top 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

Ya'll the NRA basically doesn't exist anymore. They were all for trump but they embezzled themselves into nothingness.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 10 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    "Tyrant" for the common 2A crowd meant "Someone who seriously disrupts the status quo of patriarchal white supremacy. You know. Like a black woman"

    There's a few out there who genuinely intend to use access to violence to protect their community from systemic violence. But that is a vast minority. I see a lot of lemmings thinking that the 2A crowd was speaking in good faith. They were not. And because of the political culture of America collapsing complex political spectrums into binaries that largely exist by virtue signaling, anyone who is against this should be presumed gunless, and anyone with a gun should be considered pro-this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Reminder that the NRA is a gun manufacturer trade organization. They don't represent or even necessarily fight on behalf of gun owners. The reason that many gun owners are NRA members is because the NRA provides low-cost insurance for gun ranges, with the requirement that users must be in the NRA.

    On that note, if you do shoot: Seek out the minority of non-NRA ranges to do it at, find appropriate public land, or approved private property. Don't patronize NRA-insured ranges.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Are you kidding me, the ven diagram of ICE and NRA has to be pretty round.

    This is what so many of these assholes want.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 10 months ago

    You mean the national Russia association?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    Now it’s important to know what they meant is black people taking over. They have no issue with a white nationalist authoritarian government.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    "What kind of a name for a gun nut is Wayne LaPierre? Doesn't it sound a little fruity to you? "Hi, I'm Wayne, I'm a gun person. Bang, bang!". You know what this prick's name oughta be? Biff Webster. Spud Crowley. A man's name. Chuck Steak."

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    A man's name? You mean like Sue?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

    Why would they rise up to stop what they voted for?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    Woopsie Poopsie! Better disband or admit that they only exist to sell guns, then 🤷

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    The NRA has never cared about supporting gun rights. All they care about is inserting themselves as the middle-man you're required to pay before you're allowed to exercise your second ammendment rights. They lobby exclusively for legislation that requires you to obtain training from one of their "licensed" instructors before being able to obtain a concealed carry permit. That's all. Anyone who supports them is a clueless chud.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    Looks like its up to the SRA to be the heroes we need. (Socialist Rifle Association)

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    Oh they will eventually rise up, but they will stand on the side of tyranny.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    That’s because the real tyrannical government were the friends they made along the way.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 9 points 10 months ago

    Boy do they have egg on their faces

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Somehow very anti capitalistic from them to not exploit the chance to run marketing targeting Black Panthers, the Hispanic community and LGBTQ people. I mean isn't there a whole market they neglect right now?

    /s and also not/s

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Take my downvote for not /s. Also take my upvote for /s.

    /s and also not/s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Take my upvote for the differentiation.

    I don't condone any form of people carrying guns (and that includes police etc). But it seems odd that they don't try to make "protect your rights" a marketing campaign similar to all those green washing campaigns that try to market on climate change. I seriously question it's because of any kind of morals on gun sales

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    The NRA doesn't want people exercising their rights, never have. They just want to make money off of those who will do so at whatever cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    That's what I thought as well... But somehow there would be a market with people who's rights are ambushed and violated right now...

    Don't mistake that for me condoning any form of violence or people carrying guns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    What if I walked into your house and just started taking whatever I wanted, would you condone any form of violence then? And if not, where do you live?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Guess then we'd all know what kind of person you are. But seems it ain't necessary, as you already showed that here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I don't give a fuck about your shit, I'm making a point.

    There are people like that in this world and if you know what's good for you, you'll start thinking long and hard about your answer to that question now, before you have to invent your answer on the spot.

    There's no special prize associated with taking the "no violence, ever" position, but there are serious consequences, and most people with your viewpoint don't consider those consequences until it's already happened to them.

    I had a friend with that viewpoint once. He was the victim of a home invasion. Three masked men broke into his house with bats and knives, repeatedly raped him, his girlfriend, and his best friend slash roommate, then tied them all up naked and stole everything they own. The masked men were caught, but none of my friends were the same after that. Every one of them changed their mind about violence and regretted not having the means to defend themselves. They all said the same thing, "Given the choice between living with what happened or living with having killed those people, I'd rather live with having killed them."

    The kind if person I am, is someone who would like you to consider, which of those outcomes would be easier for you to live with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Straight to the cold dead hands then I guess…

  • source