Join the NRA for $25, get a $25 Bass Pro Shops gift card

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=bassprowy


boutons duex, I would love to buy you a membership, and you can keep the gift card. PM me if interested. The rest of you, buy them as a gift for your wife, your kids, and your Fuzzys.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't need a 25 bucks at bass pro. What are the other benefits of joining the NRA?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't need a 25 bucks at bass pro. What are the other benefits of joining the NRA?
Maybe more junk mail of things you might be interested in?

[TSA]

I don't need a 25 bucks at bass pro.Are you gay?

[Bender]

$25 wont buy much at bass pro

[Th'Pusher]

Are you gay?
No, I'm hetero. That gun you sold was aggressively gay though.

[LnGrrrR]

To be honest, if anyone wants to buy me a subscription to Wired, I'm totally cool with that.

[Th'Pusher]

To be honest, if anyone wants to buy me a subscription to Wired, I'm totally cool with that.
The latest issue had a really good briefing on robotics :tu

[mavs>spurs]

im signing up

[DMC]

I've never been a member of the NRA. I see no reason to pay money to an organization that doesn't really do anything for me personally. I feel the same way about the CCA, BASS and a host of other organizations. Instead, send that 25 dollars to St Jude's Children's Research. You won't get anything in return except the satisfaction of money well spent.

http://www.stjude.org/waystohelp

[mavs>spurs]

i think if it weren't for them we wouldn't have a 2nd amendment, even though i wasn't always their biggest fan

[DMC]

i think if it weren't for them we wouldn't have a 2nd amendment, even though i wasn't always their biggest fan

The NRA had honest enough beginnings, being started by a Union general, but they've become a political lobby group that gets tons of funding but doesn't pay taxes. I realize they are the counter to some of the liberal media attacks that call for bans on guns, but I don't need to pay them money to support the constitution. That's a sham.

[TSA]

DMC, same feelings bout the NRA, but I wanted a bass gift card, fuck it.

[DMX7]

i think if it weren't for them we wouldn't have a 2nd amendment, even though i wasn't always their biggest fan

The NRA is just the firearms & ammunition industry's lobby. If you think it gives a shit about you, your rights or your safety, then think again. It's purpose is to sell you shit.

[DMX7]

DMC, same feelings bout the NRA, but I wanted a bass gift card, fuck it.

So you don't care for the NRA, but you paid $25 to get a $25 Bass Pro gift card? They probably take cash you know.

[Th'Pusher]

So you don't care for the NRA, but you paid $25 to get a $25 Bass Pro gift card? They probably take cash you know.
Likely on a recurring billing subscription business model. TSA got his first year for free, but will be paying annually automatically deducted from his account unbeknownst to him a year from now. :(

[DMX7]

They hope you'll forget the cancel your membership and you'll get the privilege of paying them another $25 or $35.

[TSA]

The NRA is just the firearms & ammunition industry's lobby. If you think it gives a shit about you, your rights or your safety, then think again. It's purpose is to sell you shit.
I buy firearms and ammunition, what's your argument?

[admiralsnackbar]

I buy firearms and ammunition, what's your argument?

That the NRA's interest in promoting firearms is less constitutional than it is commercial.

[TSA]

That the NRA's interest in promoting firearms is less constitutional than it is commercial.

That's your argument? What the fuck then is any lobby? My hate for our fucked up government is equal, both left and right, funny that people assume I'm conservative just because I enjoy shooting my constitutionally given right. I was simply passing on a link to get a $25 gift card to bass pro shop. Being that I'm not gay and enjoy the outdoors I thought it would be of use. I'm sorry that you are all hobby having Lego building faggots.

[DMX7]

I was simply passing on a link to get a $25 gift card to bass pro shop. Being that I'm not gay and enjoy the outdoors I thought it would be of use.

It's not as if paying $25 for a $25 gift card and the privilege of being spammed is a deal.

[rascal]

DMC, same feelings bout the NRA, but I wanted a bass gift card, fuck it.

What is the point. You get the $25 Bass gift card but it cost you $25 anyways.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao is the OP really that fuckin stupid to think that paying $25 for a $25 gift card is some kind of great deal?

[admiralsnackbar]

That's your argument? What the fuck then is any lobby? My hate for our fucked up government is equal, both left and right, funny that people assume I'm conservative just because I enjoy shooting my constitutionally given right. I was simply passing on a link to get a $25 gift card to bass pro shop. Being that I'm not gay and enjoy the outdoors I thought it would be of use. I'm sorry that you are all hobby having Lego building faggots.

Riiiiight... that's why you posted it in the political forum.

I have 2 pistols and 4 rifles, by the way -- I just think the NRA has become a joke over the past 30 years.

[TSA]

:lmao is the OP really that fuckin stupid to think that paying $25 for a $25 gift card is some kind of great deal?
I'm sorry but I couldn't find any deals for LGBT memberships.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm sorry but I couldn't find any deals for LGBT memberships.

:lol cool comeback
:lol "Pay $25 for a $25 gift card!"

[Drachen]

To be honest, if anyone wants to buy me a subscription to Wired, I'm totally cool with that.

Dude, get your own!

http://slickdeals.net/f/5795428-Wired-Magazine-Subscription-4-99-year-up-to-3-years

[Bill_Brasky]

People in the NRA seem like the types who think a bumper sticker is the best way to express opinions.

[mavs>spurs]

The NRA is just the firearms & ammunition industry's lobby. If you think it gives a shit about you, your rights or your safety, then think again. It's purpose is to sell you shit.
It works out for both sides. They like being able to sell their shit, and I like being able to buy it. It's mutually beneficial.

[Creepn]

It works out for both sides. They like being able to sell their shit, and I like being able to buy it. It's mutually beneficial.

You don't have any guns stop it.

[LnGrrrR]

Dude, get your own!

http://slickdeals.net/f/5795428-Wired-Magazine-Subscription-4-99-year-up-to-3-years

I plan to once I figure out where I'll be living. :)

[mavs>spurs]

i own a few guns brah. my next addition will be a smith and wesson .357 mag revolver to take out hunting and fishing loaded 1/2 snake shot 1/2 regular rounds

[Drachen]

I plan to once I figure out where I'll be living. :)

well that deal may be limited time. I would get it and figure the address out later.

[Creepn]

i own a few guns brah. my next addition will be a smith and wesson .357 mag revolver to take out hunting and fishing loaded 1/2 snake shot 1/2 regular rounds

Show me a pic of your guns.

[mavs>spurs]

i don't have them uploaded to a picture hosting site like photobucket to jack off to like a personal porn collection brah

[mavs>spurs]

this is my favorite pistol to take to the range


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0MWxa3GAs

[Drachen]

FWIW, if you want to join the NRA, you can get a lifetime membership for 300 bucks.

http://slickdeals.net/f/5795518-NRA-life-membership-300-normally-1000

[Creepn]

K

[LnGrrrR]

well that deal may be limited time. I would get it and figure the address out later.

Ah, gotcha. I'll look into it then. Thanks for the info!

[TSA]

Just bought a Springfield Armory subcompact 1911 in .45 and will be using my gift card to buy some spare magazines. Still have 1,300 left from the sale of my AR15, looks like I can turn one gun into three.
:lol thanks Obama!

[DMC]

I look at the NRA like Ducks Unlimited. Both are for the rich man, both accept funds from the middle class, but most middle class hunters don't have a good opportunity to hunt high profile flyways because it's too exclusive. The richers get to hunt them while we get to rebuild them. Then middle class hunters feel special if they get a couple ducks on a WMA hunt and proudly slap a Ducks Unlimited decal on their back windows.

