
"Or like shooting some pheasants with a gun."
"Yeah that's fine."
"Or like public carry at the gun range."
"Sure."
"Do you support public carry of firearms?"
"I suppose."
"How about like I'm on the street, just walking around with a weapon."
"Well, umm, I guess that's OK."
"How about like at the mall or grocery store?"
"Why do you need a gun at the mall?"
"Just in case one of them uppity blacks starts shooting people."
"What?
"OK, what if I had a large assault-style rifle, a big barreled gun in your supermarket?"
"I don't know."
"It's semi-automatic. It's not a REAL assault rifle hahaha. It's not an uzi. Come on. Just me. You know me. Hypothetically."
"Umm."
"What if I was at a bar. You know, I'd never drink at a bar, I'd just be walking around with my assault rifle making sure no fights break out."
"Huh?"
"What about if I brought it to your place of work?"
"I think we should stop talking."
"How about if I was at your kid's school? With a gun, you know, on my person. It could be a pistol. I have to admit it'd probably be a big ol assault rifle though."
"No, God no."
"How about if I came over for dinner and I had a big gun on me."
"I don't like where this is heading."
"What about if I was in your closet, carrying a firearm, while you were sleeping? You know, for protection."
"I don't want to talk to you anymore."
"Fine lady. What if I had it held up to your head sort of sideways like?"
"Go away from me!"
"What if I shot you in the face and blood spattered all over your head but I needed to because the apocalypse came and Jesus had returned for the Rapture and the world was all Mad Max and only the strong survive so f*ck everyone! WHAT THEN?"


GUN GRABBER!
 
2014-08-07 10:39:41 AM  

Trailltrader: Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.



Frowns on your shenanigans
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-08-07 10:40:43 AM  

dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.


Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.
 
2014-08-07 10:41:01 AM  

thamike: Lord_Baull: It's almost as if MSNBC readers, let's refer to them as 'liberals' for the point of this discussion, aren't willing to take away all your guns.

It's almost as if the right wing always proves their own detractors' points for them.



It's almost as if the right wing is laughable, and can't make a salient, honest talking point to save their lives.
 
2014-08-07 10:41:12 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


Yeah, fark the NRA.

/gun owner.
 
2014-08-07 10:41:26 AM  
So weird - I have the guy farkied with the comment Angry Zionist Derp. Guess I can add "juvenile obsession with sperm" to the dossier.

Meh... He adds nothing to any thread

Kerfavorited!!
 
2014-08-07 10:41:28 AM  

Publikwerks: I don't care if people carry. I care they they know how to do it safely and effectively.

[img.fark.net image 850x478]These two assholes are using their rifles as protest signs. Any unarmed person could easily get the jump on them, and turn their protest signs against them. They aren't treating their weapons with the respect they require.

I bet both of them have have broken muzzle discipline, and pointed their weapons at people(even just their feet).


Hell, it wouldn't be that tough to come up behind someone with a back-slung rifle and release their magazine before they could react.
 
2014-08-07 10:42:02 AM  

bdub77: "Do you support firearms?"
"Yes."
"How about like if I was hunting some deer."
"Sure."
"Or like shooting some pheasants with a gun."
"Yeah that's fine."
"Or like public carry at the gun range."
"Sure."
"Do you support public carry of firearms?"
"I suppose."
"How about like I'm on the street, just walking around with a weapon."
"Well, umm, I guess that's OK."
"How about like at the mall or grocery store?"
"Why do you need a gun at the mall?"
"Just in case one of them uppity blacks starts shooting people."
"What?
"OK, what if I had a large assault-style rifle, a big barreled gun in your supermarket?"
"I don't know."
"It's semi-automatic. It's not a REAL assault rifle hahaha. It's not an uzi. Come on. Just me. You know me. Hypothetically."
"Umm."
"What if I was at a bar. You know, I'd never drink at a bar, I'd just be walking around with my assault rifle making sure no fights break out."
"Huh?"
"What about if I brought it to your place of work?"
"I think we should stop talking."
"How about if I was at your kid's school? With a gun, you know, on my person. It could be a pistol. I have to admit it'd probably be a big ol assault rifle though."
"No, God no."
"How about if I came over for dinner and I had a big gun on me."
"I don't like where this is heading."
"What about if I was in your closet, carrying a firearm, while you were sleeping? You know, for protection."
"I don't want to talk to you anymore."
"Fine lady. What if I had it held up to your head sort of sideways like?"
"Go away from me!"
"What if I shot you in the face and blood spattered all over your head but I needed to because the apocalypse came and Jesus had returned for the Rapture and the world was all Mad Max and only the strong survive so f*ck everyone! WHAT THEN?"


Wow, you live in some weird fantasy world.
 
2014-08-07 10:42:47 AM  
im glad handguns are illegal here in Canada, but i still would never go to the states without one.
 
2014-08-07 10:43:28 AM  

Lord_Baull: It's almost as if MSNBC readers, let's refer to them as 'liberals' for the point of this discussion, aren't willing to take away all your guns.


I tend to be on the liberal side but often watch Fox News to see what the conservatives are spewing. I never watch MSNBC.
 
2014-08-07 10:43:33 AM  
Yeah, they do, appropriately.

What they get nervous about is when an armed group of protestors walk into a restaurant or store and get belligerent when asked to leave.
 
2014-08-07 10:44:06 AM  

enry: You can call it a hit piece, but that doesn't change the basic facts, which you have yet to refute with any amount of evidence.  If the NRA were really representative of its members it would be in favor of background checks for all gun sales, which is supported by 74% of NRA members.  But NRA leadership is firmly against that.  Who stands to lose from reduced gun sales?


Not the gun manufacturers: all new guns *MUST* be sold through an FFL, who is required by federal law to do a background check.  All their guns that they make and sell have a background check done on them already.  It's already a requirement for them.

It's only *USED* guns, which the gun manufacturers don't make money off of, that don't require a federal background check unless they are bought/sold through an FFL.

Look, I recognize that your ideology is not letting you see the truth of the matter, but just step outside that for a moment and listen to what we are telling you:  We aren't challenging your entire world-view, just this tiny sliver of it, and we're providing you with direct evidence that your impression of the situation is wrong.

Now, it's almost certain that your view is "received wisdom", or at least I hope that's what it is:  You didn't arrive at it on your own after careful reflection of the facts,  but you have heard it repeated ad nauseum in your social and political circles, so to you it's not questionable at all.  It's absurd that anyone should think otherwise, because OF COURSE the NRA is merely a tool for the gun industry to influence politics.  All the evidence you see just confirms what you already believe, even evidence to the contrary.

But the actual reality is different.  When a pissing match erupts between the gun industry and its customers, the NRA sides with the customers, because it is an organization that is composed of customers.  That almost never happens anymore, though, because after the Smith and Wesson debacle in 2000, the firearms industry knows who the boss is.  They don't dictate policy to the NRA, the NRA dictates policy, or at least cowes them into keeping their mouth shut and toeing the party line of the most vocal part of its membership.
 
2014-08-07 10:44:51 AM  

BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.


You misquoted ditty, he's not the one claiming that the NRA is the lobbying arm of the gun industry.

At best gun manufacturers are neutral on banning private sales.  They would actually stand to benefit if there was a ban on private sales, it would drive more people out of the secondary market and into gun stores.
 
2014-08-07 10:45:10 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Wow, you live in some weird fantasy world.


Yes it's called America 2014.
 
2014-08-07 10:47:03 AM  
When can we start denying government assistance to people that spend money on guns and ammo?

It's clear that they have plenty of money.
 
2014-08-07 10:47:15 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


Congratulations on missing the point like a champ.  Of COURSE most progressives favor Second Amendment right, no matter how many times you've heard otherwise.  What we DON'T favor is walking around with any kind of ordinance you can afford.

No, we don't have a problem with people open carrying a handgun for protection.  Yes, we do have a problem with people walking around with long guns because they desperately want attention.  These people SAY that they're protection their civil liberties, but the videos that they insist on making any time that there's a conflict prove that their rights are secure and maybe they should quit whining about how Barry X Taxbongo, Buttface-in-Chief Who Smells Like Butt is going to take them away.
 
2014-08-07 10:47:28 AM  

born_yesterday: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Jesus Christ; laying it on a little thick in the profile, aren't you?


From his profile: "Remember, you get more cooperation with a gun and a smile than you do just the smile alone!"

What a great world to live in.
 
2014-08-07 10:48:32 AM  

sweetmelissa31: sprawl15: grokca: Liberals, now in prog form.

it's like regular liberal but with a bunch of noodly guitar solos that go nowhere

Where are my 360 degrees of drums Obama


the right of the people to play snares, toms, shall not be infringed.
 
2014-08-07 10:49:04 AM  
 
2014-08-07 10:49:05 AM  

BitwiseShift: Here in Texas you can buy your gun in the same store you buy your beer. And they don't sell coffins. But they do sell condoms. Almost one stop shopping for that first date with a Goth.


In Georgia they call that Walmart.
 
2014-08-07 10:49:08 AM  

AngryDragon: I'm also aware that the constant drive by many liberals to enact more gun laws, despite the country clearly being in favor of the lawful ownership and carrying of them, has a parallel.  That parallel is the retarded push to ban and restrict abortion and other reproductive rights by many conservatives.

They are both the law of the land.  The people have spoken, let's move on.


That's what I said after the Dred Scott decision.
 
2014-08-07 10:49:18 AM  

BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.


When NPR and Bloomberg say the nra doesn't rep gun manufacturers, you'd think people would be more receptive.

Right now the repetition without support is saying that the nra support the gun manufacturers despite multiple boycotts organized against them by the nra.
 
2014-08-07 10:49:20 AM  

moeburn: im glad handguns are illegal here in Canada, but i still would never go to the states without one.


Really? I live in a city on the South Coast of MA. 5 times the national average for violent crime. Lived here most of my life. Owned firearms since I was about 18. I've never felt the need to carry any weapon around with me when out and about in the city.

Your brain is the best self-defense weapon you have.
 
2014-08-07 10:49:33 AM  

bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.


Constitutionally guaranteed individual right.  SCOTUS says so.  You OK with passing a law to eliminate abortion?  How about universal sufferage?  The civil rights act?  Those are now interpreted as the law of the land, yet idiots keep trying to pass laws to challenge and restrict law abiding citizens from exercising these rights.

Gun grabbers are doing the same thing.  You are railing against majority opinion and SCOTUS precedent.  All the while firearms laws get more liberal (ironically).  Pretty soon you will all need tin foil hats.
 
2014-08-07 10:50:39 AM  

enry: If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.


So, fact is established by the near unanimous consent of the ignorant masses?  Interesting.  Does this apply to all fact or just ones that you are mistaken about but really really really want to believe?
 
2014-08-07 10:51:12 AM  

Fark It: qorkfiend: You are asserting that the NRA does not encourage behavior that is of direct benefit to gun manufacturers?

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization whose primary mission is "[to] protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...", especially the right to keep and bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

No, and neither does the NRA.


Please.  All NRA propaganda agents talk about is your right to buy firearms.  They're protecting the ones you have is secondary to making sure you buy more.
 
2014-08-07 10:51:56 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


As a Coloradan, Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine to fighting against the ability of psychiatrists to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns to fighting universal background checks, fark you in every way imaginable. I have a gun, and I like it very much... my roomate also as a gun, and he likes his very much... background checks were not cumbersome, and in the event that I become mentally incapacitated, I WANT someone to take the damn gun away.

You jackasses are protecting murderers and the insane, at the expense of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. You are to gun rights what WBC is to traditional heterosexual marriages... you're so farking over-zealous and unreasonable that you're turning all sane and rational people against you.
 
2014-08-07 10:52:15 AM  

Fark It: They would actually stand to benefit if there was a ban on private sales, it would drive more people out of the secondary market and into gun stores.


Not necessarily. But it would be a boon for dealers who would charge a fee to handle the transfer unless they just come up with a tax scheme that would allow me to transfer a weapon to you directly with a call to NICS myself. I'm honestly surprised bureaucrats aren't pushing for this in that funding for the NICS system would probably have to quadruple.
 
2014-08-07 10:52:26 AM  
dittybopper:But the actual reality is different.  When a pissing match erupts between the gun industry and its customers, the NRA sides with the customers, because it is an organization that is composed of customers.  That almost never happens anymore, though, because after the Smith and Wesson debacle in 2000, the firearms industry knows who the boss is.  They don't dictate policy to the NRA, the NRA dictates policy, or at least cowes them into keeping their mouth shut and toeing the party line of the most vocal part of its membership

So you're saying that the NRA dictates policy to the gun manufacturers.  Interesting.  Please tell me more.
 
2014-08-07 10:52:34 AM  

Fark It: BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.

You misquoted ditty, he's not the one claiming that the NRA is the lobbying arm of the gun industry.

At best gun manufacturers are neutral on banning private sales.  They would actually stand to benefit if there was a ban on private sales, it would drive more people out of the secondary market and into gun stores.


I quoted him correctly. Read it again.

redmid17: BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.

When NPR and Bloomberg say the nra doesn't rep gun manufacturers, you'd think people would be more receptive.

Right now the repetition without support is saying that the nra support the gun manufacturers despite multiple boycotts organized against them by the nra.


And yet those manufacturers continue to provide significant financial support. Go figure.
 
2014-08-07 10:52:44 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".


Wow, do you realize how idiotic you sound with this?
 
2014-08-07 10:52:51 AM  

enry: The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.


Holy Crap Batman, a magazine called American Rifleman has shooting sports related ads in it!111ONE!!!111

How the fark did that happen!

Oh, the humanity!!!
 
2014-08-07 10:53:04 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: When can we start denying government assistance to people that spend money on guns and ammo?

It's clear that they have plenty of money.


My guns and ammo save me several thousands of bucks a year.  The meat I fill my freezer up with has paid for my guns and ammo many times over.
 
2014-08-07 10:53:55 AM  

The Lone Gunman: Of COURSE most progressives favor Second Amendment right


I'm a liberal, maybe even a progressive, and even I think that's bullshiat.  Unless your definition of a "true" progressive includes acknowledging and supporting the 2nd Amendment.  I wouldn't say that most "progressives" are against the 2nd Amendment, but it seems a lot of them have this idea in their head about the kind of person the average gun owner is, the way they vote, etc., that is entirely fueled by what they read on Tumblr, Facebook, and HuffPo.
 
2014-08-07 10:54:44 AM  

Click Click D'oh: enry: The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.

Holy Crap Batman, a magazine called American Rifleman has shooting sports related ads in it!111ONE!!!111

How the fark did that happen!

Oh, the humanity!!!


Well, Sports Illustrated doesn't have steroid ads!!!!!
 
2014-08-07 10:54:57 AM  

Click Click D'oh: enry: If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

So, fact is established by the near unanimous consent of the ignorant masses?  Interesting.  Does this apply to all fact or just ones that you are mistaken about but really really really want to believe?


It's the liberal way.
 
2014-08-07 10:55:11 AM  

rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.


<Summon Dittybopper>
 
2014-08-07 10:55:19 AM  

Rwa2play: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Wow, do you realize how idiotic you sound with this?


Obviously not.
 
2014-08-07 10:55:32 AM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


www.btchflcks.com
 
2014-08-07 10:55:58 AM  

HeadLever: HotWingConspiracy: When can we start denying government assistance to people that spend money on guns and ammo?

It's clear that they have plenty of money.

My guns and ammo save me several thousands of bucks a year.  The meat I fill my freezer up with has paid for my guns and ammo many times over.


I take that to mean you're not receiving government assistance. I'm not sure what your point was.
 
2014-08-07 10:56:03 AM  
Amending the Constitution to enshrine firearm ownership as a basic human right, or at least creating an amendment that could be interpreted as doing such, is probably the most short-sighted thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) ever did.  And yes, I'm counting the slavery stuff.
 
2014-08-07 10:57:38 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

I'm a liberal gun-owner, have been for over 10 years and I support gun control. I will never, EVER join or give the NRA a single penny.


Pretty much this; I love to misconception amongst conservatives that liberals are all a) "anti-gun" and/or b) that if those on the left had a chance we'd knock the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution.

Newsflash for you inhabitants in the echo chamber:

1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.
 
2014-08-07 10:57:46 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: born_yesterday: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Jesus Christ; laying it on a little thick in the profile, aren't you?

From his profile: "Remember, you get more cooperation with a gun and a smile than you do just the smile alone!"

What a great world to live in.


I wonder about thread-poopers like this.  Do they even bother to read the thread afterwards?  Read it and masturbate?  Or do they even not give a shiat at all and just switch alts and move on to the next thread about to be greenlit to get it ready for outrage?
 
2014-08-07 10:57:56 AM  

Marquis de Sod: Wellon Dowd: Trailltrader: Prog's ...

