Romance Talk with Joe
That line is from a friend of mine back in 2004. Dunno why, but the line popped into my head today for the first time in years, and just hit me as something Joe would say.
So this is a thing that launched yesterday. About damn time, I say, although I’m still reading up on whether this new org be good or bad medicine. I’m tired of the NRA being the only major group on the field, as they tend to take shit to a silly level in their rhetoric over the last 12 years. I understand that the NRA is a necessary silliness, and I’m glad they lobby and campaign to protect 2nd Amendment rights. But I do think there should be MORE players on the field in this fight.
This is the dumbest shit I have seen in a loooooong time. Warning: This video may cause your brain to escape out of your ears in an attempt to escape from the stupidity.
[ADD] Yeah, I think you guys are right. This is stinkin’ up Denmark. It’s one thing to be a moderate gun rights advocate. It’s another to publicly support anti-gun groups and legislation.
Yeah….
American Rifle and Pistol organization.
They came up on the Gunwire. Someone did a little digging.
Don’t get your hopes up.
Among the wonderful organizations subscribed to and “liked” on the leader of AR+P are MAIG and Moms Demand Action
Also, no one on the board of directors has any background in firearms.
How are they going to teach “SANE” firearms use without even one instructor or safety trained person on their board?
My take on it? A Bloomberg funded diversionary tactic to divide and conquer.
Here’s the best exposé article I’ve found so far
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/07/03/the-latest-not-really-pro-gun-group/
Dude, it’s anti-gun astroturf. Much like the old American Hunters and Shooters Association circa 2004 or so. Look into GOA or JPFO or SAF for alternatives.
>Look into GOA or JPFO or SAF for alternatives.
The GOA are a bunch of nutjobs who are just as married to the social conservative movement as the NRA is. Their front page is hawking a “documentary” with a hammer and sickle(what is this? 1958?), and they want to sell Tea Party stuff in their store, and “Bitter clinger” with a Bible and M1911.
And then people are shocked, yes, shocked that moderates and liberals who otherwise would have no strong feelings about guns are put off by pro-gun organizations.
Oh no, Tea Party stuff! Hide the wimmin and children!
I don’t know what’s so radical about people who think that maybe we’re paying too much in taxes because the government’s wasting tons of money on ridiculous stuff.
Yeah, I don’t know what’s so ridiculous about a bunch of upper-middle-class white people screaming about how awful their tax burden is, while holding signs that say idiotic bullshit like “ATLAS WILL SHRUG,” “KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE,” and “OBAMA IS A FASCIST COMMUNIST NAZI”, who only started screaming about it after 2008. They’re not radical at all. They’re fucking morons.
If you can show me evidence that you were a member of the TEA party before 2007, I will apologize.
I bet you’d like me to show you I have 30 years of Java programming experience too, huh? Don’t be a dumbass, the TEA party didn’t exist before 2007. But yes, I felt that George Bush and the Republican and Democrat-controlled Congresses spent too much money. So did Clinton.
Since you think tea partiers are jerks, as witnessed by your use of the term “teabag” I have to assume you find trilllion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see not a big deal, which is hilarious when they’re promulgated by a guy who thought deficit spending was so bad he did twice as much of it has his predecessor.
And if I went to a Teabagger rally and saw people making that statement, I would be interested.
I’ve been to a Teabagger rally. No. Absolutely not. I do not give a good god damn what your internet rhetoric version of it is – I know the hateful, angry, racist, idiotic crowd that I saw in person. I am not joining that group. If you want to call these morons your allies, be my guest.
By continuing to call them teabaggers, you show yourself to be the asshole.
Here’s the apology I have for anyone offended by my use of the self-inflicted label of “Teabagger”.
Is your apology supposed to be “not found,” or did you draw up some big “I’ll slander you however the fuck I want because this is the internet” middle-finger and the link’s just not working?
What? File not found? Hm. Perhaps I never had an apology to give after all.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned it as the first option. Although I have to admit, I ~am~ actually surprised.
I suspected you didn’t have enough shame to give the world a quick ‘yeah, sorry ’bout that’ after slandering your betters in the most vicious, childish manner possible–but my guess was that you’d double down on it. Maybe there’s hope yet!
