DU Welcomes the NRA!!

[DonRedwood]

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Hello NRA Trolls who are flocking to DU!! I hope you learn something while you are here.

We are not idiots. We can smell your twisted reasoning like garbage rotting in the sun.

We are not fools. Your idiotic statements that show no regards for human beings defines you for us. We know you are not one of us because your words are the words of someone who loves their guns and ammo more than you love your neighbor's children.

We are not sheep. Keep barking and howling. You are at the base of the wrong tree and you will change no minds on here.

We are not you and never will be. Shut up and go polish your gun. Since you relate to it more than you relate to other Americans, you should probably just stay home and caress your true love.

Or stay if you want. Try to twist DU to support your guns. But we aren't simple-minded fools with 80 IQs waiting for the NRA to tell us what we think. We know you are here...lurking. We can smell you. It's like we stepped in dogshit and dragged a little bit of it into DU. We'll just scrape you off eventually like all your little troll buddies.

Enjoy your time on DU. Learn if your IQ allows it.

[In_The_Wind]

1. No we don't!

[DFW]

73. I'm just speculating, you understand....

However, I suspect the "welcoming" was not done on a friendly heartfelt basis, but rather an involuntary acknowledgement that we have "visitors," and letting them know we know who they are and what they're up to. It's not computer rocket science these days to check out what IPs hang around where these days. My brother does stuff for DARPA, and the stuff he tells me makes me look behind my bathroom mirror for the surveillance gadgets, and that's just the 2% of what he does that I'm cleared to hear.

[MADem]

139. We don't even like the OTHER NRA much!!

The National Restaurant Association, recently led by Herman Cain....

They think two bucks an hour for a wait-person, and no sick days, is just dandy!

[Plucketeer]

177. They pay that much???

How ya gonna buy a gun with wages like that???

[MADem]

192. Touche~! nt

[ProudProgressiveNow]

201. +1 nt

[DonRedwood]

195. i do sometimes forget

to use the button.

[graham4anything]

2. To add

I find it nauseating lately that if I read correct some are now using like shields, Gays, Blacks, other immigrants and women and children to hide behind.
Disgusting.

[BainsBane]

6. ditto

[freshwest]

64. Taking their cue from this NRA defender:

Second verse, same as the first...

[BlueCaliDem]

92. OMFG! That woman is INSANE.

Is she really twisting civil rights for people in an argument of racism against - GUNS?!? Anybody with a modicum of conscientiousness should cancel their membership with the NRA posthaste! With 90% of Americans and 80% of Republicans polled who are FOR universal background checks, and about 51% of the American electorate for reviving the AWB, why should anyone want to send their hard-earned money to the propaganda machine filled with crazies like that lady, all to defend the profits of merchants of murder?

[freshwest]

101. The mental gymnastics to make gun lovers look like victims is insane. And that's a real quote.

I posted the supporting article where she said that in a speech, soon after Newtown. More and more, they stretch and twist reality and words to defend their sacred guns.

It's a religion now and they are just poor little lambs who need military assault weapons to protect them from that mean old government:



Leave our babies alone!

[DonRedwood]

156. i think my jaw just hit the floor

good grief.... that woman is crazy!

[freshwest]

160. Listen to Joe Biden's response:

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Gun Control - Are our "babies" safe?

[MrModerate]

179. Gotta love Joe . . . n/t

[laundry_queen]

193. omg that was great, lol nt

[xxqqqzme]

196. In 'fashion colors'?

How about a rainbow barrel?

That statement is extremely close to the most idiotic thing I've ever read.

[Dpm12]

3. I agree

we don't need dumbass gun nuts lurking around her.
Now go on, shoo, shoo!

[MotherPetrie]

4. K&R. Fuck guns. Fuck the NRA.

[geek tragedy]

11. Fuck Ron Paul too.

Just felt right to say that.

[emulatorloo]

17. Don't forget Baby Rand n/t

[MotherPetrie]

18. And Sarah "Quitter" Palin.

[BainsBane]

5. They don't learn

They don't care enough to learn. They know they won't change minds. Their entire purpose is to disrupt any action on gun control, which is why they are so upset about the activism group that excludes them.

[freshwest]

66. They also disrupt by posting inane offtopic comments and snarks to puzzle people.

[BainsBane]

75. yes

even, it seems, in threads not related to guns.

[freshwest]

123. Yep. Then go to crap on another thread to disrupt discussion. Kills some threads that way.

Especially if you give them the benefit of the doubt and waste time trying to talk to them. They often just hit and run.

[mountain grammy]

79. Don't know why I bother to answer them. No more!

Their talking points are bullshit.. you can spot them a mile away, yelling Chicago, Chicago!

[47of74]

94. Here in Iowa Chicago is pretty much the code word of choice for racists

They can't use the N word, so instead they start going on about Chicago when talking about African Americans.

[freshwest]

127. Yes, that's a favorite. Bombing in Boston - not done with guns, just blackpowder, but shot police

later and used explosives. They always leave that little factoid out of their trolling.

Therefore no connection with the weaponization of America - who do they think they're fooling?

Yes, they have a bridge they're trying to sell here. They really shouldn't since that's their natural habitat as trolls...

[cui bono]

159. It needs to be done. Mindless words cannot be left to stand here.

That's why I don't use ignore, though I would love to on several people. Because they need to be refuted so that the principles the Dem party (supposedly) stands for are defended.

[DonRedwood]

161. same here...i've never used ignore

i won't be oblivious as trolls taint the conversation. it chases off new people and can set the tone. if the trolls set the tone, then DU is finished.

[mountain grammy]

171. That does happen far too often, that mindless words are left to stand.

[valerief]

49. Bwahahaha! Great advice!!!!

[badtoworse]

8. What about the millions of Democrats who value RKBA irrespective of the NRA?

The NRA has about 4.5 million members nationwide. That's not enough to turn elections without substantial support from non-member voters.

[geek tragedy]

10. Those Democrats typically value human life as well as gun rights.

The NRA crowd thinks people should be sacrificed to make guns safe.

[Loudly]

13. Consciousness raising is a work in progress.

[badtoworse]

15. What's that supposed to mean?

[Loudly]

34. Only that anyone who believes they have a right to the means of convenient murder

has some evolving to do. Democrats included.

[badtoworse]

37. How condescending. Millions of people don't see it that way

I've owned firearms for more than 40 years and believe it's my right to continue doing so. I'm very comfortable with that.

Your opinion helps give the NRA credibility.

[crim son]

42. How?

How does that opinion give the NRA credibility?

[badtoworse]

93. The framing of his opinion illustrates his lack of respect for 2nd Amendment rights

The NRA points to people who don't respect the 2nd Amendment to illustrate the need to agressively defend it.

[crim son]

181. Didn't even occur to me, and you make a point.

You understand of course the reason for my confusion. Second Amendment rights do not mention anything beyond the very real necessity to have a well-regulated militia. No matter how law-abiding or well intentioned folks like you are, you cannot cite that Amendment as a defense of your position. This is why some of us are so... aggressive.