These organizations have done more to put this nation and our rights out of reach than any liberals, by buying up prime lands and reserving them for their elite friends, hundreds of thousands of acres. The same is true for TTH and B@C. All of them have served to put the natural resources of this nation into the hands of the elite, but we hang out at the gates like groupies wearing their gear and cheering for their results they post in magazines, and we squeeze a shitty lease out of our salaries and pretend we have a legit shot at a decent animal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the NRA got a corporate sponsor and you do not see the irony. Business as usual.

[Bender]

i own a few guns brah. my next addition will be a smith and wesson .357 mag revolver to take out hunting and fishing loaded 1/2 snake shot 1/2 regular rounds
S&W revolvers are way overpriced, imo.

my next one will be a Taurus 357. deciding between a 4" model 65 or model 66

[TSA]

So the NRA got a corporate sponsor and you do not see the irony. Business as usual.
OMG that is ironic! Still waiting for facts stating more guns=more gun crime, or have you conceded that point?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OMG that is ironic! Still waiting for facts stating more guns=more gun crime, or have you conceded that point?

I gave you the Yale Law Review, the article from the UK's department of public health and the stuff from the Melbourne police. When you decided to not read them and try this tact of repeating yourself ad nauseum, I told you that I was not going to try and converse with you about it anymore as it's obvious what you are about.

Now I am trying to be nice but you're behaving poorly.

You strike me as one of those that doesn't see an issue with the Koch Foundation and Exxon funding the vast majority of the contrarian global warming work. It's a conflict of interest against an objective approach.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy, you are comparing apples and oranges again.

[TSA]

I gave you the Yale Law Review, the article from the UK's department of public health and the stuff from the Melbourne police. When you decided to not read them and try this tact of repeating yourself ad nauseum, I told you that I was not going to try and converse with you about it anymore as it's obvious what you are about.

Now I am trying to be nice but you're behaving poorly.

You strike me as one of those that doesn't see an issue with the Koch Foundation and Exxon funding the vast majority of the contrarian global warming work. It's a conflict of interest against an objective approach.
The Yale law review doesn't prove more guns=more gun crime. I don't give a fuck about the UK and I don't give a fuck about Melbourne, I live in the United States. Prove more guns=more gun crime or admit you're wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Yale law review doesn't prove more guns=more gun crime. I don't give a fuck about the UK and I don't give a fuck about Melbourne, I live in the United States. Prove more guns=more gun crime or admit you're wrong.

Right after you lick my balls. I am not wasting my time so you can go to blanket dismissals.

[Wild Cobra]

But you have been wasting time. Studies of different cultures cannot be applied to ours.

[Juggity]

To be honest, if anyone wants to buy me a subscription to Wired, I'm totally cool with that.

Wired might be the only monthly print publication worth reading. Great design and top-notch journalism.

[TSA]

Right after you lick my balls. I am not wasting my time so you can go to blanket dismissals.

:cry you said you were being nice :cry

You've failed to prove that in the USA more guns=more gun crime. You won't even answer the fucking question and quickly change the subject to other countries. I don't even need facts or links from you anymore, if you think you're right just answer the question, yes or no. In the US does more guns=more gun crime?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry you said you were being nice :cry

You've failed to prove that in the USA more guns=more gun crime. You won't even answer the fucking question and quickly change the subject to other countries. I don't even need facts or links from you anymore, if you think you're right just answer the question, yes or no. In the US does more guns=more gun crime?

The questions you asked me repeatedly whether or not there were more guns and if crime had been going down. I posted the Yale article stating that more guns did not equal less crime. Now it has morphed into this. The entire argument started from CC talking about good guys having guns and you babbling about deterrence.

I said I was trying to be nice. I am not being civil anymore. I don't see the point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But you have been wasting time. Studies of different cultures cannot be applied to ours.

Why not?

[TSA]

I posted the Yale article stating that more guns did not equal less crime.The article about CCW? When did ever say CCW's lead to less crime? When have I ever said more guns=less crime? I've repeatedly said more guns do not equal more gun crime and you've continually refused to refute that point. You've lost this argument my Fuzzy with your failure to prove me wrong. Log off now and save some face.

[mavs>spurs]

S&W revolvers are way overpriced, imo.

my next one will be a Taurus 357. deciding between a 4" model 65 or model 66

I've heard people say that before but honestly there are many more who say it's not the same..trigger pull isn't as crisp, isn't quit as dead on accurate, not quite as well made. I'd rather just pay 200 extra for the smith and wesson name, I like the stuff they put out.

[TSA]

Why not?

That's stupid fucking question. Find me another country as deeply rooted in firearms as the US and you may have a point. Again, log off, save face

[mavs>spurs]

Why not?

nah, just crofl

[DMC]

I gave you the Yale Law Review, the article from the UK's department of public health and the stuff from the Melbourne police. When you decided to not read them and try this tact of repeating yourself ad nauseum, I told you that I was not going to try and converse with you about it anymore as it's obvious what you are about.

Now I am trying to be nice but you're behaving poorly.

You strike me as one of those that doesn't see an issue with the Koch Foundation and Exxon funding the vast majority of the contrarian global warming work. It's a conflict of interest against an objective approach.

In short, he threw up a smoke screen and bolted while you were drowning in pages of unrelated material.

If the reciprocal can be shown to be true (more guns now, less crime now) how can the premise also be true (less guns would mean less crime)?

[Wild Cobra]

Why not?
Seriously?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In short, he threw up a smoke screen and bolted while you were drowning in pages of unrelated material.

If the reciprocal can be shown to be true (more guns now, less crime now) how can the premise also be true (less guns would mean less crime)?

"smoke screen" "bolted" "drowning"

More characterization and no facts or actually addressing what was said.

The reciprocal was what I was addressing. The current contention is a strawman at best. I already explained the flow of conversation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Answer the question, dolt.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, seriously. Answer the question, dolt.
It's really simple. That's why I say "seriously?" Do you seriously not understand that different cultures respond differently to the same changes?

[TSA]

Yes, seriously. Answer the question, dolt.

[spursncowboys]

I've never been a member of the NRA. I see no reason to pay money to an organization that doesn't really do anything for me personally. I feel the same way about the CCA, BASS and a host of other organizations. Instead, send that 25 dollars to St Jude's Children's Research. You won't get anything in return except the satisfaction of money well spent.

http://www.stjude.org/waystohelp
:toast

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's stupid fucking question. Find me another country as deeply rooted in firearms as the US and you may have a point. Again, log off, save face

Another blanket dismissal. Australia was a frontiersman country that was a post colonial UK state. Just like us. They had a frontier just like us. They fought aborigines just like us and that causeed very similar opinions towards minorities. Australians are notorious as being as racist as you 3. They, before the rebuys, had a very large number of guns. Both were mainly populated by debtors ie the indentured farmers and given the opportunity to pay off debts. The difference was between religious puritanical types that were sent here and more violent types sent to Australia.

All of your GOP WASP types that are anti-gun control come from a UK cultural background. Again we were a British colony. The principles that shaped the structure of government were heavily influenced by UK and French philosphers like Locke and Colbert. Adam Smith, a scot, is a central figure in our and their economic culture. Both banking systems are similar with central banks. Our fashion is heavily influenced by them and vice versa. The Constitution was inspired by the magna carta. Our structure of central government is the same with bicameral legislatures and a bureaucrat in chief. We share the same language for fucks sake.

There are no better similes to US culture than the UK and Australia. Again, nothing will convince you because you are ideologues. Ignorant ones at that.

[Wild Cobra]

I've never been a member of the NRA. I see no reason to pay money to an organization that doesn't really do anything for me personally. I feel the same way about the CCA, BASS and a host of other organizations. Instead, send that 25 dollars to St Jude's Children's Research. You won't get anything in return except the satisfaction of money well spent.

http://www.stjude.org/waystohelp
I missed this until SnC tipped his glass to you.

