Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 23, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 100

Democrats will now destroy the NRA. Good riddance!

:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012   Artist
With Obama's appointment of Joe Biden to lead the effort against gun violence, the Democrats will now proceed to high step all over the NRA.

As you probably know, the NRA operates solely as a wing of the Republican party -- it's an arms manufacturer lobby group that backs (a lack of) Republican gun legislation, supports Republican candidates and panders to Republican voters...when it isn't busy preying on the fears of average Americans, that is!

The NRA is really just a national corporate terrorist group that forces its pathetically small membership to pay unnecessary dues to support a fringe political platform. So what do we do about that?

While I want to hear what all of you have to say, I think it goes without saying that allowing members to OPT OUT of paying any dues or fees associated with the NRA is probably the best first step to limiting what miniscule influence this organization has left.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconanatarakentara:
AnataraKentara Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I love my guns, and the only thing that's coming out of this is either some damn draconian registration, a big flop for Obama (other than simply, you know, existing), or a ban on 30+ round mags, which I do not use. The NRA spammed the shit out of me once, but eh.

I am no more concerned than I can be. I voiced my opinion to my senator and friends, and can only pray from there.
Reply
:iconsherberttcat:
SherbertTCat Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I own a gun, but I would never join the NRA.
Don't get me wrong, I love my hand cannon, but I don't love my hand cannon.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
No one is forced to be a member of the NRA.

And since there is a correlation with this organization and responsible gun owners, we should be promoting it.
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
Nobody is forced to join a union either. Or to get a job in a union shop.

Just sayin'.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
I have no idea what that has to do with a union.
Reply
:icondorsaispirit:
Dorsaispirit Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Watch this video and then tell me that the mother wasn't forced to join the union. <[link]>
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012   Artist
Schemer was, just ask him. He was also, apparently, accosted by union thugs when he questioned paying his dues!
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
i think we should just make all guns illegal. then we dont need the nra
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
Right. Then we just have millions of guns that already exist out there.

Where are all the prohibition makes things worse crowds? Or does this only work for weed?
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012   Artist
I watched it. "An assault weapon MUST be automatic", I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what YOU or I call them, the lapsed assault weapons ban specifically mentions 'semi-automatic assault weapons', meaning it's a legislative term. So, the confusion is not in the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic features, the confusion is that the law against an AK-47 'look-a-like' being out on the street in any capacity was allowed to lapse, because it's beyond the pale of home or self defense.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
There is a clear difference in full and semi automatic.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012   Artist
But NOT in what is referred to by legislators as "ASSAULT WEAPONS". Gun advocates think they can put their fingers in their ears and simply repeat that ONLY fully automatic weapons can EVER be considered assault weapons -- I'm hear to tell you that you are wrong. Some semi-automatic weapons were already classified as 'assault weapons' under the assault weapons ban, (and rightly so) whether or not YOU or other gun owners agree or not. Assault weapons are beyond the pale of home or self defense. So what constitutes an assault weapon becomes the question. A semi-automatic AK-47 'look-a-like' obviously fits the description of an assault weapon and has no place on the streets of a civilized society.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
So the government can just redefine things at will for no better reason than to ban them?

Also, who and by what right, by what code, by what standard gets to define what gun "has no place on the streets of a civilized society"? In a civilized society, government would respect people's right to do whatever they wish in their life so long as they don't initiate force against others.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
I don't really care about your assault weapon argument. To me it is a red herring. I just wanted to point out a clear difference in semi and fully automatic weapons.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012   Artist
[link]
This video shows the potential to actually fire a semi-auto just as fast or FASTER than an automatic. Again, what is the glaring difference between an AK-47 and what is shown in this video? They look identical, they fire the same rounds, can both be modified...hardly the clear difference gun advocates would have you believe.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
That's nice. There is a clear difference in the two.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
I don't know about that. When I first heard that, I thought "Wait, what the hell, Joe Biden is doing something?"
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
Joe Biden does stuff??
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
The NRA relies on both Reds and Blue. Your assessment that the NRA is simply a republican agency is incorrect.