[badtoworse]

190. What is indefensible about my position?

I think many here believe that all the non-NRA gun owners would accept whatever infirngement of their rights the gun control crowd would like to implement if it weren't for the NRA. That is not true and that is my point.

Not everything the gun control crowd wants is reasonable and just because the NRA opposes something, doesn't mean it's good. True, the NRA is wrong about some things, but they're right about some of the issues too.

[truebluegreen]

70. In my opinion, your opinion gives Loudly's credibility.

You seem to think your right to own guns is more important than your fellow citizens' right to keep breathing. And do you also think any restriction on that right is unconstitutional? (even this Supreme Court disagrees with you). If you do, I think Loudly is right, and you have some evolving to do.

P.S. Fuck the NRA, which BTW doesn't give a rip about gun owners or protection or tyranny. Although they didn't start off that way they are currently nothing more or less than lobbyists for gun manufacturers. The tragedy lies in anyone one else thinking that the NRA represents them.

[badtoworse]

88. Where have I said that any restriction on RKBA is unconstitutional?

All civil rights are subject to some restrictions. In Heller, SCOTUS said that and I don't disagree.

[truebluegreen]

90. Excellent.

[freshwest]

128. Nothing on the planet can give the NRA credibility. Nothing.

[DonRedwood]

41. Guns have a purpose... but the NRA abuses that idea

If you are a farmer who raises beef you need a gun. Period. Otherwise, what, you are going to kill a 2000 lb bull with what? An axe? A hammer? Run it over with a Volvo?

If you live in Alaska and you wake up to three bull moose fighting in your yard and you need to get from the house to the bus stop.... your parents probably have a gun (true story).

There are people who rightfully need a gun for protection or need.

But they don't need military assault rifles that are made for armor piercing. People with violent mental health issues don't need guns.

There is a place in the middle on this issue and we have to find it.

[Loudly]

46. That's not even close to a Constitutional argument.

I understand the subjective need or desire of certain individuals to possess firearms.

But as a "right?"

That's where we are off the rails.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. In plain language...

...what is your interpretation of a "right"? What is/are the source of "human rights"?

[Loudly]

50. Let's begin with our right to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

God given right in natural law?

If not, why not?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. How about...

...you actually answer the questions without obfuscation or attempts to create straw-men or tossing in distractions?

Direct quote from you:

I understand the subjective need or desire of certain individuals to possess firearms.

But as a "right?"

That's where we are off the rails.

If you question if something is a right, you should be able to define "right" or is a "right" kind of like "porn"? You know it when you see it.

[Loudly]

57. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for almost any subject.

And a worthwhile educational charity.

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

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. Strictly as a means of self-defense...

...explain how a "right" to tool useful for such defense does not fit:

"They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life."

[Loudly]

60. This seems more to the point, though:

A liberty right or privilege, in contrast, is simply a freedom or permission for the right-holder to do something, and there are no obligations on other parties to do or not do anything.

The would-be liberty right of gun ownership fails because of the obligation unwillingly imposed upon others to suffer bullets entering their body.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. Again, to refocus this diversion...

...incorrectly characterizing a right as a privilege is a conclusion not argument or justification.

Suggesting that a gun possession fails because there is a downside still doesn't justify denying its place as a right. If you'd like to use that as a justification you would have to show that all other "rights" are without downsides as well or accept that "rights" are subjective and possibly capricious.

[Loudly]

71. The "downsides" of other rights are dealt with more vigorously.

The downside of the claimed liberty right of access to guns and ammunition is mindlessly indulged.

Also, the downside is too often a permanent injustice which cannot be remedied.

Adam Lanza is dead. Was justice done?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

105. Which other right(s)...

...have no downside(s)?


Lanza and others are/were sick and/or criminal. Would you feel better if you were the one to insert the needle(s)?

[Loudly]

169. Right there. THAT'S the mentality of the gun advocate.

Mopping up the blood. Never preventing the atrocity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

172. That's it as well.

Yours is the mentality of the those who want to trust that there is a government solution to such a problem.


I commend you for seeking an answer to this problem but would ask that you keep my questions in mind and try to give an answer to them as well.

This party is the party of progress and if there is an answer, it will be this party that finds it.

[reACTIONary]

176. Guns are neither necessary nor sufficent...

...for self defense, and therefore a right to self defense does not entail a right to own a gun.

[hack89]

178. Perhaps, but presently the law of the land specifically says the opposite.

Heller is the law of the land.

[reACTIONary]

188. The law of the land...

... actually significantly limits and constrains the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Sorry about that.

[hack89]

203. Heller specifically says there is a right to self defense AND to own a handgun

Heller was about DC and their attempts to ban handguns.

This is what you said:

therefore a right to self defense does not entail a right to own a gun.

You were wrong.

[reACTIONary]

205. Heller does say that...

... if I understand it correctly. As a matter of law, there is a limited right to own at least one handgun, assembled and loaded, kept within your own home.

However, this "right" is so limited that it is still virtually impossible for the average citizen to legally own a handgun in DC. And the supreme court recently rejected another challenge to gun control restrictions.

In other words, with the minor, and largely ineffective, exception of two jurisdictions (DC and Chicago) gun ownership is no less restricted than it ever was.

If background checks were required as a matter of course before you could buy a newspaper, would you believe we have freedom of the press? No, of course not. For all practical purposes, the "law of the land" does not permit freedom of gun ownership... and it never will.

[hack89]

207. Living as I do in a state with some of the strongest gun laws in America

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I understand that better than most.

I have never argued for unrestricted access to guns. I support all proposed gun legislation with the exception of an AWB and registration.

I am not sure who you are arguing with - I accept that there can be restrictions on the 2A.

[reACTIONary]

209. My motivation is...

... simply to be clear and exact about "gun rights;" their extent under the law and their theoretical status as a "natural" or "human" right.

I'm especially concerned about the common notion that the human right to self defense logically confers a "right" to gun ownership. This is not true, but there does seem to be some amount of sloppy thinking out their that holds to this. Granted, this is far more of a problem on forums other than DU, but I like to challenge it when I encounter it.

The distinction you rightly bring up, between a legal right conferred under the law vs. a natural or human right, is one that also frequently causes confusion. This is especially true for us Americans, because of our unique place in the history of natural and human rights and because our constitution was very deliberately structured to incorporate the concept of the rights of man.

The bill of rights confers several "legal" rights that are not generally recognized as human rights by even the liberal Western democracies. Gun ownership is one. Another is the immunity against self-incrimination.

Some folks (present company excepted) get a little carried away when they start arguing about their "rights" and so I like to clearly draw the distinctions that consequently get blurred.

