What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Doc Brown]

 

Probably true, but the media would have covered for Obama like they did Bill Clinton.

[B-Man]

YOU KNOW THE ANSWER: 

 

Why Are Senate Dems Torpedoing Their Own Gun Bill? 

 

“Because it might pass — and this tells you everything you need to know about Washington DC.”

[LA Grant]

The NRA is disgusting. The idea of giving money to an organization this undeniably corrupt makes absolutely no sense. The NRA is Scientology with diabetes and camo shorts.

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/590076949/depth-of-russian-politicians-cultivation-of-nra-ties-revealed

 

Will this matter? Not to the cult's base, I'm guessing. Facts can't do much if they're ignored.  "pfft, NPR?? Go sip a latte from your tote bag, Fake News!"

 

Quote

A prominent Kremlin-linked Russian politician has methodically cultivated ties with leaders of the National Rifle Association, and documented efforts in real time over six years to leverage those connections and gain access deeper into American politics, NPR has learned.

 

 

He was literally posting everything he was doing on Twitter. The whole thing is like Watergate but 1000x more stupid.

 

Quote

The heat is on the Russian politician, who was alleged by Spanish police to have directed financial transactions for the Russian mob. Not only is the FBI reportedly investigating him — the bureau declined to comment for this story — but lawmakers involved in congressional investigations have also expressed interest in Torshin.

 

Quote

 

"It appears the Russians, you know, infiltrated the NRA. And there is more than one explanation for why," Simpson told lawmakers. "But I would say broadly speaking, it appears that the Russian operation was designed to infiltrate conservative organizations. And they targeted various conservative organizations, religious and otherwise, and they seem to have made a very concerted effort to get in with the NRA."

 

 

"Yeah? So? What's the problem? It's just Russian gangsters funnelling money to the NRA to protect our inalienable 2A rights from the libtards! Hillary! Emails!" — an argument some doofus will make, probably.

 

Honestly, the NRA was plenty monstrous enough before, but this....  just ridiculous. Corrupt. As. Hell. Bond villains have more subtlety than these f***ers.

 

Always good to bring this back up with the NRA — Here's a fun game. Spot the difference:  NRA ad vs. Jihad propaganda.

 

 

But the NRA is just dedicated to protecting freedom, right? 

 

More:

1) McClatchy DC - FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump

2) CBS - Trump Jr. met with man with close ties to Kremlin

3) Bloomberg - Mobster or Central Banker? Spanish Cops Allege This Russian Both

4) New York Times - Operative Offered Trump Campaign ‘Kremlin Connection’ Using N.R.A. Ties

5) House Intelligence Committee - Fusion GPS Testimony

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[BobbyC81]

20 hours ago, Rockpile233 said:

Umm Parkland?

 

It’s obviously a complex issue, but having conversations about it shouldn’t scare people. Obviously the nightclub shooting or Vegas would still have happened.

 

Causing the shootings is a very strong statement. The ability for an 18-20 year old to buy a gun is not the CAUSE of shootings. I just think stricter limits, on age ranges most agree are more prone to emotional outbursts, makes sense.

 

 

 

I don’t relate to the gun culture but restrictions on gun ownership by age wouldn’t do much. Yes, the Parkland shooter is under 21 and was legally able to buy his AR15 but sometimes gun violence comes from someone who has acquired a gun by many other means that are available. We need to change the culture.

 

 I don’t understand, though, why any citizen needs an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

 

 I read recently that abandoned tanks are available for purchase and some states allow you to own one. How much sense does that make?

 

 I like some of what Japan has done. If you want to go shoot an AK47 or AR15, you can do it at a gun range but you can’t own one. Sounds like a sensible way for gun aficionados to have their fun.

[LeviF]

7 hours ago, LA Grant said:

The NRA is disgusting. The idea of giving money to an organization this undeniably corrupt makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

Agreed, this is why I encourage all those who actually care about the 2nd Amendment to give their money to Gun Owners of America, who actually does something with your money rather than make ****ty advertisements and cave whenever there's a little bit of pressure from the left.

[Warren Zevon]

8 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Agreed, this is why I encourage all those who actually care about the 2nd Amendment to give their money to Gun Owners of America, who actually does something with your money rather than make ****ty advertisements and cave whenever there's a little bit of pressure from the left.

 

Then why does your ilk defend the NRA like a child?

 

It's the exact crap scumbag Bauerle yells on his radio show with that other scumbag.

 

"The NRA is crap, I never support the NRA. I donate to other gun right activist groups instead"

 

the next day

 

"Liberals are boycotting businesses that support the NRA. I will not stand for this. Let's boycott liberal businesses!"