"limiting what miniscule influence this organization has left"

The NRA retains considerable influence and political alliances. It's not going away because
of Newton.

The best one can hope for is LaPierre gets his nosed put in his own shit for the lies he
vomited out this weekend.
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012   Artist
The NRA relies on both Reds and Blue.
More on Reds. Way, WAY more.

The NRA retains considerable influence and political alliances.
As a lobbying force on Capital Hill, the NRA is very small. For example, organized labor spent ten times more in 2012 lobbying Congress than gun rights groups. They rank below the American Dental Association on The Center for Responsive Politics list of Heavy Hitters (which tracks the top all-time donors to politics). In all, less than 1 percent (actually 0.81 percent) of the (inaptly-named) NRA Political Victory Fund's political spending was spent in support of winning candidates in 2012.

I think the group's gross exaggeration of its own influence will be clear soon.
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
sonrouge, use the reply button. Or did you block him as well in one of your typical child-like tantrums?
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
the OP blocked sonrouge?
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012   Artist
Other way around, I'm guessing.
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
oh
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
Vision, isn't there a concentration camp somewhere that's in need of another bully boy?
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
You pretty much hit the nail right on the head :trophy:
I mean, when conjuring up the image of a terrorist- the first thing that comes to mind is a goon holding an assault weapon, outdoors doing some kind of combat training, and that pretty much describes what the NRA does- and its members roam their towns looking for either black people to hunt, or sitting in their trailers waiting for a noise or a party next door to go and murder people. The guy who went and massacred 20 school children was trained really well by his parents who stockpiled weapons- how is he any different than a taliban or al-Qaeda member? Same thing. Basically what we need the president to do is make an executive order to use the military to seek out and destroy enemies of our country. He is constitutionally bound to protect the country from enemies outside as well as inside our borders. And after we see the corposes of 20 tiny kids in elementary school (on top of the mountain of corposes from shopping malls, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and all the rest of the murders these people have committed) it's pretty clear the president needs to use DEADLY FORCE.
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
we dont need guns anyways man
Reply
:iconrocktzar:
Rocktzar Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
It would be great if guns didn't exist. It would be even better if violence in general stopped.
BUT, since the USA's high-jacked government and its military have them, the common people have the constitutional right to be equaly armed.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
Actually it's militias that have the right to bear arms. If you reread the 2nd amendment, you'll notice that it says nothing about individual civilians, and in fact until relatively recently(about the 1970's) this was the common interpretation of it.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
[link](United_States)#The_reserve_militia

Reply
:iconrocktzar:
Rocktzar Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It means that people should have the right to bear arms because of the necessary existence of militias.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
How do you figure? Because as I read it, it seems to apply to militias and the people in them.
Reply
:iconrocktzar:
Rocktzar Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
Tommy Jeff clearly said so. He supported that every free person is entitled to bear arms.

Quotes that gun-control advocates never bring up:
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
And
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen, that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed . . .
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
It would be nice to see the NRA be reduced a bit...
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
If the NRA dies, it isn't because of the democrats, it'll be because if their own stupidity.

You don't go and blame the victims for not fighting hard enough against the assault.

You don't cry stop blaming my guns, but blame video games and violent media.

You don't tell the public to be more afraid.

The NRA dropped the ball, they could have won a major victory and stood as an example of responsibility by attacking our nations poor state of mental illness and drug dependency.

However they know what that would lead to. More laws mandating better living conditions in the US. A realization that the do more for less, the dog eat dog ultra capitalism ideals have failed.

So instead if admitting a minor defeat, they have prepared their Waterloo. The only question that remains is how badly will the democrats suffer in this battle va the rights napoleon?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
Chum, there are over eighty million gun owners in the US, and aside from being a very large voting block that no politician, not even dear leader, would want to piss off, that is also a force that outnumbers the entire US military several times over. If you think your boy in office will just sign a document and they'll suddenly cease to exist, then there's a nut house missing a nut.