[hack89]

212. The distinction between legal and natural rights is meaningless as a practical matter.

Our rights as Americans are either specifically enumerated in the constitution or are articulated through case law, precedent and Supreme Court rulings. In either case, once articulated and codified by the Supreme Court, they are rights. It is irrelevant whether they be "legal" or "natural" - they are rights.

We have the right to self defense. We have the right to own handguns in our homes to exercise that right.

[reACTIONary]

219. Our views and beliefs concerning natural rights...

...eventually drive the articulation of legal rights in Supreme Court rulings. The second amendment ruling is a good case in point. The right to self defense is a "natural right" that is not enumerated in the constitution at any level. The second amendment did not have anything to do with an individual right to self defense, it was designed to prevent the legal discouragement of the militia in favor of a standing army.

Without clear thinking about natural rights, the future of legal rights may be lead astray.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

183. Wrong.

A right doesn't depend on anyone's opinion of what is necessary or sufficient.

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare.

The FBI has concluded that during an assault your chances of being injured or killed are lower if you actively resist the attack and lower yet if you resist with a weapon and best if your weapon is a firearm.

There are always alternatives to a firearm so you can't conclude that self-defense requires a firearm. There are also numerous instances of those armed with a gun being injured or killed. You number one most important tool for safety is your brain.

However, in the words of Dr. Arthur Kellerman: “If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah.” (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)

[reACTIONary]

185. There are always alternatives to a firearm...

There are always alternatives to a firearm so you can't conclude that self-defense requires a firearm.

And therefore you can not conclude that the right to self defense requires a right to a firearm. QED.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

186. I specifically stated that the right to self-defense does not require a firearm.

I also said that generally a firearm is the best weapon to choose for self-defense.

The right to self-defense permits a firearm.

[reACTIONary]

189. But does not confire a right....

I'm not sure what you mean by "permits". If what you mean is that keeping and bearing arms is not intrinsically a moral evil, I would agree. Any useful purpose would seem to be permissive in that sense.

In any case, the right to self defense does not, as you seem to agree, entail a right to keep and bear arms.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

206. re: "...the right to self defense does not...

...as you seem to agree, entail a right to keep and bear arms."

The right to self-defense emphatically includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Nothing requires you to exercise any particular right. The fact that you have the right to free speech does not require you to speak. As I've explained, the rkba is a consequence of the right to life. Being humans with innate intelligence and abilities, the anatomical fingers and opposable thumbs arrangement make the use of tools a labor saving and force multiplying advantage. A firearm is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

As I explained above: "The FBI has concluded that during an assault your chances of being injured or killed are lower if you actively resist the attack and lower yet if you resist with a weapon and best if your weapon is a firearm."

Failing to take that action which most likely leads to your own continued survival is a free choice as much as electing that option and, frankly, taking an active interest in your own survival is one of the more responsible choices one can make. Taking a professional approach to this decision, which includes elements of cost in both a monetary and time commitment, should start with a safety assessment of the various situations for each person.

While I believe strongly that we all have the option to keep and bear arms, I believe just as strongly that some of us are ill-suited to so. It is up to each of us to consider our abilities, needs and situations in that regard.

Have a great day.

[freshwest]

134. Agreed. Gun fanatics need to stop pushing their religion on us. It's The First Ten Amendments, not

The Ten Commandments.

When willful blindness to all other concerns begin, reason ends.

[DonRedwood]

20. I come from a gun family...everyone has a gun, even me

What I am against is the NRA and Gun Manufacturers trying to militarize the public, the police, the schools, the government.

I did not elect the gun people. They should not be calling the shots.

[badtoworse]

26. Would you vote for a politician who shared Feinstein's or Bloomberg's views on RKBA?

I don't believe we'd have any 2nd Amendment rights if they could get their way.

[SalviaBlue]

32. You mean your right to be part of a well regulated militia?

[badtoworse]

38. Get back to us after you've done some research. That argument is settled law.

[retired rooster]

62. so is abortion but that doesn't stop many of you gun nuts.

[badtoworse]

84. You make a good point, but not the way you think

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:44 PM - Edit history (2)

Many on this board fantacize about a future SCOTUS reversing itself on Heller after blathering about how it was five RW justices that made the decision. The fact that five right wing justices have not reversed Rowe v. Wade should say something about the likelyhood of Heller being reversed. RKBA is explicitly referenced in the Bill of Rights; abortion is not.

[billh58]

44. You are perpetuating

an NRA "talking point" myth. The majority of reasonable gun owners have gone on record supporting a ban on the selling of new high-capacity rapid fire weapons, and the registration of ALL fucking guns.

This is NOT about your Second Amendment rights -- it is about the many thousands of gun injuries and gun deaths Americans suffer each year. We have reduced injury and death rates caused by automobiles and smoking through sane legislation, and we can do the same with guns.

Hitler did not confiscate guns because of a registry. The United States government is not going to confiscate your fucking gun if you register it. The NRA is a propaganda factory for the gun manufacturers, and has been spreading lies, disinformation, and fear for years under the leadership of Charlton Heston and Wayne La-Fucking-Pierre.

Average American gun owners have nothing to fear from gun regulation and control. The NRA and its gun manufacturer pimps have much to fear from new regulations -- mainly a reduction of immoral profits from the injuries and death caused by their products.

Now, like the OP suggests, try to learn something from these posts instead of being a shill for the NRA and its low-IQ members.

[timdog44]

69. I can only say.

Well said.

[BlueCaliDem]

85. Bravo! Well said! eom

[badtoworse]

98. That must explain 1994

[billh58]

122. If you are referring

to the 1994 Democratic loss of both chambers of Congress (and I suspect that you are), it had absolutely nothing to do with gun control, or anything at all to do with fucking guns. That is just another NRA myth aimed at instilling fear in politicians and voters -- especially Democrats. That election was a disaster for the Democrats because of Al From and the fucking DLC, and a disintegration of the Democratic Liberal base. See this analysis of that election cycle:

http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/1995/chp3/gans.html

80 million gun owners, many of which are Democrats, are NOT, as a demographic, emotionally involved with their guns, nor do they agree with the premise that the Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny by our own government. The NRA, and its apologists, are attempting to paint ALL gun owners as fanatical Gun Humpers and doomsday preppers, and it is just not the case. Most American gun owners can see through the NRA's bullshit and lies, and that is why less than 5% of them are NRA members.

So, the answer is to expose the NRA, its fanatical "cold dead hands" fetishists, and its apologists for what they are: shills for the greedy gun manufacturers, and profiteer anti-Americans like the Koch brothers.

[badtoworse]

124. Take it up with Bill Clinton. That was his assessment.

[billh58]

125. Bill Clinton

WAS the DLC, and joined at the hip with Al From.

[mountain grammy]

135. Agree, billh58, and well said!

[DebJ]

197. About the government confiscating guns...

I keep telling the gun crazies on my Facebook page that why would they bother to do that?
Drones are much more fun, and Black Hawks are more exciting.

