NRA: A lobby for criminals

[SecularMotion]

We’ve read the sickening script before. Following virtually every mass shooting in the United States, the news media focuses briefly on the question of whether anything can be done to prevent such incidents in the future. Soon, a softly spoken “no” infiltrates the coverage, either out of sheer hopelessness or the certain knowledge that our elected officials are so firmly in the thrall of the gun lobby that they quiver in fear at the mere thought of contemplating even tepid measures advanced by gun control advocates in the wake of the latest atrocity. If the aftermath of Aurora (12 dead, 58 wounded) plays out as others of recent or fading memory — Tuscaloosa, two weeks ago (18 wounded), Tucson in 2011 (six dead, 14 wounded), Binghamton in 2009 (13 dead, four wounded), Ft. Hood also in 2009 (13 dead, 29 wounded), Virginia Tech in 2007 (32 dead, 17 wounded), Northern Illinois University in 2008 (five dead, 21 wounded), Columbine in 1999 (12 dead, 21 wounded), etc. — the role of the National Rifle Association will be lightly brushed over, then dismissed.

It shouldn’t be. Here’s why.

In a nation armed with more than a quarter of a billion privately owned firearms, the NRA is correct to assert that determined outlaws will often find a way to get their hands on guns. The problem is that the NRA is the foremost enabler of many of those outlaws.

We can’t link the NRA directly to the hideous acts of alleged Aurora gunman James Holmes, 24, or to any one of the nation’s 9,000 to 10,000 annual gun murders and 338,000 rapes, robberies and other non-fatal assaults, or to the actions of the “deranged madmen” whom the NRA loves to demonize. What we can say with absolute certainty is that where there are loopholes in gun laws, laws that make it more difficult to get thugs off the streets and laws that endanger the lives of police and ordinary citizens alike, you will invariably find the fingerprints of the NRA. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s CEO and public face, may call his group “one of the largest law enforcement organizations in the country,” but under his leadership the NRA – with a 2010 budget of more than $240 million — has become the nation’s de facto lobby for street criminals, criminal gun dealers and an industry that reaps a sizable percentage of its income from criminal gun use. The NRA, says Pittsburgh police detective Joseph Bielevicz, “takes every chance it gets to stymie even reasonable efforts to combat gun violence.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/nra_a_lobby_for_criminals/

[loansstore]

1. I just have violance

I just have crime and I hate the criminals

[Reasonable_Argument]

2. By that standard

Groups like the ACLU must be a lobby for pedofiles, rapists, and murders then right? Also, at what point do libel laws kick in against people who publish things like this?

[99th_Monkey]

3. Hardly

NRA pushes us into a mass murdering Dead Zone,

While ACLU is pushing us towards a Higher Evolutionary
Consciousness, more just, more democratic, more human.

FALSE Equivalency I think this is called.

[Reasonable_Argument]

4. Hardly false

Just different groups supporting different rights. Your bias just blinds you too it.

[99th_Monkey]

5. Blindness by definition

is a "condition of lacking visual perception due to physiological or neurological factors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness

but it's interesting for you to use that metaphor in such political terms...

where blindness is more of a soul and/or heart thing.

[HALO141]

33. Once again, for those in the cheap seats...

You controllers swarm over a tragedy like ants on a dead bug. You scream and cry and threaten and insult and name-call in a vain attempt to cow your opposition. You quote agenda-driven ideologues as if they preach gospel and cite dubious (at best) studies and opinion pieces presented as fact. When your so-called "facts" are challenged with verifiable evidence you claim such evidence is immaterial or fantasy. You go to great lengths to construct red herrings, straw men, guilt-by-association and ad hominem attacks. You accuse others of the worst sort of bigotry while failing to recognize your own. When pinned down on a point you strike off on other tangents sometimes not even at all connected with your original arguments. Then, when all else fails, you decry your opposition as the unwashed rabble, turn up your nose and prance away muttering something about the futility of arguing with those who refuse to acquiesce to your obvious superiority. It's all very old and very tired and very predictable.


But please, by all means... Tell us more about how stupid, inept, uneducated and dull we all are.