Edited March 2, 2018 by garybusey

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

Then why does your ilk defend the NRA like a child?

 

Because like most Americans they only care about whatever lip service is paid to their causes?  Idk man you'll have to ask them, you'll find that most people of my "ilk" aren't with me on a lot of things. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, garybusey said:

 

Then why does your ilk defend the NRA like a child?

 

It's the exact crap scumbag Bauerle yells on his radio show with that other scumbag.

 

"The NRA is crap, I never support the NRA. I donate to other gun right activist groups instead"

 

the next day

 

"Liberals are boycotting businesses that support the NRA. I will not stand for this. Let's boycott liberal businesses!"

 

Most people aren't defending the NRA. They're defending the 2A. The reason it feels like they're defending the NRA is because the left, being devoid of any real discussion, personifies gun ownership as the big, bad, disgusting, horrific NRA.

 

Very simple, basic DNC arguing 101: pick your battle, give it a face, yell at the face instead of the subject. When you're just about to lose, yell how there is no known argument against whatever the DNC is whining about today.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Most people aren't defending the NRA. They're defending the 2A. The reason it feels like they're defending the NRA is because the left, being devoid of any real discussion, personifies gun ownership as the big, bad, disgusting, horrific NRA.

 

Very simple, basic DNC arguing 101: pick your battle, give it a face, yell at the face instead of the subject. When you're just about to lose, yell how there is no known argument against whatever the DNC is whining about today.

 

 

 

 

 

Not a face, an archetype.  

 

The modern American left doesn't see individuals.  They see bland, shallow caricatures of groups of people.  It's on full display in this discussion: our "ilk" defends the NRA, gun owners are hobbyists, conservatives are clinging to their guns and religion.  LAGrant and busey aren't even arguing with us, they're arguing with false images of people that don't exist outside their imaginations.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Most people aren't defending the NRA. They're defending the 2A. The reason it feels like they're defending the NRA is because the left, being devoid of any real discussion, personifies gun ownership as the big, bad, disgusting, horrific NRA.

 

Very simple, basic DNC arguing 101: pick your battle, give it a face, yell at the face instead of the subject. When you're just about to lose, yell how there is no known argument against whatever the DNC is whining about today.

It's funny how I've been accused of plagiarizing Wayne LaPierre, for making the standard counter argument against neo-Marxists espousing gun control, with the purpose of discrediting my argument because LaPierre made the same argument, as if the fact that the NRA making the same case was some sort of poison pill.

 

The truth is that any support folks like me have for the NRA is because they take have taken a stance on this particular issue which mirrors my own.  Like Levi, I'm a GOA man, as I don't thin the NRA typically does enough as an organization, and capitulates far too often to gun grabbers. 

 

If it weren't for Grant, I honestly would not have known how much the NRA deserved my support here.

[TH3]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not a face, an archetype.  

 

The modern American left doesn't see individuals.  They see bland, shallow caricatures of groups of people.  It's on full display in this discussion: our "ilk" defends the NRA, gun owners are hobbyists, conservatives are clinging to their guns and religion.  LAGrant and busey aren't even arguing with us, they're arguing with false images of people that don't exist outside their imaginations.

 

Wait...So in the same 3 sentences you characterize people that don't exist outside your imagination....then you say the left argues with people who don't exist....LOL

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, baskin said:

 

Wait...So in the same 3 sentences you characterize people that don't exist outside your imagination....then you say the left argues with people who don't exist....LOL

 

Sorry, I forgot to include you when I mentioned LA and busey.  

[LA Grant]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

Not a face, an archetype.  

 

The modern American left doesn't see individuals.  They see bland, shallow caricatures of groups of people.  It's on full display in this discussion: our "ilk" defends the NRA, gun owners are hobbyists, conservatives are clinging to their guns and religion.  LAGrant and busey aren't even arguing with us, they're arguing with false images of people that don't exist outside their imaginations.

 

Compared to the American right, who thoughtfully engage in the comparative value in ideas? lol. Yeah, you contain multitudes. It just must be somewhere else, right? At least you're being funny again.

 

What you're seeing in this discussion is — I'm talking about ideas. You're talking about individuals. The playbook for the modern American right is on full display here: if you don't like the idea, do whatever you can to make it about the individual. 

 

Conservatives don't like ideas. Conservatives like safe spaces, with self-serving norms that protect themselves and their group. They promote division by design to maintain these norms.

 

Progressives stake out appropriate cultural norms, find the best idea, and wait for society to catch up. Sometimes Progressives are off the mark, but the intentions are for genuine improvement, for ideas that make sense. 