I agree, in fact, two of the charities I give to are St. Judes, and Doernbecher's Children's Hospital (http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/health/services/doernbecher/index.cfm).

[TSA]

Another blanket dismissal. Australia was a frontiersman country that was a post colonial UK state. Just like us. They had a frontier just like us. They fought aborigines just like us and that causeed very similar opinions towards minorities. Australians are notorious as being as racist as you 3. They, before the rebuys, had a very large number of guns. Both were mainly populated by debtors ie the indentured farmers and given the opportunity to pay off debts. The difference was between religious puritanical types that were sent here and more violent types sent to Australia.

All of your GOP WASP types that are anti-gun control come from a UK cultural background. Again we were a British colony. The principles that shaped the structure of government were heavily influenced by UK and French philosphers like Locke and Colbert. Adam Smith, a scot, is a central figure in our and their economic culture. Both banking systems are similar with central banks. Our fashion is heavily influenced by them and vice versa. The Constitution was inspired by the magna carta. Our structure of central government is the same with bicameral legislatures and a bureaucrat in chief. We share the same language for fucks sake.

There are no better similes to US culture than the UK and Australia. Again, nothing will convince you because you are ideologues. Ignorant ones at that.
:lmao
Answer my other question now dolt. Prove me wrong please. Show me that more guns=more crimes. You can't can you?

[TSA]

Do they have anything in their constitution that reads like our 2nd amendment? "Shall not be infringed"

Nice job dodging the question again by the way. It's clear to everyone here you can't back up your claim. Good night.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
Answer my other question now dolt. Prove me wrong please. Show me that more guns=more crimes. You can't can you?
He can't and he knows it. To do so, he must first prove that two different cultures respond the same to the same changes.

[TSA]

He can't and he knows it. To do so, he must first prove that two different cultures respond the same to the same changes.In America, gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last ten years, yet gun crimes have gone down. He believes otherwise yet can't come up with any proof. This has nothing to do with his gun ban theories in other countries.

[Wild Cobra]

In America, gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last ten years, yet gun crimes have gone down. He believes otherwise yet can't come up with any proof. This has nothing to do with his gun ban theories in other countries.
But it's a part of the argument he holds on to still.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do they have anything in their constitution that reads like our 2nd amendment? "Shall not be infringed"

Nice job dodging the question again by the way. It's clear to everyone here you can't back up your claim. Good night.

It was not a question of Constitutional law. The question was about a study from a 'different culture' could be compared to ours. I just explained how our origins, religious affiliations, linguistics, government and economy were similar to ours. Legally they can certain types of weapons. That is case law as is that they cannot confiscate your guns. It is what it is.

Pointing out a single difference does not mitigate that they are very very like us as are their institutions values and whatnot. Saying that you cannot compare studies on the basis of culture when its those tow countries of all the countries of the worls is asinine. As I have been saying you are just looking after blanket dismissals.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In America, gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last ten years, yet gun crimes have gone down. He believes otherwise yet can't come up with any proof. This has nothing to do with his gun ban theories in other countries.

I already showed you a study where they looked at places where there were more guns and there was no less crime. Your generalized stats aren't more compelling thatn a scientific statistical study with controls.

Show me proof of your causation though. You keep asking me to show proof of causation. You do it or are you a hypocrite?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao
Answer my other question now dolt. Prove me wrong please. Show me that more guns=more crimes. You can't can you?

The questions you asked me repeatedly whether or not there were more guns and if crime had been going down. I posted the Yale article stating that more guns did not equal less crime. Now it has morphed into this. The entire argument started from CC talking about good guys having guns and you babbling about deterrence.

I said I was trying to be nice. I am not being civil anymore. I don't see the point.

I am just going to repeat myself as do you.

[Wild Cobra]

What about Washington DC...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What about Washington DC...

What about it? You make shit up as a matter of cours; I am not going to guess what your idiocy has cooked up.

[TSA]

I already showed you a study where they looked at places where there were more guns and there was no less crime.You are right, enough with being civil, you are a fucking idiot. An absolute fucking idiot. We are not arguing more guns equals less crime you illiterate fuck. Your argument is more guns equals more crime, and unfortunately all data shits on that notion. Until you can dispute the well known fact that gun ownership has gone up, while crime has gone down I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. Have you failed to realize the rest of the anti-gun crowd here is silent on this particular issue except you? I took you to be an intelligent person but after this back and forth I've changed my position.

Fact: crime is down
Fact: gun ownership is up
Fact: more guns does not equal more crime

Fuck you and good night.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are right, enough with being civil, you are a fucking idiot. An absolute fucking idiot. We are not arguing more guns equals less crime you illiterate fuck. Your argument is more guns equals more crime, and unfortunately all data shits on that notion. Until you can dispute the well known fact that gun ownership has gone up, while crime has gone down I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. Have you failed to realize the rest of the anti-gun crowd here is silent on this particular issue except you? I took you to be an intelligent person but after this back and forth I've changed my position.

Fact: crime is down
Fact: gun ownership is up
Fact: more guns does not equal more crime

Fuck you and good night.

Have you taken the Stanford IQ test? If you have I will be more than happy to compare results. Correlation does not imply causation and you clearly lack the insight or intelligence to make any attempt at a proof of what you claim.

Bandwagon fallacy. Look it up as I doubt you have the education to already understand it.

More on that: I am hardly the only one taking a gun control stance. EN created a thread taunting you guys for your fear mongering tactics. He does not necessarily favor the same policies as I. Others have posted similar trains of thought. I also have shown Gallup polls indicating that a majority of Americans want better gun control.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/tqxzoipb8kyae7usyrxldw.gif

I am hardly alone in this as much as your delusional ideologically-forced ignorance self does not want it to happen.

Oh and btw when you sold your gun was there a background check?

[Wild Cobra]

Typical Fuzzy logic.

Opinion equals fact.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Typical Fuzzy logic.

Opinion equals fact.

What opinion did I insert for fact? If you claim that it was the poll data, you would be wrong as that was a rejoinder to what he was claiming as per me being the only one. I prefaced the statement by mentioning the bandwagon fallacy. You need to look it up as well. Its more like you lack critical thinking or the ability to follow the flow of an argument..

[Wild Cobra]

You can't win with fact, so you interject an opinion poll.... Need I say more?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What opinion did I insert for fact?

Cannot mention one can you?

[Wild Cobra]

I explained my words. You are substituting opinion because you have no facts.

Am I wrong that you think your opinions are comparable to facts?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I explained my words.

No, you haven't. What opinion?

[Wild Cobra]

No, you haven't. What opinion?
Are you saying a poll isn't people's opinion?

[boutons_deux]

NPR has the NRA President on Friday.

One of the gun-industry talking-point LIES he told was that hammers kill more people than guns.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm

the cries of dickless macho fakers: Freedom! Water the Tree of Liberty with (other people's) Blood! 2nd Amendment! :lol

[rascal]

You are right, enough with being civil, you are a fucking idiot. An absolute fucking idiot. We are not arguing more guns equals less crime you illiterate fuck. Your argument is more guns equals more crime, and unfortunately all data shits on that notion. Until you can dispute the well known fact that gun ownership has gone up, while crime has gone down I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. Have you failed to realize the rest of the anti-gun crowd here is silent on this particular issue except you? I took you to be an intelligent person but after this back and forth I've changed my position.

Fact: crime is down
Fact: gun ownership is up
Fact: more guns does not equal more crime

Fuck you and good night.