Progs?

[www.progarchives.com image 382x266]

[img.fark.net image 468x357]

Yes, Progs

38.media.tumblr.com

R.I.P POGS

 
2014-08-07 10:58:40 AM  

HeadLever: HotWingConspiracy: When can we start denying government assistance to people that spend money on guns and ammo?

It's clear that they have plenty of money.

My guns and ammo save me several thousands of bucks a year.  The meat I fill my freezer up with has paid for my guns and ammo many times over.


Yah, and fishing rods too. If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too. LOL
 
2014-08-07 10:58:58 AM  

Latinwolf: From that link:

Finances
Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.


"Contributions" also includes individual members who send extra contributions to the NRA-ILA because their membership and program fees to the NRA itself aren't allowed to be transferred over to the NRA-ILA, which is the political lobbying arm of the NRA.

Ask any NRA member, and they'll tell you they get solicited regularly by the NRA-ILA for a separate donation for just that very reason.

In fact, if you're a member of the NRA and you don't send in any money other than your membership fees, none of your money goes to lobbying at all.  It just goes to the part of the NRA most people don't think exists anymore:  The part that does safety and marksmanship training, gives grants to gun ranges to upgrade and improve their facitilies, etc.
 
2014-08-07 10:59:17 AM  
You know what's funny... when I try to track the famous "74% of NRA members.. " poll back to it's roots... I get this:

http://everytown.org/mayorshtml/public_opinion/public_opinion.shtml

 Hmm...
 
2014-08-07 10:59:37 AM  

Great_Milenko: All NRA propaganda agents talk about is your right to buy firearms.


Strawman:  That took all of about two seconds to find
 
2014-08-07 10:59:40 AM  

Great_Milenko: Fark It: qorkfiend: You are asserting that the NRA does not encourage behavior that is of direct benefit to gun manufacturers?

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization whose primary mission is "[to] protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...", especially the right to keep and bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

No, and neither does the NRA.

Please.   All NRA propaganda agents talk about is your right to buy firearms.  They're protecting the ones you have is secondary to making sure you buy more.


If the antis didn't go after that right too then maybe the NRA wouldn't harp on it as much...

Click Click D'oh: enry: The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.

Holy Crap Batman, a magazine called American Rifleman has shooting sports related ads in it!111ONE!!!111

How the fark did that happen!

Oh, the humanity!!!


This proves that the NRA is in the pocket of the gun industry!  Which is not what I'm arguing!  Only that the NRA doesn't represent its members!  Think of the little guy!  Like Bloomberg.
 
2014-08-07 10:59:41 AM  

firefly212: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

As a Coloradan, Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine to fighting against the ability of psychiatrists to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns to fighting universal background checks, fark you in every way imaginable. I have a gun, and I like it very much... my roomate also as a gun, and he likes his very much... background checks were not cumbersome, and in the event that I become mentally incapacitated, I WANT someone to take the damn gun away.

You jackasses are protecting murderers and the insane, at the expense of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. You are to gun rights what WBC is to traditional heterosexual marriages... you're so farking over-zealous and unreasonable that you're turning all sane and rational people against you.


It sounds like you have anger issues. Maybe someone should take your gun away.
 
2014-08-07 11:00:31 AM  

Fark It: BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.

You misquoted ditty, he's not the one claiming that the NRA is the lobbying arm of the gun industry.

At best gun manufacturers are neutral on banning private sales.  They would actually stand to benefit if there was a ban on private sales, it would drive more people out of the secondary market and into gun stores.


They don't *DARE* say it, though, because they know it would piss off the gun buying public, and they don't want to be on the receiving end of a boycott like Smith and Wesson.
 
2014-08-07 11:00:55 AM  

Lee451: dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?

Yes, Fark is a perfect example of Conservatives being over represented online......


Only if you count the alts.
 
2014-08-07 11:01:01 AM  

OregonVet: HeadLever: HotWingConspiracy: When can we start denying government assistance to people that spend money on guns and ammo?

It's clear that they have plenty of money.

My guns and ammo save me several thousands of bucks a year.  The meat I fill my freezer up with has paid for my guns and ammo many times over.

Yah, and fishing rods too. If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too. LOL


Right, just like a refrigerator.
 
2014-08-07 11:01:35 AM  

AngryDragon: Constitutionally guaranteed individual right.  SCOTUS says so.  You OK with passing a law to eliminate abortion?  How about universal sufferage?  The civil rights act?  Those are now interpreted as the law of the land, yet idiots keep trying to pass laws to challenge and restrict law abiding citizens from exercising these rights.

Gun grabbers are doing the same thing.  You are railing against majority opinion and SCOTUS precedent.  All the while firearms laws get more liberal (ironically).  Pretty soon you will all need tin foil hats.


The problem is that the goal of the amendment and where it has gone are in two different universes. The writers of the bill of rights(being from Virginia) were concerned about the federal government banning slavery. So they wanted to make sure they had an escape clause, because with alot of the manufacturing and financial power concentrating in the north,they were afraid that a powerful Federal government would bow to the money interests and ban slavery.

So they wanted to make sure that they could cede from the union if it happened, and what good is throwing a revolution if you don't have any party favors(guns)?

However, they weren't worried about Virgina banning guns. They weren't worried about any state banning guns. However, the 14th amendment changed all that, making Constitutional constraints apply to states.

So here we are.

Gun control is such a state issue, it's just ridiculous. Federal law can't hope to deal with this correctly, because what America's face in Alaska is on a completely different universe that what what they do in NYC.
 
2014-08-07 11:02:14 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: firefly212: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

As a Coloradan, Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine to fighting against the ability of psychiatrists to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns to fighting universal background checks, fark you in every way imaginable. I have a gun, and I like it very much... my roomate also as a gun, and he likes his very much... background checks were not cumbersome, and in the event that I become mentally incapacitated, I WANT someone to take the damn gun away.

You jackasses are protecting murderers and the insane, at the expense of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. You are to gun rights what WBC is to traditional heterosexual marriages... you're so farking over-zealous and unreasonable that you're turning all sane and rational people against you.

It sounds like you have anger issues. Maybe someone should take your gun away.


Thanks for proving the point of some people on this thread.
 
2014-08-07 11:02:53 AM  

AngryDragon: bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.

Constitutionally guaranteed individual right.  SCOTUS says so.  You OK with passing a law to eliminate abortion?  How about universal sufferage?  The civil rights act?  Those are now interpreted as the law of the land, yet idiots keep trying to pass laws to challenge and restrict law abiding citizens from exercising these rights.

Gun grabbers are doing the same thing.  You are railing against majority opinion and SCOTUS precedent.  All the while firearms laws get more liberal (ironically).  Pretty soon you will all need tin foil hats.


Yes perhaps I am railing against majority opinion. People do that all the time. It's a free country, remember, where people can share their views and call each other out for nonsense. SCOTUS has an opinion on that one too.

A few years ago gay rights were largely dismissed and now they seem to be largely popular. Not so long before that blacks were restricted from voting by various means. Funny how things change, huh.

Now you, you just make assumptions out of your ass. You don't know me from Adam. I'm not a gun grabber. I personally feel people have the right to defend themselves within reason. However, I am strongly anti-violence and I don't feel that the proliferation of weaponry solves anything and only adds to a growing public fear. I think community involvement and interaction is much more important to personal safety than carrying a stupid gun everywhere as threat of violence. And I think law abiding citizens, no matter how well they mean, make stupid decisions all the time. I am more distrustful of a society that thinks it has to return to the days of the Wild West than one that thinks guns are largely unnecessary.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on carry. I do think your attitude sucks, though, because you view it as 'you vs me'. You lose, I win. That's the whole problem, isn't it? You think there is a you vs. me. There is no you vs. me. This isn't a f*cking game, it's a country of opinions and personal beliefs that change over time. Even my own beliefs on things change over time. I'm not the person I was ten years ago, or 20 years ago. Tomorrow I might not be the same person I was today. People who think about things in black and white are idiots.

The only person wearing a tinfoil hat is yourself.
 
2014-08-07 11:03:00 AM  

firefly212: From coming to town after Columbine

...


Thank you for confirming you lack on knowledge regarding the real world.
 
2014-08-07 11:03:04 AM  

The Name: Amending the Constitution to enshrine firearm ownership as a basic human right, or at least creating an amendment that could be interpreted as doing such, is probably the most short-sighted thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) ever did.  And yes, I'm counting the slavery stuff.


Gun ownership is worse than slavery.  Got it.

And I bet you think only the gun rights crowd engages in hyperbole and says stupid shiat.
 
2014-08-07 11:03:13 AM  
By the way, what this thread needs is fewer POGS and more PAWGs.
 
2014-08-07 11:03:44 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner


Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.
 
2014-08-07 11:04:01 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I take that to mean you're not receiving government assistance. I'm not sure what your point was.


That is irrelevant to the fact of the matter.  Pretty much everyone receives government assistance in one form or the other.

public roads, water, sewer, mortgage deductions, subsidized energy, maybe even some direct assistance to pay for healthcare, or food.

Not of that is mutually exclusive with me filling my freezer every year.
 
2014-08-07 11:05:03 AM  

karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.


Looks as if someone projected their derp all over your face. Here's a tissue.  Clean yourself up.

Sick burn. I bet you're the funniest guy in detention.

Only paranoid people think there is any possible scenario where "leftists" come for your guns. It is a delusion you share with many other nut bags.

Ok Ok....it's kind of hard to have a serious conversation with you when you have that derp all over your face....wipe it off and then we can talk.


Could you be any more sexual latently homosexual?
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-07 11:05:24 AM  

BMulligan: Fark It: BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.

You misquoted ditty, he's not the one claiming that the NRA is the lobbying arm of the gun industry.

At best gun manufacturers are neutral on banning private sales.  They would actually stand to benefit if there was a ban on private sales, it would drive more people out of the secondary market and into gun stores.

I quoted him correctly. Read it again.

redmid17: BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.

When NPR and Bloomberg say the nra doesn't rep gun manufacturers, you'd think people would be more receptive.

Right now the repetition without support is saying that the nra support the gun manufacturers despite multiple boycotts organized against them by the nra.

And yet those manufacturers continue to provide significant financial support. Go figure.


Millions of dollars aren't insignificant, true. They are, however, dwarfed by the roughly 50% of the $250 million budget provided by the members.

If you want a real world, classless analogy, here's one: The NRA is the heavy drinking husband who makes a bunch of money. The NSSF is the quiet wife who gets smacked around when she "says  something stupid."
 
2014-08-07 11:05:30 AM  
enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.
 
2014-08-07 11:06:40 AM  

redmid17: If you want a real world, classless analogy, here's one: The NRA is the heavy drinking husband who makes a bunch of money. The NSSF is the quiet wife who gets smacked around when she "says  something stupid."


and the bottle of whiskey is albert einstein
 
2014-08-07 11:07:22 AM  

Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>


i58.tinypic.com

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?
 
2014-08-07 11:08:09 AM  

OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.


hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..
 
2014-08-07 11:10:20 AM  

sprawl15: redmid17: If you want a real world, classless analogy, here's one: The NRA is the heavy drinking husband who makes a bunch of money. The NSSF is the quiet wife who gets smacked around when she "says  something stupid."

and the bottle of whiskey is albert einstein


Nah the NRA doesn't splurge on old whiskey. We're talking Ten High or McCormick here. You know, the classy stuff.
 
2014-08-07 11:10:33 AM  

GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.


Do you guys really want the NRA to go away, leaving gun rights groups that exist because they thought the NRA compromised too much?  Is that really what you want?

GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.


The problem is that gun control advocates think that gun control can never be insane or irrational.

FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.


+1, 5-star post, gorilla-high-fiving-shark.jpg
 
2014-08-07 11:10:56 AM  

dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>



Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?


Someone with enough money to hire a model?
 
2014-08-07 11:11:29 AM  

GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.


This.
 
2014-08-07 11:11:44 AM  

dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?


well you guys are certainly pants-shiattingly terrified of firearms for one.
 
2014-08-07 11:11:47 AM  

Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: firefly212: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

As a Coloradan, Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine to fighting against the ability of psychiatrists to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns to fighting universal background checks, fark you in every way imaginable. I have a gun, and I like it very much... my roomate also as a gun, and he likes his very much... background checks were not cumbersome, and in the event that I become mentally incapacitated, I WANT someone to take the damn gun away.

You jackasses are protecting murderers and the insane, at the expense of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. You are to gun rights what WBC is to traditional heterosexual marriages... you're so farking over-zealous and unreasonable that you're turning all sane and rational people against you.

It sounds like you have anger issues. Maybe someone should take your gun away.

Thanks for proving the point of some people on this thread.


Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.
 
2014-08-07 11:11:54 AM  

HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..


And it's recreation too. I've never *needed* to go hunting or fishing, but it was a fun way to spend a few days or hours hanging out with my friends and family.
 
2014-08-07 11:12:17 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.


That's because you have shiat for brains.
 
2014-08-07 11:13:06 AM  

Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.


If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Hey, how about this idea: maybe it's time to put aside our mindless devotion to every farking thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) wrote and thought, and do what makes sense for people in THIS millennium.  Every single consumer product is subject to regulation if we the people decide through our representatives that said regulation is needed.  Guns are the only consumer product that that basic, common-sense principle doesn't apply to, thanks to the second amendment.  Unless you really believe that we need about one gun per person in this country to stave off an ever-present threat of tyranny, what farking sense does that make?
 
2014-08-07 11:13:38 AM  

Fark It: GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.

Do you guys really want the NRA to go away, leaving gun rights groups that exist because they thought the NRA compromised too much?  Is that really what you want?


Yes because the NRA's backed by gun manufacturers, who are only interested in people buying as many weapons as they can put out.

Besides, there's always this organization if you want a pro-gun group:  http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/
 
2014-08-07 11:14:18 AM  

The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Hey, how about this idea: maybe it's time to put aside our mindless devotion to every farking thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) wrote and thought, and do what makes sense for people in THIS millennium.  Every single consumer product is subject to regulation if we the people decide through our representatives that said regulation is needed.  Guns are the only consumer product that that basic, common-sense principle doesn't apply to, thanks to the second amendment.  Unless you really believe that we need about one gun per person in this country to stave off an ever-present threat of tyranny, what farking sense does that make?


Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.
 
2014-08-07 11:14:23 AM  

AngryDragon: Constitutionally guaranteed individual right. SCOTUS says so.


"Rights" are not absolute, and along with those "rights" come "responsibilities", such as the responsibility a person has for not being a dick around other people. The chest-thumping apes who bellow and whine about "rights" tend to forget this. The right to carry also comes with the responsibility not to be a dick. Simple.
 
2014-08-07 11:14:37 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: firefly212: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

As a Coloradan, Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine to fighting against the ability of psychiatrists to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns to fighting universal background checks, fark you in every way imaginable. I have a gun, and I like it very much... my roomate also as a gun, and he likes his very much... background checks were not cumbersome, and in the event that I become mentally incapacitated, I WANT someone to take the damn gun away.

You jackasses are protecting murderers and the insane, at the expense of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. You are to gun rights what WBC is to traditional heterosexual marriages... you're so farking over-zealous and unreasonable that you're turning all sane and rational people against you.

It sounds like you have anger issues. Maybe someone should take your gun away.

Thanks for proving the point of some people on this thread.

Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.


And Conservatives don't?
 
2014-08-07 11:15:58 AM  

The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Hey, how about this idea: maybe it's time to put aside our mindless devotion to every farking thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) wrote and thought, and do what makes sense for people in THIS millennium.  Every single consumer product is subject to regulation if we the people decide through our representatives that said regulation is needed.  Guns are the only consumer product that that basic, common-sense principle doesn't apply to, thanks to the second amendment.  Unless you really believe that we need about one gun per person in this country to stave off an ever-present threat of tyranny, what farking sense does that make?


Guns are unregulated?  Really?  What regulations do you propose?

/I don't think you said "commonsense" enough
 
2014-08-07 11:15:59 AM  

FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.


Yes, because PP is at the forefront of abortion rights.  Funny that.  They're known for many other things, but when questions about abortion come up, PP is the one that steps up to take the questions.  When questions arise for gun manufacturers, the NRA steps up.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:07 AM  

HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..


When I was a teenager in the Adirondack mountains, I knew a family that derived a lot of their food from hunting, much of it legal, some of it not.

The local DEC guys knew about it, but didn't do anything.  Apparently there was some kind of unspoken understanding that so long as the poaching wasn't really egregious they'd turn a blind eye, because the family couldn't afford the fines and legal fees.  If it weren't for the occasional deer taken out of season the kids wouldn't have to go without meat for a while.  If they actually charged the father and/or mother (both did it), they couldn't pay, which would mean jail time, which would certainly mean they'd become a burden on the state and county, and possibly have their kids sent to foster homes.  Probably lose their home also.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:30 AM  

The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.


