patrick.net

Its a typical reaction- stigmatize your opponents, stigmatize certain points of view -make everything that happens about YOUR issue. Politics 101 on all sides.

Of course the president is going to politicize everything- he is a politician and his job is to make sure his message resonates with those he is appealing too.

Even Paul Krugman in his Keynesian zeal couldnt resist getting in his plug for economic stimulus just three days after 9/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/reckonings-after-the-horror.html

smaulgld says

Even Paul Krugman in his Keynesian zeal couldnt resist getting in his plug for economic stimulus just three days after 9/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/reckonings-after-the-horror.html

It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday's horror.

I got laid off from an engineering job 2 months after 9/11. The fuckers had the nerve to cite 9/11 in my pink slip letter as a driving force to the tanking economy.

JH says

I got laid off from an engineering job 2 months after 9/11. The fuckers had the nerve to cite 9/11 in my pink slip letter as a driving force to the tanking economy.

Yep companies blamed 9/11 a lot back when in many instances it was their own fault but 9/11 was convenient to blame

smaulgld says

Politics 101 on all sides.

To support your point...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15 that suspected shooter and military contractor Aaron Alexis is believed to have used, issued a statement Monday asking "When will enough be enough?"

"Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life," the California Democrat said in the statement.

Read: Death by Gun Control. Oh I forgot, that might interfere with the liberal agenda. Its not about guns, nor safety, its about control.

Both sides act really stupid sometimes. Politicizing tragedy is a sign of failure of morality within a group.

The NSA can and does monitor every single communication we make from phone calls, to chat messages, to email, to Skyping. If the NSA can be that intrusive on my life to prevent "terrorism" than the NSA can also keep a national gun registry for the same damn reason.

My right to government not having a back door into my mobile computer has higher precedence than your right to own a gun anonymously. If you want privacy in gun ownership and trades, then I get privacy in communication first. There's a reason the First Amendment is first and the Second is second.

If it makes you feel better, I'm willing to get a smart phone / gun hybrid. That way you guys will be against the NSA tracking it.

Dan8267 says

My right to government not having a back door into my mobile computer has higher precedence than your right to own a gun anonymously. If you want privacy in gun ownership and trades, then I get privacy in communication first. There's a reason the First Amendment is first and the Second is second.

Good point but in many arguments we often provide a false one or the other choice, when perhaps both can coexist.

smaulgld says

Good point but in many arguments we often provide a false one or the other choice, when perhaps both can coexist.I

Of course, the right to privacy in both cases is not mutually exclusive. However, it is ridiculous to argue that there should not be a national gun registry while letting the NSA violate basic communication privacy so flagrantly.

Dan8267 says

If the NSA can be that intrusive on my life to prevent "terrorism" than the NSA can also keep a national gun registry

I'm pretty sure it already does.

PS. It's good that libs can finally relate to what gun owners have been feeling for a long time. ;)

JH says

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15 that suspected shooter and military contractor Aaron Alexis is believed to have used, issued a statement Monday asking "When will enough be enough?"

Except he didn't use any fucking AR-15. The fascist bitch was in such a hurry to commence her favorite dance on fresh graves she couldn't wait for facts.

Dan8267 says

Of course, the right to privacy in both cases is not mutually exclusive. However, it is ridiculous to argue that there should not be a national gun registry while letting the NSA violate basic communication privacy so flagrantly.

Correct- they should not argue for one and not the other but the counter argument should not be to argue for one and not the other!

I'm going gun toting rogue.

All that matters is that he was able to use his 2nd Amendment Right to purchase an "Arms". Everything else is just collateral damage.

2nd Amendment trumps everything.

JH says

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault
weapons like the AR-15 that suspected shooter and military contractor Aaron
Alexis is believed to have used, issued a statement Monday asking "When will
enough be enough?"

Fienstein the champion of the NSA wants to ban the common man/populace from having guns-coincidence??

Straw Man says

PS. It's good that libs can finally relate to what gun owners have been feeling for a long time. ;)

Real Americans have always been rebels. Yet for all their talk, gun fans have never shown any rebel streak. They are the most willing to give up all other liberties except guns to the government. If gun fans were logical, they'd wholeheartedly support Edward Snowden for revealing what the NSA is doing instead of calling him a traitor.