Gun crime is not down enough, still too high because too many guns . More guns = high gun crimes

[DMC]

Another blanket dismissal. Australia was a frontiersman country that was a post colonial UK state. Just like us. They had a frontier just like us. They fought aborigines just like us and that causeed very similar opinions towards minorities. Australians are notorious as being as racist as you 3. They, before the rebuys, had a very large number of guns. Both were mainly populated by debtors ie the indentured farmers and given the opportunity to pay off debts. The difference was between religious puritanical types that were sent here and more violent types sent to Australia.

All of your GOP WASP types that are anti-gun control come from a UK cultural background. Again we were a British colony. The principles that shaped the structure of government were heavily influenced by UK and French philosphers like Locke and Colbert. Adam Smith, a scot, is a central figure in our and their economic culture. Both banking systems are similar with central banks. Our fashion is heavily influenced by them and vice versa. The Constitution was inspired by the magna carta. Our structure of central government is the same with bicameral legislatures and a bureaucrat in chief. We share the same language for fucks sake.

There are no better similes to US culture than the UK and Australia. Again, nothing will convince you because you are ideologues. Ignorant ones at that.

Australia did not emancipate slaves, did not have 300 years of slavery of a people who now comprise a significant portion of the states with the highest crime rates.

However, they do have their indigenous population that are fundamentally a tribal people:

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

Indigenous Australians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians) commit a disproportionately high amount of criminal offences in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-Edney241-1) The 2006 census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Australian_Census) documented that there are 455,031 Indigenous people, who are either Australian Aborigines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigines) or Torres Strait Islanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torres_Strait_Islanders), in Australia, accounting for 2.3 percent of the population. Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics) figures show that Indigenous Australians account for around 25% of Australia's prison population.



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-2)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/U.S._incarceration_rate_by_race_2.gif



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-2)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-2)

Not much different than America's "anomaly" with blacks having a disproportionately high incarceration rate.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/vrace.png


Here you can see that the uptick in the early 90's was attributed to that tribal population, as the white rate remained constant and much lower per 100,000.


These facts are undeniable and they are available, but people like Fuzzy are too sensitive to even address them so they look for secondary points in which to attack. The "racist" label scares a lot of people, but you look at the facts and see if you draw a different conclusion. The underlying reasons are another issue, but the facts, as I stated, are undeniable unless you think the DoJ crime stats are biased.

[DMC]

Gun crime is not down enough, still too high because too many guns . More guns = high gun crimes

Let the rational minds discuss this, you meditate with your invisible sky buddy and don't hurt yourself or blow up an abortion clinic.

[boutons_deux]

More UNREGULATED guns is more gun homicides and suicides nationwide, even in "law abiding" homes.

Type right-wing LIARS: up is down, black is white, my blind ideology says it's so.

[DMC]

More UNREGULATED guns is more gun homicides and suicides nationwide, even in "law abiding" homes.

Type right-wing LIARS: up is down, black is white, my blind ideology says it's so.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

[boutons_deux]

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

RIF

[mavs>spurs]

you're a fiesty angry little niggar arent ya boy?

[boutons_deux]

you're a fiesty angry little niggar arent ya boy?

you gun-sucking macho fakers really hate any push back, doncha? stick your guns up your wimpy asses. There's more illumination in there than in the shit between your ears.

[mavs>spurs]

that post really embodies the whole angry black man phenomenon, tbh

[boutons_deux]

The Suprising Unknown History of the NRA

It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.


“Historically, the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine,” wrote Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment scholar at U.C.L.A. Law School, in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. “The Second Amendment was not nearly as central to the NRA’s identity for most of the organization’s history.”

Paranoid Libertarians’ Hostile Takeover

Perhaps the sportsmen of America could abide by the new law, but within the NRA’s broad membership were key factions that resented the new federal law. Thoughout the 1960s, there were a few articles in American Rifleman saying the NRA was waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the Second Amendment included the right to own a gun, Joan Burbick recounts in her 2006 book, Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy.

A split started to widen inside the NRA, Burbick notes. Gun dealers thought they were being harassed. Rural states felt they were being unduly punished for urban America’s problems. In 1975, the NRA created a new lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, under Harlon B. Carter, a tough-minded former chief of the U.S. Border Patrol who shared the libertarian goal of expanding gun owners’ rights. Burdick writes that “by 1976, the political rhetoric had gained momentum and the bicentennial year brought out a new NRA campaign, ‘designed to enroll defenders of the right to keep and bear arms’ in numbers equal to ‘the ranks of the patriots who fought in the American Revolution.’” Looking back, the seeds of a hostile takeover were everywhere.

Harlon Carter wasn’t just another hard-headed Texan who grew up in a small town that was once home to frontiersman Davy Crockett. He was an earlier era’s version of George Zimmerman, the Floridian young man who claims to have shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense in February 2012—even though police records and 911 recordings seem to show Zimmerman was looking for a fight. According to Carol Vinzant’s 2005 book, Lawyers, Guns, and Money: One Man’s Battle With The Gun Industry, a 17-year-old Carter found and confronted a Mexican teenager who he believed helped steal his family’s car. When the 15-year-old pulled a knife, Carter shot and killed him. His conviction was overturned when an appeals court said the jury should have considered a self-defense argument.

In November 1976, the NRA’s old guard Board of Directors fired Carter and 80 other employees associated with the more expansive view of the Second Amendment and implicit distrusting any government firearm regulation. For months, the Carter cadre secretly plotted their revenge and hijacked the NRA’s annual meeting in Cincinatti in May 1977. The meeting had been moved from Washington to protest its new gun control law. Winkler writes that Carter’s top deputy Neal Knox was even more extreme than him—wanting to roll back all existing gun laws, including bans on machine guns and saying the federal government had killed Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as “part of a plot to advance gun control.”

Using the NRA’s parliamentary rules, the rebels interrupted the agenda from the floor and revised how the Board of Directors was chosen, recommited the NRA to fighting gun control and restored the lobbying ILA. Harlon Carter became the NRA’s new executive director. He cancelled a planned move of its national headquarters from Washington to Colorado Springs. And he changed the organization’s motto on its DC headquarters, selectively editing the Second Amendment to reflect a non-compromising militancy, “The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”

After Carter was re-elected to lead the NRA in 1981, The New York Times reported on Carter’s teenage vigilante killing—and how he changed his first name’s spelling to hide it. At first, he claimed the shooting was by someone else—and then recanted but refused to discuss it. Winkler writes, “the hard-liners in the NRA loved it. Who better to lead them than a man who really understood the value of a gun for self-protection?”

After the coup, the NRA ramped up donations to congressional campaigns. “And in 1977, new articles on the Second Amendment appeared” in American Rifleman, Burbick noted, “rewriting American history to legitimize the armed citizen unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford.” That revisionist perspective was endorsed by a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee chaired by Utah Republican Orrin Hatch in 1982, when staffers wrote a report concluding it had discovered “long lost proof” of an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms.

The NRA’s fabricated but escalating view of the Second Amendment was ridiculed by former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—a conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon—in a PBS Newshour interview in 1991, where he called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra

And the Repugs saw gun owners as suckers to be recruited to vote for the Repug's 1% candidates, just as the Repugs suckered the southern Dem racists to the Repug 1%-party with Roger Ailes Repug Southern (racist) Strategy, and just as the Repugs suckered (racist, rural, poor, uneducated) "Christians" to vote Repug.

Brilliant Repug politices, but it has really fucked up and polarized the country, taken in backwards.

And obviously, the gun-fellators here have no idea how duped and suckered they are.

[mavs>spurs]

when you're not posting articles that nobody reads, you're making angry black man posts tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Australia did not emancipate slaves, did not have 300 years of slavery of a people who now comprise a significant portion of the states with the highest crime rates.