[patrice]

65. They are DEMOCRATS they aren't THREATENING EVERYTHING about us if they have to be rational about

this problem. They aren't using the problem itself as their proxy to COERCE our elected representation ON ALL OF THE ISSUES that are "on the table" right now.

[patrice]

72. Guess what, some of us are actually trying to protect their rights too, from the VIOLENT CRAZIES in

their midst, BUT foremost, above what could be their right (if those Democrats accept what a right actually is and grant equal, though different, power to un-armed others), are the LIVES of people.

If those Democrats are trying to turn what is their right into a PRIVILEGE by claiming super-countervailing POWER over ALL others in ALL regards/issues of the way we live our lives, I WILL CALL THOSE "DEMOCRATS" PARTY-TROLLS. And I take full responsibility for POLITELY asking for people to clarify whether they view gunownership as an authentic right or an unearned privilege.

[badtoworse]

97. If "authentic' means an individual right, than RKBA is authentic. Read Heller

[patrice]

106. How are other rights preserved relative to RKBA? Where is my power-EQUAL-to-the-gun, when

I/we encounter the gun? You will say, "In owning a gun too." And I say, WHERE IS RESPECT FOR MY ***CHOICE*** NOT TO OWN A GUN? Your choice COERCES my choice and I/we did NOT give you permission to do so, the way we have collectively granted that permission to the police, military, and government.

I choose not to own a gun. Someone else chooses to own a gun. We encounter one another in the commons. The person owning the gun decides to take advantage of the commons, for his/her own PRIVATE purposes, to use his gun in a certain way and may be, like our two bombers, even be willing to take the fatal consequences of doing so. My right to choose not to own a gun (which very likely wouldn't do me or anyone else that much good in such a situation anyway) is NOT EQUAL to that behavior by virtue of the nature of guns themselves. Guns in the hands of such persons in such situations become a self-reinforcing privilege FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and for NONE other, especially since we can see that the putative motive of protection is not increased by their freelance, NOT "WELL REGULATED", ownership. ANYONE can do this . . .

Ergo, my right relative to guns, my right to power EQUAL to gun-power, inhers in my ability to KNOW as validly as possible that gun owners can be trusted, i.e. EFFECTIVE background checks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. Your right to speak or not...

...to keep and bear or not, to practice a religion or not and many others do not preclude those options for you and others.

Your right to speak as often as you like on any topic you want is not limited by the abilities of others (Wayne L, Michael B, Barack O...) to speak to and be heard by more people than you're able to speak to.


Trust is not established by precognition.

[patrice]

113. My right to speak, "Oh, please don't shoot us" is not equal to their "right" to the power of a gun.

That perverts what was their "right" into an ASSUMED privilege.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

117. Negative.

Apples and oranges. Conflating the two rights (free speech and the rkba) and then claiming that because speech is a less effective self-defense tool that the rkba doesn't exist is illogical.

Suppose 20 people were to intimidatingly (but peacefully) assemble in order to "discuss" their dissatisfaction with how you keep your yard. Can I then argue that since praying not to be hurt in the course of this "discussion" is less effective than speaking to your neighbors and promising to bring the issues into compliance with norms and reasonable standards therefore you don't have a right to speak and must pray instead?

[badtoworse]

120. Brilliant! I commend your patience in wading through his "logic"

[billh58]

126. Please allow me to

join the OP in welcoming you and your Gungeoneer friends of the NRA to DU in the hopes that you will find enlightenment and understanding...

[freshwest]

129. Don't hold your breath on that one...

[mountain grammy]

136. for sure.

[DonRedwood]

162. sadly i agree with you

[freshwest]

164. Woohoo! Over 5K views and nearly 200 Rec's!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

131. I was just trying to be respectful...

...of another's opinion and express my own. There are aspects of the rkba and of gun control that have merits. It's up to us as society to understand those merits. According to Socrates, the unexamined life is not worth living.

My ability to publish a life changing work like James Madison, Anton Chekhov or Fyodor Doestoyevsky is very doubtful. But maybe just understanding what others have done will help another to understand it as well.

[LanternWaste]

104. It's not the number of voters, it's the PAC money funneled into particular campaigns

It's not the number of voters, it's the PAC money funneled into particular campaigns that, all things being equal, win elections; i.e., the $16,167,238 the NRA spent on (and against) candidates in the last election cycle; and that doesn't include the NRA affiliate groups (e.g., NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the National Rifle Assn (501c))

[billh58]

140. Another NRA myth.

It is doubtful that the Democratic NRA members vote with the Republican members of the NRA as a block. Gun owners, likewise, do not vote as a block, but are more likely to vote along Party lines.

The attempt to misrepresent the statistics of gun owner voting tendencies vs. non-gun owners is just another NRA fallacy. Not all gun owners are fanatical NRA Gun Humpers anymore than than all Ford owners are fanatics about which brand of automobile a candidate drives.

Gungeoneers and the NRA and its apologists need to get over themselves. The only power they have is the PAC money they use to buy politicians, and that comes not from the membership, but from the gun manufacturers and neocons like the Koch brothers.

The message that the mean old Liberals are coming for your guns is losing its effectiveness, because it is just not true. The other NRA-manufactured message that gun control advocates hate and despise ALL gun owners is beginning to be seen for what it actually is: a ruse to divide and conquer for the benefit of gun manufacturer profits, AND for lying Republican votes.

[badtoworse]

148. "gun control advocates hate and despise ALL gun owners" ..."just not true"

Read some of the crap that is routinely posted about law abiding gun owners on the board. Do you ever see phrases like "gun humper", "less intelligent than non-gun owners", "fondling their guns" or the tireless meme having to do with phallic compensation? How would you characterize the feelings of people who post that way?

Yeah, everybody is different and you can't generalize, but posting your statement on this board seems ludicrous to me.

[billh58]

157. Again, those

who hurl insults at ALL American gun owners are in a very small minority, just like those who call ALL gun control advocates "grabbers," and ridicule the Brady Group and MAIG. The middle ground is wide open, and only blocked by the NRA "cold dead hands" Gun Humpers, and their apologist cultists.

Americans in general are in agreement that the Second Amendment gives them the right to keep and bear arms, and also that the Second Amendment does not prevent the enactment of sane legislation and the imposition of regulations on that right. Both the Miller and Heller decisions acknowledged that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable regulation, as is any other enumerated right.

It is disingenuous to promote the NRA myth that there is some sort of a great divide between average American gun owners, and average American gun control proponents -- there is not. And it is becoming more and more evident that the NRA and its PAC-bought politicians are standing in the way of meaningful dialog and progress toward gun regulation and safety. And they do this all in the pursuit of immoral profits for their corporate masters, which in turn causes the unnecessary suffering of thousands of Americans every year.

Enough is fucking enough, and the American people are beginning to see through the NRA misinformation, outright lies, and propaganda campaign.