Yet you completely miss my second point (bolded).  I'd want regulations so that, if you want a gun, you can have one but that the farking thing is not a toy you can just leave around for someone to pick up.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:35 AM  

bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.


And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:41 AM  

The Name: If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.


Except that the "Wild West" only really existed as a construct of Hollywood from the 50s-80s for the purposes of making exciting movies in Italy.

This logic is perfectly in line with the "blood in the streets" rhetoric that was around while states were passing concealed carry laws in the '90s.  It's a fear tactic completely unsupported by history or reason, used only to generate an emotional response.

It's idiot pandering.
 
2014-08-07 11:18:07 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.


And you just proved my point.
 
2014-08-07 11:18:53 AM  

Rwa2play: Fark It: GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.

Do you guys really want the NRA to go away, leaving gun rights groups that exist because they thought the NRA compromised too much?  Is that really what you want?

Yes because the NRA's backed by gun manufacturers, who are only interested in people buying as many weapons as they can put out.

Besides, there's always this organization if you want a pro-gun group:  http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/


BARRETT: [...] And I think many people in the gun industry, given a choice, would not take the conspiratorial sort of paranoid approach that LaPierre specializes in. That said, they are doing nothing to try to deter him - for two reasons. One, they're afraid of the consumer boycotts that the NRA can organize if it chooses. And two, the NRA's hype actually does benefit the gun industry.

INSKEEP: Is that a real possibility, that the NRA could organize a boycott of Smith & Wesson or some other brand of firearm?

BARRETT: It's not just a real possibility; it's something that has happened in the past. In 2000, which really was the last time before the current round of debate that we had a live gun control debate at the national level. Smith and Wesson actually tried to step up and arrive at a truce with the Clinton administration and with government officials around the country who were suing the gun industry. And Smith & Wesson agreed to settle those lawsuits and to comply with an unprecedented level of regulation. The result of that was that the NRA, other gun rights groups, encouraged gun buyers to boycott Smith & Wesson. In the space of six to eight months, the company almost went out of business. Plants were shut down, production lines were closed, and ultimately, the company changed ownership, reneged on the settlement and was accepted back into the fold. This is not a theoretical possibility. This is what happens when you cross the NRA.


If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.
 
2014-08-07 11:19:03 AM  
The funny thing is that I never really considered firearm regulation a big issue. Sure, I favored some reasonable tightening up of the existing regulations, but nothing too serious and it certainly wasn't a priority for me. But then I started interacting with actual gun nuts, and my whole attitude changed. People (some of them are in this very thread) who start foaming at the mouth every time the subject of firearms comes up are weird and scary, and have finally convinced me that there are quite a few people who can't be trusted with a squirt gun, much less an actual weapon. Were it not for the NRA and its acolytes, I would be far less concerned about controlling access to firearms.

Just last week I was in Harrison, Idaho and stopped in for a beer. There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).
 
2014-08-07 11:19:41 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.


That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?
 
2014-08-07 11:19:57 AM  

Fark It: GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.

The problem is that gun control advocates think that gun control can never be insane or irrational.


And gun rights advocates think that they should be able to own nuclear weapons.  Painting with a broad brush is fun!

FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.

+1, 5-star post, gorilla-high-fiving-shark.jpg


Yet it continued to prove my point.  So yes, +1.
 
2014-08-07 11:20:28 AM  

BMulligan: There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).


Why not?  His shirt made you asspained?  Really?
 
2014-08-07 11:21:37 AM  

redmid17: I've never *needed* to go hunting or fishing, but it was a fun way to spend a few days or hours hanging out with my friends and family.


Yeah, I have seen it from both sides. My entire annual beef consumption is pretty much one steak and maybe a dozen hamburgers all from restaurants.  This is not because of *need to*, but because of desire not to pay over $10/lb for steak and $5/pound for hamburger and $12/pound for salmon and the fact that I enjoy hunting and fishing.
 
2014-08-07 11:21:42 AM  
You can safely ignore the results of any online poll that invites the general public to "tell us what you think!" Unless it is research that is administered by actual research people, and weighted for all the usual shiat (gender, age, income, education, race, etc.), the results are - without qualification - worthless.

That's why good research is so goddam expensive. Weeding out the crazies and making sure that all your respondents aren't old white guys or helicopter moms or bored teenagers trying to fark with the results just for the lulz requires effort.
 
2014-08-07 11:22:09 AM  

redmid17: If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.


So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?  The NRA needs them more than the other way around.
 
2014-08-07 11:22:33 AM  

dittybopper: HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..

When I was a teenager in the Adirondack mountains, I knew a family that derived a lot of their food from hunting, much of it legal, some of it not.

The local DEC guys knew about it, but didn't do anything.  Apparently there was some kind of unspoken understanding that so long as the poaching wasn't really egregious they'd turn a blind eye, because the family couldn't afford the fines and legal fees.  If it weren't for the occasional deer taken out of season the kids wouldn't have to go without meat for a while.  If they actually charged the father and/or mother (both did it), they couldn't pay, which would mean jail time, which would certainly mean they'd become a burden on the state and county, and possibly have their kids sent to foster homes.  Probably lose their home also.


That's an edge case I'd be okay with.  The DEC knew who they were, knew they weren't causing trouble, and let it slide.

/otherwise they'd be moochers on welfare or something
 
2014-08-07 11:22:35 AM  

dittybopper: Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?


[inigomontoya.jpg]


Also, anti-gun bigot?? Lolwut?
 
2014-08-07 11:22:39 AM  

BMulligan: The funny thing is that I never really considered firearm regulation a big issue. Sure, I favored some reasonable tightening up of the existing regulations, but nothing too serious and it certainly wasn't a priority for me. But then I started interacting with actual gun nuts, and my whole attitude changed. People (some of them are in this very thread) who start foaming at the mouth every time the subject of firearms comes up are weird and scary, and have finally convinced me that there are quite a few people who can't be trusted with a squirt gun, much less an actual weapon. Were it not for the NRA and its acolytes, I would be far less concerned about controlling access to firearms.

Just last week I was in Harrison, Idaho and stopped in for a beer. There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).


So I take it you didn't find this guy funny?

i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 11:22:56 AM  

BMulligan: Just last week I was in Harrison, Idaho and stopped in for a beer. There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).


So, because his T-shirt angered you he should be stripped of his rights?

What a little dictator you've become.
 
2014-08-07 11:23:12 AM  
dittybopper:

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

Well you know what Trailltrader says!  "Remember, you get more cooperation with a gun and a smile than you do just the smile alone!"

Anyone could do it.  You just smile and point a gun at her!
 
2014-08-07 11:24:14 AM  

Rwa2play: The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Yet you completely miss my second point (bolded).  I'd want regulations so that, if you want a gun, you can have one but that the farking thing is not a toy you can just leave around for someone to pick up.


Yes, and it's because of the second amendment that you can't pass any "guns are not toys" laws without creating a constitutional crisis that the gun nuts, by the way, usually win.
 
2014-08-07 11:24:26 AM  

Fark It: BMulligan: There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).

Why not?  His shirt made you asspained?  Really?


Because if you're going to buy something just to piss someone off it means you have the maturity of a toddler.
 
2014-08-07 11:24:52 AM  

enry: Yet it continued to prove my point. So yes, +1.


No, it didn't.  Those people who would say that the main function of Planned Parenthood is abortion are wrong, even if they're a majority.  That was the point.

And gun rights advocates think that they should be able to own nuclear weapons.  Painting with a broad brush is fun!

Citation needed.  Could you also direct me to a gun control law that goes too far for gun control activists and was repealed?  I want to know of these gun control ideas that are too much for gun control activists.  I'm having trouble, the Brady Campaign keeps on revising their scorecards so that no state goes far enough, not even California and New York.
 
2014-08-07 11:24:57 AM  

Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.

That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?


No, that they're immature and don't have the ability to have a reasonable discussion about anything.
 
2014-08-07 11:25:18 AM  

dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>

[i58.tinypic.com image 640x513]

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?


[dumbasses with 'assault rifles' in coffee shop.jpg]

But they're not compensating.

/alternately: she didn't have one, and now does.  Doesn't matter the length.  She's still compensating.
 
2014-08-07 11:25:56 AM  

Rwa2play: redmid17: If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.

So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?  The NRA needs them more than the other way around.


I'm not an NRA member and I don't support them financially, never have. I just looked over their website. Looks like I will be giving them some money.

Been looking for a gun rights group to join/donate to. NRA is whacked out. SAF wins a lot of court cases but their mail makes the NRA look like Bloomberg. The GOA are even more pro-gun than the NRA.

The LGC looks like a damn good option.
 
2014-08-07 11:26:15 AM  

dittybopper: Apparently there was some kind of unspoken understanding that so long as the poaching wasn't really egregious they'd turn a blind eye, because the family couldn't afford the fines and legal fees.


Yep, same here.   The rural folks will be the first to turn you in for poaching except for if they know that you only do this to keep your family fed.  Just be discreet and only use it when you need it.

The ones that poach and waste are the ones we really love to hate.
 
2014-08-07 11:26:25 AM  

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

Someone with enough money to hire a model?


Yeah, might want to go to his website.  Some of the images are for pay, but many, especially the political ones like that one, are done because he believes in the Second Amendment.

Oh, and there are a number of NSFW images, but they are mainly in the "models" sections.
 
2014-08-07 11:26:53 AM  

redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.


Indeed, it is.

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2014-08-07 11:27:39 AM  

Lord_Baull: dittybopper: Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

[inigomontoya.jpg]


Also, anti-gun bigot?? Lolwut?


Well, technically, a bigot is someone who is intolerant of someone because of their opinions or beliefs.
(looked it up :  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot )
 
2014-08-07 11:27:41 AM  

Rwa2play: redmid17: If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.

So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?  The NRA needs them more than the other way around.


The Liberal Gun Club's stances are identical to the NRA, without having the same perks (other than not having Ted Nugent speak for you, which is actually something worth considering).

Fart_Machine: Fark It: BMulligan: There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).

Why not?  His shirt made you asspained?  Really?

Because if you're going to buy something just to piss someone off it means you have the maturity of a toddler.


If someone's T-shirt gets you assblasted then you have the maturity of a toddler....
 
2014-08-07 11:27:53 AM  

Lord_Baull: dittybopper: Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

[inigomontoya.jpg]


Also, anti-gun bigot?? Lolwut?


I've done *MUCH* worse and been quite happy about it.

Also, I said "attractive", not "drop-dead gorgeous".
 
2014-08-07 11:27:58 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.

That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?

No, that they're immature and don't have the ability to have a reasonable discussion about anything.


Projection noted.
 
2014-08-07 11:28:07 AM  
l.wigflip.com
 
2014-08-07 11:29:31 AM  

Fark It: f someone's T-shirt gets you assblasted then you have the maturity of a toddler....


assblasted? That sounds like something Santorum is into
 
2014-08-07 11:29:33 AM  

dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

Someone with enough money to hire a model?

Yeah, might want to go to his website.  Some of the images are for pay, but many, especially the political ones like that one, are done because he believes in the Second Amendment.

Oh, and there are a number of NSFW images, but they are mainly in the "models" sections.


Well that's nice but it has nothing to do with what I said. So he hired a model to pose with a gun covering her crotch. Neat.
 
2014-08-07 11:29:45 AM  
Fark It: enry: Yet it continued to prove my point. So yes, +1.

No, it didn't.  Those people who would say that the main function of Planned Parenthood is abortion are wrong, even if they're a majority.  That was the point.


Because Planned Parenthood is usually the face for abortion rights.  There are other groups, but Cecile Richards or someone else from PP is the one that shows up on the talk shows to discuss the issues.  They do it willingly, so of course they're going to be thought of as the face of abortion rights.  That the NRA is seen as the face of gun manufacturers is for the exact same reason.

And gun rights advocates think that they should be able to own nuclear weapons.  Painting with a broad brush is fun!

Citation needed.  Could you also direct me to a gun control law that goes too far for gun control activists and was repealed?  I want to know of these gun control ideas that are too much for gun control activists.  I'm having trouble, the Brady Campaign keeps on revising their scorecards so that no state goes far enough, not even California and New York.


Uh huh.
 
2014-08-07 11:29:50 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.



Oh, noes! Right winger has pre-conceived notions of liberals reinforced after posting inflammitory rhetoric specifically designed to do so!!
 
2014-08-07 11:30:08 AM  

The Name: If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.


This this the same 'common sense' that comes from a person that advocates killing of Republicans in the Bundy threads?

If so, I'll pass thankyouverymuch.
 
2014-08-07 11:30:25 AM  
We've had open carry here without a permit here in Arizona for quite a long time and I've seen two people carrying in the 16 years I've been here that wasn't directly outside a gun range.  It's really not that big of a deal.
 
2014-08-07 11:31:20 AM  

bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.


Careful.  Conservatives will go crying to the mods for comments like that.
 
2014-08-07 11:31:46 AM  

Fark It: Rwa2play: redmid17: If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.

So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?  The NRA needs them more than the other way around.

The Liberal Gun Club's stances are identical to the NRA, without having the same perks (other than not having Ted Nugent speak for you, which is actually something worth considering).

Fart_Machine: Fark It: BMulligan: There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).

Why not?  His shirt made you asspained?  Really?

Because if you're going to buy something just to piss someone off it means you have the maturity of a toddler.

If someone's T-shirt gets you assblasted then you have the maturity of a toddler....


Except the guy getting assblasted was the one wearing the shirt.
 
2014-08-07 11:31:53 AM  

Fart_Machine: Fark It: BMulligan: There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).

Why not?  His shirt made you asspained?  Really?

Because if you're going to buy something just to piss someone off it means you have the maturity of a toddler.


Exactly. Serious tools should be kept away from children and the mentally infirm. I would deny that man access to guns, knives, scissors, matches, or anything else he could possibly hurt himself with until he grows the fark up.
 
2014-08-07 11:31:56 AM  

physt: karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.


Looks as if someone projected their derp all over your face. Here's a tissue.  Clean yourself up.

Sick burn. I bet you're the funniest guy in detention.

Only paranoid people think there is any possible scenario where "leftists" come for your guns. It is a delusion you share with many other nut bags.

Ok Ok....it's kind of hard to have a serious conversation with you when you have that derp all over your face....wipe it off and then we can talk.

Could you be any more sexual latently homosexual?
[img.fark.net image 640x480]



Homophobe says what?
 
2014-08-07 11:32:00 AM  

enry: FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.

Yes, because PP is at the forefront of abortion rights.  Funny that.  They're known for many other things, but when questions about abortion come up, PP is the one that steps up to take the questions.  When questions arise for gun manufacturers, the NRA steps up.


Annnnnd thank you for making my whole point for me.  What's the main function of PP?  Education, right?  I mean when it all comes down to it, they educate and assist those in need of planning for parenthood.  But if you ask the uninformed right wing, it's nothing but a baby-killing genocide factory because they have a legislative portion of the group responsible for lobbying.

At it's core, the NRA has always been about safety and firearms training.  If you knew anything about the organization you'd know that they spend millions and millions of dollars for hunter's safety programs, shooting sports programs for youth, etc.  They've literally trained hundreds of millions of hunters over the years and that's why, with the rare exception, most hunters enjoy accident-free hunting seasons year after year and generation after generation.  But basically after Columbine, and solely because of the main-stream media as well as a few celebrities and politicians, the NRA became the bad guy, and now the uninformed left wing has it's patsy as well.

The vast majority of violent deaths from guns in this country are not now, nor have they ever been from NRA members.  If you really, seriously and truly want to address gun violence, stop looking at NRA members, and start asking hard questions about socioeconomic issues in inner cities and lack of funding for mental health across the board.  If anything, the NRA saves lives in much the same way that Planned Parenthood saves babies from being aborted.
 
2014-08-07 11:32:41 AM  

The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?


www.data360.org
 
2014-08-07 11:33:39 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.

That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?

No, that they're immature and don't have the ability to have a reasonable discussion about anything.



Dammit, my ironymeter just exploded.
Also you just explained the Rightwing stance on women's reproductive rights.
 
2014-08-07 11:33:55 AM  

HeadLever: The Name: If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

This this the same 'common sense' that comes from a person that advocates killing of Republicans in the Bundy threads?

If so, I'll pass thankyouverymuch.


Yeah, whatever, Cletus.

www.addictinginfo.org
 
2014-08-07 11:34:11 AM  

Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.

That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?

No, that they're immature and don't have the ability to have a reasonable discussion about anything.

Projection noted.


Well, aren't you just the witty one.
 
2014-08-07 11:35:16 AM  

The Name: Careful.  Conservatives will go crying to the mods for comments like that.