In the meantime, feel free to put your balls where your mouth is and come and get them.
Reply
:iconjuliabohemian:
Juliabohemian Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
Yeah, you definitely sound like someone who should be armed. Speaking of nuthouses missing nuts.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
Actually, I was just stating a fact to counter the OP's rather amusing claim (the bit about the military was to put the number in perspective). But hey, facts aren't that popular nowadays, are they?
Reply
:iconjuliabohemian:
Juliabohemian Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
But who needs facts when you have guns?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
Come back to me when you have an actual point, little girl.
Reply
:iconjuliabohemian:
Juliabohemian Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
I'm probably old enough to be your mom, little boy. :lmao:

My point is, people with guns act like they are tough shit, by speaking in a threatning manner and condescending others. And then they wonder why we think they shouldn't be armed. The fact that my initial comment bears explanation is sort of frightening all by itself.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
PS, by rationally, I'm referring to stating facts and using logic on guns.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
And if trying to defend ourselves rationally makes us madmen who don't deserve to be armed, should it be any surprise we're saying "Come and take them then"?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
Without intelligence, age is just a number, so ask me if I give a damn.

And pardon me, but considering the anti-gun crowd is the first to latch onto every shooting, before all the evidence comes out, and start wailing about boogeymen hiding in every neighborhood with a scary black gun and demanding that people who haven't committed any crime or been given any due process be punished to satisfy a pathetic political agenda, I think they bloody well deserve to be treated with contempt. And of course, it certainly doesn't help that half of these crybabies are politicians who enjoy 24/7 armed protection up to and including US Marines.

And it happens year after year after year after year, so perhaps it might make sense to you that we're bloody tired of it and are saying "Either put your balls where your mouth is or shut up, and if you do the former, know that it's going to bite you in the ass". No one can be expected to welcome the idea that they're guilty of a crime they didn't commit simply because they have a 1% relation to the actual criminal and willingly accept punishment. And they certainly can't be expected to take it lying down when people start talking about using force against them.

I don't give a damn about your views of guns, and I don't plan on doing a damn thing to you because you don't like them, so put your diaper away and feel free to live without fear at any time. All I ask is to be left the hell alone because I haven't done anything to justify the violation of my rights, and I'll be happy to grant you the same consideration.
Reply
:iconjuliabohemian:
Juliabohemian Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
For someone who doesn't give a damn, you sure go to a lot of trouble. :lmao:
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012   Artist
But there's only 4 million members in the NRA -- a pitifully low membership in a country of 300 million (less than a third of that of the AFL-CIO). The VAST majority of folks with guns in this country don't belong to the NRA -- do you really think they'll all fall on their swords to defend mass killers?

The majority of gun owners DO NOT have semi-automatic weapons, and they sure as hell don't want YOU to have them, either.




Reply
:icondorsaispirit:
Dorsaispirit Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Actually, the majority of gun owners do own semi-automatics. Unless you own a bolt action rifle, pump-shotgun, or antique/replica single action revolver, almost every weapon produced today is a semi-automatic.

Watch this older video <[link]> that talks about it. Then pay close attention to the section when he takes a semi-auto hunting rifle, and doing nothing more than cosmetic changes, turns it into something most people would call an assault weapon. The weapon is not suddenly any more deadly, accurate, or full-auto. It is nothing more than pure cosmetic changes that make it look so dangerous.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
You're expecting the gun control crowd to care about facts?
Reply
:iconvorpalpen:
VorpalPen Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012   Artist
The weapons that would be banned are not in the majority of gun owner's homes, thank God. In fact, many of the weapons involved in the recent shootings wouldn't have been banned by the previous assault weapons ban. We can do better this time, I think.
Reply
:icondorsaispirit:
Dorsaispirit Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Did you watch that video? If so, then please, define "Assault Weapon" without using anything that describes appearance. That is what I want. A definition that does not rely upon that way the weapon looks, but upon some sort of function, caliber, or anything but things like, pistol grip, hand guard, or magazine capacity.

And remember what he did to that rifle. What was done to that hunting rifle that would make it qualify as an assault weapon?
Reply
Add a Comment: