Shooting at live Twitch Madden tournament - four reported to be dead

[Roar87]

no they don't, most of their funding comes direct from gun manufacturers. The NRA right upto the mid 70s was entirely about gun safety and animal conservation, since then it is entirely focused on selling more guns. That's not opinion, that is fact.

As for not being an evil group of people, you clearly haven't seen any of Dana Loesch's work for the organisation.

That's not correct at all, the NRA's budget is $433 million, gun companies donated literally a couple of million a year to that.

Can you actually cite where you're getting the source that "most of their funding" comes from gun manufacturers or stop posting basically things you're making up on the fly?

 

[Roar87]

So why is is there a national data base for every car?
They have the right to own a car?

cars aren't an essential part of the checks and balances of the Republic of the United States of America.

 

[angel102]

That's not correct at all, the NRA's budget is $433 million, gun companies donated literally a couple of million a year to that.

Can you actually cite where you're getting the source that "most of their funding" comes from gun manufacturers or stop posting basically things you're making up on the fly?

Do you know what a PAC is? that's where they get their support from. As for your figure of a $433m budget, the FEC seems to strongly disagree with you on that, in March of this year they took in $2.7m in donations, so that is quite a shortfall across the rest of the year with $430.3m to go given that was a record fundraising total going back 15 years

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43884698

Unlike the PAC, it isn’t able to donate directly to candidates. But it is able to receive millions of dollars in donations from corporations. The group is not required to disclose the names of its contributors or the details of these contributions, though some major gunmakers like Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Company have announced large donations in the past (though the NRA says that the vast majority of money comes from individual donors just like the PAC).

https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html

but no doubt you will call all of that fake news.

 

[Jumper118]

never said it was, Roar87 was the one who said the NRA exists to protect citizens, which is clearly nonsense.

It doesn't exist to protect them.

It encourages citizens to buy guns to protect themselves with.

 

[Roar87]

Do you know what a PAC is? that's where they get their support from. As for your figure of a $433m budget, the FEC seems to strongly disagree with you on that, in March of this year they took in $2.7m in donations, so that is quite a shortfall across the rest of the year with $430.3m to go given that was a record fundraising total going back 15 years

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43884698

https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html

but no doubt you will call all of that fake news.

None of those links even suggest the majority of the money the NRA receives is from gun manufacturers, it's not like there's ambiguity there, PACs receive some money from gun manufacturers but they aren't allowed to donate to Political candidates.

 

[angel102]

It doesn't exist to protect them.

It encourages citizens to buy guns to protect themselves with.

as I said earlier, the way to stop someone drowning isn't to throw more water on them.

 

[Jumper118]

as I said earlier, the way to stop someone drowning isn't to throw more water on them.

But it isn't to ban all water either XD

You don't ban people who can't swim going in water.

You could pull them out of the water.

Or you could teach them how to swim responsibility so they don't drown.

If they choose to go in the water anyway not knowing how to swim then they will drown. Simple as that XD

 

[StriderX]

But it isn't to ban all water either XD

You don't ban people who can't swim going in water.

You could pull them out of the water.

Or you could teach them how to swim responsibility so they don't drown.

If they choose to go in the water anyway not knowing how to swim then they will drown. Simple as that XD

If the world's an ocean, then you'll drown anyway regardless of training.

 

[Jumper118]

If the world's an ocean, then you'll drown anyway regardless of training.

If the world is an ocean and you can't swim then you will be naturally selected. You can't drain a whole planet.

 

[Mason-]

I think you miss the point, following the second amendment, by the time you have raised a militia and created an organised resistance to a "tyrannical government" you are already up **** creek without much of a paddle.

Again, the second Amendment makes sense in 1776 as I said earlier when soldiers and civilians alike only had access to single shot muskets that when trained could be fired at most 3 or 4 shots a minute. in 2018, when that same tyrannical government has drones, stealth bombers, Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters and countless other weapons of war far beyond an AR-15 or a Glock 9mm being carried by fat, middle aged, balding blokes wearing camo gear that's one size too small in broad daylight on an urban street can ever hope to match you have to look at ways of making sure that government doesn't become tyrannical in the first place.

Yes, guerilla warfare is a possibility, but surely there's better, and less dangerous ways of doing something before it gets to that stage?

No I think you're missing my point. The idea that just because they've got better technology doesn't mean it would be easy. If civil war broke out in the USA do you really think it would be every single government owned facility vs Joe Public? Chances are both sides would have technology. And as other nations are very quick to jump on wars to serve their own interest, both sides would receive foreign aid in the form of arms. See Iraq and Afghanistan, literally a bunch of people living in caves with AKs and occasionally given SAMs and RPGs managed to take UK + US military a decade to deal with. Now try it in the US, it would not be easy.