Dude, why are you here?
Seriously, this is a comic site. Not Freepublic or 4chan. If you want to spout off and get SERIOUS about guns, why are you doing it on the message board for a comic that revolves around dick jokes? Do you think anyone here is going to take you seriously? Do you not have better forums to make your case on? Is this the low hanging fruit where you think you’ll somehow PERSEVERE and WIN THE INTERNETS ARGUMENTS? Are you really that pathetic? This is a COMIC SITE. Can you get a little fucking perspective?
Yeah, I could tell this wasn’t Freerepublic when references to sex acts took the place of facts.
Meanwhile, if I’m “pathetic” for opposing childish slander here… what does that make the people who ~advance~ it?
Perhaps that’s a perspective you should try out sometime.
I see you are continuing. But you didn’t answer my question: Why are you here? Childish slander? It’s a fucking comic site. I make fun of shit all the time. That isn’t going to stop, no matter how much you argue. Sometimes people think my comics or posts are “childish” – well, you can think that all you like. But do you really think you’re, I dunno, doing something noble by getting on a soapbox on a site that has punchlines about dicks?
Tell you what: You win. I don’t know what you were trying to win, but you win it. There. Feel great about that. Mark this down on your calendar as the day you “won”. Then toddle off.
Dude, I won about eight posts ago, so you’re not actually giving me anything.
As for why I posted here? Because the like that needed correcting is here…
Or perhaps the lie I enjoy correcting–I’m certainly not here poking holes in your argument because I think it entertains <i?you, after all.
Meanwhile, give me a moment to reflect in amusement that your argument boils down to “This is a site I made for immature shit, so don’t be surprised if I talk shit about people for thinking maybe we should keep more of our own money.”
OK, I get it–you care nothing for the truth and I can’t make you start; I knew that from back when you ran out of sick humor for FLEM and decided to rant about how evil anybody more than half a step to the right of Karl Marx’ French Poodle was, so I didn’t step into this with the hope that I’d break out the perfect one liner and you’d think “Holy shit, maybe I SHOULD actually pay attention to whether something’s true or not before I say it….”–but I’ve fought that battle before, and like any other condition, nobody can change it until you want to change.
I just felt like speaking up in my own defense when somebody starts frothing at the mouth. I did it to make me look good, and it’s just luck that you decided to help me out.
> Dude, I won about eight posts ago, so you’re not actually giving me anything.
You’re also not actually winning anything either, but I have a funny feeling you won’t realize that unless Bert and Ernie sing a song with xylophone accompaniment explaining it to you.
> As for why I posted here? Because the lie that needed correcting is here…
Might I suggest a more fulfilling hobby, such as learning to identify the gender of guinea pigs on sight, or collecting photos of Alpacas?
> OK, I get it–you care nothing for the truth and I can’t make you start;
No, you apparently don’t fucking get it, you obtuse motherfucker. This is a comic site. A COMIC SITE. I am not a blogger for any major news organization. I am not on TV. I am not, frankly, anyone that anybody should be getting their news from or basing their opinions on firearms on. You are trying to “correct” a guy who really doesn’t care if you have a correction to make. Zero fucks given. I don’t have to “fact check,” my readership isn’t going to drop if I put up a post where I claim that Harry Reid is a black sorcerer, or that Glenn Beck can only achieve orgasm if he’s getting fisted by a midget hunchback named Klaus. Tell me, do you visit the Garfield forums and bitch that cat’s don’t actually eat lasagna? Or the Dilbert replies, to complain that Dogbert is a dog, and therefore wouldn’t wear glasses? I don’t think you get it at all. You want your words to mean something. You want to feel important. Thank god for the Internet, where you can try to turn these comments into the Redneck Show, all your own!
> I’ve fought that battle before,
Holy shit son, battle? Again, your perspective is fucked. You are sitting on your ass, wiggling your fingers on a keyboard, arguing on the internet. This is not a battle. Nobody is persecuting you. There is nothing to win.
> I did it to make me look good, and it’s just luck that you decided to help me out.
You have no idea how much that line made me laugh. You look like a drooling retard.