[Reasonable_Argument]

36. Yep

I'm a liberal by any definition of the word except on gun rights. I have two degrees thanks to the army, was a 25a. But go on and keep telling me how I'm a coward, a redneck, or a paranoid idiot. I've shown time and time again I can handle firearms, I've been shooting for more than 20 years. Please go on and tell me why I shouldn't own firearms because they make you feel scared.

[99th_Monkey]

37. This is not all about YOU

and your beloved guns, it is about the NRA and how it
chooses to influence public policy in ways that I find abhorent
and downright frightening, and which is making our nation a
much less safe place to be.

You'll need to find another target for your hateful rant against
those who you imagine are trying to take your guns away;
cuz it's not me babe.

The only thing I'd like in terms of gun control is to reinstate
the assault rifle ban and to limit the number of rounds that
a clip can hold.

[shadowrider]

42. The Assault WEAPONS (Not Rifle) ban was a joke.

Imagine are trying to take your guns away???

Imagine?

Are you serious? Are you serious?

Read through the threads. They're all over the place.

[HALO141]

46. Beat me to it. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

61. Suppose you got your wish and those controls.

You would discover that they had zero impact and would then be back wanting more controls, until finally you were demanding a total ban.

[99th_Monkey]

69. I think your crystal ball is cracked

no one is made any safer by everyone being armed to the teeth.

I know of not one independent study that supports that hypothesis,
unless it is bought and paid for by the NRA.

I mean seriously. Do you actually think that having everyone armed to the
teeth is going to make for a safer more pleasant world? Is this what
you believe?

[GreenStormCloud]

71. It beats only criminals being armed.

If no one can get guns, criminals will very happily use knives, clubs, and strong arms. Violent crime rates would rise if you made people into helpless victims. I prefer being able to fight back, using the most effective tool available - a gun.

Why do you think my side has been winning for the past 18 years? People understand that your side will disarm only the peaceful and leave them helpless sheep before hungry wolves.

[99th_Monkey]

72. Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

It boggles my mind though, when gun owners who consider themselves "liberal"
swallow the NRA's blatant promotion of gun ownership, without any reasonable
limits on who can buy them and/or guns best suited as assault weapons, with
huge clips, etc.

And from what you've said it sounds like that's what you are claiming. Is that
correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth, and not trying to be snarky,
just curious..

[gejohnston]

73. It boggles my mind how gun grabbers consider them

selves liberal at all.
what is bad about "blatant promotion of gun ownership"? Notice the loaded language? It seems that the gun control movement is about culture wars than fighting violence. Even the Dutch and UK versions of the NRA promote the shooting sports.

without any reasonable limits on who can buy them

demonstrably false and a logical fallacy. What is "reasonable" and why is it reasonable? Why should I also define it as reasonable? It is a standard Brady talking point, but you have to explain why you think it is reasonable or sane.
The NRA supported the FFA and the GCA, which prohibits gun ownership of the ajudicated mentally incompetent (which is allowed under Dutch law) and felons (which is allowed under Canadian law).
An assault weapon, technically, are things like tanks and rocket launchers. What you are talking about are any semi automatic rifle. Pistol grips don't make it more deadly or less useful for peaceful uses.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080708_1988912secondthoughtsaboutguncontroljamesdwright.pdf

[Jenoch]

74. What are

'reasonable limits' and what are 'assault weapons'?

[99th_Monkey]

76. This guy says it better than I

http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=18932

THIS IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON - even though it is technically
a "semi-automatic", it can easily be converted into full auto-
matic, as shown in this demo video.

&feature=related


PS - This is the AR-15 assault weapon that the Batman Movie shooter used.

[gejohnston]

78. it is not converting it to full auto

because if it did, it would fall under NFA regulations
and Holmes' AR jammed, most of the carnage was created with a shotgun.

Bump firing is the act of using the recoil of a firearm to fire multiple shots in rapid succession. This process involves holding the foregrip with the non-trigger hand, releasing the grip on the firing hand (leaving the trigger finger in its normal position in front of the trigger), pushing the rifle forward in order to apply pressure on the trigger finger from the trigger, and keeping the trigger finger stationary. The firearm will recoil and then return to its previous position after the round has been fired first resetting and then pressing forward against the trigger thereby firing successive shots.
The relatively-rapid bursts from semi-automatic firearms crudely simulate the discharge of automatic firearms. Even though a large number of rounds are fired in rapid succession, the trigger finger initiates each discharge; therefore, fully automatic fire is not actually taking place.