However, they do have their indigenous population that are fundamentally a tribal people:

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

Indigenous Australians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians) commit a disproportionately high amount of criminal offences in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-Edney241-1) The 2006 census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Australian_Census) documented that there are 455,031 Indigenous people, who are either Australian Aborigines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigines) or Torres Strait Islanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torres_Strait_Islanders), in Australia, accounting for 2.3 percent of the population. Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics) figures show that Indigenous Australians account for around 25% of Australia's prison population.



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-2)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/U.S._incarceration_rate_by_race_2.gif



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-2)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime#cite_note-2)

Not much different than America's "anomaly" with blacks having a disproportionately high incarceration rate.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/vrace.png


Here you can see that the uptick in the early 90's was attributed to that tribal population, as the white rate remained constant and much lower per 100,000.


These facts are undeniable and they are available, but people like Fuzzy are too sensitive to even address them so they look for secondary points in which to attack. The "racist" label scares a lot of people, but you look at the facts and see if you draw a different conclusion. The underlying reasons are another issue, but the facts, as I stated, are undeniable unless you think the DoJ crime stats are biased.

:lol Scared. You are such a putz.

Thank you for admitting that there are good parallels between the two countries.

Both the aborigines and blacks are disproportionally poor. There are also those such as yourself that presume they are inclined to criminal activity. There are many possible causes and I still see no legitimate link genetically ie they are inherently deviant. You even admit that yet you still post unrelated studies trying to claim a genetic inclination.

That is not a secondary issue. It was the first cause you brought up in this discussion.

When you attribute negative traits on the basis of race that is racism. You are a racist and it doesn't scare people, they just do not like bigotry. Some people value equal protection and egalitarian spirit. You don't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.jpg versus http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/U.S._incarceration_rate_by_race_2.gif

You are determined to make it a racial thing though.

[TSA]

Hey Fuzzy glad you're back after saying you weren't going to waste any more time with us. Here's a nice article for you to read, figured you enjoy it since its done by a psychiatrist and all.


Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality


http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm

Have fun and let me know what you think. Boutons, would love to hear your take too as you've now been officially labeled.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey Fuzzy glad you're back after saying you weren't going to waste any more time with us. Here's a nice article for you to read, figured you enjoy it since its done by a psychiatrist and all.


Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality


http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm

Have fun and let me know what you think. Boutons, would love to hear your take too as you've now been officially labeled.

Page not found
The requested page "/new/raging.htm" could not be found.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) was founded in October 1994 as the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League (NVCDL). The group experienced enormous growth in membership statewide and was incorporated as VCDL in May of 1998.

VCDL is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental human right of all Virginians to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

No bias here. You are the product of someone that only listens to what you want to hear. Slightly better than the white power shit from the other day. BTW I am back because I hate racism and feel it is important to speak out against it. Brad just made me disgusted at that time.

[TSA]

Page not found
The requested page "/new/raging.htm" could not be found.
Yeah you're right. That's weird. Just read it today and tried the link again with no luck. Eh....if I find it again and can link it ill repost, thought you'd find it interesting.

[TSA]

No bias here. You are the product of someone that only listens to what you want to hear. Slightly better than the white power shit from the other day. BTW I am back because I hate racism and feel it is important to speak out against it. Brad just made me disgusted at that time.

I hate racism too and you'll never see me partake in any of that here. Being an independent I listen to both sides, I just look at facts and know when I am right. Helps me sleep at night.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the article; link: Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's the article; link: Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm)

:lol

So its a defense mechanism of projection because of an email she got.

It's denial because of an assumption that his side is right and they are wrong. She also feels no compunction about speaking for gun control supporters as some sort of monolithic group despite a lack of a single clinical example. So far we have no clinical examples whatsoever. This is the justification:


Anti–gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable.

ie I feel vulnerable so should you. This part really jives with a later part where she claims that all gun control people see themselves as victims.

Gun control supporters are simply being contrary. She doesn't disparage pacifists but instead:


In the case of anti–gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners"

People support gun control because they hate other people apparently.

Most gun control people she has met are angry. Still no clinical experience; just people she knows. This is getting down right asinine.

People that think they are victims are raging. Somehow I don't get how that jives with gun control people deluding themselves into feeling safe.

Ahh yes here we go, it's scary how oftern this shit comes up from the pro gun crowd.


So why do anti–gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti–gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African–Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti–gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

It's a race thing apparently. Black people feel like victims so they are mad and anti-gun. This shit is stupid. Still no clinical or statistical basis for any of this. She pulls a WC and assumes it's true.


© 2000, Sarah Thompson.

Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance,www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter, www.therighter.com, a monthly column on individual rights.

Those links do not exist.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Those links do not exist.
So?

The article is Feb '12. It's not like it's a recent article. Things change.

[boutons_deux]

Here's the article; link: Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm)

Complete bullshit, pseudo=intellectual bullshit.

nobody is talking about confiscating guns, nor preventing the sale or ownership of guns, so the entire article is nothing but inflaming the bubbas with a straw men (confiscation, denial of ownership, etc) takedown.

[Wild Cobra]

Complete bullshit, pseudo=intellectual bullshit.

nobody is talking about confiscating guns, nor preventing the sale or ownership of guns, so the entire article is nothing but inflaming the bubbas with a straw men (confiscation, denial of ownership, etc) takedown.
So?

Keep in mind, I just found the broken link. I didn't even read very much of it. I'm not interested in psychobabble.

[DMC]

:lol Scared. You are such a putz.

Thank you for admitting that there are good parallels between the two countries.

Both the aborigines and blacks are disproportionally poor. There are also those such as yourself that presume they are inclined to criminal activity. There are many possible causes and I still see no legitimate link genetically ie they are inherently deviant. You even admit that yet you still post unrelated studies trying to claim a genetic inclination.

That is not a secondary issue. It was the first cause you brought up in this discussion.

When you attribute negative traits on the basis of race that is racism. You are a racist and it doesn't scare people, they just do not like bigotry. Some people value equal protection and egalitarian spirit. You don't.

You see the disparity between the population densities of the two nations. You see that Australia is 99% white. You see the incarceration rate of the Aborigine in Australia and the Black in the US, all this yet you still somehow think I am focusing on color of skin. I've noted socioeconomic factors as the cause. This completely shits on Australia as being like the US. I contend that, if Australia had the population density that the US had of poor minorities, their crime rate would match or exceed ours. Our white crime rate is about like theirs.

Thanks for admitting there is a racial disparity when it comes to crime and that the US and Australia are affected in a similar manner even though their Aborigines were not captives at one point. Our Latinos were not captives either. What's their Australian equivalent?

lol pretending to have the upper hand after being beaten. Typical Fuzzy Logic.

[Wild Cobra]

You see the disparity between the population densities of the two nations. You see that Australia is 99% white. You see the incarceration rate of the Aborigine in Australia and the Black in the US, all this yet you still somehow think I am focusing on color of skin. I've noted socioeconomic factors as the cause. This completely shits on Australia as being like the US. I contend that, if Australia had the population density that the US had of poor minorities, their crime rate would match or exceed ours. Our white crime rate is about like theirs.

Thanks for admitting there is a racial disparity when it comes to crime and that the US and Australia are affected in a similar manner even though their Aborigines were not captives at one point. Our Latinos were not captives either. What's their Australian equivalent?

lol pretending to have the upper hand after being beaten. Typical Fuzzy Logic.
Fuzzy will admit not such valid logic. It isn't fuzzy logic...

[DMC]

So much for more guns = more crime. And with that, I am done with that argument (unlike Fuzzy who's claimed to be done a dozen times only to return to it because he's such a caring person).

[CosmicCowboy]

I used to be a member but gave it up because of the constant mail/phone harassment to give them more money. Cocksuckers would question your patriotism if you said no. It took two years for them to finally quit calling.