 

[StriderX]

If the world is an ocean and you can't swim then you will be naturally selected. You can't drain a whole planet.

Yes you can, stop ******* selling guns to every joe and ahmed, time will sort it out.

It's what a few billion in deals for the US and UK every year as opposed to the Trillions it costs us to wage literally pointless wars (Taliban control what 70% of Afghanistan again... wonderful result huh).

We could be spending this **** on our own people, christ sake.

 

[Roar87]

Yes you can, stop ******* selling guns to every joe and ahmed, time will sort it out.

It's what a few billion in deals for the US and UK every year as opposed to the Trillions it costs us to wage literally pointless wars (Taliban control what 70% of Afghanistan again... wonderful result huh).

We could be spending this **** on our own people, christ sake.

The Taliban don't control 70% of Afghanistan, they're active in 70% of Afghanistan. You could say ISIS is active in Britain and be accurate.

 

[Jumper118]

Yes you can, stop ******* selling guns to every joe and ahmed, time will sort it out.

It's what a few billion in deals for the US and UK every year as opposed to the Trillions it costs us to wage literally pointless wars (Taliban control what 70% of Afghanistan again... wonderful result huh).

We could be spending this **** on our own people, christ sake.

How will that help? All the criminals who want firearms to use for crime will still get them away and the citizens will have no firearms to defend themselves with.

 

[adolf hamster]

How will that help? All the criminals who want firearms to use for crime will still get them away and the citizens will have no firearms to defend themselves with.

and here we were thinking criminals would just use knives and acid if they couldnt get guns....

it's the same story, contradiction and holding on to the same points regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove them, it's almost like a religion.

 

[Jumper118]

and here we were thinking criminals would just use knives and acid if they couldnt get guns....

it's the same story, contradiction and holding on to the same points regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove them, it's almost like a religion.

There is no contradiction. The fact that there would be no guns in USA is not realistic in the first place.

He was on about not selling guns to everyone. That would be as a legal transaction. It would not affect the criminal access to guns in this case, so my point is still 100% valid.

 

[Roar87]

and here we were thinking criminals would just use knives and acid if they couldnt get guns....

it's the same story, contradiction and holding on to the same points regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove them, it's almost like a religion.

Are you proposing a complete ban and confiscation of guns? Because if you don't do that then people can just get guns illegally as they're so widely available in America.

 

[StriderX]

Are you proposing a complete ban and confiscation of guns? Because if you don't do that then people can just get guns illegally as they're so widely available in America.

If they're getting it illegally, then it's easier to shoot first ask questions later.

 

[adolf hamster]

Are you proposing a complete ban and confiscation of guns? Because if you don't do that then people can just get guns illegally as they're so widely available in America.

Doesnt matter what you propose. Its a slippery slope don'tyaknow.

We've danced this dance before and we will again, and again, and again, until the american people wake up and realise that unless they do something its gonna keep on.

And the longer it goes the more drastic the corrective action will need to be. Might not need mass confiscation now but give it 20 years and if nothing changes then that's what will be needed.

Right now i'd propose doing to semi automatic firearms exactly the same as has been done already (and ergo proven as constitutionally compatible before someone starts whinging about the 2nd amendment) for fully automatic firearms- ban new manufacture/sale, amnesty to register existing firearms, require nra transfer for registered items and once the amnesty is over confiscate and destroy unregistered firearms.

No licence, no confiscation of law abiding citizens firearms, let attrition handle the rest.

 

[Roar87]

Doesnt matter what you propose. Its a slippery slope don'tyaknow.

We've danced this dance before and we will again, and again, and again, until the american people wake up and realise that unless they do something its gonna keep on.

And the longer it goes the more drastic the corrective action will need to be. Might not need mass confiscation now but give it 20 years and if nothing changes then that's what will be needed.

Right now i'd propose doing to semi automatic firearms exactly the same as has been done already (and ergo proven as constitutionally compatible before someone starts whinging about the 2nd amendment) for fully automatic firearms- ban new manufacture/sale, amnesty to register existing firearms, require nra transfer for registered items and once the amnesty is over confiscate and destroy unregistered firearms.

No licence, no confiscation of law abiding citizens firearms, let attrition handle the rest.

It'll probably take about 200 years for that ban to become effective since about 90% of the 300 million guns in America can be classed as semi-automatic. The only guns that don't are pump action shotguns, bolt action and lever action rifles I guess. Even those you can have a high rate of fire with practice. I just don't see the point.

 

[StriderX]

It'll probably take about 200 years for that ban to become effective since about 90% of the 300 million guns in America can be classed as semi-automatic. The only guns that don't are pump action shotguns, bolt action and lever action rifles I guess. Even those you can have a high rate of fire with practice. I just don't see the point.

200 years is still a good start.