- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
My bet is open to anyone. Hard to say in earnest one believes they're a threat while simultaneously believing nothing will come of their words.
Do you actually believe that that is their primary purpose and goal, or do you think that it's a ruse to get people to buy more guns?They are active in promoting a civil right. You can't narrate that away.
Terrible rebuttal. Can you be more absurd than comparing yourself to a national organization with millions of dues-paying members? Have a nice day dude.
I think the NRA is correct in pointing out an agenda driven culture war, in which one side opposes Second Amendment rights for Americans.
I think there's a shocking amount of hypocrisy in response to this ad (, well, not shocking). The amount of violent imagery and rhetoric being aimed at Trump specifically and republicans in general has been shocking, and it's led to actual violence, riots, and assassination attempts. And now you are clutching your pearls over a relatively innocuous ad from a group with no historical ties to violent extremism?
My bet is open to anyone. Hard to say in earnest one believes they're a threat while simultaneously believing nothing will come of their words.
I don't think I've seen a single person claim that they're a threat ITT.My bet is open to anyone. Hard to say in earnest one believes they're a threat while simultaneously believing nothing will come of their words.
How would a culture war not be agenda-driven?
Anyway, this is heroically disingenuous. Some liberals oppose 2A rights, therefore hatred for and war on liberals generally is pro-2A?
So to be clear (because this really isn't clear): you think the ad is good?
Take your snarky comments and shove it . . . folks in this thread are all being equally stubborn.
Yet nearly every story trying to portray the ad as one inciting violence and hate provided said transcript . . . heck @Jack V Savage even used it to try and make a point . . .
Take your snarky comments and shove it . . . folks in this thread are all being equally stubborn.
Yet nearly every story trying to portray the ad as one inciting violence and hate provided said transcript . . . heck @Jack V Savage even used it to try and make a point . . .
You know damn well that most people aren't capable of committing senseless violence but the message will motivate people to buy more guns and be pissed off at liberals.My bet is open to anyone. Hard to say in earnest one believes they're a threat while simultaneously believing nothing will come of their words.
Do you actually believe that that is their primary purpose and goal, or do you think that it's a ruse to get people to buy more guns?
Pro-Tip: The 2nd amendment has never been under any kind of serious threat. People's right to bear arms has never been attacked substantially. It is a boogeyman created by conservatives to push the interests of business. Including, the gun industry.
The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights.[3][5][6] Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975.[7] It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.[8]
Founded to advance rifle marksmanship, the modern NRA continues to teach firearm competency and safety. It instructs civilians and law enforcement, youths and adults, in various programs. The organization also publishes several magazines and sponsors competitive marksmanship events.[7] Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013.[3]
Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC.[9][10] Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.
You know damn well that most people aren't capable of committing senseless violence but the message will motivate people to buy more guns and be pissed off at liberals.
If anyone does commit violence because of the video they're mentally unstable to begin with.
Again, you can ask someone to commit violence and if they do not, that doesn't mean you didn't ask them to commit violence. The NRA just wants to raise gun sales.
You're creating a ridiculous bet that you think proves our arguments wrong, but it does not.
You know damn well that most people aren't capable of committing senseless violence but the message will motivate people to buy more guns and be pissed off at liberals.
I have too many people on ignore that I must be missing some videos. I only saw the one video. I'd argue that it's no more or less problematic than the Lynch video in terms of language.
I think you made a few logical leaps there which I did not. I do not hate liberals, and this ad does not make me hate liberals. There isn't currently a spate of hate-driven attacks on liberals or angry right wingers trying to assassinate liberals. The opposite is occurring. Angry liberals are trying to murder conservative politicians. The hate is real, but you have misdiagnosed where it is coming from. What the NRA ad is pointing out is this hate: '~ Look, they are teaching your kids Trump is Hitler. That's hate. What do you think about you? Better give us money to help defend your gun rights."How would a culture war not be agenda-driven?
Anyway, this is heroically disingenuous. Some liberals oppose 2A rights, therefore hatred for and war on liberals generally is pro-2A?
No, I was clear. I think it is innocuous. I don't think it is a call to a violent revolt and I don't think any political violence will be the result. It's projection from the left, which has been both explicitly and implicitly calling for violence, with some effect, for months now.So to be clear (because this really isn't clear): you think the ad is good?
So your position is that the NRA's hateful, violent rhetoric likely won't be effective?
I don't think I've seen a single person claim that they're a threat ITT.
He offered to bet that no right wing loonie would attack the New York Times as a result of the video. It's so specific it doesn't seem he's very confident in his own position.What's the bet?
Again, she didn't call them a domestic security threat. She said they were becoming one. It was over the top rhetoric, but you're being purposely disingenuous here.Sounds like you agree that the Congresswoman is full of shit then when calling them a domestic security threat. Nuts with guns buying even more of them is actually good for the economy. Kinda the opposite of a threat.
<18><18><18><18><18><18><18><18>Sounds like you agree that the Congresswoman is full of shit then when calling them a domestic security threat. Nuts with guns buying even more of them is actually good for the economy. Kinda the opposite of a threat.