is a terrorist org, as does the DHS, ATF, FBI, DEA, DIA, CIA, etc.

Of course it is foolish of me to expect any gunner to have compassion for their fellow Americans.

Do you support these images from the Brady gun control org.?

The Brady messages are seeking to persuade people to enact common sense safety measures to protect society. They are appealing to average Americans here. The NRA, on the other hand, is merely stoking anger among their temperamental, gun toting sycophants who don't need anyone instilling more fear or aggression in them. The latter group is far more likely to go on a violent rampage than the former group is, but gunners will never understand that.

Anyone opposed to Obama's EOs is obviously weak on crime and wants guns in the hands of people who shouldn't possess them.

the hypocrisy here reeks.

BTW, I already said I support his EO's, they will in no way impede law abiding Americans right to keep and bear arms.

You mean like the EO's?

Good luck trying to enforce that... And NO I don't want guns in the hands of people who shouldn't possess them, I recognize pandering when I see it..

Why do YOU assume that anyone against the EO's feel that way?

It's how modern PR/Marketing works: appeal to their feels, because the majority can't be bothered (or lack the skills) to ascertain the facts and base their decisions on them.

And while it's utterly tangential to the topic at hand, I have no problem with most of what was in those memoranda from the president. I've a bit of concern over the healthcare worker reporting change (the last thing mentally ill people in this country need is another disincentive to seek care), I think eventhat one can be made to work and might help. Everything else makes perfect sense to me.

Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

goofy dumbfucks.

"Sure, you can have your guns...but we don't want you to be able to actually practice with them. We want you to be more of a threat to others..."

What would the appropriate graphic be?

During my college days on the rifle team, I would practice at the range about 3-4 times a week. That would generally consist of firing 1 round at each of 10 bulls-eyes on the paper target. I would generally go through 3-4 targets in the hour between classes during which I practiced. Doing the math, of which the legislative team of Persaud and Simon seems incapable, shows that 3-4 times a week I would use my ammo allotment for four and half years.

Now as for the media and their faux outrage, did they even consider that publishing articles that criticize gun owners for being insufficiently trained and other articles which champion laws seeking to restrict the ability of gun owners to actually train is a bit... what's the right term... ah yes, BULLSHIT COUNTER PRODUCTIVE BRAINLESS CRAP not to mention being hypocritical.

Now let's think about the actual image that caused the lawmaker's reaction and the breaking coverage from ABC. You write a proposed law (even if wasn't quite as inane as this one) and an opposition group is critical of your untrained ignorant action regarding bullets with an ad including pictures of the law's authors and bullets. Really? Should the NRA's ad have included pics of Dick Cheney and Hershery's Kisses?

For anyone curious to see the actual image here's a link:
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/nra-responds-to-ny-lawmakers-gun-safety-measure-by-decorating-their-faces-with-bullets/

I want to ask, what's behind the implied outrage? Is the implied outrage about an inferred and paranoid idea that maybe a picture next to some bullets calls for people to actually be targeted? One could infer this, if the topic of the law been peanut butter or shower shoes but the topic was BULLETS.

I have no idea whether the impetus for these articles by the media was a call from the lawmakers offices, a story from pro-control orgs or simply a reaction to the NRA's ad.

One of the most common bullets around is .22 LR. As odd as it may seem to people entirely ignorant of anything to do with firearms, these bullets are NOT sold individually. A $20 investment buys you 300-500. Some stores will sell boxes of 50. I inherited a .22 rifle from my dad. It features a fixed tube magazine with a capacity of 15 LR rounds. The proposed law says I could buy 30 rounds of ammo every 90 days. In practice would this mean I would have to wait and buy ammo at common multiples of 30 and 50? That is I can buy 3 50 round boxes every 450 days.

I suppose I could just buy 1 box of 50 rounds every 6 months but forgetting the entirely ridiculous aspects of this law, how would it ever be enforced? Maybe New York could follow Pennsylvania's example in post prohibition years and establish the New York Bullet Control Board and mandate that ammo could only be sold in bulk through state owned ammo stores. To continue the analogy, PA did allow 'beer distributors' to sell to the public but that's beer only so maybe an ammo distributor would only sell .22 and in addition a neighborhood bar could sell you a 6 pack. So by analogy, maybe next New Years New Yorkers would need to hit a range and have their revolvers reloaded with a "6 pack" before going to the back yard firing wildly into the air and yelling yea-ha.

Are you kidding me? How do a few bullets next to a photo "place a target around someone"?

Let's do something the media really seems to just suck at these days. Let's get the terms correct.
Target:


Bullet:


I read "news" articles often to learn about current events, crime, elections and politics. I look to other sources for humor. Perhaps this coverage should have been undertaken by comedy central or even a cartoon. You know those places where some pro-control folks go to get their "news".