[TSA]

So much for more guns = more crime. And with that, I am done with that argument.
Don't worry, I'll keep going until he answers the simple fucking question.

[Blake]

Don't worry, I'll keep going until he answers the simple fucking question.

If it were proven that more guns = more crime, would it change your stance at all?

[rascal]

So much for::: more guns = more gun crime.

Fixed

[George Gervin's Afro]

you're a fiesty angry little niggar arent ya boy?

lol...irony..

[mavs>spurs]

Bean3r

[George Gervin's Afro]

Bean3r

gangsta thug

[boutons_deux]

more guns has been proven to produce more gun crime, even in super-patriot, home-defense, "law abiding" homes. In fact homicides and suicides by gun in gun homes far exceeds HOME INVASION homicides.

:lol you dumbuck gun-sucking fetishists are as ignorant as ever.

[mavs>spurs]

Typical negro, bowing to liberal authority like a good little slave

[TSA]

If it were proven that more guns = more crime, would it change your stance at all?

What do you think my stance is?

[boutons_deux]

Typical negro, bowing to liberal authority like a good little slave

figgered you wouldn't make substantive counter, because your fantasies lack all substance.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Typical negro, bowing to liberal authority like a good little slave

are you a crip or a blood?

[Blake]

What do you think my stance is?

Not sure. What's your stance and would it change if more guns = more crime?

[TSA]

Not sure. What's your stance and would it change if more guns = more crime?

My stance on assault weapon bans is that they are pointless as they will only affect law abiding citizens. Since when do criminals obey laws? If I were to be shown that in the US more guns equaled more crime of course I would have to reconsider my current views. Doesn't necessarily mean I'd change my mind since I'd still want my guns for self defense and just plain having fun shooting.

[George Gervin's Afro]

My stance on assault weapon bans is that they are pointless as they will only affect law abiding citizens. Since when do criminals obey laws? If I were to be shown that in the US more guns equaled more crime of course I would have to reconsider my current views. Doesn't necessarily mean I'd change my mind since I'd still want my guns for self defense and just plain having fun shooting.

if gunmakers stop selling them for public sale then no one has an assualt weapon except the miltary and police.

[TSA]

if gunmakers stop selling them for public sale then no one has an assualt weapon except the miltary and police.

What's the point of that? 99% of gun crime is handguns.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What's the point of that? 99% of gun crime is handguns.

since 99% of gun crime is handguns, what's the point of having the AR15 if you can't carry it on your person while on the street to defend yourself.

[CosmicCowboy]

since 99% of gun crime is handguns, what's the point of having the AR15 if you can't carry it on your person while on the street to defend yourself.

They are light, fun to shoot, no recoil, and most have an adjustable stock so women and little people can shoot them too.

[Wild Cobra]

George.

What type of car do you drive? A basic el-cheapo, or do you spend a little for for something nicer?

Think of gun owners the same way, as having personal preferences.

[mavs>spurs]

figgered you wouldn't make substantive counter, because your fantasies lack all substance.


you're not intellectually honest, you claim government is the devil but yet ONLY point out the republicans wrongdoings and not the democrats. you don't realize that they're both part of the same gang..you don't deserve a real response because there is no point talking to your type.

[TSA]

if gunmakers stop selling them for public sale then no one has an assualt weapon except the miltary and police.

Do you really want to live in a country where only military and police own rifles?

[boutons_deux]

Do you really want to live in a country where only military and police own rifles?

you and all your paranoid gun-sucking bubbas already live in a country where the militarized police, national guard, FBI, ATF, etc would crush all y'all like so many cockroaches.

[TSA]

you and all your paranoid gun-sucking bubbas already live in a country where the militarized police, national guard, FBI, ATF, etc would crush all y'all like so many cockroaches.
Do you want to live in a country where only military and police own rifles? Yes or no, not some typical bullshit response please, yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

Do you want to live in a country where only military and police own rifles? Yes or no, not some typical bullshit response please, yes or no?

you and all your paranoid gun-sucking bubbas already live in a country where the militarized police, national guard, FBI, ATF, etc would crush all y'all like so many cockroaches.

[TSA]

Is this the equivalent of I know you are but what am I? Answer the question parrot.

[boutons_deux]

Is this the equivalent of I know you are but what am I? Answer the question parrot.

you and all your paranoid gun-sucking bubbas already live in a country where the militarized police, national guard, FBI, ATF, etc would crush all y'all like so many cockroaches.

[boutons_deux]

The Original Second Amendment


As Burger wrote [12] in Parade, the meaning of the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”—which became the NRA’s motto in 1977—must be understood “by looking into the purpose, setting and objectives of the [Constitution’s] draftsmen.”


The accurate context and historical use of these terms concerns states being able to recruit armed militias if need be from citizens; it’s not about empowering citizens to freely roam with guns. “People of that day were apprehensive about the new 'monster' national government presented to them," Burger wrote, noting that the First Congress limited the size of a national army to 840 men. “The state militia—essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today, was the only kind of ‘army’ they wanted.”


“Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns—rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols—with all firearms, including what are now called ‘Saturday night specials,’” Burger wrote, referring to the NRA and that era’s most troublesome firearm. “There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to ‘concealed weapons’ are common. That we may be ‘over-regulated’ in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulations of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and ‘concealed weapons.’”


Burger was writing when murders by handguns were a leading cause of violent deaths in America. But another retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, gave a speech [16] in October 2012, making the same point. “When I joined the Court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to the use of arms that were related to military service,” he told the pro-regulation Brady Center.


What’s really intriguing are the colonial-era and 19th-century gun controls that Winkler recounts in Gunfight. In colonial times, some states, such as New Hampshire and Rhode Island, had public officials go door-to-door to catalog “gun ownership in a community.” Ten of the original 13 colonies even confiscated guns for use in the Revolutionary War; that was called “impressment.” The guns were later returned, but Americans didn’t care if owners claimed a need or right to self-protection. Militia laws in Massachusetts, for example, required all gun owners to appear annually in public with their arms—musket rifles—for government inspection and listing on a statewide gun registry.


Only certain ethnicities were allowed to own guns. Racial minorities were barred, as were Catholics in Maryland. Only people who pledged their support to the Revolutionary War were allowed to keep guns, which disarmed about 40 percent of the white population that was still loyal to England. In some cities, like Boston, there were laws on where ammunition could be stored, and having a loaded gun in public and in one’s home was illegal and could result in that gun being taken by local authorities. But these gun controls were also matched with gun rights. Other colonies, such as Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia and Vermont (the 14th state) wanted founding documents giving residents gun rights for self-defense and state militias.


“The founding fathers had numerous gun control laws that responded to the public safety needs of that era,” Winkler writes. “While our own public safety needs are different and require different responses, the basic idea that gun possession must be balanced with gun safety laws was one the founders endorsed.”


Between 1790 and 1860, 20 states joined the Union and 14 of them included the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. But those states also passed gun laws that today’s NRA would fiercely oppose. Most notable was banning concealed weapons in public. Kentucky and Louisiana did that in 1813. Indiana followed in 1820. Tennessee and Virginia followed in 1838, Alabama in 1839, and Ohio in 1859.


Historian Clayton Cramer concluded that the bans were not just to repress freed slaves after uprisings in Haiti and Louisiana, but also to stop violence among whites. Gun laws were racially neutral. “These laws were designed to diminish exactly what the Wild West would later become famous for: dueling, gunfights, violence,” Winkler wrote. “The southern culture of the time, Cramer found, dictated that when someone insulted you publicly, you challenged them to a duel."


Even more surprising, the Wild West of innumerable Hollywood western movies was not so wild after all. In most frontier towns, guns had to be surrendered to local lawmen when their owners were within city limits. Reflecting that sentiment, James Stephen Hogg, who was elected Texas governor in 1890, said the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."


