Skip to main content

View Diary: The NRA is Now a Hate Group (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You do know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    msmacgyver

    LaPierre isn't the top dog, right?
    He's #2 and the mouthpiece.

    •  As long as they put him (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Citizen, kestrel9000, cyncynical

      out there like he is and as long as he speaks for the NRA I could care less who actually is the top dog. Waynie is certifiable not to mention needs to start wearing a large tin foil hat.

      Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

      by jsfox on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:23:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who is top dog? nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000

      When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

      by msmacgyver on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:58:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Whoever the top dog is seems content (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, classicsnerd

      to have this asshole as spokesman.

      "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

      by voroki on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:03:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're both baby killers. (0+ / 0-)

        "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

        by bontemps2012 on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 04:30:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Links, please, to the deaths ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shane Hensinger

          they're personally responsible for.

          Perhaps you'll be the next "baby killer" if you are somehow responsible for a person being prevented from being armed when another attack occurs and lives could be saved but won't be.  The guilt will (should) overwhelm you if that situation happens and one of your own family members is lost.  Some would even say it would serve you right, but I won't say that because I won't wish for the death of an innocent person just to teach you a lesson and make a valid point.  I daresay the parents of the children at Sandy Hook would have LOVED to have had an armed person on hand to at least try and stop Lanza.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:09:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What if... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bontemps2012

            ...one of those armed people accidentally shot one of the kids? Would they have loved it then?

            •  What if ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shane Hensinger

              Lanza decided to not bother even going there because he knew there were armed people at the school?  That's why they choose schools and other places like them, because they know they can do the most damage.  How many times has someone gone into a police station to try and shoot up the place?  None that I'm aware of.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:24:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No mass shootings at pet stores, either. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bontemps2012

                I didn't have any luck finding any mass shootings at pet stores. Not a lot of guns there.

                The number and location of shootings says very little about the cause without considering the larger context. You can't assume a cause and then further assume that that can be transferred elsewhere.

                I reiterate: How many children are acceptable collateral damage in the scenario you advocate? What is stopping the gunman from using a child as a human shield? We already know that most such gunmen have little concern for their safety. If they did worry about the danger of being killed, they wouldn't kill themselves.

                The threat of deadly force does not work on these people, they have already moved beyond such fears.

                •  Pet stores aren't usually crowded, ... (0+ / 0-)

                  though malls often are ... and malls are targeted for the same reason schools are.

                  If you don't think the initial absence of deadly force is a factor ... if not THE factor, other than location population density ... just what DO you think serves to draw killers to schools, malls and theaters?  It seems pretty obvious to me that the attraction is the odds of a high number of casualties that serves their goal.

                  The whole "acceptable collateral damage" question is just nonsense.  You can ban guns 100% starting tomorrow and such laws won't remove a single one of the 300 MILLION that are already out there.  Get real.  Vulnerable people of all ages will continue to die and the only way to reduce their numbers is by being equipped and able to confront their attempting killers when they make their moves.

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 12:29:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Concealed weapon = dead guard. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                classicsnerd

                Both VA Tech and Columbine had armed guards.

                Useless against a heavily armed attacker. Totally useless.

                Maybe you want to hire a tactical SWAT Team for every school.

                Duty cycle = 0.000000001%.

                Compared with locking away guns and running tight licensing so paranoid schizophrenics get little to no access to them.... That's cheap and easy to implement and it works.

                "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

                by bontemps2012 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:02:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I totally agree ... (0+ / 0-)

                  that securing guns in homes and keeping guns away from paranoid schizophrenics are absolutely necessary.  But I vehemently disagree that armed guards are "totally useless" against an armed attacker.  If that were true, there'd be no armed guards anywhere.  And I'd rather at least have a chance against an attacker as opposed to having no chance whatsoever; that'd be absolute suicide.

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 01:06:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have worked at three sites (0+ / 0-)

                    where angry or deranged attackers murdered armed guards.

                    At one of these the guards did respond effectively. It is a large military installation.

                    Really, unless you have your weapon out and ready to fire, you're nothing but the first target when a heavily armed attacker comes in.

                    "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

                    by bontemps2012 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 03:45:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site