You won, dude. Now go play outside for an hour or two.
And by continuing to call them racist, you show you can’t defeat them on the actual issues.
That’s a glorious excuse. Bra-vo, sir, encore! ENCORE! If I identify that a group of people, people I am looking at with my actual eyeballs, holding racist signs and chanting racist chants are, in fact, racists, I lose by default?
That’s beautiful. I have shed a tear at the beauty of your argument.
If you identify people who are actually doing so, we’re talking about a different argument–both in regards to the ‘race-card’ and in regard to actual, real-life TEA Party rallies.. Otherwise, I’ve heard these accusations before, and when it comes to actually examining the facts, the accusations turn out to be blatantly false.
Last TEA Party rally I went to, I got to shake Alan Keyes’ hand.
So none of the bigots and idiots I saw firsthand in Feb of 2009 were true Scotsmen, that’s what you’re trying to say?
Actually, what I’m trying to say is that chances are none of them existed. That would make them much more like the other horrid racists I kept hearing the Left talk about but never actually saw.
>I don’t know what’s so radical about people who think that maybe we’re paying too much in taxes because the government’s wasting tons of money on ridiculous stuff.
Congrats on managing to miss the point.
There are a plenty of moderates and liberals who are turned off on gun rights because the major gun rights organizations are married to the social conservative movement(which is what the Tea Party is). But you’re so butt hurt that there are a lot of people out there that disagree with it that you’re willing to toss gun rights down the drain in the name of your culture war.
You also missed jlgrants point; the Tea Party “magically” came into existence after a democratic with a foreign sounding name came into power. Not a whisper during the Bush Administration that had not one, not two, not three, but FOUR major economic stimulus packages…not counting social programs like Medicare D that will cost the taxpayer more money than Obamacare will.
It’s clearly a partisan organization.
–You also missed jlgrants point; the Tea Party “magically” came into existence after a democratic with a foreign sounding name came into power.–
We missed that point because it’s an absolute crock. The TEA Party was doing quite well before the “democrat with a foreign-sounding name” came to power.
Did it grow afterwards? Of course–any conservative group will grow when the President is very possibly the most left-wing president the country’s ever had; independent of the other issues (although they certainly make a difference), that’s a given no matter what his name sounds like.
Like I said: Show me any proof, any at all, that you were a member before Obama, and I will publicly apologize.
The Tea Party did not exist in a significant manner before 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Commentaries_on_origin
The first protests organized by the movement began in early 2009. How many did the Tea Party have before Obama was elected?
Also:
> Of course–any conservative group will grow when the President is very possibly the most left-wing president the country’s ever had;
Seriously? Did you, like, fail high school history?
Obama is a centrist. FDR, LBJ, TR, and yes, Ronald Reagan all had more left wing policies then he did.
–Seriously? Did you, like, fail high school history?
Obama is a centrist. FDR, LBJ, TR, and yes, Ronald Reagan all had more left wing policies then he did.–
Oh, sweet irony…..
Hey, if you can tell me what policies Obama has adopt that are particularly more left than those that I listed, knock yourself out.
By the way, Reagan had the biggest peacetime tax increase in history(not counting FOPA and him backing the BradyBunch) , FDR had the biggest Federal entitlement increase in History, LBJ had the second, and George W, Bush(with Medicare D) had the third.
How does Obama stack up to being the most left-wing president the country has every had compared to those? Oh right, he passed more regulations for the health insurance industry and is letting the homos be in the military.
His health care bill is a start. In addition, the guy’s nationalized companies, used the IRS to harass conservative groups, vastly increased the size of government and government spending, espoused the redistribution of wealth…
Pretty much what you could expect from a guy who was raised by socialists and launched his career from the living room of a socialist terrorist (“Guilty as sin, free as a bird” in his own words).
So far, China has had to remind Obama that socialism doesn’t work, Russia is protecting Christians from Obama’s allies, and Latin American countries are schooling him on how to treat whistleblowers. That’s a small step above having Bill Clinton tell you that you probably could be treating women a bit more respectfully.
