About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

2011: A Year In The NRA's "Insane Paranoid" Conspiracy Theories

December 27, 2011 10:02 am ET by Chris Brown

Wayne LaPierreFormer National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, "You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere." The organization has long taken this sentiment to heart. For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner. These threats made up in hysterical rhetoric for what they lacked in credibility.

Arnet's comments demonstrate why the organization has adopted such a dishonest strategy. To sustain its $200-million-plus annual budget, the organization relies upon donations from both its members and the gun industry; constant fearmongering boosts donations from both. By working their members into a frenzy, they can better convince them to financially support the NRA and thus stave off that dark future.

The effort also encourages existing gun owners to purchase more firearms in case such laws are actually passed; new sales to current gun owners are essential to the gun industry given that the number of households owning a gun is in long term decline. Terrifying gun owners bolsters gun sales, which in turn keeps the gun industry profitable enough to direct more funds back to the NRA.

But sometimes, your run-of-the-mill fearmongering just isn't enough. In 2011 the NRA repeatedly turned to one of their favorite weapons to keep alive this crisis atmosphere justifying their extremist political agenda and their own existence: conspiracy theories. Below, Media Matters documents a few of our favorites of the year.

Wayne's World: "Paranoid Insane" "Crazy Far Right" "F$%cking Crazy"

Speaking through their myriad media platforms and any number of conservative media outlets the NRA's paranoid pronouncements were often aimed at President Barack Obama. But it's been a tough sell after Obama largely abandoned efforts to enact gun control legislation, earning him a F rating from the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. So NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre got creative, arguing in a September speech that Obama ignored gun control as part of a plot to secretly "destroy the second amendment":

But it's a big fat stinking lie, just like all the other lies that have come out of this corrupt administration. It's all part -- it's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country.

[...]

Before the President was even sworn into office, they met and they hatched a conspiracy of public deception to try to guarantee his re-election in 2012.

LaPierre's comments quickly drew well deserved derision from commentators. Jon Stewart summoned up the credibility of LaPierre's conspiracy theory, saying, "It's just so crazy, it's F*#king crazy."
 
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow also called out LaPierre's comments, saying: "The NRA says the way you can tell Obama is coming for your guns, is that he's not coming for you guns.  It's genius! That is the insane paranoid message from the NRA this year."

Maddow's colleague Chris Matthews similarly described La Pierre's comments as "another strain of the crazy far right" and noted their similarity to "civil war talk."

Becoming the object of widespread mockery did little to slow down LaPierre's conspiratorial rhetoric. In October, the NRA executive doubled down on his theory, telling Newsmax.tv that a "second term by President Obama will break that back" of the Second Amendment.

The rest of the organization made no effort to distance themselves from this theory. Undeterred by the reaction to LaPierre's comments, NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox in fact suggested that the media was in on the conspiracy. Listing half a dozen major news outlets Cox warned the media was engaging in "deceitful effort" to attack gun owners to help Obama win re-election in order to "destroy your rights."

New World Order: "Hillary Clinton Has Teamed up With Countries Like North Korea, Iran And Cuba" To Take Away Your Guns

Moving ever closer to tinfoil hat territory, the NRA repeatedly pushed a revamped version of LaPierre's long running United Nations scare mongering. Donations from the gun industry only go so far, so what better way to raise money then by warning people of a ominous conspiracy about Hillary Clinton, North Korea, Cuba, and Iran working together to curtail civilian gun ownership?

In August a Colorado man recorded the following discussion from a NRA membership fundraising call:

CALLER: Do you think it's okay for the U.N. to be on American soil attacking our gun rights?

RECIPIENT: I mean, I really don't know that much about it, what are they trying to do?

CALLER: Hillary Clinton has teamed up with countries like North Korea, Iran and Cuba to draft this arms trade treaty that could have a drastic impact on civilian gun ownership. The U.N. wants us to believe this treaty is about automatic weapons and dirty bombs, but the fact is all hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols can be on the table.

[...]

CALLER: Normally five years of annual membership would cost a $175, but because this represents such a major threat to our gun rights and freedoms, today we discounted that all the way down to $125.

Of course, the arms trade treaty in question would do nothing of the sort. TheWashington Post has reported the goal of State Department negotiators working on the Treaty is get other countries to agree to follow import and export rules that the U.S. has already instituted:

The Obama administration hopes it can use the talks to press other governments to adopt a rigorous system of export controls similar to one put in place to regulate U.S. arms exports.

TPM Media reported that experts watching the negotiations have suggested the treaty requirements are largely already in place under existing American law:

Jeff Abramson, the coordinator of the pro-treaty Control Arms Secretariat, told TPM, "[Second Amendment-citing] critics say the sky will fall, but the things the treaty suggests already exist in the US. It's hard to see where the US would need to make changes to its existing national laws."

The NRA's Cox later tried to argue that the U.N. treaty is "completely unnecessary" because the United States "operates what even Hillary Clinton admits is the 'gold standard' of export controls for arms transfers.'" But that's the entire point of the treaty -- Clinton made that comment while expressing U.S. support for a treaty that would "promote the same high standards for the entire international community."