Yeah, at least he is not calling for the killing of Republicans, right?
 
2014-08-07 11:36:02 AM  

The Name: Yeah, whatever, Cletus.


Go ahead and find where I ever advocated for that.  You on the other hand seem to think that is 'common sense' right?
 
2014-08-07 11:36:08 AM  

FilmBELOH20: enry: FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.

Yes, because PP is at the forefront of abortion rights.  Funny that.  They're known for many other things, but when questions about abortion come up, PP is the one that steps up to take the questions.  When questions arise for gun manufacturers, the NRA steps up.

Annnnnd thank you for making my whole point for me.  What's the main function of PP?  Education, right?


Wrong

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are
 
2014-08-07 11:36:39 AM  

dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?


[www.data360.org image 850x515]


Uh . . . Cletus, did you get a good look at the names of the countries at the top of that list?  Is that REALLY the chart you want to use to argue that the US doesn't have a problem with gun violence?
 
2014-08-07 11:36:53 AM  

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

www.agilebts.com

 
2014-08-07 11:37:02 AM  
I'm looking to build an AR-15. Looking at Stag Arms lower and maybe upper receivers. Anyone have experience with them? Are they good quality?

I want to build a carbine sized rifle btw
 
2014-08-07 11:38:03 AM  

HeadLever: The Name: Yeah, whatever, Cletus.

Go ahead and find where I ever advocated for that.


You sure don't seem outraged by it.
 
2014-08-07 11:38:27 AM  

enry: Because Planned Parenthood is usually the face for abortion rights. There are other groups, but Cecile Richards or someone else from PP is the one that shows up on the talk shows to discuss the issues. They do it willingly, so of course they're going to be thought of as the face of abortion rights. That the NRA is seen as the face of gun manufacturers is for the exact same reason.


Planned Parenthood is seen as the face of abortion (incorrectly) because anti-abortion laws are primarily targeted at Planned Parenthood.  NARAL and NOW are two groups I think of as being more "the face of abortion rights" in this country than PP.  But then again, I'm moderately infrommed.  The NRA is seen as the face of the gun manufacturers because Wayne LaPerriere is a tone-deaf attention-whore, and because of populist, media-driven narratives that have a tenuous relationship to reality.

Fart_Machine: Except the guy getting assblasted was the one wearing the shirt.


The guy getting assblasted is the one whining about it on the internet, who is clamoring for a paternalistic, overbearing security state to come in and take rights away from people for what he claims is "immaturity."
 
2014-08-07 11:38:32 AM  

BMulligan: Exactly. Serious tools should be kept away from children and the mentally infirm.


So, did he actually have his AK that he purchased just to piss you off with him, or are you just basing your evaluation of his mental state and facilities entirely on a shirt?
 
2014-08-07 11:39:57 AM  

The Name: You sure don't seem outraged by it.


It is just as retarded as when you do it.
 
2014-08-07 11:40:34 AM  
I'm the libbiest ib who ever libbed a lib.

I don't own a gun, as I don't personally care for them. That said, I fully support the right to open carry should someone so desire. I understand that in a lot of areas it's a practicality thing. For example, if you're a hunter and you want to stop off at a 7-11 for a coffee, some scratch tickets and a copy of Penthouse, those guns are kind of expensive to just leave in your truck, so bring the damn things in with you. Just act responsible with it (you know, the don't point it at anything you don't wish to shoot, finger off the trigger, gun is always loaded stuff).

However if a business posts that they don't want firearms on the premises, that's well within their rights, so lock up your gun safely like the responsible gun owner you no doubt are.

I also don't see any issue with background checks before a gun sale, just to make sure the buyer isn't either a straw purchaser or a crazy person.

Is that reasonable?

Oh and anyone who uses the phrases "booger hook" or "bang switch" deserves to get their balls (or boobs, I'm not gender biased) crushed by a sharpened steel stiletto heel until they resemble the exploded heads in Scanners.
 
2014-08-07 11:40:59 AM  

dittybopper: attractive woman

??????
 
2014-08-07 11:41:01 AM  

HeadLever: The Name: You sure don't seem outraged by it.

It is just as retarded as when you do it.


Yeah, well, let's just say I support the right to self-defense ;-)
 
2014-08-07 11:41:09 AM  

sweetmelissa31: [l.wigflip.com image 640x513]


Congratulations.  I can tell by the pixels that you know how to use photoshop.
 
2014-08-07 11:41:14 AM  

enry: FilmBELOH20:
Annnnnd thank you for making my whole point for me.  What's the main function of PP?  Education, right?

Wrong


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are


Thanks for the link.  Here's the first line on the page:  "We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world."
 
2014-08-07 11:41:41 AM  

The Name: HeadLever: The Name: If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

This this the same 'common sense' that comes from a person that advocates killing of Republicans in the Bundy threads?

If so, I'll pass thankyouverymuch.

Yeah, whatever, Cletus.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 400x234]



pavlovianobeisance.com
 
2014-08-07 11:42:13 AM  

FilmBELOH20: enry: FilmBELOH20:
Annnnnd thank you for making my whole point for me.  What's the main function of PP?  Education, right?

Wrong

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are

Thanks for the link.  Here's the first line on the page:  "We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world."


That's not their main function.
 
2014-08-07 11:42:14 AM  

The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Be sure to make some fliers and send some emails to the FFLs, manufacturers, and ATF to tell them that all the rules are gone. Might as well bundle the ATF into the FBI or DEA now.
 
2014-08-07 11:43:21 AM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Be sure to make some fliers and send some emails to the FFLs, manufacturers, and ATF to tell them that all the rules are gone. Might as well bundle the ATF into the FBI or DEA now.


So, absolutely no more regulations are needed, then?
 
2014-08-07 11:43:24 AM  

Fark It: enry: Because Planned Parenthood is usually the face for abortion rights. There are other groups, but Cecile Richards or someone else from PP is the one that shows up on the talk shows to discuss the issues. They do it willingly, so of course they're going to be thought of as the face of abortion rights. That the NRA is seen as the face of gun manufacturers is for the exact same reason.

Planned Parenthood is seen as the face of abortion (incorrectly) because anti-abortion laws are primarily targeted at Planned Parenthood.  NARAL and NOW are two groups I think of as being more "the face of abortion rights" in this country than PP.  But then again, I'm moderately infrommed.  The NRA is seen as the face of the gun manufacturers because Wayne LaPerriere is a tone-deaf attention-whore, and because of populist, media-driven narratives that have a tenuous relationship to reality.


After all that, you agree with me.  Thanks.  There's hope for you yet.
 
2014-08-07 11:43:28 AM  

Lord_Baull: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.

That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?

No, that they're immature and don't have the ability to have a reasonable discussion about anything.


Dammit, my ironymeter just exploded.
Also you just explained the Rightwing stance on women's reproductive rights.


Meh, I don't care who gets an abortion. I think they should hand out coupons. Buy ten abortions and your next one's free.
 
2014-08-07 11:43:33 AM  

bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.


lol

/would lol again
 
2014-08-07 11:43:35 AM  

LucklessWonder: Is that reasonable?


If you could keep all the other poison pills away from this type of legislation, it may pass one of these days.  However, the 'shoulder thing that goes up' crowd has a really hard time not interjecting very dumb things into these bills that end any chance of them passing.
 
2014-08-07 11:43:52 AM  

DrD'isInfotainment: dittybopper: attractive woman??????


Yeah, I was going to say something but I figured I'd get the studman69 treatment. She's not very attractive.
 
2014-08-07 11:43:59 AM  

Lord_Baull: dittybopper: Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

[inigomontoya.jpg]


Also, anti-gun bigot?? Lolwut?


The language the more loony wing of the pro-gun side uses can be downright painful sometimes.
 
2014-08-07 11:44:52 AM  

dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?
[www.data360.org image 850x515]



You must have ignored the part that shows how the countries with strict gun control have almost no homicides due to guns and haven't completely degenerated into anarchy, despite what right wing propaganda tell us.
 
2014-08-07 11:45:08 AM  

sweetmelissa31: [l.wigflip.com image 640x513]


What is that, a micro Desert Eagle?  What is she thinking?  She wears tailored suits and has a big purse, there's absolutely no reason she should handicap herself with a subcompact, rather than carry a compact Glock 19 or even a full-sized handgun.

2/10, would not bang.
 
2014-08-07 11:45:26 AM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Be sure to make some fliers and send some emails to the FFLs, manufacturers, and ATF to tell them that all the rules are gone. Might as well bundle the ATF into the FBI or DEA now.

So, absolutely no more regulations are needed, then?


I don't believe I said that. You were the one who agreed that there was a complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms.

Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.
 
2014-08-07 11:45:27 AM  

The Name: Yeah, well, let's just say I support the right to self-defense


Me too.  When you stated goal is to kill those in one political party, self defense becomes a pretty big issue.
 
2014-08-07 11:46:42 AM  

Fart_Machine: So he hired a model to pose with a gun covering her crotch


And people say their only purpose is to kill. Chessmate, libtards.
 
Ehh
2014-08-07 11:47:25 AM  

revrendjim: I'm a liberal gun owner who used to be an NRA member but quit 10 years ago when they went insane.


Yep. When their seething hatred for Clinton became impossible to ignore, when it became clear that the leadership was taking orders from GOP paymasters, when the crazies outnumbered the sanes....
 
2014-08-07 11:47:47 AM  

The Name: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

Careful.  Conservatives will go crying to the mods for comments like that.


Oh no, some random internet person called me a name. My fragile little psyche is damaged. Now I need a good cry. And I so wanted to be bestest friends with bdub77.
 
2014-08-07 11:48:19 AM  

redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.


Generally, they have to pretend otherwise to make their oft ignorant comments seem legitimate.
 
2014-08-07 11:48:33 AM  

Fark It: What is that, a micro Desert Eagle?


it's a Boberg XR-9S
 
2014-08-07 11:49:14 AM  

Flappyhead: Lord_Baull: dittybopper: Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

[inigomontoya.jpg]


Also, anti-gun bigot?? Lolwut?

The language the more loony wing of the pro-gun side uses can be downright painful sometimes.



Painful to fap to, that's for sure.
 
2014-08-07 11:49:37 AM  

redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.


And they make such a huge difference, don't they?


HeadLever: The Name: Yeah, well, let's just say I support the right to self-defense

Me too.  When you stated goal is to kill those in one political party, self defense becomes a pretty big issue.


Limbaugh has been joking on-air about killing liberals for decades.  Don't give me this crap like liberals are all of a sudden turning on innocent conservatives.
 
2014-08-07 11:50:06 AM  

HeadLever: LucklessWonder: Is that reasonable?

If you could keep all the other poison pills away from this type of legislation, it may pass one of these days.  However, the 'shoulder thing that goes up' crowd has a really hard time not interjecting very dumb things into these bills that end any chance of them passing.


I wasn't really even talking about legislation, but yeah, I'd prefer to avoid "poison pills" in just about all bills.
 
2014-08-07 11:50:28 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

I'm a liberal gun-owner, have been for over 10 years and I support gun control. I will never, EVER join or give the NRA a single penny.


Facepalm
 
2014-08-07 11:52:17 AM  

kortex: Facepalm



??
 
2014-08-07 11:53:12 AM  

The Name: dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?


[www.data360.org image 850x515]

Uh . . . Cletus, did you get a good look at the names of the countries at the top of that list?  Is that REALLY the chart you want to use to argue that the US doesn't have a problem with gun violence?


First, my name's not Cletus.  It's Janet.  Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.

And if you want to get picky, did you see that tiny little footnote the Washington Post chart where they excluded Mexico, even though it was in the dataset they pulled from?  Hmmmmm, I wonder why that might be....

Also, I was using that chart to point out that the first one was intentionally lying through omission, making it seem like the United States has a higher homicide rate than, for example, Poland, which is actually incorrect:  The US does have a higher *FIREARM* homicide rate than Poland, but my point was that Poland has a higher total homicide rate than the US.

It's in fact a given that reducing the number of firearms in circulation will lower the *FIREARM* homicide rate, but it's not clear that doing so will lower the *TOTAL* homicide rate, which should be the goal.  And in fact, I pointed out that Poland (which is in both graphs) is a perfect example of a country that has fewer firearms per capita but has a higher homicide rate.  And Poland is a modern industrialized nation.  It's not some Central American backwater.

So, since you seem to fancy yourself to be smarter than me, based upon your attempt to insult my intelligence, would you care to answer my criticism of your post, Einstein McBrainiac*?

*That's sarcasm, btw.  Normally I wouldn't explicitly point it out because it's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but since you seem to have trouble grasping even relatively simple concepts, I thought it best to remove any ambiguity.
 
2014-08-07 11:53:48 AM  

sweetmelissa31: [l.wigflip.com image 640x513]


i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 11:54:35 AM  

The Name: redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.

And they make such a huge difference, don't they?


From a consumer standpoint, one would think so given that the accidental death and injury rate has been steadily dropping for something like 50+ years now.

From a societal perspective, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Crime rates were much lower in the 1950s than the 1970s and 1980s but the laws were much stricter (and arbitrarily enforced). Now the firearms law has been opening up -- I'd think most would agree -- over the last 10 years or so, and crime is still dropping from the highs in the early 90s. It's almost like the laws don't really affect much on a macro level.
 
2014-08-07 11:55:08 AM  

The Name: Limbaugh has been joking on-air about killing liberals for decades.


1) citation needed
2) If so, then you are exactly like Limbaugh (but on the other side)?  That is something I probably would not be bragging about if I were you.
 
2014-08-07 11:57:00 AM  
The Second Amendment says you have the right to bare arms. It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.
 
2014-08-07 11:58:46 AM  

Lord_Baull: thamike: Lord_Baull: It's almost as if MSNBC readers, let's refer to them as 'liberals' for the point of this discussion, aren't willing to take away all your guns.

It's almost as if the right wing always proves their own detractors' points for them.


It's almost as if the right wing is laughable, and can't make a salient, honest talking point to save their lives.


Their enthusiasm about rape is fairly consistent...
 
2014-08-07 11:59:15 AM  

Click Click D'oh: The Name: HeadLever: The Name: If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

This this the same 'common sense' that comes from a person that advocates killing of Republicans in the Bundy threads?

If so, I'll pass thankyouverymuch.

Yeah, whatever, Cletus.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 400x234]


[pavlovianobeisance.com image 505x394]


Hmmm... GIS for context. One result, showing it as a direct response to the Liberal Hunting permit. Almost as if they were poking fun at the original.
 
2014-08-07 11:59:47 AM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: The Second Amendment says you have the right to bare arms. It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.


th05.deviantart.net


Misused bare arms.
 
2014-08-07 12:00:24 PM  

jaybeezey: As i have been assured by Farkers that gun ownership equates to small penises.

All this poll does is show how many small penises there are in the liberal community.


The liberals in the Bushmaster marketing department also seem to think their customers have a tiny bit of insecurity in the endowment department. I'm guessing they know their customer base fairly well.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-08-07 12:00:38 PM  

HeadLever: The Name: Limbaugh has been joking on-air about killing liberals for decades.

1) citation needed
2) If so, then you are exactly like Limbaugh (but on the other side)?  That is something I probably would not be bragging about if I were you.


I'm sure there are many examples, but is Rush really someone you want to defend?

"I tell people, 'Don't kill all the liberals.' Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we we'll never forget what these people stood for."
-Rush Limbaugh

I think Limbaugh is selling a persona and probably doesn't believe half (or more) of what he says, but I guarantee you he's joked about it more than once.
 
2014-08-07 12:01:53 PM  

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: [l.wigflip.com image 640x513]

[i.imgur.com image 400x602]


"got you in a stranglehold baby"
 
2014-08-07 12:02:09 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-07 12:02:13 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.

And they make such a huge difference, don't they?

From a consumer standpoint, one would think so given that the accidental death and injury rate has been steadily dropping for something like 50+ years now.

From a societal perspective, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Crime rates were much lower in the 1950s than the 1970s and 1980s but the laws were much stricter (and arbitrarily enforced). Now the firearms law has been opening up -- I'd think most would agree -- over the last 10 years or so, and crime is still dropping from the highs in the early 90s. It's almost like the laws don't really affect much on a macro level.


But all of that is irrelevant to the bigger picture of gun policy around the developed world.  No matter what fluctuations have taken place in the US over the past few decades, we've ALWAYS had many orders of magnitude more firearm deaths than other developed nations.  To use an analogy, if water were firearm violence, Western Europe would be Lake Constance and the US would be the Atlantic Ocean, and you're making a big deal out of the fact that we've managed to remove a few gallons of water from the Atlantic over the past few decades.
 
2014-08-07 12:02:40 PM  
I've long believed that liberals have no problem with owning guns, they just don't want scary people to own them.  They also want to be the ones to define and redefine scary, based on current events.