As an extra note, Reagan’s tax increase was not the largest in history, nor even the largest peacetime increase in history–Clinton’s 1994 tax increase beats that by a wide margin. In addition, Reagan agreed to a tax increase because the Democrats promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes. They lied, of course, but it’s still a little funny to see people trying to paint Reagan as some sort of Leftist.
>His health care bill is a start.
The one that’s going to cost less than Medicare D did? Not exactly “most leftwing”
> In addition, the guy’s nationalized companies
The ones that came begging for a bailout and were going to tank? You make it sound like he sent the stormtroopers in and took control of the assets.
>used the IRS to harass conservative groups,
You have evidence that OBAMA specifically instructed the IRS to target conservative groups?
Because if “he was President at the time” is the threshold of blame, then Bush(2) used the IRS to target the NAACP.
>, vastly increased the size of government and government spending,
Compared to who? Both Bush and Reagan increased the size of the Federal government more relative to their previous sizes than Obama. Again, not exactly making the argument that he’s the MOST leftwing president out there, which is what your claim was.
>espoused the redistribution of wealth
So? Eisenhower had the top income tax bracket pay 90% of their income to the Feds. Was he “less” leftwing than Obama, who didn’t even push forward a new income tax when he had control of both houses of Congress?
>Pretty much what you could expect from a guy who was raised by socialists and launched his career from the living room of a socialist terrorist (“Guilty as sin, free as a bird” in his own words).
You still haven’t proved that his actions are MORE leftwing than many previous Presidents.
>So far, China has had to remind Obama that socialism doesn’t work
China had a bigger stimulus package than any that Obama put forward, as a percentage of the GDP, so hard to take that claim seriously.
(by the way, GWB had 4 major stimulus packages while he was president to Obama’s two, and some of his were when the economy was doing well and a package was unneeded!)
>Russia is protecting Christians from Obama’s allies
Which “allies”?
Also, it’s the job of the President to defend Christendom?
>Latin American countries are schooling him on how to treat whistleblowers.
Mistreating whistleblowers is a metric for whether or not something is rightwing or leftwing?
So does that mean Nixon was leftwing for targeting whistleblowers?
>As an extra note, Reagan’s tax increase was not the largest in history, nor even the largest peacetime increase in history–Clinton’s 1994 tax increase beats that by a wide margin.
Heh. Absolute false statement, but not surprising from someone who thinks that Obama is the “most leftwing president ever”.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/
By the way, it’s pretty ballsy to blame increase spending during the Reagan Administration on the Democrats, when it was Reagan who pushed for a expanded defense budget, which included long term mandates like a new GI Bill.
–The one that’s going to cost less than Medicare D did? Not exactly “most leftwing”–
Just what have YOU been smoking?
A quick check of Wikipedia puts Medicare Part D at $49.3 billion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Program_costs ). Obamacare’s own propagandists admit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Program_costs ) that Obamacare’s going to cost between 1 and 2.6 trillion over the next ten years. Supposedly, they’re going to offset that cost with all sorts of lovely reforms and new taxes and spending cuts, but if you believe that I’ve got a story for you about how a youtube video causes four people in Libya to spontaneously combust. He’s too busy trying to force Christians to fund abortions to worry about things like spending cuts.
Also, let’s not forget that he’s made it clear several times that this is a step, not the end product. The entire goal of Obamacare is to put private insurers out of business.
–The ones that came begging for a bailout and were going to tank? —
Ahh, well if some company asks for socialism, I suppose it’s not left-wing of the guy to provide it….
–You have evidence that OBAMA specifically instructed the IRS to target conservative groups?–
Other than a refusal to be willfully ignorant?
–Because if “he was President at the time” is the threshold of blame, then Bush(2) used the IRS to target the NAACP.–
Except for the little problem that the NAACP wasn’t targeted for being a liberal group, it was targeted for specifying a particular politician. Before the Citizens United case, that wasn’t allowed on either side of the aisle.
–Compared to who? Both Bush and Reagan increased the size of the Federal government more relative to their previous sizes than Obama.–
Wow. I’ve seen BS before, but rarely to this extent. Congratulations are in order, I suppose.
–So? Eisenhower had the top income tax bracket pay 90% of their income to the Feds. —
Even though it amounted to less than 300 people.