He was being treated for PTSD so he, like all the other mass shooters, was likely trippin' on, or coming off, of some psychotropic drug or other.
When is Big Pharma and "medicated America" going to get some of the blame. The corrupted crone Feinstein would never acknowledge that link

HEY YOU says

I'm going gun toting rogue.

All that matters is that he was able to use his 2nd Amendment Right to purchase an "Arms". Everything else is just collateral damage.

2nd Amendment trumps everything.

Right you can argue that while 1st comes before 2nd, two is bigger than one!

Dan8267 says

Straw Man says

PS. It's good that libs can finally relate to what gun owners have been feeling for a long time. ;)

Real Americans have always been rebels. Yet for all their talk, gun fans have never shown any rebel streak. They are the most willing to give up all other liberties except guns to the government. If gun fans were logical, they'd wholeheartedly support Edward Snowden for revealing what the NSA is doing instead of calling him a traitor.

That is a broad generalization but in some ways a valid criticism of some conservatives who argue against big government but are more than happy to use big government to fight foreign wars and the drug war

What a load of shit...
There exists a ton of anti-government militias.
And no matter what you say, they ARE Rebels...

Dan8267 says

Real Americans have always been rebels. Yet for all their talk, gun fans have never shown any rebel streak.

It all depends on your definition of "Big Government".
Liberals see an expanded military as BG...
Conservatives see an expanded social agenda as BG...

This indicates the conservative view is closer to the truth....

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/federal-state-local-government-responsibilities.pdf

smaulgld says

That is a broad generalization but in some ways a valid criticism of some conservatives who argue against big government but are more than happy to use big government to fight foreign wars and the drug war

SoftShell says

What a load of shit...

There exists a ton of anti-government militias.

And no matter what you say, they ARE Rebels...

The anti-government militias are like No'Maam, completely impotent and ineffectual.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/F7LTzEmnyms

JH says

Is it possible that mass murders happen so frequently in America that we are ALL becoming tone deaf to them?

Mass murders happen in many countries.. but many dont have a drug-gang culture as we do. That is why overall homicide is up .. get rid of the drug dealers and you would see overall crime down.

JH says

Is it possible that mass murders happen so frequently in America that we are ALL becoming tone deaf to them?

Mass murders happen in many countries.. but many dont have a drug-gang culture as we do. That is why overall homicide is up .. get rid of the drug dealers and you would see overall crime down.

JH says

but it IS okay to politicize a president's response to the shooting?

Chicago... Oakland... Detroit.......any city with a Narco trade crime organization.

Dan8267 says

Real Americans have always been rebels. Yet for all their talk, gun fans have never shown any rebel streak.

They show much more rebel streak than your average libs: NRA membership is 10x of ACLUs. Paying membership at that, not some "$3 suggested donation" BS.

lostand confused says

Fienstein the champion of the NSA wants to ban the common man/populace from having guns-coincidence??

At least the bitch is consistent in her fascist views: she hates 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th equally. It's harder to understand people who call for violation of 2nd amendment rights because everybody's 4th amendment rights are being violated. I'm looking at you, Dan!

thomaswong.1986 says

Mass murders happen in many countries.. but many dont have a drug-gang culture as we do. That is why overall homicide is up .. get rid of the drug dealers and you would see overall crime down.

If guns are legal and the impetus to use them responsibly falls on the gun owner, then we should also legalize drugs and allow the drug user the same responsibility. Ironically, this would probably drop the homicide rate in these aforementioned bastions of American urban decay.

Straw Man says

NRA membership is 10x of ACLUs.

The NRA is nothing but a lobbying corporation for gun manufacturers. They have nothing to do with the original NRA, and they are not rebels. They profit greatly from the status quo and absolutely need the government to continue as it is.

The NRA does not represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers. The NRA views gun owners as cash cows, nothing more.

Dan8267 says

The NRA is nothing but a lobbying corporation for gun manufacturers.

No, it's not. It's a misrepresentation by anti-gun politicians, mindlessly parroted by people who have no clue. NRA does represent gun owners and does it pretty good: gun rights are expanding everywhere (even in fucking Illinois of all places!). I wish ACLU was at least half as effective in protecting 1st and 4th, as NRA is effective in protecting the 2nd.

Straw Man says

Dan8267 says

The NRA is nothing but a lobbying corporation for gun manufacturers.