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

[99th_Monkey]

81. Clearly the effect is the same as a full-automatic

As the video clearly illustrates, the effect is to increase the
rapidity of fire to be equivalent to full-automatic. That's
how it's being ADVERTISED, big "selling point", etc. so it's
more than a little rediculous to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that Holmes AR-15 had been converted to
full-auto equivalence, just that it MAY have been.

Fortunately in Holmes case his AR-15 jammed, so it
could have been much worse than it was even.

[gejohnston]

82. if it would have been a bump fire

it still would have jammed because of the mag. Everything he knows about guns seems to be from movies, if he fired full auto, most of the rounds would have gone into the ceiling because he would not know how to control the recoil. The Air Force and the Army taught me a specific way to fire full auto (one being not to use it on the M-16) and the other is to fire in bursts if you do. Even a gun like the M-60, I was taught to fire in bursts.

How anything is advertised is not always how it really works, see GOP and family values.
I will give you credit, the rifle is an "AR" design, as in it is the Eugene Stoner design.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757785_-1_757784_757784_image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15

[Hoyt]

91. Like this law-abiding gun nut?

&feature=player_detailpage

[Jenoch]

85. "It may have been"?

Either it was or it wasn't.

[Jenoch]

79. That is not full-auto fire

and the shooter in Aurora did NOT us an AR-15. He used a Smith & Wesson M & P 15.

[99th_Monkey]

80. CBS News => Holmes used "an AR-15 assault rifle... "

“An AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 870 12-gauge shot gun
and a .40 caliber Glock handgun. We believe those three weapons
were used in the scene and another .40 caliber Glock handgun
was found in the car. We’re not sure if that was also used in
the scene,” said Oates.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/20/4-guns-used-in-aurora-theater-shooting-purchased-in-last-2-months/

[gejohnston]

83. you both are right

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757785_-1_757784_757784_image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15

[Jenoch]

84. Nope, I'm correct.

AR-15 is a brand as is Smith and Wesson. It has been improperly reported all over the media (once it gets repeated, it gets repeated over and over) that an AR-15 was used in Aurora. It was not an AR-15, it was the Smith and Wesson M & P 15, an entirely different gun.

A similar thing happens with other semi-auto weapons. The cops and media frequently call a weapon an "AK-47" when in fact it was an SKS or another semi-auto weapon.

[gejohnston]

86. I was thinking in terms of

a Eugene Stoner design, which the MP and ARs both are. That was my point. I didn't know AR-15 was a Colt trademark. The AK and SKS are different designs and designed by different guys. A better example would be a Colt model P and an Italian made clone.

[Jenoch]

89. I realize the SKS and

AK-47 are different designs. That's my point. Cops and the media use the name "AK-47" as a catch-all for similar looking weapons. Whenever I see in the media that a perp used an "AK-47" I wonder what weapon was REALLY used because even the cops can't be trusted to get it correct. That was a different point than the AR-15/M&P-15 situation.

[Hoyt]

90. Doesn't really matter. Fact Holmes was attracted to such guns should have been enough to have him

investigated.

The gun culture likes to obfuscate over nomenclature. The argument that if one doesn't know the "difference between a clip and magazine, they can't express an opinion on guns" (or a semi-auto from a full-auto) is pure BS. Both a mag and clip feed bullets when some gun nut starts shooting people. Who cares about technical difference, except some gun cultists intent on protecting access to more lethal weapons?

[HALO141]

93. Do you really mean to say

that anyone who purchases a scary-looking gun needs to be investigated to a greater degree than someone purchasing a pink revolver?

[Hoyt]

94. I'd say that anyone ATTRACTED to "scary-looking guns" and/or lots of ammo has a problem.

Turns out, Holmes did. And, I think anyone who buys these weapons is a little warped -- sorry that is my opinion based upon a bunch of gun cultists I've met.