–Obama, who didn’t even push forward a new income tax when he had control of both houses of Congress?–
Obama had control of both houses of Congress in the middle of a recession when he was busy socializing the health industry. That he couldn’t take the time to indulge in his oft-stated love of wealth redistribution doesn’t change his faith in it.
–China had a bigger stimulus package than any that Obama put forward, as a percentage of the GDP, so hard to take that claim seriously.–
Because their stimulus package means the same thing as their statements…..
–(by the way, GWB had 4 major stimulus packages while he was president to Obama’s two, and some of his were when the economy was doing well and a package was unneeded!)–
All of which were a fraction of what Obama spent. Bush was dangerously naive, but to pretend that he was more left-wing than Obama is to drybugger the very concept of truth. Feel free to do so, but I hope you’ll understand if I refuse to join you.
–Which “allies”?–
The guys he’s arming in Syria.
–Also, it’s the job of the President to defend Christendom?–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
–Mistreating whistleblowers is a metric for whether or not something is rightwing or leftwing?–
It certainly is when the whistleblower exposes a liberal program.
–Heh. Absolute false statement, but not surprising from someone who thinks that Obama is the “most leftwing president ever”.–
Except that it’s not “absolute[ly] false” unless you ignore the numbers and try different ways. Amusingly, even your source had this to say:
“And Reagan’s 1982 tax increase followed an even more massive tax cut the previous year, which had overshot the mark. Taken together, Reagan’s 1981 tax cut and 1982 tax increase still netted out to a very substantial reduction in taxes.”
–By the way, it’s pretty ballsy to blame increase spending during the Reagan Administration on the Democrats, when it was Reagan who pushed for a expanded defense budget, which included long term mandates like a new GI Bill.–
First, I didn’t do that. Again, try not using the Straw Man argument, even when it’s obvious you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Second, I’ll do that for you now, just to be nice–but I’ll also point out that Reagan’s budgets were proudly announced “Dead on Arrival” the moment they hit the Congressional floor, so yes, they take the blame for the spending they pushed.
Moreover, your comment quite conveniently ignores the fact that Reagan signed in a tax increase in exchange for massive spending cuts–which, in typical fashion, the Democrats reneged on. They did the same in ’92 to get Bush I to break his “no new taxes” pledge–and didn’t keep their word then either. Then they called Republicans unwilling to compromise when they offered spending cuts in exchange for a tax hike.
Concur on GOA/RMGO. Dudley is batshite insane. While JPFO is a bit silly, they are sincere and do bust hump doing their best.
Anyone know much about SAF?
SAF files more lawsuits than NRA. And wins.
SAF is solely responsible for every successful pro-gun lawsuit recently…including DC and Chicago. give them money. The Alans could use it.
They also wrote Manchin-Toomey.
http://www.dailypaul.com/281823/alert-alan-gottlieb-of-2a-fdn-publicly-admits-to-crafting-the-toomey-manchin-univ-gun-registry-bill
Ella? I thought her name was Jessie or some such. Wasn’t Ella the weird anime chick that Jay was banging?
Holy hell…
That was possibly the stupidest brain fart I’ve had in 15 years of online comics.
Heh. Even the great Sir Pterry has fallen victim to this one, and that was before the embuggerance. No worries.
At least in the NRA you do have one strong voice, here in the UK we have
The NRA (UK) full bore target shooting only
BASC pheasant shooting
BDS deer shooting
CPSA Clay pigeon shooting
CA Fox hunting with hounds, but a days driven grouse with daddy’s purdy’s is acceptable
NSRA target shooting but small bore only
None of these organisations like each other and are very easily played against one another.
When semi auto rifles were moved to Section 5 in 1988 only the practical rifle people protested, the rest of the shooting community went, well I don’t need a rifle like that, so no one else does. The same happened when pistols were moved to Section 5 in 1997.
In the UK we are our own worst enemies.
From their “Core Values”:
Documented Competency : It is reasonable for ownership and use of any specific firearm to be predicated upon documented competency, as determined and established by the laws of each State.
I object to the idea that I have to justify a Constitutional Right to any government authority. Especially given how some states, such as mine, would use questions such as “Would you use this firearm to shoot an intruder inside your home” in order to disqualify our competency.