 

Change happens when the Progressive cause becomes equal with a failing Conservative one. It's why we are seeing gun control happen now, but not before. Conservatives will stay in their position until it is absolutely, utterly untenable. Opposing gun control is basically at that point. 

3 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

Most people aren't defending the NRA. They're defending the 2A. The reason it feels like they're defending the NRA is because the left, being devoid of any real discussion, personifies gun ownership as the big, bad, disgusting, horrific NRA.

 

Very simple, basic DNC arguing 101: pick your battle, give it a face, yell at the face instead of the subject. When you're just about to lose, yell how there is no known argument against whatever the DNC is whining about today.

 

Incorrect. Gun ownership is not monopolized by the right. The reason it feels like the right are defending the NRA is because the right always chooses to attack those who criticize the NRA, rather than the NRA.  (See: Georgia Lawmakers punishing Delta, so far, hearing nobody on the Right concerned about this case of gov't interfering with the private sector)

 

You often complain about being unfairly lumped in to a position you don't support, but you also are reluctant to advocate for anything. Instead, you do the exact thing you claim you don't want — everything in your second line, you also do that, dude. Here. In PPP. Frequently.

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not a face, an archetype.  

 

 

I was trying to use simple words so Grant and busey could follow along.

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Compared to the American right, who thoughtfully engage in the comparative value in ideas? lol. Yeah, you contain multitudes. It just must be somewhere else, right? At least you're being funny again.

 

What you're seeing in this discussion is — I'm talking about ideas. You're talking about individuals. The playbook for the modern American right is on full display here: if you don't like the idea, do whatever you can to make it about the individual. 

 

Conservatives don't like ideas. Conservatives like safe spaces, with self-serving norms that protect themselves and their group. They promote division by design to maintain these norms.

 

Progressives stake out appropriate cultural norms, find the best idea, and wait for society to catch up. Sometimes Progressives are off the mark, but the intentions are for genuine improvement, for ideas that make sense. 

 

Change happens when the Progressive cause becomes equal with a failing Conservative one. It's why we are seeing gun control happen now, but not before. Conservatives will stay in their position until it is absolutely, utterly untenable. Opposing gun control is basically at that point. 

Can you put a bunch of emoticons in your text? It'll remind me that you're just another blowhard not deserving of my reading your post.

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Can you put a bunch of emoticons in your text? It'll remind me that you're just another blowhard not deserving of my reading your post.

 

[DC Tom]

24 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I was trying to use simple words so Grant and busey could follow along.

 

I like the way he responds to my observation that he sees nothing but archetypes by immediately criticizing an archetype. 

[IDBillzFan]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I like the way he responds to my observation that he sees nothing but archetypes by immediately criticizing an archetype. 

 

I like how he would TOTALLY be open to debate... except that he already knows the position you will take is wrong...even before you make it...because it's different from his position. And his position is the  ONLY position that makes sense, even though he hasn't heard your position!

 

Tolerance!

[LA Grant]

21 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

I like the way he responds to my observation that he sees nothing but archetypes by immediately criticizing an archetype. 

 

I like the way that you respond to the observation that "one of us talks ideas, one of us talks individuals" by... immediately focusing on the individual. I was almost going to put that prediction in the post but felt like it was too baiting. But look at you go.

 

6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

I like how he would TOTALLY be open to debate... except that he already knows the position you will take is wrong...even before you make it...because it's different from his position. And his position is the  ONLY position that makes sense, even though he hasn't heard your position!

 

Tolerance!

 

"All facts are equal! If you get to believe something, why isn't what I believe equally valid? Oh, just because what I've chosen to believe has nothing that supports it besides me yelling? Well, so much for the tolerant left. And another thing, you're mean, and, you're the one arguing feelings, not me! I'm on the side of personal responsibility! It's just in this specific case, and every other specific case, I personally am not responsible."

 

Being a conservative must feel like being a fan of the Washington Generals.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I like how he would TOTALLY be open to debate... except that he already knows the position you will take is wrong...even before you make it...because it's different from his position. And his position is the  ONLY position that makes sense, even though he hasn't heard your position!

 

Tolerance!

 

I'm sure he'd be more than willing to discuss things as long as we respect his feelings.  Of course, since feelings are all he has, disagreeing with him is disrespecting his feelings, so he's incapable of discussion.  

 

And that's what passes for rationality in today's liberals.  Same stupid logic that has "liberals" supporting the deletion of InfoWars' YouTube channel, because "they upset people!"  Used to be liberalism was about empowering the individual, not wrapping them in bubble wrap.