I've also suspected that only 10% of them actually care enough about the issue to never shut up about it at any given moment.  Apparently that figure is 12% if this article is to be believed.

I also believe that these same percentages apply to conservatives.  It's only 10% who are incapable of shutting up about it.

It's nice to be a moderate, so I can piss off both sides equally.
 
2014-08-07 12:02:51 PM  

PreMortem: It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun.

Done in--wherever I stopped reading yet another gun thread.
 
2014-08-07 12:03:39 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.


That is a decent way at looking at it.

Allowed: Use in hunting, self-defense, target shooting, predator/varmint control, etc.
Not Allowed: use in a murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault, rape, etc.
 
2014-08-07 12:06:30 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.

And they make such a huge difference, don't they?

From a consumer standpoint, one would think so given that the accidental death and injury rate has been steadily dropping for something like 50+ years now.

From a societal perspective, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Crime rates were much lower in the 1950s than the 1970s and 1980s but the laws were much stricter (and arbitrarily enforced). Now the firearms law has been opening up -- I'd think most would agree -- over the last 10 years or so, and crime is still dropping from the highs in the early 90s. It's almost like the laws don't really affect much on a macro level.

But all of that is irrelevant to the bigger picture of gun policy around the developed world.  No matter what fluctuations have taken place in the US over the past few decades, we've ALWAYS had many orders of magnitude more firearm deaths than other developed nations.  To use an analogy, if water were firearm violence, Western Europe would be Lake Constance and the US would be the Atlantic Ocean, and you're making a big deal out of the fact that we've managed to remove a few gallons of water from the Atlantic over the past few decades.


The US is in a bit of a unique situation as far as firearms go. It has been for decades now.
 
2014-08-07 12:07:35 PM  

HeadLever: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.

That is a decent way at looking at it.

Allowed: Use in hunting, self-defense, target shooting, predator/varmint control, etc.
Not Allowed: use in a murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault, rape, etc.


Where does shooting government representatives fit?

/ok, now I'm snarky
 
2014-08-07 12:07:39 PM  

redmid17: I'm sure there are many examples, but is Rush really someone you want to defend?


No, that is why #2 is there.  Maybe The Name wants to defend him since they seem to be of the same general mind, albeit on different sides.
 
2014-08-07 12:07:56 PM  

cryinoutloud: PreMortem: It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun.
Done in--wherever I stopped reading yet another gun thread.


True. Anti-fun (sic) is not a synonym for liberal. However, those who are anti-gun tend to be liberal.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:45 PM  
enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:47 PM  

enry: HeadLever: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.

That is a decent way at looking at it.

Allowed: Use in hunting, self-defense, target shooting, predator/varmint control, etc.
Not Allowed: use in a murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault, rape, etc.

Where does shooting government representatives fit?

/ok, now I'm snarky


Either murder or self-defense, according to the actions of the government official.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:47 PM  

Ker_Thwap: I've long believed that liberals have no problem with owning guns, they just don't want scary people to own them.  They also want to be the ones to define and redefine scary, based on current events.

I've also suspected that only 10% of them actually care enough about the issue to never shut up about it at any given moment.  Apparently that figure is 12% if this article is to be believed.

I also believe that these same percentages apply to conservatives.  It's only 10% who are incapable of shutting up about it.

It's nice to be a moderate, so I can piss off both sides equally.


The problem for gun is the same as abortion - one side believes they are trying to save innocent lives. Pro lifers are fighting to save babies, gun control advocates are fighting to save kids from the next Newtown shooting.

So people can get heated.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:52 PM  

redmid17: The US is in a bit of a unique situation as far as firearms go.


Yes.  That's the point.
 
2014-08-07 12:09:35 PM  

Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.


Read the rest of the thread.
 
2014-08-07 12:10:31 PM  

Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors
 
2014-08-07 12:11:33 PM  

Click Click D'oh: BMulligan: Exactly. Serious tools should be kept away from children and the mentally infirm.

So, did he actually have his AK that he purchased just to piss you off with him, or are you just basing your evaluation of his mental state and facilities entirely on a shirt?


I assume it was in his rig. This was Idaho, after all - I'm pretty sure that mine was the only car in the lot without a rifle rack in the back window. And for the most part, I'm okay with that. I grew up around there, and I'm used to it. Most folks have guns, and the vast majority cause no problems. Which makes the actual crazy, unbalanced gun nuts in the area even more weird and scary. They're preaching to the choir - there is pretty much nobody within a 500-mile radius who has any kind of problem with firearms - so why are those veins on their foreheads throbbing so hard as they scream?
 
2014-08-07 12:11:46 PM  

enry: Where does shooting government representatives fit?


Depends upon circumstances:
Is it self-defense like at Ruby-Ridge? Or is it murder like what Jerad and Amanda Miller allegedly committed?
 
2014-08-07 12:12:03 PM  
Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.
 
2014-08-07 12:12:10 PM  

Ker_Thwap: I've long believed that liberals have no problem with owning guns, they just don't want scary people to own them.  They also want to be the ones to define and redefine scary, based on current events.

I've also suspected that only 10% of them actually care enough about the issue to never shut up about it at any given moment.  Apparently that figure is 12% if this article is to be believed.

I also believe that these same percentages apply to conservatives.  It's only 10% who are incapable of shutting up about it.

It's nice to be a moderate, so I can piss off both sides equally.


If by 'scary' you mean 'mentally ill', 'have a history of domestic violence' or 'untrained' then yeah maybe I'll agree with you.
 
2014-08-07 12:13:49 PM  

Frank N Stein: However, those who are anti-gun tend to be liberal.


As the meme goes:
Not anti-gun, just #1 with anti-gun activist.
 
2014-08-07 12:14:26 PM  

HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..


Opportunity cost is a biatch.  What could you have been doing other than hunting or fishing, and could you have made more money than you saved by hunting by working (or doing anything else those hours)?  My guess is no.  Otherwise you'd work part time and hunt on Fridays or something, because you are "making more profit" by hunting/fishing as opposed to working.

That being said, if you live in a place where you can easily set trot lines and the like, you can eat *real* cheap, so long as you like fish.  <1% of active outdoorsmen come out with a food profit from their hobbies.
 
2014-08-07 12:16:49 PM  

Publikwerks: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors


From your link:

"The majority of NRA donors are individuals. "
 
2014-08-07 12:17:05 PM  

Lord_Baull: dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?
[www.data360.org image 850x515]


You must have ignored the part that shows how the countries with strict gun control have almost no homicides due to guns and haven't completely degenerated into anarchy, despite what right wing propaganda tell us.


My point was that's not the same thing as having almost no homicides.

Poland has almost no homicides due to guns, yet as I pointed out, it has a total homicide rate greater than that of the United States.

If you want to make the argument that more guns = more homicides, in order to be intellectually honest, you have to make that argument using the total number of homicides, not just *GUN* homicide.

But arguing against gun homicides, as if they were somehow morally worse than other methods, simply doesn't say what you think it does.  It's a circular argument:  More guns = more gun homicides.  Well, OK, duh.  But does more gun = more homicides?

If that second case isn't true, then the facade of reasoning that we need to restrict guns to save lives just falls apart.

Let's take a hypothetical case.  Let's say we ban hard spirits, fortified wines, and malt liquors because it's just too easy to get drunk from them, causing a high toll of highway deaths.  Let's call them "high capacity intoxicants", or HCI's for short.

Let's say we then track the number of deaths caused by people who had been drinking HCI's, and we find that it falls to a large degree.  Sure, there is some because there will always be smuggling and people making their own, but it drops to a fraction of it's former self.  Success, right?

But wait a minute, the overall highway deaths didn't drop at all.   In fact, the number of drunk driving deaths didn't drop either.  Why?  Because people substituted other means to get drunk.  A person who might have only had a couple Long Island Iced Teas before getting behind the wheel now has several glasses of wine, or a six-pack of beer instead.

That's not a perfect analogy, because there is no "protective effect" from drinking and driving like there unquestionably is with firearms ownership*, but as a general illustration of the fallacy you're committing by only looking at the firearms homicide data instead of the total homicide data it works.


*There is debate as to the magnitude of the effect, but not to the existence of it
 
2014-08-07 12:19:07 PM  

cryinoutloud: PreMortem: It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun.
Done in--wherever I stopped reading yet another gun thread.


It's also a common delusion among liberals that liberals are anti-gun, so you can't blame the conservatives for holding the same viewpoint.
 
2014-08-07 12:19:31 PM  
I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.
 
2014-08-07 12:19:56 PM  

enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.


Backpedal much?
 
2014-08-07 12:21:57 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Publikwerks: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors

From your link:

"The majority of NRA donors are individuals. "


Yes, because there are alot of members. But a majority of the $$$ donated is from corporate sponsors:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nr a- really-speak-for/266373/
 
2014-08-07 12:22:20 PM  

BMulligan: I assume it was in his rig.


So, you assume based on his shirt that he actually did purchase an AK for no reason other that to piss you off, and not only that, but said gun must be near at hand in his vehicle...  And based on that clearly factual and incontrovertible evidence of this persons lack of adult mental facilities, you think his right should be stripped from him?

Ooookay then...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-07 12:22:43 PM  

Farkage: enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.

Backpedal much?


I'm not the one moving the goalposts.  I've been pretty consistent.
 
2014-08-07 12:23:17 PM  

Clever Neologism: What could you have been doing other than hunting or fishing, and could you have made more money than you saved by hunting by working (or doing anything else those hours)?


Probably not. Hunting takes about 5 day of my time (weekends mostly) and saves me about $2,000 over the course of a year.  I can't hunt more because 1) I don't need any more meat 2) deer/elk/moose tags are not unlimited 3) I tend to avoid poaching.  In addition, this hunting also doubles as recreation/exercise/time away from work, family, cell phone.  For many, the money saved is only one aspect of the true benefit of this activity.
 
2014-08-07 12:23:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.


Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?
 
2014-08-07 12:24:01 PM  

enry: Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.

Read the rest of the thread.


I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.
 
2014-08-07 12:24:02 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The US is in a bit of a unique situation as far as firearms go.

Yes.  That's the point.


So if the US is in a unique situation, one that the rest of the world has never found it in, and the mechanisms used to attempt a repeat of those efforts are tenably legal at best, where are you going with this?
 
2014-08-07 12:24:35 PM  

Publikwerks: Click Click D'oh: Publikwerks: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors

From your link:

"The majority of NRA donors are individuals. "

Yes, because there are alot of members. But a majority of the $$$ donated is from corporate sponsors:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nr a- really-speak-for/266373/


Meanwhile, Bloomberg alone pledged $50 million to anti-fun groups
 
2014-08-07 12:24:45 PM  

dittybopper: The Name: dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?


[www.data360.org image 850x515]

Uh . . . Cletus, did you get a good look at the names of the countries at the top of that list?  Is that REALLY the chart you want to use to argue that the US doesn't have a problem with gun violence?

First, my name's not Cletus.  It's Janet.  Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.

And if you want to get picky, did you see that tiny little footnote the Washington Post chart where they excluded Mexico, even though it was in the dataset they pulled from?  Hmmmmm, I wonder why that might be....

Also, I was using that chart to point out that the first one was intentionally lying through omission, making it seem like the United States has a higher homicide rate than, for example, Poland, which is actually incorrect:  The US does have a higher *FIREARM* homicide rate than Poland, but my point was that Poland has a higher total homicide rate than the US.

It's in fact a given that reducing the number of firearms in circulation will lower the *FIREARM* homicide rate, but it's not clear that doing so will lower the *TOTAL* homicide rate, which should be the goal.  And in fact, I pointed out that Poland (which is in both graphs) is a perfect example of a country that has fewer firearms per capita but has a higher homicide rate.  And Poland is a modern industrialized nation.  It's not some Central American backwater.

So, since you seem to fancy yourself to be smarter than me, based upon your attempt to insult my intelligence, would you care to answer my criticism of your post, Einstein McBrainiac*?

*That's sarcasm, btw.  Normally I wouldn't explicitly point it out because it's intuitively ...


Poland is far closer socio-economically to "some Central American backwater" than it is to Western European and Scandinavian countries. It's a poor example for what you're trying to argue.
 
2014-08-07 12:25:14 PM  

Clever Neologism: <1% of active outdoorsmen come out with a food profit from their hobbies.


citation needed for that, please.
 
2014-08-07 12:25:22 PM  

Farkage: enry: Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.

Read the rest of the thread.

I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.


Maybe you could get someone to read it to you.  And explain the big words.
 
2014-08-07 12:25:30 PM  

BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?


Probably not. I'd be annoying and I'd be against it but I could live with it. Wouldn't be the end of the world.
 
2014-08-07 12:28:41 PM  

Publikwerks: Click Click D'oh: Publikwerks: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors

From your link:

"The majority of NRA donors are individuals. "

Yes, because there are alot of members. But a majority of the $$$ donated is from corporate sponsors:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nr a- really-speak-for/266373/


No. More than half of the $250 million yearly budget is derived *directly* from membership dues. A lot of the remainder comes from donations. That article says that the industry donated about 40 million between 2005 and 2011. I wasn't a math major in college, but I feel as if the yearly percentage of the industry contributions is negligible compared to the members and random donors.
 
2014-08-07 12:30:30 PM  

Publikwerks: Yes, because there are alot of members. But a majority of the $$$ donated is from corporate sponsors:


Did you read the article?  It flat out says that half the NRAs income comes from member dues.  You can't have a majority of your income from corporate sponsors if half comes from members dues... unless you don't understand what a majority means.  The article clearly states that of the $228 million the NRA makes per year, up to $71 million (not a majority) comes from donations, which may include corporations, but also includes private donations.  So not even that $71 Million (1/3 is not a majority) isn't entirely corporate.
 
2014-08-07 12:30:55 PM  
hell yeah I'm a moderate

I get to piss off BOTH sides

the best thing in life is pissing off a majority of people

I am a toddler

catch ya on the flip side!


i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 12:31:54 PM  

enry: Farkage: enry: Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.

Read the rest of the thread.

I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.

Maybe you could get someone to read it to you.  And explain the big words.


Well now aren't you cute!  Everything you posted got blatantly shot down and disproved.  I'll leave you all on your own now.
 
2014-08-07 12:32:32 PM  

born_yesterday: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.

Thank God they don't collect and store any personal information when they do background checks!


You must really have been born yesterday if you believe that.

Between the NSA's domestic spying operations and various "firearm tracing" databases that the federal government maintains, most if not all retail sales of firearms from licensed dealers are effectively registered by the government, illegally.
 
2014-08-07 12:32:43 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: When can we start denying government assistance to people that spend money on guns and ammo?

It's clear that they have plenty of money.


I agree with you.  I think I'm about to have a heart attack.
 
2014-08-07 12:34:10 PM  

leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


When I get home, photoshop baby.
 
2014-08-07 12:36:17 PM  

Frank N Stein: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

Probably not. I'd be annoying and I'd be against it but I could live with it. Wouldn't be the end of the world.


It would probably be more up to how they handled the licensure part.  If it creates a national database, then that would probably be opposed by most gun owners.  If they could find a way to get around that part while keeping it cheap and easy to obtain, many would probably be partially open to it.
 
2014-08-07 12:36:17 PM  

Farkage: enry: Farkage: enry: Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.

Read the rest of the thread.

I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.

Maybe you could get someone to read it to you.  And explain the big words.

Well now aren't you cute!  Everything you posted got blatantly shot down and disproved.  I'll leave you all on your own now.


But you cared enough to say you think I got pwn3d.  Aren't you precious.
 
2014-08-07 12:38:57 PM  

leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.



Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.
 
2014-08-07 12:40:32 PM  

Lord_Baull: leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.


Does it matter?

/fap
 
2014-08-07 12:40:53 PM  

Lord_Baull: leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.


More importantly...


content7.flixster.com

"Can they be used as deadly weapons?"
 
2014-08-07 12:41:34 PM  
Guess I'm just to lazy. I don't want to pack the stupid thing around.
 
2014-08-07 12:48:13 PM  

BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?


May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.
 
2014-08-07 12:49:54 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Publikwerks: Yes, because there are alot of members. But a majority of the $$$ donated is from corporate sponsors:

Did you read the article?  It flat out says that half the NRAs income comes from member dues.  You can't have a majority of your income from corporate sponsors if half comes from members dues... unless you don't understand what a majority means.  The article clearly states that of the $228 million the NRA makes per year, up to $71 million (not a majority) comes from donations, which may include corporations, but also includes private donations.  So not even that $71 Million (1/3 is not a majority) isn't entirely corporate.


First off, $106 mil  isn't half of $228 mil either. And I don't know if they included the advertising dollars spent in the NRA magazines with that figure(which was like $20 mil)

But without getting too far into the numbers, because if you look into it, it's a complicated mess.
I mean, there is the NRA, the NRA-ILA, the NRA Pac, ect....