[HALO141]

95. Since I've never seen you refer to any

enthusiast in any way other than with one of your snarky, little pejoratives ("cultists&quot I suspect you think they are all "a little warped."

The Stoner platform, in all its variants, is among the most popular rifles ever sold. The number of people buying ammo in bulk to save money is likewise significant. On the other hand, the percentage of Holmes-type personalities making these purchases is statistically insignificant yet you would have the police out investigating them all in an attempt to ferret out the 1 in 1000000 that might not be absolutely straight and level. Personally, I think the authorities have their hands full with more productive endeavors.

[DrDan]

58. no need - you do that pretty well yourselves

[HALO141]

66. Thank you for illustrating my point. Again. n/t

[Missycim]

6. Well the ACLU

supports groups like the Klan and CFA, so how is that Higher Evolutionary?

[99th_Monkey]

38. I was not aware of this

and to the extent that ACLU does "support" KKK, et. al. I think
they would say that what they support is the KKK's right to
free speech, not the abhorrent content of their speech.

I'm not apologizing for them, and I don't even agree with them
necessarily, but this OP is not even about the ACLU, it is about
the NRA and the way they shamelessly promote policies that
create more gun violence way beyond anything reasonable.

So nice try with your ACLU red herring; I'll get back to focusing
here on what the OP posted.

[4th law of robotics]

26. Don't forget neo-nazis

the ACLU seems to love those guys.

Why if we just got rid of the ACLU we could get rid of the 1st amendment and really stick it to those skinheads.

What do you say people? You don't love neo-nazis do you?

[aikoaiko]

7. I love it. The Antigun freaks think the NRA is their problem

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 07:43 AM - Edit history (1)

This is another great example of why they are failing so badly.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. "Antigun Freaks" ... ain't it the truth!

[Hoyt]

15. You are right, it's the gun-freaks, not the NRA that's the problem. But,

The NRA is the mouthpiece for the gun-freaks, and it's a right wing mouthpiece.

[rDigital]

21. Yawn. nt

[4th law of robotics]

27. Tell ya what

go ahead and scream in public how awful the NRA is and how you seek to repeal the 2nd amendment.

See what kind of response you get.

[aikoaiko]

35. Closer, but the real answer is voters.

You can no longer use the tragedies committed by criminals to restrict guns from the vast majority of gun owners who are law abiding. That persuasive technique just doesn't work anymore.

The "NRA is eveeeel" meme doesn't work because most gun owners/RKBA supporters are not NRA.

Even non-gun owners see through that bullshit.

[ileus]

8. The NRA must really be a ScaRY group...

Who would have thought the NRA is to blame for 338k rapes a year.


What a dumbass writer....what other devices is he scared of besides firearms?

[rrneck]

10. Another hyperbolic screed

written for a target audience and feeding on the culture wars.

Make checks payable to the 1%, and thank you.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. "We can’t link the NRA directly to the hideous acts ..."

... but we can make that the point of the headline.

[DonP]

12. Boy, your Drive By Google Dumps are getting more shrill and desperate

Is it getting harder to find anything of substance out there? Can't find the one you really want that proves the NRA causes cancer in fuzzy bunnies?

Nothing from law reviews or peer reviewed publications anymore? You've been reduced cut and paste from piss poor blogs and self authored unpublished online articles?

Pathetic, but proof beyond any doubt of how and why the gun control movement is so totally ineffective.

If you or any of your gun control minded people had an ounce of ambition, or really believed in the "ideas" you spout, you'd get off the couch in Mom's basement and go out and actually do something about it. Join the Brady group, start petitions to repeal CCW in your state, do something.

It seems you plan to have the NRA declared an enemy of the state is going nowhere. I hope you have a plan B handy.

But since we don't even have anyone here that sends the Brady group a check or does anything but whine online, gun owners have nothing to worry about from people like you, because you all figure that someone else, magically will do it for you.

Please, please keep up that work ethic gun owners love so dearly. Thanks to people like you the NRA and sports shooters have nothing to worry about.

[Equate]

13. The NRA does not enable or is a lobby for criminals.

Coming from Salon, whose anti 2A rants are well known, I don't believe a single thing they write about the gun issues.