No, it's not. It's a misrepresentation by anti-gun politicians, mindlessly parroted by people who have no clue. NRA does represent gun owners and does it pretty good: gun rights are expanding everywhere (even in fucking Illinois of all places!). I wish ACLU was at least half as effective in protecting 1st and 4th, as NRA is effective in protecting the 2nd.

Obviously you haven't read "Blood Money" which nicely documents where the money for the NRA actually comes from. Were you aware the the NRA was in favor of gun control until the 80's. Oddly enough that's when the gun companies got into big time funding of the NRA. Coincidence? I think not.

bob2356 says

Obviously you haven't read "Blood Money"

I opted to watch "Bowling For Columbine" instead.

which nicely documents where the money for the NRA actually comes from.

Yeah, yeah, 5 million paying citizen members is not actually where the money comes from, it's actually comes from these eeeevil gun makers, sure.

Were you aware the the NRA was in favor of gun control until the 80's.

No surprise there: in the 80s it became obvious that the aim of gun control laws is no longer to prevent criminals from using guns, but to infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Oddly enough that's when the gun companies got into big time funding of the NRA. Coincidence? I think not.

Of course it's not coincidence: in this case interests of the citizens are perfectly aligned with the interests of the industry. Newspapers should give more to ACLU too.

Straw Man says

Dan8267 says

The NRA is nothing but a lobbying corporation for gun manufacturers.

No, it's not. It's a misrepresentation by anti-gun politicians, mindlessly parroted by people who have no clue. NRA does represent gun owners and does it pretty good: gun rights are expanding everywhere (even in fucking Illinois of all places!).

If the NRA was an advocate of gun owners rather than a lobby for the gun manufacturers, then the NRA would be praising the Liberator 3D printed gun and would be fighting tooth and nail against the State Department's illegal ordering of the removal of the gun's blueprint. After all, a cheap gun creatable by the individual is everything the NRA ought to be in favor of if the NRA really cares about the Second Amendment and gun rights.

Yet, the NRA is completely silent on this matter, at least in public. Of course, the NRA can't come right out and say they want these printable guns outlawed because doing so would piss off the masses of NRA supporters. However, printable guns spell the end of the huge profits of gun manufacturers and those corporations are scared shitless of printable guns taking business away from them.

In the very least, the NRA will silently let anti-printable-gun laws pass. More likely, the NRA will behind close sessions and off the record, actively encourage such legislation by ensuring politicians that the NRA will not rally against any politician supporting such legislation and possibly by even asking for it. Possibly, the NRA might even endorse such a ban under false pretenses like safety concerns and concerns that terrorists and criminals will be the ones using the guns.

In any case, the fact that the NRA has not opposed any bans on the printable guns and the sharing of their plans proves that the NRA is concerned with corporate profits, not your gun rights.

Straw Man says

I wish ACLU was at least half as effective in protecting 1st and 4th, as NRA is effective in protecting the 2nd.

I do, too, but they are not because there are no profits to be had in upholding the First and Fourth Amendments. On the contrary, there are profits to be had by violating them. Notice the pattern?

Dan8267 says

The NRA is nothing but a lobbying corporation for gun manufacturers. They
have nothing to do with the original NRA, and they are not rebels. They profit
greatly from the status quo and absolutely need the government to continue as it
is.

The NRA does not represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers. The
NRA views gun owners as cash cows, nothing more.

Yup, and look at the gun and ammo sales numbers since the NRA has been preaching to their members and the general public that Obama was going to take away their guns. Record sales and revenues, and yet Obama has only mentioned ANY type of gun legislation AFTER the school shooting and where young children were killed, but the NRA has been on him since his first days in office. He even expanded gun use/carry in fed parks.

I had a friend tell me he couldn't get any ammo at WalMart for awhile, and then he could only buy one box because of limits and blames Obama for it, and doesn't realize the manufacturing/supply limits that are in play. But the NRA spreads those falsehoods too.

National Rifle Manufacturers Association does have a lot more truth to it, yes.

Straw Man says

Yeah, yeah, 5 million paying citizen members is not actually where the money comes from, it's actually comes from these eeeevil gun makers, sure.

I'm waiting for you to document how much comes from gun makers and how much from dues. Care to take a shot? Please include all the revenue streams the gun makers set but don't directly contribute.

Pretty interesting that 5 million people are dictating policy to the other 310 million. Shows how really effective lobbying money is.

