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 103
    More: Strange, prisoner swap  
•       •       •

2619 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-08-07 02:22:50 AM
23 votes:
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
18 votes:
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
11 votes:

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 07:14:11 AM
10 votes:
what to "carry a gun in public" means....

To "leftists/libtards/progs":

d1odfg5a9rhrg8.cloudfront.net

To "conservatives":

a57.foxnews.com
2014-08-07 05:55:40 AM
10 votes:

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 10:17:11 AM
9 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-08-07 08:33:39 AM
9 votes:
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 01:58:11 AM
8 votes:
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 10:30:36 AM
5 votes:
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 11:05:30 AM
4 votes:
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 09:57:10 AM
4 votes:

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 09:51:06 AM
4 votes:

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 09:46:46 AM
4 votes:
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 09:46:06 AM
4 votes:

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 08:41:00 AM
4 votes:

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 09:46:57 AM
3 votes:

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 09:22:55 AM
3 votes:
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.
2014-08-07 08:50:01 AM
3 votes:

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 08:34:06 AM
3 votes:

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 04:46:30 PM
2 votes:
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 10:50:39 AM
2 votes:

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 10:36:42 AM
2 votes:
"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 10:15:28 AM
2 votes:
"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 10:01:32 AM
2 votes:

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 09:57:51 AM
2 votes:

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 09:57:15 AM
2 votes:

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 09:54:35 AM
2 votes:
s2.quickmeme.com
2014-08-07 09:53:36 AM
2 votes:

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 09:52:35 AM
2 votes:
These bait-and-switch headlines are so clever...oh, sorry.. I meant retarted.
2014-08-07 09:51:06 AM
2 votes:
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 09:49:34 AM
2 votes:
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 09:43:56 AM
2 votes:
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 09:42:09 AM
2 votes:
Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.
2014-08-07 09:37:17 AM
2 votes:

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
2014-08-08 04:27:04 AM
1 votes:

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*.


Whose board of directors aren't nominated by their membership but instead are selected by a committee selected from industry and not surprisingly matches the lobbying agenda of the NSSF.
2014-08-08 01:17:51 AM
1 votes:

Semi-Semetic: For those of you who think some portion of the military would jump in on your side, I wouldn't count on support from that front. They've sworn an oath to defend the country from foreign and domestic enemies.


The oath is to defend the Constitution. Not the country or the bureaucrats. So yes, the military will defend the Constitution from domestic enemies, including bureaucrats.
2014-08-07 09:45:09 PM
1 votes:

Publikwerks: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: There's a big difference in firing missiles and dropping bombs in other countries and doing it over here. All those soldiers families are over here and in easy reach. Can't kill the Apache pilot that blew up your friends? His family will be the next best thing. The government can't protect all of those people. Of course, that's assuming the government can get the military to go along. Sure some of them will but, how many of them won't like it and maybe start funneling heavy weapons out.

Yeah, start targetting their familes. That will win their support.


because, once the military starts blowing up US citizens, trying to win the support of the people doing the blowing up is gonna be a priority.
2014-08-07 09:02:28 PM
1 votes:

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".


100% of this guy doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment, the Heller decision, or the English language.

+10 if you were trolling though
2014-08-07 06:37:11 PM
1 votes:

mizchief: Nobody talks about this because it is a non-starter for the anti-gun agenda. This does exist and the cost is very low because the risk of an incident is very low and in itself creates a self-defeating narrative.


And I'm fine with the costs being low. I just want that extra veneer of protection like we do with auto insurance. If it means dad keeps his guns locked up tighter so junior doesn't increase his gun premiums, the system is working as designed.

mizchief: That's why gun owners don't want mandatory insurance. Your car is required to carry liability insurance and if you have a registered car that isn't insured you pay fines, etc. So mandatory firearm insurance would necessitate firearm registration to be enforceable.


But I put the people paranoid about gun registration into the same crazy camp as those who want the insurance to be prohibitively expensive.
2014-08-07 06:10:53 PM
1 votes:

bigdog1960: 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?

Let's get real world. I go to home depot for a tool. I have to walk by some asshole with an AR 15. During the day, why doesn't the asshole have a job.


So even though you would be at home depot at the same time, why would you assume someone else there didn't have a job? Unless that means that you also don't have a job. If you don't have a job why are you wasting your time coming up with dumb-ass theoretical scenarios?
2014-08-07 05:16:19 PM
1 votes:

PreMortem: I'm sure Tom Selleck guides policy.


Said no one in this thread.

So did you come up with a list to support your 'It's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs" statement yet?

Or are you admitting that your explicit statement is a lie?
2014-08-07 05:11:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:52 PM
1 votes:

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 01:51:48 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:43 PM
1 votes:

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 01:15:47 PM
1 votes:

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 11:45:26 AM
1 votes:

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 11:43:35 AM
1 votes:

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 11:41:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:32:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:32:00 AM
1 votes:

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 11:27:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:27:39 AM
1 votes:

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 11:26:53 AM
1 votes:

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


Indeed, it is.

www.washingtonpost.com
2014-08-07 11:26:25 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:52 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:26 AM
1 votes:

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 11:22:56 AM
1 votes:

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 11:18:53 AM
1 votes:

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 11:17:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:17:07 AM
1 votes:

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 11:14:23 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:00 AM
1 votes:

firefly212: From coming to town after Columbine

...


Thank you for confirming you lack on knowledge regarding the real world.
2014-08-07 10:58:58 AM
1 votes:

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 10:55:32 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:53:55 AM
1 votes:

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 10:53:04 AM
1 votes:

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 10:47:15 AM
1 votes:

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 10:44:06 AM
1 votes:

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 10:42:02 AM
1 votes:

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 10:31:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:31:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:31:25 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:59 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:19 AM
1 votes:

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 10:21:55 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:58 AM
1 votes:

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 10:19:33 AM
1 votes:
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 10:19:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:15:24 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:20 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:11 AM
1 votes:

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 10:05:17 AM
1 votes:
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 10:05:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:01:32 AM
1 votes:
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 10:00:19 AM
1 votes:

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 10:00:04 AM
1 votes:

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 09:56:48 AM
1 votes:
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 09:55:27 AM
1 votes:

Wellon Dowd: Trailltrader: Prog's ...

Progs?

[www.progarchives.com image 382x266]


img.fark.net

Yes, Progs
2014-08-07 09:52:58 AM
1 votes:

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 09:52:24 AM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2014-08-07 09:49:43 AM
1 votes:
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 09:49:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:48:27 AM
1 votes:

Trailltrader: Prog's ...


Progs?

www.progarchives.com
2014-08-07 09:48:26 AM
1 votes:
HOw else are you gonna protect yourself from all the other crazies out there with guns?
2014-08-07 09:47:30 AM
1 votes:
Has 4chan been vote bombing again?
2014-08-07 09:47:28 AM
1 votes:

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 09:45:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:45:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:10 AM
1 votes:
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 09:41:34 AM
1 votes:
My shiny new American-made Glock didn't come with any NSSF literature.
2014-08-07 09:41:15 AM
1 votes:
MSNBC viewers really exist? They can read?

Color me doubtful.
 
Displayed 103 of 103 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report