There are lots of places for people/companies looking to fight gun control to dump their money.
 
2014-08-07 12:51:27 PM  

HeadLever: dittybopper: Apparently there was some kind of unspoken understanding that so long as the poaching wasn't really egregious they'd turn a blind eye, because the family couldn't afford the fines and legal fees.

Yep, same here.   The rural folks will be the first to turn you in for poaching except for if they know that you only do this to keep your family fed.  Just be discreet and only use it when you need it.

The ones that poach and waste are the ones we really love to hate.


Careful with the poaching, you may get exiled, or worse.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 12:51:43 PM  

enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.


You're an idiot.  So if the manufacturers directed the NRA on what to do, the NRA would then not be representing gun manufacturers?  farking dumbass.
 
2014-08-07 12:51:48 PM  

Lord_Baull: leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.


Do you think I'm some sort of weird freak, of course horse-shaped/sized dildos!
 
2014-08-07 12:55:18 PM  

FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.


To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.
 
2014-08-07 12:55:28 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: The US is in a bit of a unique situation as far as firearms go.

Yes.  That's the point.

So if the US is in a unique situation, one that the rest of the world has never found it in, and the mechanisms used to attempt a repeat of those efforts are tenably legal at best, where are you going with this?


Well, for one thing, we can change the "tenably legal" part.  How is this point not coming through?  Do you really not understand a word I am saying?
 
2014-08-07 12:57:13 PM  

YouAreIncorrect: enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.

You're an idiot.  So if the manufacturers directed the NRA on what to do, the NRA would then not be representing gun manufacturers?  farking dumbass.


You seem awfully angry about something.
 
2014-08-07 12:58:44 PM  

Fark It: The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances


That link you listed actually says:
"Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry."

And just FYI, those "contributions" are all from the gun industry. Taurus even buys an NRA membership for everybody who buys one of their guns, so even their membership rates and dues are industry inflated.
 
2014-08-07 01:01:22 PM  
I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.
 
2014-08-07 01:01:48 PM  

thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.


I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.
 
2014-08-07 01:02:50 PM  

Tomahawk513: Fark It: Sergeant Grumbles: I think you'll find most Americans don't mind people carrying guns so long as they A) have sufficient reason to and B) aren't obnoxious or dangerous about it.

A hunter, during hunting season, possibly even wearing hunter's orange, has his rifle with him when he gets gas or grabs some McDonald's so no one swipes it out of the back of his truck? Most people would fail to see an issue.
Waltzing into the downtown Chipotle of a metropolitan area dressed like you're ready to hit the bars, making a spectacle of yourself by brandishing the weapon, all because MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Conceal carry? Keep your pistol on you for whatever reason you feel, but don't advertise it and don't intentionally escalate any conflict? I doubt most people would take offense.
Wear your pistol on your hip so everyone can see you're packing, and strut around like this is the Wild West, because you're that afraid you need a visible deterrent to crime, or again, MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Open carriers are the bronies of the gun rights world.  Sure, you can do it, but people are going to shield their kids from you and keep an eye on you until you leave the area.

 That's about the best analogy I've heard so far.


You would think so. Most people don't even notice open carriers.
 
2014-08-07 01:03:24 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: The Name: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

Careful.  Conservatives will go crying to the mods for comments like that.

Oh no, some random internet person called me a name. My fragile little psyche is damaged. Now I need a good cry. And I so wanted to be bestest friends with bdub77.


He's mad because he got a timeout for name calling and making death threats awhile back.
 
2014-08-07 01:05:19 PM  

mschwenk: Most people don't even notice open carriers.


Now I'm curious.  How does one even qualify that statement?
 
2014-08-07 01:05:49 PM  

YouAreIncorrect: enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.

You're an idiot.  So if the manufacturers directed the NRA on what to do, the NRA would then not be representing gun manufacturers?  farking dumbass.


It's not my fault you can't understand this.  Who is calling the shots doesn't matter.  The NRA is acting as the face and de facto representation of the gun manufacturers.  There's plenty of links in this thread with actual proof of it.  If the manufacturers call the shots, if the customers call the shots, if the ghost of Charlton Heston came down with a herd of angels and called the shots it doesn't change the fact that the NRA is the face of gun manufacturers and representing them.
 
2014-08-07 01:07:49 PM  
There are a lot of people in this thread that have a hard time grasping the concept of humor.
 
2014-08-07 01:08:18 PM  

Publikwerks: thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.

I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.


Why do you think some of these people stock so many guns?  Sure they might be held up in the street or shot at in the grocery store, but it's because they want to be protected in case a cop/fed shows up with a no-knock warrant and wants in.
 
2014-08-07 01:08:45 PM  

firefly212: Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine


Because they are required by law to hold certain annual meetings and are unable to change the dates and times of those meetings without an extended period of notice, the only way they could have canceled those legally required functions in Denver that particular year would have been to violate the laws governing their charter.

They did, however, cancel every function that year they were not bound by law to hold.

But don't let the facts get in your way or anything.
 
2014-08-07 01:12:14 PM  

enry: Sure they might be held up in the street or shot at in the grocery store, but it's because they want to be protected in case a cop/fed shows up with a no-knock warrant and wants in.


Oddly enough, those people annoy me less than the people who inexplicably hoard perishables during heavy storms.
 
2014-08-07 01:14:42 PM  

thamike: enry: Sure they might be held up in the street or shot at in the grocery store, but it's because they want to be protected in case a cop/fed shows up with a no-knock warrant and wants in.

Oddly enough, those people annoy me less than the people who inexplicably hoard perishables during heavy storms.


You're not the cop/fed that wants in.

/honestly tho, I'd probably be fine with LEO handling it.  IIRC, that's how it's handled in MA
 
2014-08-07 01:15:47 PM  

Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.



Cut out the redundant bit for you.  You're welcome.
 
2014-08-07 01:19:07 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: The US is in a bit of a unique situation as far as firearms go.

Yes.  That's the point.

So if the US is in a unique situation, one that the rest of the world has never found it in, and the mechanisms used to attempt a repeat of those efforts are tenably legal at best, where are you going with this?

Well, for one thing, we can change the "tenably legal" part.  How is this point not coming through?  Do you really not understand a word I am saying?


You can try to change the tenably legal part with a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That's not going to happen anytime soon, imo.

The firearm laws like banning handguns would probably do the most "good" but wouldn't fly.

You'd be better off dropping the war on drugs, bigger incentives for states and counties to contribute medical and criminal records to the NICS (probably punitive measures too), single payer healthcare, and an emphasis on mental health checks.

The only country in per capita ownership that can be really compared to the US is Switzerland. While they do have mandatory conscription, they don't hinge gun ownership on participation in the military. A surprising % of the population opts for civil service or is actually unfit for service due to health reasons. Their level of crime isn't low because of the militia service, though that has its part. It's low because of their high standard of living and good healthcare.
 
2014-08-07 01:19:46 PM  

Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.


This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.
 
2014-08-07 01:21:26 PM  

Callous: There are a lot of people in this thread that have a hard time grasping the concept of humor.



What conservative humor might look like:
i13.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-07 01:21:59 PM  
I for one support returning to the days of the wild west.  We already have the stereotype of being a bunch of gunslinging sociopaths, why not just roll with it.  However, in the interests of preventing Fark Liberals from wetting their pants at the thought of everyone packing heat, we'll say that the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and bombs are off limits.  I know this will disappoint some of the more avid gun nuts out there.  However, we can't go around wiping out major portions of the human population on the planet.  In the interest of throwing said avid gun nuts a bone, we will allow the use of orbital kinetic weapons should some enterprising individual launch a satellite with that capability.

Things to remember about the open carry argument:
1. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.  If a certain Florida resident had thought about that, it would have saved everyone a lot of grief.  Yes, in some states I can carry around a Ma Deuce in the event that I'm attacked by a pack of rabid and starving wolverines.  That doesn't mean its a good idea.  Sure, carry your AR-15s around.  When there's a NEED to carry them.  A regular handgun will do just fine until the apocalypse occurs.  In some cases, carrying a handgun would be rather crass.  I'm not going to carry a handgun into a police station, for example.  The police might not react well to said handgun.  A bar might not be the best place to carry, especially if you're drinking.  However, Darwin is at work there because the stupid ones are likely to try and draw a pistol while drunk and get shot in the process, so we'll allow it.  If you feel that your neighborhood is so unsafe that carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle is needed, then consider moving.

2. For you anti-gun nuts, I'll point out that there are essentially free-fire zones already in some cities and what you see is the result of criminals using weapons obtained illegally.  Note that criminals aren't worried about following the law because they're, well, criminals.  It doesn't matter how many gun laws you pass because the criminals have no intention of following the law.  See the definition of criminal in a dictionary if you're confused.  All gun laws do is inhibit the rights of a vast majority of individuals who are law abiding, will be law abiding, and have zero intention of using a gun in a criminal act...ever.

3. A gun is a tool.  Like any tool, the intent of the person using said tool is what matters.  If a person is intent on killing another person, they will attempt to kill that person.  I won't disagree that a gun does make that easier.  I will point out that gun laws won't prevent violent crime from occurring to those enterprising individuals who think outside the box:
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/man-attacked-with-medievil-weapon-in-patte r son-park/27315922#!bx4rEs
See said video as an example.  So next, according to gun control logic, you'll ban all metal spheres, chains, wood products, and metal spikes.  Individual was intent on causing someone harm.  Said person could have easily died.  Getting hit by a mace on the head is just as deadly as a bullet to the head.  This problem of murder has been going on for as long as people have been around.  We're just very, very, efficient at how we can do it now.  Banning guns will not prevent all murders, nor will it prevent all mass murders.

4. Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.  Try presenting your arguments in a rational manner instead of "think of the children".  Lanza killed his own mother to get her gun.  Nobody could have seen that one coming.  I feel very bad for the families.  I've lost children- my wife miscarried twins at 17 weeks.  It still hits me today, 4 years later.  I don't blame Lanza, I blame his mother.  If his mother had actually been responsible, she would have gotten those guns out of the house when she started to notice he was becoming more unstable.  We're just lucky Lanza wasn't smart enough or had the materials and internet on hand to build, say, a car bomb.  We could have lost most of the school.  It was a tragedy.  Treat it as such and learn from the mother's mistake: if your child is going bonzo, move your guns or get rid of them while you're child is in treatment.  If you know of a person who's not firing on all cylinders and has access to weapons, tell somebody who can do something.  That's the real lesson from that tragedy, not a need for further restrictions that will do absolutely no good and only affect law abiding citizens and, in addition, violate their constitutional right.
 
2014-08-07 01:23:57 PM  

Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.


So you're in favor of those requirements?
 
2014-08-07 01:25:20 PM  

grokca: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Liberals, now in prog form.


quietus_production.s3.amazonaws.com

Approve
 
2014-08-07 01:29:37 PM  

enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?


Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.
 
2014-08-07 01:33:14 PM  

FnkyTwn: Fark It: The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

That link you listed actually says:
"Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry."

And just FYI, those "contributions" are all from the gun industry. Taurus even buys an NRA membership for everybody who buys one of their guns, so even their membership rates and dues are industry inflated.



Yeah, I'm not gonna buy a Taurus just to get a free NRA membership.
 
2014-08-07 01:34:52 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: FnkyTwn: Fark It: The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

That link you listed actually says:
"Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry."

And just FYI, those "contributions" are all from the gun industry. Taurus even buys an NRA membership for everybody who buys one of their guns, so even their membership rates and dues are industry inflated.


Yeah, I'm not gonna buy a Taurus just to get a free NRA membership.


Yeah, if I'm going for a wheel gun it's Smith or nothing.
 
2014-08-07 01:35:57 PM  

Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.


memedepot.com
 
2014-08-07 01:37:27 PM  

Publikwerks: thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.

I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.


Comming up in a thread about police overreach and abuse, Publikwerks will rail about how the police are a bunch of power mad, knuckle dragging mouth breathers.
 
2014-08-07 01:38:03 PM  

Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.


The NRA was formed in 1871 in order to have civilians ready for war. It's modern day form is completely different. As an organization that fought for civil rights, its younger than most, stretching back like 40 years or something. Even 1889 is a damn young organization by civil rights standards.
 
2014-08-07 01:40:14 PM  

dobro: 88% of those polled don't understand the second amendment. It says nothing about carrying in public, open or concealed, and only guarantees the right of ownership for the purposes of a "well regulated militia".


Actually the truth is a little more complex than that.

You have to read various publications and articles written by the Founding Fathers (FF's) to really understand the proper context and wording of the 2nd Amendment.  When it was being discussed, the intent of it was always to allow individual people to own and keep arms for the purposes of forming a militia if ever need be.  Reason being is that the FF's strongly detested the idea of a national military and had originally intended most of the 'policing' to be done by state militias for the purpose of denying a strong federal military presence out of fear that it could be used to oppress the people in a dictatorship down the road.  If arms were restricted solely to the state/federal militias, then they have all the control with no ability for the people to fight against an oppressive government, as the FF's had just finished doing.

Now as to why they worded it the way they did....they wanted to be somewhat open-ended in the language (while at the same time using very specific wording) to ensure that any laws that would violate the 2a would be so blatantly unconstitutional that they would be quickly thrown out by the courts (although we see how well THAT'S worked so far) or rejected by either House.  It also makes it VERY clearly stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms; it says people.
 
2014-08-07 01:40:25 PM  

Publikwerks: First off, $106 mil isn't half of $228 mil either.


<notsureifserious.jpg>
 
2014-08-07 01:40:49 PM  

Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.


Ok there Internet Stud.  So you want to pew pew things right now and who gives a damn if I know what end points where?

/that explains why my mom called and just laughed for 15 minutes straight
 
2014-08-07 01:42:17 PM  

enry: thamike: enry: Sure they might be held up in the street or shot at in the grocery store, but it's because they want to be protected in case a cop/fed shows up with a no-knock warrant and wants in.

Oddly enough, those people annoy me less than the people who inexplicably hoard perishables during heavy storms.

You're not the cop/fed that wants in.

/honestly tho, I'd probably be fine with LEO handling it.  IIRC, that's how it's handled in MA


Very inconsistently might I add.  Some cities and towns as long as you meet the requirements you're good.  Others and you can forget ever getting an unrestricted LTC.  Allowing the local LEOs to handle it results in little fiefdoms all over the state.
 
2014-08-07 01:43:02 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.


Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.
 
2014-08-07 01:44:12 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Publikwerks: First off, $106 mil isn't half of $228 mil either.

<notsureifserious.jpg>


106*2=212

212<228
 
2014-08-07 01:44:34 PM  

Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.


Sounds like a terroristic threat to me.
 
2014-08-07 01:45:47 PM  

Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.


Ginsburg is in on the way out as well.
 
2014-08-07 01:47:57 PM  

enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.

Ok there Internet Stud.  So you want to pew pew things right now and who gives a damn if I know what end points where?

/that explains why my mom called and just laughed for 15 minutes straight


Hope you have unlimited voice on your phone plan if your mom calls after every time she S's the D
 
2014-08-07 01:50:24 PM  

rockforever: Even 1889 is a damn young organization by civil rights standards.


List all current active civil rights organizations founded in or before 1889
 
2014-08-07 01:50:43 PM  

qorkfiend: BlindRaise: The gun control debate is ultimately not about keeping people safe from crime, it's about power.

Yeah, it's all about power. There's no desire to reduce the high incidence of mass shootings when compared to the rest of the developed world or preventing people like Adam Lanza from having easy and immediate access to military-grade weaponry.

You've figured it all out. Good job.


Typical leftist crap.

1. Adam Lanza didn't have "easy and immediate" access to weaponry.  He had to kill his mother, who was the actual owner with a kitchen knife, then stole the weaponry.  He himself didn't own the firearms because he had mental health issues.

2. He didn't have access to "military-grade" weaponry.  He had access to civilian-authorized semi-automatic rifles and hand guns, none of which were military-grade since full-auto are for the military, not civilians.  Semi-auto means that with one trigger pull, one bullet is fired.  He did not have a selector-switch rifle.  What he had was no different than a Mini-14 (go google it) which has the exact same capacity as the AR-15 that he used in every spec (fires same cartridge, semi-auto, etc).
 
2014-08-07 01:50:48 PM  

redmid17: Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.

Ginsburg is in on the way out as well.


True, but whoever wins, she gets to appoint Ginsberg, Scalia and Kennedy successors most likely... And if that's Hillary, you're going to see a deep blue replacement for Ginsburg, and moderates blues for Scalia and Kennedy. MAYBE a moderate republican judge(call it pink) with two deep blues as a compromise.

Either way, the court shifts blue, and it's game over on gun control.
 