[Hoyt]

16. I bet Free Republic is more your speed.

[Equate]

17. What's Free Republic?

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

and if that's meant as an insult, don't expect me to respond to you ever again.
Why would you insult me? I don't know you, I've haven't even talked to you, so why the hostility?
Are you so anti gun that you must insult all gun owners? Why make absurd statements to someone you don't even know?
I'm willing to have an honest debate, are you, w/o the insults?

[ileus]

18. anyone that doesn't eat anti pieces is a RW troll.

Since you're new and pro gun that makes you a bait and ban target.

This has been a gungeon PSA.

[rDigital]

20. So is that the idea?

The trolls can't fight with logic, so they ridicule and make personal attacks to try and make new posters lash out and get banned. Am I right?

[ileus]

22. for the most part.

You used to see a nip here a bite there, then a full on attack. Finally an alert and shitcanning of the offending poster.

It's kinda slacked up since one of our master baiters was bushcanned. However there are still attempts to push around new posters to feel them out. If you have emotion its best to say thankyou may I have another, the jury system is set up perfectly to kill off pro-gun progressives since most people hate the RKBA section.

[Equate]

25. Is this true?

Why would he do that? I don't understand the level of hatred or animosity towards gun owners that they want them banned.
Why not a reasoned debate instead of attempting to get someone you don't agree with kicked off?
Is this some sort of a game where they chalk up points for getting someone they don't agree with kicked off?
If so, then they're not very tolerant of other views which would make them no better than the RW's., right?

[Trunk Monkey]

29. No true scottsman (AKA no true progressive)

There are plenty of folks here that are absolutely convinced that no real progressive would support the RKBA and state such frequently. You may want to look at some of the threads in Meta where posters actually state that “A maybe is good enough to ban a pro-gun poster”

[DonP]

30. It's all about frustration by gun controllers

They haven't had a win in court or in the legislatures for 15 years.

Now SCOTUS and our President, not to mention 49 states that allow CCW, agree with us, that gun ownership is an individual right and that really seems to piss them off.

So frustration, anger and baiting is the only exercise they seem to get.

Well that and going up to Meta on a regular basis and demanding that Skinner ban the entire group as all right wing trolls all the time.

[ileus]

34. At least one person considered it a game..

And would post their victories pertty often.

It made this person feel bigger, gave life meaning so to speak. In fact this person claimed without a decade of experience posting here your opinion was worthless.

[HALO141]

67. Hoyt's kind of a box of chocolates.

You never know quite who he's going to start insulting. Could be all gun owners over some media item or it could be a specific opponent.

There is some diversity of controllers here. One of the most prolific thread starters just posts column after column by rabid controller pundit wannabes then abandons his own threads. Most, though, follow a familiar pattern (see post #33). We seem to be at the end of the cycle, now, where they feign victory despite all evidence to the contrary.

[DanTex]

32. "new" LOL!

[CokeMachine]

87. That is low -- even for you which isn't saying much. nt

[spin]

14. There are only 4.3 million members of the NRA ...

But there are 80 million gun owners in our nation.

It is true that the NRA represents gun owner rights but if the Brady Campaign could get the majority of gun owners to agree with their views, politicians would be willing to implement the strong gun control you measure you dream of.

The NRA is largely the voice of gun owners and I believe that overall it reflects their basic views on gun control. I have personally known a number of firearm owners who once belong to the NRA but dropped their membership when they were disgusted with the constant barrage of mailings and sometimes telephone calls from the NRA-ILA seeking donations. That doesn't mean that they disagree in an significant manner with the NRA's position on gun control.

It's my contention that politicians do not fear the NRA as much as they do gun owners who show up at the polls to defend their rights.

In some largely urban and liberal areas of our nation a politician who supports strong gun control has a far better chance of being elected than one who strongly supports RKBA. Such areas include cities as Chicago where most people have little knowledge of honest and responsible gun owners but often see criminal violence caused by such weapons.

In other areas and cities of our nation where firearm ownership is common, even many of those who don't own firearms have little problem with the honest and responsible people who do because they are friends, co-workers and neighbors. In such areas of our nation it is basically political suicide to propose strong gun control measures while running for office.