[badtoworse]

158. I was only referring to DU in my post

[srican69]

9. NRA = NATIONAL REPUBLICAN ARMY

These fucks are one step away from being the military wing of the Republican Party

[otohara]

31. +1000

yikes, chills down my spine.

[patrice]

67. National Republican PRIVATE Army doing FREELANCE VIOLENCE ALL OVER THE WORLD.

[mountain grammy]

82. yep, you hit it!

[Hoops59]

12. DonRedwood

Media hype Boston had 3 people die, Whew!! Last night in Chicago 6 people died, 4 wounded , Cover of Time? Sports Illustrated? 6 people died in Chicago last night!!! Wake up USA

[DonRedwood]

22. Moi?

[BainsBane]

24. more than 3300 have died from guns since Sandyhook

and those stats are a week old.

[DonRedwood]

25. Every paper in America should have a box on the front page with the daily tally

just so we all know what is going on...

[BainsBane]

27. excellent idea

a daily count on the evening news as well.

[freshwest]

77. When I was growing up, the city newspaper had a small box on the bottom left corner, front page.

IIRC, it listed statistics on events that happened overnight:

Accidents
Robberies
Burglaries
Rapes
Assaults
Murders

It was considered a fact of life and not hidden from view, the paper got the numbers from the police. Sometimes hundreds of burglaries happened overnight. And hundreds minor fender benders on a rainy day. Major accidents with injuries had a different name but I forgot what it was. No details, just numbers. Many of these things are no longer considered as police matters, insurance companies get the reports instead.

[abelenkpe]

63. + 1000 nt

[freshwest]

81. See my reply #77 below. They used to have these.

[TolerantTom]

130. How many..

of those deaths were credited to the Police? Or suicide? Just curious.

[BainsBane]

142. in general

half of all gun homicides are suicide. I have no idea about police. I suspect the number is statistically low.

[DebJ]

198. My daughter is a federal cop. When she went through her training

at her agency, she came out Number One in her class with the guns. I was stunned.
I hate guns, won't let them in my house even when it was my cop brother in laws gun.
How did I raise a daughter who could out-gun 300 other people in her class? Former
ATF agents, CIA agents, local and state police? When I said that, she said that local
police's accuracy is something hideously low....I forget the exact number....but what I
do remember is what I extraced from that figure: if a local cop shoots his gun, he is
more likely to hit me or anything/anyone else besides his intended target. So I will duck
for cover! If the police can't even hit their target at all, they sure aren't killing many.

[lolly]

173. Chicago, you say?

Let's see, somebody upthread was saying something about Chicago....now, what was that?

Oh, now I found it. Yep.

[el_bryanto]

14. Gosh that's friendly

Although understandable in the wake of the recent very reasonable gun bill going down in flames.

Bryant

[denverbill]

16. Congratulations Gun Nuts! It wasn't one of your guys, this time.

You can all breath a HUGE sigh of relief!

[BainsBane]

29. they did have guns too

and were in a shoot out with cops.

[denverbill]

35. That's true. But my point was the bombers were Muslims, not freepers.

That's why we are seeing the big influx of freepers celebrating the fact that it was Muslims.

[DonRedwood]

36. Yeah, any excuse to hate a group based on individual behavior

That is how the racist brain works.

[The Straight Story]

226. Yep, like some want to hate a group that owns guns based on less than how 1% use them

Name calling, hatred, etc based on what a few do in that group.

I guess some don't really believe that principle, they just BS and use it when they can for their own ends.

Just like many don't really believe in your body, your choice on any topic but one.

[marions ghost]

47. Yeah but

how did they get the guns? We will see.

[valerief]

51. Badda bing! Gun show, anyone? nt

[AndyA]

21. Since when does the right to bear arms hold more value than life itself?

Without life, there is no need for any other rights. The right to bear arms is secondary to the right to life, which must be held to a higher level than other rights.

The NRA is anti-American, and functions now solely to promote gun sales, it has little interest in real gun safety, other than courses that they must support to keep up their pretense of believing in gun safety. Their actions, however, show they really just want to sell more guns, and want nothing that will restrict that ability, even if America must tolerate mass shootings and repeated accidental gun deaths in order for it to do so.

The NRA is concerned only with profit to its masters, the gun makers.

[freshwest]

132. Needs to be said more often. Thanks.

The Most Powerful Gun Control Speech: Father Of Sandy Hook Victim Speaks Out (VIDEO)

Mr. David Wheeler began his speech:

“We lost our son, Benjamin, the morning of December 14 to an unstable, suicidal individual who had access to a weapon that has no place in a home.”

“Right now, professionals in every area pertaining to this crime, from mental health to parenting to school safety, are unable to connect the necessary dots to prevent this from happening again.”

“A far more comprehensive system of identifying and monitoring individuals with mental distress is required and needs to be implemented. That a person with these problems who lives in a home where he had access to among the most powerful firearms available to nonmilitary personnel is unacceptable.”

“It doesn’t matter to whom these weapons were registered. It doesn’t matter if they were purchased legally. What matters is that it was far too easy for another mentally unbalanced suicidal person who had violent obsessions to have easy access to unreasonably powerful weapons.”

“The inability of agencies to share information regarding at-risk individuals’ mental states, personal histories, proximity to firearms – this contributed to the senseless murder of my six-year old son, 19 other children, and seven adults. This is where you must focus your efforts.”

Mr. Wheeler then went on to outline some well thought out and sensible actions that should be – need to be – taken to help prevent these tragedies in the future, concluding:

“Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness – the rights with which we are endowed, for the protection of which we have instituted governments. I do not think the composition of that foundational phrase was an accident. I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard or casual. The liberty of any person to own a military-style assault weapon and a high-capacity magazine, and keep them in their home, is SECOND to the right of my son to his life – his LIFE; to the right to live of all of those children and those teachers, to the right to the lives of your children, of you, of all of us – all of our lives – it is second. Let’s honor the founding documents and get our priorities straight. Thank you.”

For his poignant words, Mr. Wheeler received an enthusiastic standing ovation.

As someone who has closely followed the tragic news of the Sandy Hook horror, one of the standout elements that has received little attention is how amazing the parents of the victims are – how incredibly courageous and articulate they are – and how the nation lost some of its most remarkable citizens – present and future.

Richard Marato, father of a Sandy Hook survivor, outlined the hopelessness of the situation:

“Our society is so saturated with guns and violence, I don’t think any one thing can help.”

I embrace Mr. Marato’s sentiment that several steps need to be taken, but reject the hopelessness. As the compelling parents of the Sandy Hook victims have demonstrated, we Americans are bred with the fiercely sanguine penchant of resolve – the idea that we can accomplish anything that needs doing. Enough of our citizens have been sacrificed to the so-called freedom of the Second Amendment, which, instead of providing freedom, has been holding this country captive in the fears and realities of gun violence for far too long. And the one sense we can take away from the senseless tragedy of Sandy Hook is that these children and teachers were not sacrificed in vain – they have begun a movement that will undoubtedly result in a safer nation and stronger country.

