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
    More: Strange, prisoner swap  
•       •       •

2710 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 547 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report