The news media has a long hatred of the Second Amendment and the civilian ownership of firearms. It has tried to do everything within its power to convince Americans that we need to impose draconian gun laws. This includes purposefully distorting the truth and even lying to accomplish this goal. All their efforts have largely failed.

The media is unwilling to admit that it has totally failed to accomplish its goal. To do so would show just how little influence they really have and how little Americans respect their views. Therefore they have to find a boogie man to blame their failure on.

The article in the OP is not really meant as much for the average reader as it is for other members of the media to reassure them that the fact that we do not have draconian gun control in our nation like in Great Britain is not the fault of their "enlightened" efforts.

Of course the real problem is that many citizens have a strong distrust of the media for good reason. I feel a significant portion of that distrust is caused by the media bias on gun ownership. Americans are nowhere near as stupid as the media assumes.

September 22, 2011
Majority in U.S. Continues to Distrust the Media, Perceive Bias
More perceive liberal bias than conservative bias
by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The majority of Americans still do not have confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 44% of Americans who have a great deal or fair amount of trust and the 55% who have little or no trust remain among the most negative views Gallup has measured.



***snip***

Implications

Americans remain largely distrusting of the news media, with 55% saying they have little or no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and 60% perceiving bias one way or the other. These views are largely steady compared with last year, even as the media landscape continues to change rapidly.

In a report released Thursday, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found record-high negativity toward the media on 9 of 12 core measures it tracks. These measures may help explain some of the underlying negativity, though Gallup does not find sharp changes in overall views of the media this year compared with last. The types of media one consumes likely play a role in one's overall perceptions, and Gallup is planning more research in this area.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/majority-continue-distrust-media-perceive-bias.aspx

Views on Gun Laws Unchanged After Aurora Shooting
Released: July 30, 2012

There has been no significant change in public views on the issue of gun control and gun rights following the July 20th shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Currently, 47% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 46% say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns. That is virtually unchanged from a survey earlier this year in April, when 45% prioritized gun control and 49% gun rights.

Other recent major shootings also had little effect on public opinion about gun laws. There was no significant change in the balance of opinion about gun rights and gun control after the January, 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was injured. Nor was there a spike in support for gun control following the shooting at Virginia Tech University in April, 2007.

Public opinion about gun control and gun rights has been divided since early 2009. Prior to that, going back to the first Pew Research Center polling on this issue in 1993, majorities consistently rated controlling gun ownership as a higher priority than protecting the rights of Americans to own guns.

The issue remains a highly partisan one: Republicans prioritize gun rights by a 71% to 26% margin, while Democrats prioritize gun control by a 72% to 21% margin. Independents are split, with 50% saying the priority should be protecting the right of Americans to own guns, while 43% say it should be controlling gun ownership.


http://www.people-press.org/2012/07/30/views-on-gun-laws-unchanged-after-aurora-shooting/

[rDigital]

19. "Ermagerd guns scares me, Immsa justs another hoplophobe!"

Yet another reason why gun rights are in no danger at this time. The opposition is a screaming toddler stomping its feet and yanking on mom's blouse.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done. You're being a bad baby!

Obama fully supports the 2nd Amendment and stated that we do not need any new gun laws. I agree.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. A registry would actually be helpful

but California and Congress really fucked that one up, confiscating 'assault weapons' registered after the extension in Cali, and closing the NFA registry with the Hughes Amendment.

Nobody's going to go for it now.

[rDigital]

24. THey showed

that the only true reason for registration is confiscation.

[samsingh]

28. agreed

[Trunk Monkey]

31. well, that makes 2 of you NT

[bongbong]

39. 100% agree

The other thing the NRA is good at is pounding long-debunked Talking Points over and over and over and over and over until Liberals tear their hair out. After refuting the same lies for the 100th time it gets tiring. The parrots are so diligent in repeating the lies.

[Ashgrey77]

40. And you are any different how?

Most of your posts in any gun thread you comment on are just straight up insults to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Must be frustrating trying to control people.

[Union Scribe]

41. He's different because

parrots can learn new lines.

[bongbong]

44. Not all can

The NRA parrots repeat the same Talking Points they used in 1970, in 1980, in 1990, in 2000, in 2010 .....