Addicting Info continues to send its prayers and well wishes to the extraordinary community of Newtown, and stands behind their fight for the kind of sensible legislation that will save countless future young American lives.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/31/the-most-powerful-gun-control-speech-father-of-sandy-hook-victim-speaks-out-video/

Published on Jan 30, 2013

David Wheeler, father of Ben Wheeler - a victim of the Sandy Hook massacre, spoke Wednesday, January 30, 2013, at the last of four public hearings by the Connecticut legislature's Bipartisan Task Force on Violence and Public Safety. His words bring logic and thoughtfulness to the current gun safety debate.

This clip is from The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 30 January 2013.

[Loup Garou]

23. NRA #gunnuts would be more at home on Free Republic

[DonRedwood]

28. Best cartoon I"ve seen yet. Thanks for sharing and welcome to DU!

(and I mean this welcome!)

[freshwest]

228. Joe finally hits one out of the park. Great graphic:

[sarisataka]

30. If you are not an NRA troll...

You ARE an NRA supporter...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022700602
-according to some

[DonRedwood]

33. Blanket statements usually show ignorance

Not saying that about you, of course....but there is a divide in this country.

If you grow up in Alaska or on a farm you need a gun. People near forests who have bear and cougars. But that is a small percentage of the country people wise.

But those people cannot and will not give up their guns and will always fight gun control. But the cities have a different life and there the guns are doing such big damage. Somewhere there must be a middle ground. Background checks and assault bans are a great start to me.

[sarisataka]

43. Middle ground is good

unfortunately there are very few who want to find it.

I also agree with you about blanket statements... we see far too many and it keeps us from finding that balance between Right and Responsibility

[L0oniX]

39. "flocking to DU" mmmm ok ...didn't know DU was a NRA destination.

I haven't even seen anyone get a TS for a long time.

[spanone]

40. FUCK YOU NRA

[patrice]

121. +++1

[Stonepounder]

45. Dammit! We are on the verge of doing the same thing they do.

This is NOT a black/white issue. Not all NRA members are wild-eyed fanatics carrying around semi-automatic rifles with extended magazines. Not all those who support gun regulation are pure as the driven snow.

Fact: I hate guns. I won't allow them in my home. I won't allow my grandchildren to shoot nerf guns in my home.

Fact: My son is an avid hunter and owns several guns and bows.

Do my son and I disagree over guns? Not really. I am in no way in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment and he wouldn't dream of trying to bring any of his guns with him when he comes to visit and would never invite me to go hunting with him.

Common sense regulation is not an attack on a right. As the President said, the NRA lies. The idea that anyone should be able to go out and purchase any weapon they can afford at any time is simply nuts. Common sense says that you don't want to sell guns to people who have used them in the commission of crimes. You don't want someone just out of the psychiatric ward with paranoid/schizophrenic fantasies should be able to go buy a gun. How does checking that a prospective buyer is at least reasonably sane and law abiding abridge your right to keep and bear arms?

How far do we, as a nation, go with 'common sense' regulation? That is a reasonable and worthwhile debate. I don't have easy answers, but it surely is a conversation that we, as a nation, should have. Saying that there should be absolutely no regulation is as nonsensical as saying that all gun sales should be banned. If you want to have that conversation, fine. if you want to take an extremest position, then go peddle your BS somewhere else.

[valerief]

52. Any self-respecting gun owner would leave the NRA. That's like saying you're for

a social safety net and voting Republican.

[Initech]

53. Fuck the NRA.

[Triana]

54. Took one of them all of four minutes to threaten to shoot me

After I posted this: http://www.sevenbowie.com/2013/04/open-letter-to-congress-the-senate-and-the-supreme-court/

He left a comment containing the threat. I of course did not approve it - but I did save it - just in case.

[calimary]

55. Speak for yourself. I don't feel particularly welcoming to the NRA. Here or anywhere else.

[freshwest]

58. K & R.

[gaspee]

61. I've noticed it too

I wonder who is telling them to come here.

[laundry_queen]

74. Yep.

Hard to know if they are paid or just coming here on their own looking for a fight because they are terrified of losing their metal - but there is a distinct pattern of a certain number of posters that flock to all the anti-gun threads. And their posts always mirror the latest NRA talking points. They are so predictable.

[patrice]

76. A right is NOT a right, unless it grants equal, but appropriately different, powers to ALL. Failing

Failing this essential criteria, what is called a "right" becomes, instead a PRIVILEGE and, unlike Republicans and, apparently, what calls itself "the Left" - i.e. Libertarians - Democrats DO NOT ALLOW ***UN-EARNED*** PRIVILEGE.

[hack89]

80. Interesting personal opinion but it has no basis in reality.

can you show me a single legal scholar or text that agrees with you?

[patrice]

91. Argument from authority. Are you saying INDIVIDUALS do not have the right to determine what rights

are?

How very authoritarian of you. Now all we need is to run to you and your authoritarian POWERS every time anyone has a question about what to do. Once again, meet the "new" (Ha!!!) BOSS, exactly the same as the old BOSS, just wearing a different hat and carrying a VERY BIG GUN as usual.

[hack89]

95. I am saying a judge would laugh you out of court

we have a common law system of justice. Definition of terms, including rights, are based on precedence and case law.

Justice only works if there is a common meaning for important terms and concepts. For example, you cannot, as an individual, have the right to determine what murder is. It has been determined already.

[patrice]

99. That's too bad. & Probably one of the reasons many people KNOW that we don't have highly

functional justice in this country.

You have heard, of course, about our PRIVATE prison boom? & People destroyed utterly by minimum sentencing guidelines.

Scratch an absolutist authoritarian and find a relativist every time.

[hack89]

103. Questioning your unique definition of what a right is does not make me an authoritarian

I think you need to learn how to handle disagreement better.

[patrice]

108. Are all rights absolute? Or do they belong only to those who do not violate the rights of others?nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

111. Rights like voting exist in the context of government.

Rights like self-defense exist in the context of the right to life.

HTH

[hack89]

112. The Bill of Rights enumerates individual rights

no right are absolute, and through due process civil rights can be restricted or removed. But the right remains a right - it does not become a privilege.

The RKBA is an individual right. That right is not absolute but any law that restricts that right are subjected to strict and unique judicial standards. Research strict scrutiny - it lays out very clearly the standard that any law restricting a Constitutional right has to meet.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

144. To say that renders the word "right" meaningless.

I can determine that I have a right to ice cream, but that doesn't mean I'll get any.

The declaration of independence was wrong; there is no such thing as an inalienable right. The word only makes sense in the context of a source - a legal right, a constitutional right, and so on.

And as such, of course individuals don't get to determine their own.

In a dictatorship, people *have* very few rights - it's not just that their rights are violated, they're actually taken away.