When Dodge City, Kansas, was organized in 1973, its first local law was for gun control. The fabled shootout at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 was about disarming ruffians who would not turn in their guns to the sheriff. This myth “that once there was a time when people settled their differences with guns… [is] profoundly misleading,” Winkler wrote.


By the end of the 1800s, several states that put gun rights into their constitutions also regulated or completely banned openly carrying guns. Those states included Florida, Texas and Oklahoma. “Gun control was sufficiently widespread that the Washington State Supreme Court could write in 1907, ‘Nearly all the states have enacted laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons,’” Winkler wrote.

http://www.alternet.org/print/civil-liberties/overview-americas-gun-and-violence-crisis-and-how-2nd-amendment-got-hijacked-nra-and

2nd Amendment? :lol

The NRA shills for the firearms industry behind lying about the 2nd Amendment and you right-wing motherfuckers fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you want to live in a country where only military and police own rifles? Yes or no, not some typical bullshit response please, yes or no?

certain types of rifles? sure

[Blake]

Do you want to live in a country where only military and police own rifles? Yes or no, not some typical bullshit response please, yes or no?

I don't care. I have a car that I can use as a weapon.

[Drachen]

I don't care. I have a car that I can use as a weapon.

I have a knife, same thing.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My atheism is a 100x more deadly weapon than your car or knife. It's been responsible for every tragedy in America over the last several decades.

[DisAsTerBot]

since 99% of gun crime is handguns, what's the point of having the AR15 if you can't carry it on your person while on the street to defend yourself.

wow, that's dumb. Gun owners like to shoot, most don't shoot other people. It's not that hard to understand. What's the point of owning a corvette when the speed limit is 70mph?

[George Gervin's Afro]

wow, that's dumb. Gun owners like to shoot, most don't shoot other people. It's not that hard to understand. What's the point of owning a corvette when the speed limit is 70mph?

why have a speed limit?

[DisAsTerBot]

why have a speed limit?

i asked first, why own a car that can go faster than said speed limit? You're the one who asked the stupid question referring to carrying an ar15 on the street

[George Gervin's Afro]

i asked first, why own a car that can go faster than said speed limit? You're the one who asked the stupid question referring to carrying an ar15 on the street

look dummy it was a post in response to someone else. if you aren't bright enough to read through the entire thread it's not my fault.

[DisAsTerBot]

it was a dumb response to someone else. I read the thread, it included your dumb response.

[CosmicCowboy]

you and all your paranoid gun-sucking bubbas already live in a country where the militarized police, national guard, FBI, ATF, etc would crush all y'all like so many cockroaches.



Most of the gun carrying law enforcement guys are just as redneck as we are and despise the commie USA hating faggots like you and fuzzy lumpkins. They get ordered to turn their guns on the general population and they will do a 180 and turn their guns in the other direction.

[TSA]

Most of the gun carrying law enforcement guys are just as redneck as we are and despise the commie USA hating faggots like you and fuzzy lumpkins. They get ordered to turn their guns on the general population and they will do a 180 and turn their guns in the other direction.
So true and I've read many that have already stated they will. They've got families to protect too.

[Koolaid_Man]

The NRA had honest enough beginnings, being started by a Union general, but they've become a political lobby group that gets tons of funding but doesn't pay taxes. I realize they are the counter to some of the liberal media attacks that call for bans on guns, but I don't need to pay them money to support the constitution. That's a sham.

why do you routinely shit on Mavs>Spurs he looks to you for bullshit guidance...be nice to that kid

[Koolaid_Man]

NRA can suck my balls through my draws

[DMC]

why do you routinely shit on Mavs>Spurs he looks to you for bullshit guidance...be nice to that kid

eh?

[Wild Cobra]

NRA can suck my balls through my draws
Double Barrel shotgun...

Is that close enough?

[Drachen]

I used to be a member but gave it up because of the constant mail/phone harassment to give them more money. Cocksuckers would question your patriotism if you said no. It took two years for them to finally quit calling.

Shit, with all that I have been hearing about how shitty the NRA is, if they wanted to make money, they should just lease their services out to do 3rd party collections.

This sounds just like when I did 3rd party collections. We were taught in training to literally say "Does your family know that you are no longer being a man by living up to the commitments that you made?"

I quit 2 days after training.

[Splits]

lol that's where your dues are going, to fly Sheriff Clarke to Russia


Top Trump Ally Met With Putin’s Deputy in Moscow

Before the NRA poured more than $30 million into Trump’s election, it met with a notorious Kremlin hardliner, allegedly to discuss a rifle competition.

03.07.17 9:00 PM ET

In March 2014, the U.S. government sanctioned (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/fact-sheet-ukraine-related-sanctions) Dmitry Rogozin—a hardline deputy to Vladimir Putin, the head of Russia’s defense industry and longtime opponent of American power—in retaliation for the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Eighteen months later, the National Rifle Association, Donald Trump’s most powerful outside ally during the 2016 election, sent a delegation to Moscow that met with him.

The meeting, which hasn’t been previously reported in the American press, is one strand in a web of connections between the Russian government and Team Trump: Attorney General Jeff Sessions (https://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2017/03/02/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-recuses-himself-from-investigation-into-russian-hacks.html) and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn both denied speaking with the Russian ambassador, which turned out to be untrue; former campaign manager Paul Manafort (https://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/11/30/torture-lobbyist-paul-manafort-still-advising-donald-trump-on-cabinet-picks.html)supported pro-Russian interests in Ukraine; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson won an “Order of Friendship” from Putin; and then, of course, there’s the hacking campaign (https://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/07/25/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-u-s-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump.html) that U.S. intelligence agencies say Russian launched to tilt the election in Trump’s favor.

Meeting with Rogozin (https://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/03/17/russian-leader-mocks-obama-after-getting-sanctioned.html), a target of U.S. sanctions, is not itself illegal—as long as the two sides did no business together—explained Boris Zilberman, an expert on Russian sanctions at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. But, he noted, it is “frowned upon and raises questions… those targeted for sanctions have been engaged in conduct which is in direct opposition to U.S. national security interests.”

Which raises the question: Why was the NRA meeting with Putin’s deputy in the first place?

The NRA had previously objected to the parts of the U.S. sanctions regime that blocked Russian-made guns from import into the United States. But curiously, David Keene, the former NRA president and current board member who was on the Moscow trip, insisted the meeting with the high-ranking member of the Kremlin government had nothing whatsoever to do with geopolitics.


“Rogozin is chairman of the Russian Shooting Federation and his Board hosted a tour of Federation HQ for us while we were there,” Keene told The Daily Beast. “It was non-political. There were at least 30 in attendance and our interaction consisted of thanking him and his Board for the tour.”

Rogozin tweeted photos of the meetings, writing that they discussed a forthcoming rifle competition in Russia.

675720026482176001






But Rogozin is no ordinary Russian official, and his title extends far beyond being merely the chairman of a shooting club. His portfolio as deputy prime minister of Russia includes the defense industry. One issue where Rogozin seems particularly interested is cyberwarfare, which he has heralded for its “first strike (https://rg.ru/2013/06/28/doklad.html)” capability. And he’s well-known in Russia for being a radical—often taking a harder line than Putin himself.

Rogozin was the leader of the ultra-right party called Rodina, or Motherland, and famously believes in the restoration of the Russian Empire, including what he calls “Russian America” (i.e., Alaska).

To wrestle control of the party, he turned its course from a party that was occasionally in opposition to Putin to a strictly pro-Putin party. In 2005 Rogozin and his party miscalculated Putin’s anti-immigrant mood and got kicked out of the parliament for a chauvinistic promotion video that said: “Let’s Clean the Garbage!” featuring Central Asian workers eating a watermelon and spitting on the ground.