2014-08-07 01:51:48 PM  

Incog_Neeto: We've had open carry here without a permit here in Arizona for quite a long time and I've seen two people carrying in the 16 years I've been here that wasn't directly outside a gun range.  It's really not that big of a deal.


This. For people living in open carry and gun friendly states it's just not that big of a deal. I bet 65% percent of the people I encounter are armed but it never crosses my mind. The only open carry I've seen outside of protests have been in parking lots while a gun show is going on nearby.

There's really no rational reason behind the debilitating fear of firearms.

/lives in TX
 
2014-08-07 01:56:57 PM  

Callous: There are a lot of people in this thread that have a hard time grasping the concept of humor.


There are a lot of people on this website that hear the word gun and go from zero to 100 on the crazy scale and cannot even see sarcasm as their minds are flooded with fear (Obummer is gonna take our guns vs. Obummer needs to take your guns)
 
2014-08-07 01:57:16 PM  

Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.

Ok there Internet Stud.  So you want to pew pew things right now and who gives a damn if I know what end points where?

/that explains why my mom called and just laughed for 15 minutes straight

Hope you have unlimited voice on your phone plan if your mom calls after every time she S's the D


Well at least she has time to talk to me.  I hear when your mom talks on the phone it sounds like one of those Charlie Brown adults.  It's nice she does that to pay for your cheetos.
 
2014-08-07 02:00:16 PM  

enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.

Ok there Internet Stud.  So you want to pew pew things right now and who gives a damn if I know what end points where?

/that explains why my mom called and just laughed for 15 minutes straight

Hope you have unlimited voice on your phone plan if your mom calls after every time she S's the D

Well at least she has time to talk to me.  I hear when your mom talks on the phone it sounds like one of those Charlie Brown adults.  It's nice she does that to pay for your cheetos.


2/10

at least you tried.
 
2014-08-07 02:02:31 PM  

shda5582: qorkfiend: BlindRaise: The gun control debate is ultimately not about keeping people safe from crime, it's about power.

Yeah, it's all about power. There's no desire to reduce the high incidence of mass shootings when compared to the rest of the developed world or preventing people like Adam Lanza from having easy and immediate access to military-grade weaponry.

You've figured it all out. Good job.

Typical leftist crap.

1. Adam Lanza didn't have "easy and immediate" access to weaponry.  He had to kill his mother, who was the actual owner with a kitchen knife, then stole the weaponry.  He himself didn't own the firearms because he had mental health issues.

2. He didn't have access to "military-grade" weaponry.  He had access to civilian-authorized semi-automatic rifles and hand guns, none of which were military-grade since full-auto are for the military, not civilians.  Semi-auto means that with one trigger pull, one bullet is fired.  He did not have a selector-switch rifle.  What he had was no different than a Mini-14 (go google it) which has the exact same capacity as the AR-15 that he used in every spec (fires same cartridge, semi-auto, etc).


Lanza's mom died of 4 .22 LRs to the head, not a knife wounds. TBH I'm not sure I've even heard of her having knife wounds before this.
 
2014-08-07 02:02:57 PM  
They people who legally carry guns in public are the least likely to murder schoolchildren and coworkers.

The ones who commit the mayhem are more likely to have under-treated mental health issues.
 
2014-08-07 02:03:30 PM  

Jackson Herring: hell yeah I'm a moderate

I get to piss off BOTH sides

the best thing in life is pissing off a majority of people

I am a toddler

catch ya on the flip side!


[i.imgur.com image 144x51]


That is it I am buying all the pies.
 
2014-08-07 02:04:12 PM  

Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.

Ok there Internet Stud.  So you want to pew pew things right now and who gives a damn if I know what end points where?

/that explains why my mom called and just laughed for 15 minutes straight

Hope you have unlimited voice on your phone plan if your mom calls after every time she S's the D

Well at least she has time to talk to me.  I hear when your mom talks on the phone it sounds like one of those Charlie Brown adults.  It's nice she does that to pay for your cheetos.

2/10

at least you tried.


To be fair, you went to the lame mom comeback first.
 
2014-08-07 02:05:30 PM  

Publikwerks: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.

Ok there Internet Stud.  So you want to pew pew things right now and who gives a damn if I know what end points where?

/that explains why my mom called and just laughed for 15 minutes straight

Hope you have unlimited voice on your phone plan if your mom calls after every time she S's the D

Well at least she has time to talk to me.  I hear when your mom talks on the phone it sounds like one of those Charlie Brown adults.  It's nice she does that to pay for your cheetos.

2/10

at least you tried.

To be fair, you went to the lame mom comeback first.


True
 
2014-08-07 02:08:00 PM  

Publikwerks: redmid17: Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.

Ginsburg is in on the way out as well.

True, but whoever wins, she gets to appoint Ginsberg, Scalia and Kennedy successors most likely... And if that's Hillary, you're going to see a deep blue replacement for Ginsburg, and moderates blues for Scalia and Kennedy. MAYBE a moderate republican judge(call it pink) with two deep blues as a compromise.

Either way, the court shifts blue, and it's game over on gun control.


There would definitely be a shift in gun control decisions, but it'll take a while before something that challenges Heller or McDonald gets in front of SCOTUS, unless they exercise original jurisdiction on the case and bypass all the appeals courts. That would be fairly unprecedent, insofar as my limited knowledge of the extensive judicial system is concerned. Even US v Miller, which was fast tracked to put it mildly, took over a year to decide.
 
2014-08-07 02:08:04 PM  

Publikwerks: Click Click D'oh: Publikwerks: First off, $106 mil isn't half of $228 mil either.

<notsureifserious.jpg>

106*2=212

212<228


Look, I know that all you have on your side is idiotic pedantry, but for the rest of the world 46.5% is close enough to half, especially when only using a single year of income statements as a basis.

But just in case you haven't realized yet how badly wrong you were, you article clearly states: "Between then [2005] and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers."

Now, let's do some math since you seem so fond of it.  2011-2005 = 6.  38.9 million / 6 = $6.48 million per year in corporate donations.

Back to our original number $228 Million.  So, for to you claim, "But a majority of the $$$ donated is from corporate sponsors" .... 6.48 would have to be >= 50.1% of $228 Million.

Lol

I think we are safer off with my statement that membership dues alone account for half of the NRAs income and just accepting that you are a tool.
 
2014-08-07 02:16:58 PM  

Frank N Stein: Publikwerks: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: enry: Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.

So you're in favor of those requirements?

Just because I put my dick in your mom's mouth last night doesn't give you the right to put words in mine.

Ok there Internet Stud.  So you want to pew pew things right now and who gives a damn if I know what end points where?

/that explains why my mom called and just laughed for 15 minutes straight

Hope you have unlimited voice on your phone plan if your mom calls after every time she S's the D

Well at least she has time to talk to me.  I hear when your mom talks on the phone it sounds like one of those Charlie Brown adults.  It's nice she does that to pay for your cheetos.

2/10

at least you tried.

To be fair, you went to the lame mom comeback first.

True


If you were both girls, I'd tell you to kiss and make up.
 
2014-08-07 02:17:27 PM  

K-jack: dittybopper: The Name: dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?


[www.data360.org image 850x515]

Uh . . . Cletus, did you get a good look at the names of the countries at the top of that list?  Is that REALLY the chart you want to use to argue that the US doesn't have a problem with gun violence?

First, my name's not Cletus.  It's Janet.  Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.

And if you want to get picky, did you see that tiny little footnote the Washington Post chart where they excluded Mexico, even though it was in the dataset they pulled from?  Hmmmmm, I wonder why that might be....

Also, I was using that chart to point out that the first one was intentionally lying through omission, making it seem like the United States has a higher homicide rate than, for example, Poland, which is actually incorrect:  The US does have a higher *FIREARM* homicide rate than Poland, but my point was that Poland has a higher total homicide rate than the US.

It's in fact a given that reducing the number of firearms in circulation will lower the *FIREARM* homicide rate, but it's not clear that doing so will lower the *TOTAL* homicide rate, which should be the goal.  And in fact, I pointed out that Poland (which is in both graphs) is a perfect example of a country that has fewer firearms per capita but has a higher homicide rate.  And Poland is a modern industrialized nation.  It's not some Central American backwater.

So, since you seem to fancy yourself to be smarter than me, based upon your attempt to insult my intelligence, would you care to answer my criticism of your post, Einstein McBrainiac*?

*That's sarcasm, btw.  Normally I wouldn't explicitly point it out because it's intuitively ...

Poland is far closer socio-economically to "some Central American backwater" than it is to Western European and Scandinavian countries. It's a poor example for what you're trying to argue.


So, that means that the socio-economic structure is more important to homicide rates than gun ownership?
 
2014-08-07 02:18:55 PM  

Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.


Let's deal with Hillary first.  I'm not convinced she's going to run.  I'm certainly not convinced she's going to win.  What I don't see from Hillary now is what she had last time- ambition.  Right now, at least to me, she appears ambivalent at best about running.  She's also lacking that spark she had during the last time she ran.  She seems kind of worn out and worn down.  That's spurring some competition- good old O'Malley has decided to go up to New Hampshire...again.  Its pretty clear he wants to run for higher office, and he's an avid Obama supporter.  Not so much a Clinton supporter.  I respect Elizabeth Warren enough to take her at her word that she won't run.  We also have no idea who the Republican nominee will be.  I can assure you that it won't be Jeb, nor will it be Mitt, nor will it be Christie.  Jeb doesn't really want to run, Mitt wants to but knows he can't win now, and Christie is too moderate for conservative states.  There are some very good conservatives out there who do not want to run but might get into the ring.  It is also impossible to predict what the socioeconomic climate is going to be like in 2016.  Anything, literally, could happen.  Ask me this time in 2016 who is going to win and I might be able to give you a better prediction.

2nd, how many gun control laws are on the books now and how effective are they?  Is a new law really going to solve the problem.  There are already laws on the books to deal with class III firearms, and they are working fine.  What you need to do is to change social attitudes about how people should act in society.  Lets say you change the law to ban all guns.  If you do nothing else, you'll have drive-by crossbowings instead of shootings.  Or harpoonings.  It also won't stop criminals from getting guns.  It will sufficiently agitate some of the states to arrest federal officers who attempt to enforce it and get thrown out as unconstitutional.  This isn't a gun problem, its a societal attitude problem.

Lastly, people really ought to think before cramming any more laws down someone's throat.  Look at how well our current President has done in uniting the people with ACA.  Try it with gun control, and we're one step closer to people reacting poorly towards said lawmakers and their supporters.  It could be the tipping point.  Possibly.  That being said, there needs to be concessions on both sides.  Right now, one side is not making concessions, and has not negotiated in good faith.  It doesn't matter if you think its conservatives or liberals.  That what each side believes right now.  If your version of work with us is "agree to what we want or else" then you're not going to get cooperation.  That's the problem we have right now.  Conservatives believe that we have already compromised way too much for nothing in return.  Liberals say they haven't compromised enough.  The conservative base...strongly disagrees.  That's probably an understatement.  And this time, the conservatives aren't going to budge until they see some evidence that liberals are willing to compromise.
 
2014-08-07 02:20:28 PM  

TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.


I think that's great..  It's a common delusion among Liberals that only Conservatives own guns.  I say the more the merrier.
 
2014-08-07 02:22:07 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.

Let's deal with Hillary first.  I'm not convinced she's going to run.  I'm certainly not convinced she's going to win.  What I don't see from Hillary now is what she had last time- ambition.  Right now, at least to me, she appears ambivalent at best about running.  She's also lacking that spark she had during the last time she ran.  She seems kind of worn out and worn down.  That's spurring some competition- good old O'Malley has decided to go up to New Hampshire...again.  Its pretty clear he wants to run for higher office, and he's an avid Obama supporter.  Not so much a Clinton supporter.  I respect Elizabeth Warren enough to take her at her word that she won't run.  We also have no idea who the Republican nominee will be.  I can assure you tha ...


Hillary will run. There's not much to run against and the pool on her side is pretty weak. If she ever wants to be president, now is the time.
 
2014-08-07 02:30:06 PM  

ManateeGag: doublesecretprobation: what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":

[d1odfg5a9rhrg8.cloudfront.net image 480x467]

To "conservatives":

[a57.foxnews.com image 850x478]

yeah.  and if that prog decided to rob that bakery, he'd kill both those morons before either of them had time to aim and fire their weapon.


I Don't believe you, Liberals are cowards.
 
2014-08-07 02:31:03 PM  

redmid17: Publikwerks: redmid17: Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.

Ginsburg is in on the way out as well.

True, but whoever wins, she gets to appoint Ginsberg, Scalia and Kennedy successors most likely... And if that's Hillary, you're going to see a deep blue replacement for Ginsburg, and moderates blues for Scalia and Kennedy. MAYBE a moderate republican judge(call it pink) with two deep blues as a compromise.

Either way, the court shifts blue, and it's game over on gun control.

There would definitely be a shift in gun control decisions, but it'll take a while before something that challenges Heller or McDonald gets in front of SCOTUS, unless they exercise original jurisdiction on the case and bypass all the appeals courts. That would be fairly unprecedent, insofar as my limited knowle ...


Keep in mind that even the most liberal SCOTUS justice still follows the constitution.  They can be impeached by congress.  It has never happened, but it can be done.  Second, a supreme court ruling in favor of gun control is most likely going to be one of those things that further divides the nation.  They might not even hear a gun control case in the next 20 years, deciding that it is a political problem that needs to be solved by congress if they think that an issue is best left in the hands of congress.  If you doubt me, that's exactly what the Robert's decision on ACA was.  It was punting it back to congress telling them that it was there problem, and they needed to fix it.  And yes, I do support the Roberts decision based on his arguments.  I see how and why he ruled.  I didn't say I agreed with it, I understand it.  Lastly, there is no way to predict how the SCOTUS rules on anything.  Hell, 90% of the time Thomas just listens to the arguments and doesn't ask questions.  How many 9-0 rulings have come out of this court against the President with President Obama appointees on them?  Who would have predicted that happening? In the end, never bank on the SCOTUS to be your savior.  It will most likely backfire on you.
 
2014-08-07 02:34:12 PM  

redmid17: bobothemagnificent: Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.

Let's deal with Hillary first.  I'm not convinced she's going to run.  I'm certainly not convinced she's going to win.  What I don't see from Hillary now is what she had last time- ambition.  Right now, at least to me, she appears ambivalent at best about running.  She's also lacking that spark she had during the last time she ran.  She seems kind of worn out and worn down.  That's spurring some competition- good old O'Malley has decided to go up to New Hampshire...again.  Its pretty clear he wants to run for higher office, and he's an avid Obama supporter.  Not so much a Clinton supporter.  I respect Elizabeth Warren enough to take her at her word that she won't run.  We also have no idea who the Republican nominee will be.  ...


Study her closely.  Look at her when she speaks.  Do you really see the desire there to be president and have to deal with all the crap that comes from the job?  Is she really showing she wants to be president?  I don't see it.  I'm not saying she isn't going to run, I'm just saying I don't think it's likely to happen.
 
2014-08-07 02:36:18 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Let's deal with Hillary first.  I'm not convinced she's going to run.  I'm certainly not convinced she's going to win.  What I don't see from Hillary now is what she had last time- ambition.  Right now, at least to me, she appears ambivalent at best about running.  She's also lacking that spark she had during the last time she ran.  She seems kind of worn out and worn down.  That's spurring some competition- good old O'Malley has decided to go up to New Hampshire...again.  Its pretty clear he wants to run for higher office, and he's an avid Obama supporter.  Not so much a Clinton supporter.  I respect Elizabeth Warren enough to take her at her word that she won't run.  We also have no idea who the Republican nominee will be.  I can assure you that it won't be Jeb, nor will it be Mitt, nor will it be Christie.  Jeb doesn't really want to run, Mitt wants to but knows he can't win now, and Christie is too moderate for conservative states.  There are some very good conservatives out there who do not want to run but might get into the ring.  It is also impossible to predict what the socioeconomic climate is going to be like in 2016.  Anything, literally, could happen.  Ask me this time in 2016 who is going to win and I might be able to give you a better prediction.

2nd, how many gun control laws are on the books now and how effective are they?  Is a new law really going to solve the problem.  There are already laws on the books to deal with class III firearms, and they are working fine.  What you need to do is to change social attitudes about how people should act in society.  Lets say you change the law to ban all guns.  If you do nothing else, you'll have drive-by crossbowings instead of shootings.  Or harpoonings.  It also won't stop criminals from getting guns.  It will sufficiently agitate some of the states to arrest federal officers who attempt to enforce it and get thrown out as unconstitutional.  This isn't a gun problem, its a societal attitude problem.