To be fair, Dems and non hard-right Republicans like Bloomberg really want to take your guns away, LOL, so it makes sense for gun owners/aficionados to organize, and the NRA is the place to do that . . .

bob2356 says

Straw Man says

Yeah, yeah, 5 million paying citizen members is not actually where the money comes from, it's actually comes from these eeeevil gun makers, sure.

I'm waiting for you to document how much comes from gun makers and how much from dues.

NRA 990 Form 990 Tax Return for 2010

From page 9, NRA Membership dues generated $100,531,465 of revenue. From form 990, page 9, IRA fees generated $6,552,336 of revenue. Together, that's $107,083,801 revenue from gun owners.

From page 1, the total revenue of the NRA was $227,811,279. 53% of the NRA revenue came from gun manufacturers. It's all in black and white.

Smith Wesson donates a cool million to the NRA.
Beretta Group pledges another million.
Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA
#1. The NRA Really Represents Gun Manufacturers

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

The NRA Foundation also collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, which it then gives to local-level organizations for training and equipment purchases.

OK, Straw Man, I can understand how you didn't know any of this. But now that you do, are you willing to accept the truth that the NRA is just a lobby for the gun manufacturers? I've given you a multitude of evidence and directly shown that most of the NRA revenue comes from the gun manufacturers. Are you going to continue down the path of willful ignorance, ignoring all facts that contradict your political position? Or will you choose the path of enlightenment and reason by accepting the facts and changing your political views of these facts you have just learned?

Dan8267 says

I've given you a multitude of evidence and directly shown that most of the NRA revenue comes from the gun manufacturers. Are you going to continue down the path of willful ignorance, ignoring all facts that contradict your political position? Or will you choose the path of enlightenment and reason by accepting the facts and changing your political views of these facts you have just learned?

That's the funniest thing I've read in months. I'm sure straw manl jump right up and say hallelua I've seen the light.

Dan8267 says

From page 9, NRA Membership dues generated $100,531,465 of revenue. From form 990, page 9, IRA fees generated $6,552,336 of revenue. Together, that's $107,083,801 revenue from gun owners.

From page 1, the total revenue of the NRA was $227,811,279. 53% of the NRA revenue came from gun manufacturers. It's all in black and white.

Where did you get the idea that the rest is "from gun manufacturers"? Simply by subtracting fees from the total revenue and assuming the rest is coming from gun manufacturers? That's incorrect. Here's what The Atlantic has to say about it:

"But membership fees don't pay the NRA's bills alone. In recent years, the group has become more aggressive about seeking donations, both from individuals and corporations, and that in turn has led it to become more deeply entwined with the gun industry. In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. Some of that money came from small-time donors, who've received a barrage of fundraising appeals warning of President Obama's imminent plot to gut the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans' firearms. But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons. "

See: only $39 millions in 6 years. Hardly a lion's share. NRA was doing just fine without manufacturer's contributions and will remain a formidable force if they stop donating. It's the membership that counts.

Straw Man says

Where did you get the idea that the rest is "from gun manufacturers"?

Did you see the five links I provided? Read them all.

bob2356 says

That's the funniest thing I've read in months. I'm sure straw manl jump right up and say hallelua I've seen the light.

As his response indicates, it doesn't matter what the facts are. Any fact that even threatens his political view must be irrationally denied regardless of the evidence. Yes, all evidence is the result of a conspiracy by the left to show how unbelievably stupid and gullible the right is. Ironically, this is exactly why the right is unbelievably stupid and gullible.

The belief that the NRA isn't financially motivated by the profits of gun sales is as retarded as the belief that the "studies" showing that smoking does not cause cancer backed by the Phillip Morris company were not financially motivated by the profits of cigarettes, and for the exact same reason.

Yet even something so clear and obvious must be irrationally denied when someone perceives that acknowledging the reality would weaken his political position, even if the issue of gun rights had mother-fucking-nothing to do with the NRA. The mere fact that the person perceives his political position might be weakened by acknowledging the truth will cause most people to deny that truth regardless of what evidence is presented. This is why I think that our species is stupid.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man says

Where did you get the idea that the rest is "from gun manufacturers"?

Did you see the five links I provided? Read them all.

I skimmed trough them. Sorry, but they are useless, because they are just a collection of anecdotes about which manufacturer shelled out a million or two. The article in The Atlantic is much better researched and paints a comprehensive picture on NRA's funding sources. The stuff you linked is not even in the same zipcode re quality of journalism.