As far as the buy back, who wants to wager about those toy guns and violent video games ending up on eBay?
Ebay is where violent games belong ^_~ (she says as an established ebay game retailer)
The gun buyback is trying to do social engineering on the kids at the young age when their minds are still in super playdoh stage.
Steer clear of them, they’re an anti-gun organization masquerading as pro to trick people into joining, so they can say “See! All these people support our common sense approach to gun control!”
http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=422990
Straight-up astroturf: http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/07/03/the-latest-not-really-pro-gun-group/
The ARPO has bad reviews on every gun board I’m on (just four) and their SANE proposal is all about control.
Can’t see why you are falling for astroturf fake “half sorta pro gun” organizations. The idea that the NRA is some sort of unrepresentative extremist organization is a fraudulent MSM talking point.
The NRA doesn’t get my money after the horseshit they pulled in 2008 and 2009. I was a member until then. Don’t talk to me like I got these ideas from the news. Suddenly, every damn magazine I opened that had anything to do with sporting or shooting had another NRA-funded ad screaming about how Obama as president would equal the apocalypse by 2010.
Funny thing – I don’t remember any apocalypse.
I am not a member of the MSM, and this isn’t a fucking talking point.
Yes, it is a MSM talking point. The NRA has influence specifically because its members show up at the polls which they would not do if the NRA was so far off their positions.
And while Obama specifically suppressed any anti-gun positions – which he historically does hold – until after the 2012 election, when Obama felt he had political cover he did go whole hog.
>And while Obama specifically suppressed any anti-gun positions – which he historically does hold – until after the 2012 election, when Obama felt he had political cover he did go whole hog.
Obama felt he had the political cover to go the whole hog because a crazy person went on a murder spree in a elementary school.
You absolutely cannot convince me that Romney wouldn’t have done the same, seeing as he signed a permanent AWB in MA.
I may have done a comic on this very topic. Anyone who thinks Romney would have protected gun rights is a fool.
No, Romney would have done absolutely the same thing, only it would have been worse, becasue there would have been more Republican support. But that doesn’t make those who believed that Obama was not full on anti gun any less of a fool.
> “About damn time, I say, although I’m still reading up on whether this new org be good or bad medicine.”
Can’t see why you can’t fucking read. Perhaps you need to go get some lessons, yes?
I can read. You link to them and follow that with “About damn time …” and then put in the qualification. I read all of your words.
So you read the part where I said:
> “I’m still reading up on whether this new org be good or bad medicine.”
Yes? You read that? And then claimed that I was: “falling for astroturf fake “half sorta pro gun” organizations.” Yes? You wrote that?
You are either lying or stupid.
When you say it’s “about damn time” for a false-flag organization to sprout up, purporting to support “gun rights”, but, in reality, doing everything they can to undermine those rights in the first mere week of that organization’s existence, people rightfully start to wonder about a number of things, including the processing power of that grey stuff between your ears.
If you don’t want to be called on exactly what you wrote, perhaps you should think – at all – when you write it, yes?
SO BRAVE. Here’s a medal for your internet bravery.
IOW, you can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
Kind of you to admit that.
*shrug* I have better things to do than waste much more of my time on a gullible fool who is so bigoted against an organization that he will gleefully flee to the arms of a false-flag organization at the first possible opportunity. Best of luck with that.
Your bravery will be remembered for years to come. 7/7/2013 – NEVAR FORGET
The toy gun exchange actually makes a little sense. To me it isn’t about toy guns encouraging violence. It’s about toy guns forming bad habits. Kids get used to the idea of running around pointing these toys at each other. It becomes acceptable behavior. Then they get their hands on daddy’s gun without his knowledge. Disaster.
You can scream all you want about how it’s up to the parents to teach their children gun safety, but parents aren’t doing it. Just look at how many accidental shootings involve the children of “responsible” gun owners. My parents made it clear that just because my heroes on Adam 12, Starsky and Hutch, and CHiPs pointed guns at people, it wasn’t okay for me to do it. I was to treat even a toy gun as if it were real and loaded, and they tore strips out of my hide if they caught me pointing a toy gun, or even a gun-shaped stick, at someone. I developed good gun safety habits because of this.