Lastly, people really ought to think before cramming any more laws down someone's throat.  Look at how well our current President has done in uniting the people with ACA.  Try it with gun control, and we're one step closer to people reacting poorly towards said lawmakers and their supporters.  It could be the tipping point.  Possibly.  That being said, there needs to be concessions on both sides.  Right now, one side is not making concessions, and has not negotiated in good faith.  It doesn't matter if you think its conservatives or liberals.  That what each side believes right now.  If your version of work with us is "agree to what we want or else" then you're not going to get cooperation.  That's the problem we have right now.  Conservatives believe that we have already compromised way too much for nothing in return.  Liberals say they haven't compromised enough.  The conservative base...strongly disagrees.  That's probably an understatement.  And this time, the conservatives aren't going to budge until they see some evidence that liberals are willing to compromise.


First off, Hillary's gonna win, and barring some sort of mega fark up, will win.

Secondly, there isn't shiat on the books for gun control anymore. Brady bill is gone. I mean, what gun laws are out there other than the regs on Class III?

Third - I don't want to ram laws down your throat. I want both sides to work together to make laws that prevent those with tendencies to violence from getting guns, be it insanity, domestic abuse or whatnot.

But the gun advocates seem to think they can wait out any gun control push, and that strategy will work for now, but it may not work in 2-4 years. At which point, you're SOL. Just like with ObamaCare. Clinton tried to get heath care reform through congress, and they dragged their feet and stalled until Bush. Then when they were in charge, they ignored the problem completely. But then, when the Dems came to power, they had a solution rammed down their throat.

Learn from that.
 
2014-08-07 02:39:23 PM  

bobothemagnificent: redmid17: Publikwerks: redmid17: Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.

Here's the thing - there are limits to firearms. You can't buy new class 3 weapons. So just like free expression(1st amendment) there are limits, and those limits really seem to be at the whim of the SCOTUS. And two GOP voices on that court are getting old. And the next election, barring some sort of super candidate, is going to go to Hillary(polls point that way - here is a fox news poll from a few weeks ago giving her a 10 point lead:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls - midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/ ).

So work with us.  Please. Because otherwise, you're getting Brady Bill 2: Electric Ban-aloo. There can be logical gun controls that work for everyone.

Or you can have law rammed down your throat.

Your call.

Ginsburg is in on the way out as well.

True, but whoever wins, she gets to appoint Ginsberg, Scalia and Kennedy successors most likely... And if that's Hillary, you're going to see a deep blue replacement for Ginsburg, and moderates blues for Scalia and Kennedy. MAYBE a moderate republican judge(call it pink) with two deep blues as a compromise.

Either way, the court shifts blue, and it's game over on gun control.

There would definitely be a shift in gun control decisions, but it'll take a while before something that challenges Heller or McDonald gets in front of SCOTUS, unless they exercise original jurisdiction on the case and bypass all the appeals courts. That would be fairly unprecedent, insofar as my limi ...


They are probably going to have to rule on shall-issue vs may-issue here in the next year or two. The district courts are pretty much divided down the middle on that.
 
2014-08-07 02:42:43 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: So....what's the point?  That liberals aren't the horrible gun-grabbers that everyone seems to think they are?  That there's a big damn difference between saying people should have to get background checks before buying a gun, and saying that people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns at all?

Nah, forget that.  Just keep being afraid of the "liberals" that live in your head.  They're much less complex and nuanced than the ones in the real world.


And yet democrats in the senate voted down a universal background check amendment in the last go around because it didnt have a central registration database. Go figure.
 
2014-08-07 03:03:09 PM  
Gun threads on fark are awesome. It's like a scene from "One flew over the cuckoo's nest". Nurse Ratched has just gotten all the patients settled down, complacently listening to elevator music, and Randle McMurphy (subby) throws a ounce bag of meth in the middle of the floor.

Best show in town.
 
2014-08-07 03:21:31 PM  

PreMortem: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Progs? Wasn't that something to do with the Power Rangers?

I'm not surprised at that poll. It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun. It's more like anti-crazy people getting guns, which the NRA is all for. Too bad the NRA has been taken over by gun manufacturers and zealots.


Just shows you know nothing about the NRA, and are a bald-faced liar.
 
2014-08-07 03:22:52 PM  

redmid17: You can try to change the tenably legal part with a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That's not going to happen anytime soon, imo.

The firearm laws like banning handguns would probably do the most "good" but wouldn't fly.


Right, but what you just said is like saying, "Yeah, there's a hole in this boat we're on, and it's sinking, but nobody wants to fix the hole in the boat, so anyone who suggests fixing it is talking nonsense."
 
2014-08-07 03:29:07 PM  

HeadLever: The Name: Yeah, well, let's just say I support the right to self-defense

Me too.  When you stated goal is to kill those in one political party, self defense becomes a pretty big issue.


Like this?

"Second Amendment rights"
"Don't retreat. Reload"
"Voting from the roof tops"
i.kinja-img.com

www.revelandriot.com
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-08-07 03:29:30 PM  

The Name: "Yeah, there's a hole in this boat we're on, and it's sinking, but nobody wants to fix the hole in the boat, so anyone who suggests fixing it is talking nonsense."


Actually, the hole (aka, gun violence) has been getting smaller for decades.  If you want to continue to fix this problem, banning shoulder things that go up isn't what you are going to be focusing on.

The fact that you continue to try is just another indication of how far from reality you are.
 
2014-08-07 03:33:17 PM  

nyseattitude: Like this?


Kind of, but the vast majority of those examples are set forth in a figurative context.   The Name's threat was an explicit statement.
 
2014-08-07 03:39:44 PM  

enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Fark It: enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents gun manufacturers, their literature actually comes with most new guns in this country.  The NRA represents ~5% of gun owners (yet has become a convenient, pejorative way to refer to anyone who doesn't espouse any and all gun control proposals from Bloomberg et. al....).  The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.

Uh huh. You keep believing that. You're wrong, but go right ahead.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is a national trade association for the firearms industry

The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances

Uh huh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-in du stry-ties_n_2434142.html

"Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control. "

For an organization with an operating budget that exceeds $200,000,000 annually, this is small potatoes.  The rest of the article is garbage propaganda from the mouths of anti-gun activists.

"The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmast ...

You can call it a hit piece, but that doesn't change the basic facts, which you have yet to refute with any amount of evidence.  If the NRA were really representative of its members it would be in favor of background checks for all gun sales, which is supported by 74% of NRA members.  But NRA leadership is firmly against that.  Who stands to lose from reduced gun sales?


No they are not. The NRA is against central registry databases. farking stop pretending you understand the stance of the NRA.
 
2014-08-07 03:58:23 PM  

Thunderpipes: PreMortem: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Progs? Wasn't that something to do with the Power Rangers?

I'm not surprised at that poll. It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun. It's more like anti-crazy people getting guns, which the NRA is all for. Too bad the NRA has been taken over by gun manufacturers and zealots.

Just shows you know nothing about the NRA, and are a bald-faced liar.


It's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs, and the NRA tries to block ANY legislation requiring background checks, waiting periods, or restrictions on gun sales.

You must be able to type without looking, what with your head being in the sand and all.
 
2014-08-07 03:59:32 PM  

BitwiseShift: Here in Texas you can buy your gun in the same store you buy your beer. And they don't sell coffins. But they do sell condoms. Almost one stop shopping for that first date with a Goth.


Dude. She is the poster girl for trying too hard, or overselling it, or not getting it. And I don't mean her personally, but her the casting/writer guys. Spider girl or the hottie from warehouse 13 or even the chunky chick from that one with the guy from lost is better. Btw, wtf. What's up w all the ancillary nerd bIt cooch on these vis clone shows?
 
2014-08-07 04:06:15 PM  

Publikwerks: thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.

I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.


Thank you, and the others who weighed in, on your well-considered responses. Your openness of thinking leads me to hope that maybe some day the people on various sides of this issue can find elements of common interest they can support together. It will require trust, though, and right now the interested parties don't trust each other at all.

A postscript to my Idaho trip: I congratulate the well-armed citizenry of Idaho for having largely done away with the scourge of shot-up highway signs. When I was a kid going to high school there in the 70s, getting drunk and shooting at highway signs was practically the official state sport. It was rare to see a sign more than a few weeks old without holes in it. Now, I don't know if it's the cost of ammo or if it's the raising of the drinking age from 19 to 21 or what it is, but I didn't see a single bullet hole on this visit and I was driving backroads where I certainly would have expected to have done. Whatever it is, good jorb.
 
2014-08-07 04:08:52 PM  

The Name: redmid17: You can try to change the tenably legal part with a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That's not going to happen anytime soon, imo.

The firearm laws like banning handguns would probably do the most "good" but wouldn't fly.

Right, but what you just said is like saying, "Yeah, there's a hole in this boat we're on, and it's sinking, but nobody wants to fix the hole in the boat, so anyone who suggests fixing it is talking nonsense."


That's not what I'm saying but conveniently leaving out half of my post will do that for you. Doing the stuff that is more likely to happen and raises the socio economic climate of everyone in the country. Easiest way to get rid of crime, period.
 
2014-08-07 04:18:39 PM  

Publikwerks: Secondly, there isn't shiat on the books for gun control anymore. Brady bill is gone. I mean, what gun laws are out there other than the regs on Class III?


You know there are close to 20,000 gun control laws in this nation right?
 
2014-08-07 04:20:44 PM  
I'd be fine with a national registry.  I'm fine with mandating safety classes and all that stuff too.  I like learning things.  Learning how to properly maintain my firearm collection seems reasonable. I'd even call NICS when I sell guns if I was allowed to do so. I'd even pay a fee of some sort every time I purchase a new gun to update the system to handle the additional load.  I'd rather that not be left individually to FFL holders.  We do that with NFA items already.  Some folks will do the paperwork, some won't and pricing is variable.  However, where I'm probably going to have an issue is for all that I'd like a repeal of the NFA.  Give me all the testing you want to feel comfortable, but then I should have all the toys.  If it's good enough for the police, it's good enough for me.
 
2014-08-07 04:23:22 PM  

PreMortem: It's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs


Who?  There are 76 NRA board members please support your unfounded assertion by backing your statement up.  Specifically, name the ones that are CEOs of gun manufactures.  I see a small handful (3 in my quick count, but there could be a few more).

It is laughable on how wrong you are.
 
2014-08-07 04:27:16 PM  

nyseattitude: Like this?


You might want to take a closer look at that third one....  Pixels, seen lots of shops in my time... Lyingdognews.net
 
2014-08-07 04:28:41 PM  

BMulligan: Publikwerks: thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.

I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.

Thank you, and the others ...


Most of my comments aside (which mostly deal with the actions and positions of the NRA), even though I'm in MA and a liberal I don't have a problem with most gun ownership.  My neighbor behind my house told me shortly after we moved in that if I ever saw him with a satchel of guns it's because he's headed to the nearby gun range and they're otherwise locked in his safe.  That was 16 years ago and I have never had a reason to question otherwise.

This is a huge issue and there's mistrust on both sides due to past actions, and the groups that should be taking a middle ground in this (LEO/mental health professionals/lawmakers) aren't exactly impartial or universally trusted.  It's just a part of human nature.

Yes, legal owners should be able to exercise their right.  They should be able to feel safe when walking the streets wherever they go. But that doesn't give them permission to think that everyone needs to carry or that if everyone carried things would be so much better.  Nor should it absolve anyone of responsibility when things go wrong.  Where did all of these guns on the street come from?  Someone legally bought it and then lost/sold/gave it away at some point.  On the other hand, those who don't want guns on the street need to take a chill pill and realize that having some population of their neighbors armed and qualified to defend themselves is potentially a good thing for the community.

I'm not a gun grabber.  I've shot before in scouts and a few times after.  I don't feel like I need it to keep my family safe but realize others don't live in the same kind of community as I do.  I feel there's classes of people who should not be carrying, and there's classes of people whose carelessness with their guns should made them ineligible to carry or own for some period of time or until they learn better.  There's absolutely no excuse for a child to find a gun (loaded even) and then shoot themselves or someone else by accident.
 
2014-08-07 04:30:02 PM  

BitwiseShift: Here in Texas you can buy your gun in the same store you buy your beer. And they don't sell coffins. But they do sell condoms. Almost one stop shopping for that first date with a Goth.

[img.fark.net image 225x225]


Goth girls don't make you use condoms!!
 
2014-08-07 04:31:17 PM  
Hi guys. I have absolutely nothing to add, it has just been a while since I posted in a Fark gun thread. But... since I'm here:  GUNS=PENIS SIZE!

/not sure about the quasi-recipriocal nature of gun size to, um, other size*, so I don't know if you should look for a man with a musket or a derringer ;p
*to say nothing of preference
 
2014-08-07 04:32:59 PM  

PreMortem: t's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs,


<citation needed>
 
2014-08-07 04:38:59 PM  

Click Click D'oh: PreMortem: t's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs,

<citation needed>


Yeah, I suspect we won't be hearing back from this dumbass.  Looking closer, I only see two - Steve Hornady and Ronnie Barrett.
 
2014-08-07 04:45:56 PM  

HeadLever: Click Click D'oh: PreMortem: t's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs,

<citation needed>

Yeah, I suspect we won't be hearing back from this dumbass.  Looking closer, I only see two - Steve Hornady and Ronnie Barrett.


If you want to broaden it to "gun industry" it looks like it might be 4-5. I'm pretty sure you have more former Hollywood actors and/or professional athletes in there than gun industry CEOs.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gun-lobby-who-got-elected-the-nra-board
 
2014-08-07 04:46:30 PM  
seadoo2006:

It begs the question ... WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING? I've lived in New York City, I've lived in Chicago, I've lived in LA and I've lived in the middle of the Appalachia Mountains and not even once have I ever felt the need to carry a gun.  It's like being prepared for an asteroid impact - the chances of it happening are so remote, so infinitesimal - that it doesn't even bear thinking about.


I worked the night shift in downtown Seattle (Pioneer Square Area) for a number of years.   While I myself was never mugger or had an incident, over the the few years I was working there were several incidents where people were killed or severely beaten in the alley behind our building.   One of my co-workers (a 20-something female) was mugged while on her way to the car after work one evening and spent several weeks in the hospital.

Just because it does not happen to you, does not mean it doesn't happen.
 
2014-08-07 04:57:27 PM  

HeadLever: PreMortem: It's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs

Who?  There are 76 NRA board members please support your unfounded assertion by backing your statement up.  Specifically, name the ones that are CEOs of gun manufactures.  I see a small handful (3 in my quick count, but there could be a few more).

It is laughable on how wrong you are.


I'm sure Tom Selleck guides policy.


/eye roll
 
2014-08-07 04:57:52 PM  

RightWingWacko: seadoo2006:

It begs the question ... WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING? I've lived in New York City, I've lived in Chicago, I've lived in LA and I've lived in the middle of the Appalachia Mountains and not even once have I ever felt the need to carry a gun.  It's like being prepared for an asteroid impact - the chances of it happening are so remote, so infinitesimal - that it doesn't even bear thinking about.


I worked the night shift in downtown Seattle (Pioneer Square Area) for a number of years.   While I myself was never mugger or had an incident, over the the few years I was working there were several incidents where people were killed or severely beaten in the alley behind our building.   One of my co-workers (a 20-something female) was mugged while on her way to the car after work one evening and spent several weeks in the hospital.

Just because it does not happen to you, does not mean it doesn't happen.


I live in a rural (Idaho) state. We have deer crossing signs downtown and I've run across deer and foxes, and been warned of coyote sightings, while out walking my dog. We also have a lot of loose dogs running around. Not everyone that carries a gun does so because they think they're going to get attacked by another person.
 
2014-08-07 04:59:28 PM  

FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.


I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.
 
2014-08-07 05:10:52 PM  

Rwa2play: So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?


Hold up just a second. I'm an active, contributing/dues-paying member of the LGC and have been so for some years. That said, we have some members who are very pro-NRA and others who are very anti-NRA. There is often disagreement about the NRA's involvement in policy as well as some rancor regarding their public statements and stances.

In 2012 some of our more senior members put together an "about us" page that's worth reading:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/talking/

In the end, while many (perhaps most) of our members do not support it at all, the LGC has no official stance on the NRA.
 
2014-08-07 05:11:06 PM  
I fail to see why it has the 'strange' tag. There's nothing strange about that, it's common knowledge (at least to any who have ever bothered to study the subject).
 
2014-08-07 05:11:48 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.


If, according to people that what gun control, the chance of me ever needing to use my gun to defend my self is miniscule, which means the chance of me hitting an innocent bystander is even more miniscule, why should I have to waste money on insurance?
 
2014-08-07 05:11:50 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.


My biggest beef with the insurance is that your driver's license is good across the US without even owning car insurance. You are, of course, on the hook for damages to the car and others, but you don't need car insurance to have a license.
 
2014-08-07 05:15:46 PM