And, obviously, the law doesn't have to grant the same rights to everyone - it's entirely possible to discriminate either on good grounds (no right to vote for children) or on bad ones (no right to vote for women). But whether or not you should have a legal right is a question orthogonal to whether or not you do have it.

[patrice]

96. So, you're fine with the oppressor as long as s/he is YOURS. I suspect you defend the status quo

because it works for you, not because it is the right thing to do for individual persons.

[hack89]

102. What are you babbling about?

I merely pointed out that your definition of what a right is has no place in American legal or Constitutional theory. Can you show a single case where your theory was accepted by a court?

[patrice]

110. ^^Ridicule^^ the inevitable resort of authoritarian privilege. nt

[hack89]

114. You wrote an incoherent post about authoritarians after I merely disagreed with you.

You need to calm down - it was not a personal attack.

[patrice]

119. Saying that someone is "babbling" isn't a personal attack on their mental capacities? Could that

incoherence have anything to do with YOUR OWN limitations, for which you may be denying responsibility. Have you honestly addressed that question and considered choosing what you may need to do, by/about yourself, in order to avoid attacking other people's mental capacities?

I will if you will.

[Harry Monroe]

78. I, for one, welcome our new NRA overlords

I'm not sure if I should add the sarcasm tag here, because sadly, they are the ultimate rulers in the Senate.

[patrice]

83. Yeah, ain't PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY great!!

[PatrynXX]

86. Don't worry

we do the same thing. on freeker ahem freaker no thats not right freeper? eh forget it

Course the next question would be if I tended to jump to conclusions is 1. is the NRA disappointed it's not Al Qaeda (sp) 2. so just a day after they skewer background checks. how did 2 brothers get guns with supposed Islamic ties. well duh this is Chechnya

Course since I'm not jumping. always remember Republicans and Democrats sided with Muslims in Yugoslavia over Bosnia vs Serbia. Bosnia's are muslims and Serbians are Christian.... ie whe does a tie to a religion bad. Theoretically I'd assume Republicans would be kudos for the Christian Nazi's running against the Jews.

I say all this crap just to kill the absurd claim oh they had ties to Islam. X_X yeas as well as a large chunk of American and Eastern Europe etc and Europe and.... don't know .. which countries are Islamic free?? Muslims aren't radical. Radical Christians also blow bombs up and kill people Whats the diff??

[Hekate]

87. Tell us how you really feel about the NRA Death Cult god, DonRedwood.

And thanks.

[AAO]

89. Excellent rant! Made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

100. Where are they? This place is so big that I can't find them.

[billh58]

182. Look at the "Name Removed" posts

in this thread. They have been removed by MIRT for being Gun Nuts.

[HockeyMom]

107. Let the NRA come and troll ME

Married 40 years to a life time NRA member. Gun grabber in a gun household. Hell, non-NRA gun owners don't like me. Maybe the NRA will cancel his membership because of me? I would be very, very happy!!!! PLEASE?????

[sandmann]

115. Not a troll, just a pretty average Democrat

but thanks.

[Skittles]

116. YOU OVERPLAYED YOUR HAND YOU COWARDLY BASTARDS

NOW FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!

[Galraedia]

118. Paranoid pro gun-nuts are incredibly stupid...

[freshwest]

133. His little mind was boggled by John Oliver. Thanks for posting that one.

[valerief]

137. +1 gazillion!

[Pericles0753]

138. Pericles0753

Fuck the NRA. They are a criminal organization and a national security risk. They say they are supporting our rights and freedom when in actuality they are putting those things at jeopardy. Their whole purpose is to make money by promoting gun sales. They revel in mass murders because such things generate more fear and fear sells more guns. With such a close and predictable association, might not the NRA be indirectly connected to such disasters? The NRA has changed our legislative process. Every Republican in Congress is bribed by the NRA. The GOP has as many bloody hands as the NRA CEO and board of directors. That means Wayne L. and Ted N. I think their days are numbered. They are just plain evil people. Why are they all white?

[ellie]

141. Yes! Welcome! Now fuck off.

[Aristus]

143. And while you're here, NRA idiots, consider this:

I'm a Gulf War veteran. I crewed an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, armed with a 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall tank gun, an M2 .50 caliber machine gun, a coaxial machine gun, and a pintle-mounted exterior machine gun. I also carried a 9mm Beretta side arm, and an M16A2 assault rifle.

Now that I'm a civilian, know how many guns I own?

Zero! None! Nada! Zilch!

Don't need one. However heavily armed I may be, someone else is more heavily armed. If someone is coming after me with a gun as I go about my daily business, he's got the drop on me - the element of surprise. No gun can defend effectively against that.

I'm not a delicate flower who needs an arsenal and a fainting couch.

I am an American. I walk the land unarmed. And unharmed.

Have No Gun. Will Travel.

[SunSeeker]

149. Brilliant post. Thank you for your service. nt

[Aristus]

153. You are the victim, not I.

It must be a terrible thing, living a life in fear. You have my sympathy.

[Aristus]

168. You carry a gun because you are afraid.

Sorry, there's no way you win this one. You live in fear, and that's why you rely on guns. End of story. I hope you and your guns will someday live a happy life...

[lolly]

175. I guess you never sleep, either.

Seriously-- this sounds like a parody.

How many guns do you need to keep safe? You can only hold two at once.

The rest are just signs of an obsession.

And you're always going to be safe with guns around?

How'd that work for Mrs. Lanza?

[DonRedwood]

151. Greetings Aristus, thank you for your post and your service.

When I think of how idiotic arming teachers would be. Seriously? These things are over in five minutes. Unless the teacher is walking around in a flak jacket with their weapons locked and loaded they won't stand a chance.

Those are my personal feelings but I am thinking you will understand.

[Aristus]

154. I do.

And thank you.

[DebJ]

199. All the teachers I know say my goodness it is difficult enough

to keep students from stealing a purse, wallet, or phone or school equipment.
i wont' go in a classroom where they can grab a gun!

[Flatulo]

145. I wish we could do a better job of distinguishing between the NRA and other democrats

who own guns for sport, hunting or self-defense.

About 50% of American hiuseholds have a gun in America, but there are only 4,000,000 NRA members.

I support universal background checks, AWB, and magazine capacity limits. I can't understand why some people would be against these measures. I this doesn't happen sooner, it will happen later, and then there may be zero tolerance for any gun ownership. I say, pass some common sense restrictions now or lose the whole enchilada later.

[TheCowsCameHome]

146. Fuck the NRA. And their trolls? x 2.

[etherealtruth]

147. I wouldn't call it "welcome"

I'd call it resignation to the fact that stupid folk exist ....

[DonRedwood]

152. MAY I JUST SAY>>>THIS HAS BEEN AN EXCELLENT CONVERSATION

Thank you DU, always enlightening me, and I appreciate it.

[Joey Liberal]

155. NRA = American Taliban

Nuff said.