If your kids can’t tell the difference between toy and real guns, they may have bigger problems. Children are not, in fact, stupid; and they can understand that different sets of rules apply to different things, like real and toy guns. I don’t really see how you are going from “parents arent teaching gun safety” to “it’s the fault of toy guns.” That doesn’t make any sense.
Then teach them. That’s what I do. Toy guns have a very specific set of rules, including no pointing at anyone not playing.
Here Bitter links to the ARPA “response” to her first post. Which is pretty unimpressive. Not merely astroturf but for-profit astroturf …
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/07/05/american-rifle-and-pistol-association-responds/
Possibly the stupidest response I have ever seen from a member-driven organization:
Q: So your members don’t get to vote on the top executives or board members?
PV: Of course not. No more than as a member of COSTCO or AAA you get to decide who their CEO should be. Should we ever go public, then naturally, all shareholders would have a stake in such matters. But we’re a long way away from that ever being a consideration.
Yeah, the NRA doesn’t represent gun owners, it represents gun manufacturers, which is why it a) promotes panic over nothing in order to create gun sales, b) opposes expanded background checks since a gun not sold to a felon at a gun show is a gun not sold, and c) opposes the UN Arms Trade Treaty even though it would have zero effect on domestic policy.
Are you fucking retarded? (the answer is yes by the way), People from gun stores selling guns from new to used have to run background checks on every gun sold. the only people that don’t have to do checks are private sellers, AKA the guy next door. these people are selling secondary market guns, no new profit goes to the gun company from a private sale therefore there is no incentive to worry either way, the only people manufacturers get money from are dealers or distributors buying from them, since private citizens cant do this than the manufacturer cant get any money from them. A “universal” background check would require a registry to be formed, otherwise how could they know who had what when transferring from one person to another? if Joe gave a gun to bob without the paperwork the government would have no idea bob didn’t have the gun in the first place without a registry showing it was Joe’s gun and bob being found with the gun.
why would you support the ATT? it is a fucking international arms trade nightmare, any guns or ammo coming from another country would have to comply with any of the laws laid out in the treaty, if that means no more semi auto’s or no more whatever is banned than you are fucked, better hope the american market can make something half decent and not retarded expensive at the same time.
and it seems to me all the “panic” was over something, not 1 month into his new presidency he was doing everything in his power to ban as much as he could, and it wasn’t short lived, going on for 7 months now and was really pressed for 5 or 6 months. and all the sales are really good, not only does it stimulate the manufacturers, but it also gives the pro gun side really good talking points, like 200~ million background checks since 1998 meaning hundreds of millions of guns sold and yet crime is at a decades long low. every new gun sold while crime is decreasing in the middle of an economic shithole is a great thing.
now kindly go suck Bloomberg’s cock
Yes, because the NSSF, the Official trade group of gun manufacturers, doesn’t have anything to do. Or maybe the NRA does actually represent many gun owners.
Although I agree with your argument, the NRA does not represent me. I am a gun owner, under the 2nd amendment, and I have no allegiance to a group that heavily touts that Ted Fucking Nugent is one of their members. Fuck that guy. Fuck the NRA.
Unfortunately, they’re the strongest pro-2A group out there. This should not be the case.
I feel the same way about the AARP. But it is what it is.
Oh, I agree it doesn’t represent all gun owners (why I made sure to put many, which is different from all) but it’s the damn “it only represents gun manufacturers” bullshit that pisses me off.
TTAG had a piece about the American Rifle and Pistol group. Looks like it’s just a fake organization.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/robert-farago/american-rifle-pistol-threatens-ttag-and-others/
I had “stepped away” from FTF for a few months (busy with a big project, and I kind of like to gulp a comic, not sip it.)
So (pause while thinking) so dissatisfied with the turn the comments section has taken.
I could join in and defend some of the bashed-upon-organizations who are trying to restore some ideals (or paddle against a strong current) but I think Mr JLGrant is right about one thing… It’s a comic site.
We’re on the edge of a cliff, and it’s crumbling under our feet.