[bongbong]

43. Is whining another NRA Talking Point?

> Most of your posts in any gun thread you comment on are just straight up insults to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Want some cheese with that whine?

[hack89]

48. "Winning" is the word you are looking for

pretty pathetic when all gun grabbers have left are insults and smilies.


It must suck being on the losing side of history.

[bongbong]

49. Losing?

> It must suck being on the losing side of history.

The only losers are the murdered victims of gun violence, that the NRA is responsible for.

I know gun-relgionists think it's like a football game, but the murdered people's families have to deal with the outcome.

[hack89]

50. And there you stand sputtering and impotent.

must drive you fucking nuts.

[bongbong]

52. Nuts?

> And there you stand sputtering and impotent.

I understand how you gun-religionists consider the dead body count a victory for your side. Too bad that such savagery is accepted, and celebrated by some.

[hack89]

54. American society is the safest it has been in 50 years

and the American people know it - that is why your hysterical rants are getting shriller and shriller. It is the only way to get noticed.

Poor gun grabbers - what's going to happen when it is announced that gun violence has decline once again? It gets harder when you have less blood to dance in, doesn't it?

[bongbong]

59. No thanks

No thanks to the gun-nuts, gun-religionists, and the NRA Liars.

[hack89]

60. But no thanks to you either

you and the other gun grabbers are irrelevant to the entire discussion. Loud, obnoxious but ultimately impotent.

[bongbong]

62. Relevant

> you and the other gun grabbers are irrelevant to the entire discussion

Since you gun-relgionists are just parrots for the NRA, you're even more irrelevant. You just don't know it. Parrot-hood will do that to a person.

[hack89]

63. No - we are the voters that politicians respect and listen to

unlike you.

Lets not forget the bottom line here - all that matters is how the American public votes. That is all politicians care about.

We are winning because we outnumber you in the voting booth.

You can yell NRA NRA NRA EVIL GUNS EVIL GUNS all you want - no one is listening.

[shadowrider]

45. Let them try and throw their insults around in another forum, say LGBT, and their posts would

not only be hidden, they'd be banned.

They can throw insults here with no fear. Juries not only allow the insults to stand, the comments are basically cheered.

[Union Scribe]

47. Even here, he has the (2nd) highest hide percentage

I've ever seen on DU3. Quickly approaching iverglas territory.

[bongbong]

51. The Delicate Flowers

The gun-religionist "Delicate Flowers" (as Tom Tomorrow so aptly put it) are sure scared of some different opinions!

Goes along with the fear that grips them if they have to venture in public without their Precious.

Why do gun-relgionists think they're "tough guys" when they need to pack heat to walk in broad daylight, while "wimpy Liberals" have no such fear?

Too funny!

[Equate]

53. Just went to his transparency page

wow.

[hack89]

55. It has to be tongue in cheek

no one can be that obtuse every time.

[Equate]

56. I'm refusing to answer any of his insulting comments

not worth my time, now he did have a good post on another thread which I did respond to. He actually was able to make a good point w/o any insults.

[ileus]

57. I've never understood why the anti's are so rude and hateful.

If their POV is so outstandingly correct and absolute why stoop to being such hate filled posters?

[hack89]

64. They remind me of anti-choice activists

so smug in their moral superiority that they feel no need for respect or manners. That is how fundamentalists think.

[rDigital]

70. Truth. nt

[Simo 1939_1940]

65. Again - Jon Stewart delivers a smackdown to these nonsensical rants against the NRA:

Scroll to the 7:00 mark:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/jon-stewart-mosque_n_688546.html

[NewMoonTherian]

68. Wait. I thought they were the lobby of gun manufacturers, period.

I have to admit, I'm having trouble keeping up. The NRA must be an awfully shifty bunch, switching and adding constituencies so rapidly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. It was the very same poster, just the day before. Sure can't keep their stories straight, can they?

"NRA represents gun manufacturers — period"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117259144

[rl6214]

75. Another assinine opinion piece you've posted with no commentary on your part

[rDigital]

88. Hit and run. He/She's just chumming the waters for entertainment. nt

[aikoaiko]

92. Anti-Gun Freaks: Want to eliminate civil liberty because criminals exploit that liberty.

Nice job Bushians.