Still, Rogozin stayed loyal to Putin and soon was appointed Russian ambassador to NATO at the time of the Russia-Georgia War—his main responsibility at the time was to prevent Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO. Today his Motherland party is back in the parliament, trying to unite right-wing movements in Europe.

“It is disconcerting that they would be meeting [with a Russian official] about anything given their vocal support of the president,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential elections. “Due to the NRA’s opposition to sanctions, it defies credulity that they wouldn’t have discussed sanctions and their extraordinary support for Donald Trump’s campaign.”

“Russia is not America’s friend. And it’s stunning to hear that while they were attacking our democracy, one of the largest organizations supporting Trump was cozying up with a sanctioned Russian in Moscow,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell, who is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee panel that oversees the CIA.

Rogozin’s inclusion in U.S. sanctions, prior to his meeting with the NRA delegation, marks him as an American adversary. But if that designation raised red flags to Keene and his compatriots—including board member Pete Brownell, top NRA donor Joe Gregory, and Trump supporter Sheriff David A. Clarke—they didn’t mention them, before or since.

The White House designated Rogozin for sanctions through an executive order in March 2014 after the Russian annexation of Crimea in Ukraine. Perhaps it’s only coincidence, then, that a few months later, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action protested when the Treasury Department banned the importation of Kalashnikov firearms under authority granted to them from that same executive order.

“These latest sanctions will no doubt engender the idea among some that the Treasury Department is using a geopolitical crisis as a convenient excuse to advance the president’s domestic anti-gun agenda,” the NRA-ILA wrote (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140717/obama-administration-bans-import-of-popular-russian-firearms) at the time.

The National Rifle Association’s support for Trump was unprecedented—and it seems to have paid off. The organization backed Trump in May 2016—much earlier than they had endorsed other candidates in previous election cycles, and before he had even been officially named the Republican presidential nominee.

The NRA spent $30.3 million to elect Trump—more than even the top Trump super PAC, which spent just $20.3 million, according to OpenSecrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/the-nra-placed-big-bets-on-the-2016-election-and-won-almost-all-of-them/).
This proved to be an important piece of the puzzle for the president’s eventual victory, giving him bona fides among Democrats from working class families.

“They got behind him early. It tends to be a lot of movement conservatives, a lot of Republicans —but the NRA’s membership is also so powerful in union households,” said Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist who wrote a book, Ricochet, about his experiences. “Union leaderships are very concerned about what the NRA has to say… This year it was a very important. NRA was the first major group to get behind Trump.”

Indeed, there is a solid case to be made that the NRA’s endorsement and support was among the most important of any group this election cycle. The NRA lined up television advertising space early (http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-nras-unheralded-role-in-2016/article/2007044), when rates were lower, and had money to spend when the Access Hollywood scandal struck, reading with a fresh advertising spot to support Trump.

“There are many claimants to the honor of having nudged Donald Trump over the top in the presidential election,” wrote Fred Barnes, executive editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-nras-unheralded-role-in-2016/article/2007044), last week. “But the folks with the best case are the National Rifle Association and the consultants who made their TV ads.”

Soon after the election, the Trump administration rescinded an order, issued in the waning days of the Obama administration, that banned lead ammunition in various hunting and fishing areas—the NRA immediately applauded (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170302/the-nra-applauds-secretary-zinkes-protection-of-traditional-ammunition) the action.

In retrospect, the second week of December 2015 is notable: In Moscow’s Metropol Hotel, now-disgraced Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn dined with Putin at a dinner held by Russia Today, a state-sponsored propaganda outlet.

The NRA delegation’s 2015 trip to Russia took place the same week, lasting from Dec. 8-13, according to Clarke’s public financial disclosure forms, (PDF (http://county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntySheriff/documents/2016/2015SEI.pdf)), and included not only the people who met with Rogozin but a number of other NRA dignitaries, including donors Dr. Arnold Goldshlager and Hilary Goldschlager, as well as Jim Liberatore, the CEO of the Outdoor Channel.

Various members had various stated reasons for going. At least one was there for business reasons.

“Mr. Liberatore traveled to Russia to discuss our new outdoor lifestyle service MyOutdoorTV (MOTV) and prospects for international distribution,” said Liberatore’s spokesman, Thomas Caraccioli. Liberatore did not meet with Rogozin, he added.

The delegates who were contacted by The Daily Beast did not respond to questions regarding how they paid for their trip. But Clarke, as the sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was required to fill out public disclosure forms outlining any private money he received for travel (PDF (http://county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntySheriff/documents/2016/2015SEI.pdf)).

The trip was sponsored at least in part by the organization, The Right to Bear Arms, a firearms advocacy organization founded by Russian national Maria Butina (https://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2017/02/23/the-kremlin-and-gop-share-a-new-friend-and-boy-does-she-love-guns.html), a former Siberian furniture store owner who now lives in Washington, D.C., and serves as a link between Russian political circles and the American capital’s conservative elite.

“A delegation of the world’s largest gun rights civic organization—the National Rifle Association of the US (the NRA) visited Moscow on an official trip and met with supporters of the Right to Bear Arms movement,” wrote Butina in Russian in December 2015, posting a photo of the delegation on her organization’s Facebook page.

Clarke reported that Butina’s organization paid $6,000 for his meals, hotel, transportation, and excursions during his time in Russia. Brownell, the CEO of a prominent firearms company and an NRA board member, paid for the remainder, including his airfare and visas.

It is unclear where Butina’s firearms advocacy organization gets her money—it is a puzzling group, considering that Russia does not have a large grassroots movement for gun rights like the United States does.

Butina does, however, have a close relationship with Alexander Torshin (https://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2017/02/23/the-kremlin-and-gop-share-a-new-friend-and-boy-does-she-love-guns.html), the former deputy governor of Russia’s central bank who has been accused by Spanish authorities (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-09/mobster-or-central-banker-spanish-cops-allege-this-russian-both) of laundering money for the Russian mob. Neither Butina and Torshin responded to requests for comment.

Both Torshin and Butina pride themselves on their close relationship with the National Rifle Assocation, bragging on social media about their life memberships in the organization and posting photos of themselves with Keene, a former president of the NRA.

They’re not the only ones who posted photos showing links with the NRA: Rogozin posted photos of his meetings with the NRA in 2015. In one photo, the deputy prime minister is standing at what appears to be a shooting range with Gregory, Brownell, and Keene.

In another photo, Rogozin is at a conference table with Clarke and Brownell. Putin ally and former Russian senator Alexander Torshin is also seated with the group, along with a number of other unidentified individuals.

A White House spokesman declined to comment, as did the NRA.

Whatever the NRA’s ultimate reason for sending a delegation to Moscow, the conservative movement in D.C. is starting to slowly shift their views on Russia and Putin.

In May 2014, Keene criticized (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/keene-repeating-a-perilous-history/) President Obama for not doing enough to confront Putin.

“The United States under President Obama’s leadership is content to issue rhetorical denunciations, insult Mr. Putin by claiming he runs a second-rate country that doesn’t understand the times in which we live, and deny he and his friends visas to visit the United States [emphasis added],” Keene wrote in the Washington Times, where he is now an editor.

With Trump about to enter office, in January 2017, Keene was singing a different tune (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/2/confusing-vladimir-putin-with-the-old-soviet-threa/).

“We seem prepared to believe any evil of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which has with its second-rate military establishment and failing economy somehow morphed in the minds of many Americans into a greater threat than the old Soviet Union [emphasis added],” he wrote.
Asked why the contradiction, Keene employed some Trumpian logic.

“The two statements aren’t inconsistent,” he told The Daily Beast.