Gun Nuts "New Low" and Another Logic Lesson

Comments

1
Clearly they haven't watched enough West Wing.
2
It is a fair point...he has guns in the "house" for protection.

Has Barack Obama ever owned a licensed weapon?
3
This is the same shameful, imaginary misreading of American life from the NRA that devalues real life heroics in favor of their fetish.

It presumes the Secret Service is effective because they have guns. That discounts their extensive training and professionalism. It's an insult. The Secret Service has not fired a shot in defense of the president since 1950, when an assassination attempt was made on Truman. Guns aren't what makes them effective; it's proactive intelligence and security measures.

This is just like the infantile notion that guns made America. It devalues the work of everyone who fought hard for our freedoms without the quick shot of a gun. From civil rights on down, guns aren't what gave us our freedoms. Fetishizing guns insults the hard work of all those who worked with little more than ragged determination and contributes to a deteriorating sense of civic duty.
4
You'll never believe this, guys: the President's family gets to live in a big fancy house, too! For free! Oh, the hypocrisy!
5
ugh. racist fuckers. The phrase "Elitist blacks" is basically the politically correct way of saying "uppity n!gg€r$". The NRA are for gun laws but only when they pertain to keeping guns out of the hands of minorities. See the following
6
@4 you forgot to mention that it's a cushy public job that lets him keep his job for at least 4 years.
7
What, what?! We can post images in comments now @5?

8
you-all do know that the target for these ads are not for those who understand the appeal of "logic"..?
9
@3: There are six trained professionals carrying guns within ten feet of Reagan in this photo, and he was shot two seconds after the picture was taken.

http://millercenter.org/images/academic/…
10
I recommend that images be blocked.
Now.
This is not a good thing.
11
@5, 7

Ugh. I do not see this as a positive development, especially considering the astroturfing spam trolls that already tend to infest the comment threads when certain topics come up.
12
I'm not really complaining. This kind of stupid shit blew up in the faces of Hilary Clinton and John McCain and Mitt Romney.

The ones who need to worry are the non-extremist gun owners who are getting tarred with the same brush as the NRA gun nuts.
13
@12, exactly. I think they need to form a Sane Gun Owners group or something.

Except that they'll never be able to agree on anything; the nuts will infiltrate and shut down the discussion just like they do everywhere else.
14
In defense of gun nuts, such as myself, we have to promote our cause by saying crazy shit, because stating the real reason why were against an AWB would make us seem like major league assholes. The truth is we don't stockpile military style rifles to protect ourselves from criminals or tyrants, we do it because we like having them. They are marvels of 20th century engineering and owning them makes us feel powerful and important. '20 children in Sandy Hook had to die so that I can continue to practice my hobby unencumbered by meaningful regulation' just sounds bad.
15
@ Chicago Fan

The correct term is "Gun Supremacists."
16
On a related topic, there are Sandy Hook Truthers out there, who claim the event was a government hoax/conspiracy to come take their guns.

I expect SgtDoom to be taking up this line in 3... 2... 1...
17
I couldn't recall the exact moment it first happened, but the righties in general have crossed all kinds of lines when it comes to Obama. The depth of their hatred and dementia regarding his presidency justifies it in their minds, never mind the implications for the future. They don't care, of course; they're fanatics.
18
@ 13, sounds like the Occupy movement, and the hard left in general. Unable to focus, unwilling to exclude the nuts.
19
The arguments that the NRA puts forward are so stupid in general. Their favorite thing is "law-abiding" gun owners. Well Adam Lanza's mother fit into that category. That she was an irresponsible mother is the reason there were so many dead children and educators.

The reason the NRA can say this sort of shit is because they are tapping into the notion by many of their fans that Obama and his family can't possibly be crazy enough to believe that they deserve protection like any other 1st family. And yes, I would agree, they need protection from the crazies with the guns.

While not all gun owners are crazy, we have no idea if they house someone who is.
20
@14: we already knew that, "ken mehlman". what have you done with the real ken mehlman?
21
@14

What you need is an iPhone. Or a Roomba. Have you seen that shit?

And seriously: how can you possibly practice your gun hobby and appreciate the marvels of modern firearms engineering without going full auto? Well, of course, those who are serious will fill out paperwork and pay some fees and keep their nose clean. And buy themselves their own machine gun. Which they will keep locked up. Regulation separates the men from the noobs.

Letting any dicknose with a credit card and a passing fancy buy an AR-15 just spoils the fun for those who know what's what.
22
First, it’s clear that the NRA add is talking about the 11 security guards at their school, (who were there before they showed up and will be there after they leave) and not their Secret Service protection. But that aside, I think the real hypocrites are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons themselves.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. (The Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection).

Also, Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. (Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.)).

And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein who possesses an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. When she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program one of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Another example is Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children.

Apparently liberals only believe the rich and powerful should benefit from the protection of hand guns.
23
But that aside, I think the real hypocrites are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons themselves.

Those 4 words make your entire post invalid.

The laws trying to be passed are not against gun ownership in general. They are about responsible gun ownership. Stop trying to reframe the debate into a winning strategy.

This isn't about taking your guns away. It's about creating responsible regulations on deadly weapons.
24
@22 I think the gun nuts are right when it comes to shall-issue concealed carry laws. I read somewhere that, an armed private citizen with a concealed carry permit is less likely to pose a threat to public safety than an armed police officer. However, that's a separate issue from what types of weapons a private citizen should be allowed to own.
25
@16, you sheeple are afraid to admit the truth, but I've seen video of three Bengal tigers and a water moccasin rappelling down into that school from a Koch Brothers helicopter an hour before the "shooting". THOSE KIDS WERE EATEN ALIVE.
26
@23

Thank you.

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me always posts these inane non-sequiturs.

More to the point, regulated, licensed gun ownership, like concealed carry, or even owning machine guns among those who earn the privilege, is exactly the kind of gun ownership that most gun control activists support. When you weed out the kooks and incompetents, you eliminate most of the trouble. The NRA's corporate masters only see customers, and don't want to limit the size of their market for anything.

The problem isn't gun ownership, it's this wild free for all.
27
I accidentally ended up 15 feet from the German Chancellor when I was a teen. He was just walking by in a group of men in suits. Not sure if any of them were gaurds, but clearly the same level of protection is not felt to be needed overseas, at least in some countries.
28
How about we all get to live with the same kind of resources the president uses? Oh wait, we're supposed to be talking about our constitutionally protected right to own nuclear arms.