They Don't Hate The NRA. They Hate You.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

The one claiming to be better here is you.

And that's a failure of reading and comprehension.

No, it's based on your posts.

You've read all 49,000?

Wow.

I'm honored.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

The one claiming to be better here is you.

And that's a failure of reading and comprehension.

No, it's based on your posts.

You've read all 49,000?

Wow.

I'm honored.

They are mostly just copy and paste anyway.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Like that was?



I feel the HATE!

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

Like that was?

I feel the HATE!

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I love you really.

You know us 'leftists' all we really want is a cuddle.

originally posted by: neo96
I rest my case.

Unless it's true.

HATE filled leftist.

Hate has nothing to do with it.

It's based on what you say, not how I feel.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Wow man.,

I thought you all forgot that word.

Thought yall had beaten out of yourselves.



Don't mind me I was just practicing some civil disobedience.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Free will, free thought, free speech. How much does the left support any of those ideals?

Why must you guys always speak in such absolutes?

That's just not true, ata. Just simply unjust, unfair, and untrue.

Don't just claim it's untrue. Explain how it's untrue.

Right now, there are any number of subjects where I feel like my point of view is considered hateful, not because it's actually spoken or motivated by true hatred but because the person I attempt to speak to hates hearing the simple disagreement.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

Wow man.,

I thought you all forgot that word.

Thought yall had beaten out of yourselves.

Don't mind me I was just practicing some civil disobedience.

We just don't share that special intimate love some of you do for your guns.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Hey now.

Stay out of my gun closet.

Don't make me create a parade for it.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Free will, free thought, free speech. How much does the left support any of those ideals?

Why must you guys always speak in such absolutes?

That's just not true, ata. Just simply unjust, unfair, and untrue.

Don't just claim it's untrue. Explain how it's untrue.

Right now, there are any number of subjects where I feel like my point of view is considered hateful, not because it's actually spoken or motivated by true hatred but because the person I attempt to speak to hates hearing the simple disagreement.

The onus is on the one making the claim.

Just going 'leftists' are (insert baseless accusation here) then expecting someone to disprove it isn't really a valid stance.

Now they gone and done it.

My 1911 identifies as a screwdriver now.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

Hey now.

Stay out of my gun closet.

Don't make me create a parade for it.

Whole new meaning to 'coming out the closet'

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not really.

Same old meaning to selective freedoms.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not really.

Same old meaning to selective freedoms.

Whether you call your special favourite gun a he or she is no one's business but yours.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It identifies as a Zat.

Don't offend it's feelings now.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The jacka55 democrat Debbie Schultz is bankrolling those kids to be her stoogies. Goood... I would like to see the Democrats get destroyed for trying to end the 2nd amendment.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Is that the NRA ... or is that how the NRA is portrayed to you?

Once you have been told that anyone who defends the rights of those who own firearms in the face of the demands of the emotionally compromised (and yes, the grieving are emotionally compromised in any scenario -- that is just a statement of fact) to take revenge of those same tools (the firearms, not the person who actually pulled the trigger) must be a heartless jerk, then it's easy to think they're always insensitive and out of line.

It's hard to stand up and be the voice of the unpopular side in any debate, but in order to have that debate, someone has to.

nah, I think it really is the NRA. Again, I don't watch any news shows so when I here something I'll go straight to a video or interview by them...straight to the source.

I know that someone has to be the one to stand up for our constitutional rights, but it shouldn't necessarily be the NRA and you can do it better then they do it. The NRA only cares about money, and how much money they get from Gun and Ammo manufacturers.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

It identifies as a Zat.

Don't offend it's feelings now.

I walked into that one.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

It identifies as a Zat.

Don't offend it's feelings now.

I walked into that one.

No worries.

This is the matrix where nothing is real.

I would agree, however, here is the counter point to that entire article:

The NRA at one time was an organization dedicated to the idea of gun rights in the country for all citizens. However that is no longer the case, and ultimately it is more now to be an organization for those who are in it for purely selfish reasons and not for the good of the country.

It does not represent all of the people. It has shown heavy racist overtones in its organization and towards which group of people it will support. Philando Castile is a good example of that. Or how about Clarence Daniels? Or any number of people who had the legal right and then slandered or had their rights violated, all cause of the color of their skin.

But that is only part of it, there is one other part that sticks out and one that should be addressed, and that is the money. Every year starting in 1998, the NRA has spent over 200 million dollars in political activities, including donating to politicians. They have involved themselves in politics at the highest levels, and yet when it comes to any sort of gun control, those politicians who receive said political donations from the NRA, tend to vote against what is unfavorable to the NRA. Now if the NRA did not donate all of that money or be in politics, how would those politicians have voted when it comes to any sort of gun legislation?

Now the article mentions Chicago. Here is the saddest part of all. Any sort of legislation that would be needed to get that city under control and to lower the number, the NRA would oppose. The state of Illinois would have to enact legislation to start to remove or ban guns, even reduce them down, having areas where the penalties for having such would be a bit harsher and stiffer. And then the moment that they do the NRA will come in and start to fight it.