[blkmusclmachine]

163. How very unbipartisan of you, DR!

[proud patriot]

165. My fault , have one at work , told him about DU

[va-slim]

166. Who Welcomes the NRA

Thankfully we do not live near the senior patrons of the NRA: the Mexican Drug Cartels, al Quaeda, the Crypts and the other gangs, the white supremacist groups, etc. I am sure that those organizations love their NRA, thank their NRA for protecting them from the federal government, and share the NRA's joy when they see news accounts of murdered children, murdered school teachers, murdered competitors in Boston, etc.

Certain Republican politicians tell us that they are patriots and Christians, and I am sure that they would tell us that they love America, but their actions prove all of that to be lies. It is an insult to all of America that the NRA claims "of America" as part of its name. I wonder if al Quaeda claims the same. Both groups encourage, work toward, and rejoice in the deaths of Americans.

[Stretch714]

194. Please don't lump us all into that kind of group.

I am a member of the NRA and I wish no harm on you or any body else. Not even on people who want to kill me just because I am in the NRA.


I really thought this site would be different from all the others and this thread has proven me wrong.

[Electric Monk]

200. re: "people who want to kill me just because I am in the NRA" nice stretch. nt

[99Forever]

211. Bullshit.

Link to even ONE FUCKING POST of "people who want to kill me just because I am in the NRA."

What we want is for gunnuts to STOP KILLING US. Period.

Enjoy your brief stay.

What sort of pizza would you prefer?






Oh yeah and ...

Gun culture is a mental illness.

[Stretch714]

214. Where did I say some one here at DU said that?

I have had co workers say that NRA members should be shot.

My rifles are for long range target competition. I do not want to shoot any one, never have and never will.

That is the same as some anti abortion person saying pro abortion people should be shot. Or saying doctors who perform abortions should be put down.

Enjoy my brief stay, why would you say that. Is it not ok to disagree with some one here?

I came to this site for a change from all the BS at other sites and see that the BS is the same here. I thought people would be better here and so far they are the same. The only difference is the side of the issue they have taken.

And I don't eat pizza.

[99Forever]

215. I care fuckall about what you read on...

... "some other site." If you've a got a fucking problem with something said on another fucking site, take it up there, not here. We have enough bullshit here already without you importing it. I know a NRA shill when I see one.

Fuck the NRA.

Gun culture is a mental illness.

[Stretch714]

216. NRA shill, that is funny.

Your problem should not be with the NRA, it should be with the assholes in Washington who only care about getting reelected instead of doing the right thing. If they cared about doing the right thing the NRA or any other lobby group would not matter.


They should have passed the UBC. They did not, why? Because all they care about is getting the seat in DC again.




Me and my mental illness are going to the range. I need the practice for an up coming match. Have a good day.

[99Forever]

218. Don't tell me who to have a problem with, bubba...

... you ain't got the chops.

Fuck the NRA.

Gun culture is a mental illness.

[Stretch714]

223. Bubba, really

The thing at the bottom of your post. "it's the guns stupid", let me ask you something about that.

Do you blame the car when a man runs off the road and kills two little boys playing in there front yard? Or do you blame the man for not controlling his car?

It seems guns are taboo here and you will probably get me kicked off the site for even asking a real question about how you see things.I do wait your reply to my question. It will tell me volumes about you and how you view the world.



Bubba, that is funny.

[99Forever]

224. Really.

End of conversation. You're gone.

[Stretch714]

225. Gone?

Because I do not see somethings the way you do?

[sarisataka]

229. Does it count if not limited to NRA members...

Use drones to blow up the homes of the gun nuts who won't turn them over. Blow up the guns and the nuts at the same time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021980588

Replies 2 &3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022177089

Tangential NRA reference, multiple posts in support
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022042892

[Stretch714]

230. Christ, even people here say it.

[sarisataka]

231. Yet they will repeatedly deny it

or pass it off as a tiny minority. At the same time militia extremists will be put for as an example of the typical gun owner...

[Control-Z]

232. Why would you think

Democratic Underground would be different from other sites? If you really wanted a site that welcomes NRA nuts you would go to a republican/gun lover's/NRA type site. Not a democratic one. And no one on this site has suggested killing NRA members. We don't want to kill anyone. We want you (NRA members) to give up your creepy love of guns over people.

[Ruby the Liberal]

170. I almost broke a fingernail reaching to rec this.

[DonRedwood]

213. Medics!

I thought I was gonna get flamed for my post but the reactions were really quite interesting. Glad some of you all agreed!

[caledesi]

184. Well said Don! nt

[leanforward]

187. If you want one, you can own one.

For those NRAer's browsing DU. I a bleeding heart liberal or something like that. If a person wants a weapon, so be it. BUT, it should be a pump, lever, bolt, or limited load semi or revolver. As I understand it, birders are limited to a three shot pump.
It seems folks worry more about ducks than people. All that aside.
To me there should be background checks to include family members. No straw purchasers. Straw purchasers deserve a minimum sentence, because people can die.
Assault weapons and 10plus magazines aren't needed. If you have'em keep'em.
To me, the NRA is an advocate of irresponsible weapon ownership. Cases in point, domestic violence, police officer, firemen, and other first responder ambushes.
It'll take time to flush out all the illegal weapons, but gun SAFETY rules will work. Maybe not in the short term, but they will work.

[BlueCaliDem]

191. Finally!

and rec'd!

[Trascoli]

202. I just read this thread, but I think there are many NRA members here

I've seen pro gun posts from people with 25k+ posts. I was very shocked. I just that DU was tolorant, who knows?

[hack89]

204. Pro-gun =/= pro-NRA

there is a reason only a small percentage of gun owners are NRA members.

[Crowman1979]

208. Frankly, I prefer the other NRA.

You know, the one proposed in 1933.

[Darly314]

210. HI, Glock, Hauser & Sig Sauer!

Just giving the owners of the NRA a hello..........their lobbyists are best dressed death peddlers in DC!

[Straw Man]

217. Hauser?

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Cole or Wings?



SIG Sauer is a multi-national company with Swiss and German origins. Glock is Austrian. Couldn't you find any American capitalist death merchants to blame?

[Blue_In_AK]

221. I'm certainly not an NRA sympathizer

but I'm not completely antigun either. My husband and I are probably in the minority in Alaska in not owning a firearm of some sort. When we share our fishing streams and hiking trails with grizzly bears, it's not unreasonable to carry a weapon. And when so many of our rural population rely on hunting moose and caribou for their traditional subsistence lifestyle (keeping in mind that the nearest supermarket is sometimes hundreds of miles away), who am I to tell them they can't have a gun?

I think Mark Begich was wrong not to support background checks, but I understand why he would support gun ownership in this state. Even many of my most liberal/progressive friends have guns.

[smirkymonkey]

222. Bravo!

Oh yeah, and F**k the NRA!

[DiverDave]

227. Yep, fuck the nra

they have bloods on their hands.