I Hope All Those DUers That Reside Here As NRA Apologists Are Proud Of Themselves

... how the NRA is responsible for a mentally-disturbed person performing a heinous act.

If next week a crazy person drives a dump truck into a crowd of people will you be ashamed on anyone who belongs to the Automobile Club?

To deflect the conversation.

OK -- maybe you can explain why you chose Guy Fawkes as a avatar -- a man who bore arms and believed in violent overthrow of government?

eom

... who plotted to blow up Parliament, assassinate a king and kill hundreds of innocents all in the name of religion.

Perhaps you should chose your heroes more carefully -- or not get your history from sci-fi movies.

For your choice of avatar.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

it's elected board member and spokesperson. The video I love to post in the gungeon.



any defense of this terrorist org is insanity, just like the video.

eom

Any statement even vaguely pro-gun is an "NRA talking point."

To make deadlier guns more easily available, making events like this more of a possibility.

Ever see the automobile club lobby for the right to drive down the sidewalk during rush hour so they can get to their destinations faster? Notice I did not say for the purpose of running down pedestrians - that would just be an unfortunate consequence that isn't as important as our right to move freely.

The brush you are painting with is wide enough to be insulting to your fellow liberals and Democrats.

of the NRA apologists.

I too find it funny that you choose an avatar of a guy that advocates violence. The NRA of today are horrible. I don't want to see the complete baned of guns in this country.

Limit the size of the magazine clips. Heavy restrictions on assult weapons. The meat I get from hunting is better than the stuff you get from the supermarket. I'm including the natural/organic meats as well.

There are parts of this country that have wild animals that can kill you.

DUNBLANE, Scotland (AP) -- If there's anywhere that understands the pain of Newtown, it's Dunblane, the town whose grief became a catalyst for changes to Britain's gun laws.

In March 1996, a 43-year-old man named Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school in this central Scotland town of 8,000 people and shot to death 16 kindergarten-age children and their teacher with four legally held handguns. In the weeks that followed, people in the town formed the Snowdrop campaign - named for the first flower of spring - to press for a ban on handguns. Within weeks, it had collected 750,000 signatures. By the next year, the ban had become law.

It is a familiar pattern around the world - from Britain to Australia, grief at mass shootings has been followed by swift political action to tighten gun laws.

Snip .....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SHOOTING_WORLD_GUN_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-18-06-22-27

eom

Your irrational hatred of a group of people who essentially want to be left the hell alone is interesting.

When, exactly, was the last time an NRA member or "apologist" was responsible for one of these massacres?

I'll wait while you try to find the example but I will not hold my breath.

If someone is threatening you, name names, or take it to the admins, instead of this hysterical cry for attention.

As for me and my family we'll continue to support the 2A.


Stay safe, and carry on.

This post properly belongs in Meta.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host

A lot of what has been characterized as "apology" around here has been merely a correcting of the factual record. This is supposed to be a reality-based community, but for the last several days most of what I've seen from the gun-grabbers in "discussion" with pro-gunners has been snark, Appeal To Emotion, ad hominem, hyperbole, strawmen, name your logical fallacy. When a pro-2nd Amendment person tries to introduce facts, statistics, alternate arguments, what have you, the kneejerk "Y-y-your an NRA APOLOGIST!!! or "That's an NRA TALKING POINT!!! crap starts.

Who gives a fat rat's ass whose talking point it is? Is it a fact or not? Does it represent truth or not? Is it relevant to the argument or not? Those are the questions that should be considered in any discussion, not the thinly-veiled insult of accusing someone of shilling for some person or organization with conservative ideals. That's nothing more than a cheap, lazy and cowardly attempt to chill an opponents speech, to tamp out the argument immediately by making your opponent frightened to be seen as something they aren't in the hopes they'll shut up. It's sickening and shallow and obvious to everyone.