What The... Botched ATF Operation Initiated To Promote Gun Control?

In what has become a message that has been echoed by Fox News correspondents and in right-wing blogs, LaPierre has pushed the ridiculous claim that the failed Operation Fast and Furious was initiated as a secret plot to lay the ground work for gun control.

Under Fast and Furious, ATF agents allowed suspected traffickers to purchase more than 2,000 firearms from Arizona gun shops. Many of those guns later made their way across the border, turning up at Mexican crime scenes. A reportissued by House Oversight Chairman Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) stated that the purpose of Fast and Furious, "was to wait and watch, in the hope that law enforcement could identify other members of a trafficking network and build a large, complex conspiracy case."

The Obama administration has acknowledged that the operation never should have happened, has transferred those with direct oversight of the operation or allowed them to resign, and is currently investigating how it came to pass. No evidence has emerged to suggest that senior Administration officials were aware of the controversial techniques in use.

But the NRA, whose top priority is defeating President Obama's re-election, has turned the operation into a conspiracy. On Fox News' Happening Now in March, LaPierre said:

[The administration] can only prove a trickle of guns going down to Mexico. Someone in the government, it looks like to a lot of people, decided to change that trickle into a river of guns going down there to seek political advantage.

Writing in the NRA's multiple publications LaPierre said:

In one of the best descriptions of "Fast and Furious," Robert Farago wrote in the Washington Times that  " ...The agency's motive for creating a program that violated Mexican sovereignty and put innocent lives at risk: inflating the number of American firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes.

The more blood-soaked American guns in Mexico the ATF could identify for its congressional paymasters, the more compelling its case for increased federal funding and new agency-enforced gun-control regulations. In short, 'Operation Fast and Furious' was an anti-gun-running gun-running program."

All of this was done to bring about Barack Obama's promised "under the radar" gun control. The BATFE/Justice response to getting caught in this bloody scandal is to double down. Breathtaking.

What's truly breathtaking is LaPierre's willingness to push such wild conjecture absent any evidence. The NRA has already used such wild claims to suggest that Attorney General Eric Holder should resign. In all likelihood the politicization and conspiracy mongering about the failed ATF operation from the NRA is just getting started.

Irony Alert: NRA Complains Other Gun Group's Conspiracy Aimed To "Raise Money"

Not every conspiracy theory involving secret gun control plans was to the NRA's liking. In October the far right National Association For Gun Rights (NAGR) sent an e-mail alert suggesting the NRA's favored legislation -- the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity -- would become a vehicle gun control.

NAGR executive director Dudley Brown wrote to members:

Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything ... and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn't count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the "regulations" to carry out the legislative "intent."

But mark my words, H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act, will become nothing more than a Trojan Horse for even more federal gun control.

Seemingly unaware of the irony, the NRA pushed back against criticism of H.R. 822, complaining, "There's been a lot of misguided, unfounded, and just plain incorrect information circulating on the Internet" coming from gun groups that "continually sound false alarms and 'stir the pot' in an effort to be noticed. (And to raise money, of course.)."

No question.

2012: Brave New Frontiers In Conspiratorial Ramblings?

With the Presidential election coming up in 2012 it's probably safe to say the NRA is going to keep all manner of paranoid and alarmist messages coming. When they find their facts falling short or their fundraising running low expect to see the NRA's next massive conspiracy rolled out.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Nihilist (December 27, 2011 10:31 am ET)
      23 3
      NRA has played the 'paranoia' card for decades. remember in 08 when obama was running, they claimed he was going to take away the brass that makes the shells for their bullets. then there was such a huge run on brass shells the cops and miltary had a hard time getting them.

      the NRA always needs a boogie man to garner new recruits to their cult....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (December 27, 2011 9:34 pm ET)
        9 3
        Sadly, the NRA has sunk to this new level. Now I think the badge one must have for membership is that one has to show their tinfoil hat. Sadly, many years ago, I belonged to an NRA group in our church that allowed us to use their shooting range in one of their old buildings. However, I left that city and my membership lapsed. Frankly, I could not in good conscience belong to that group any more. They have taken on a very disgusting political agenda and frankly, just lie outright to achieve political ends. In Texas, they ran ads against one of our Republican Representatives. The ads were based on a pack of lies. That is when i decided that I could no longer participate in their hate mongering and lies. I know this first hand and all their efforts to sound rational and sincere in the complaints just defy rational thinking.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by yoiksaway (December 27, 2011 10:37 am ET)
      18 2
      Imagine what would happen if the NRA said, "Okay, we did our job, your guns are safe now."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Nosmo King (December 27, 2011 10:49 am ET)
           
        Imagine if the NRA said anything truthful. They are about money.

        In Pittsburgh, 3 policemen were gunned down because the killer thought they were after his guns...he read it in the rightwing blogs and heard it on Fox
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dave (December 27, 2011 11:07 am ET)
        4 32
        To sustain its $200-million-plus annual budget, the organization relies upon donations from both its members and the gun industry

        Not one cent was from the govt or taxpayers? Got to love them
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (December 27, 2011 11:10 am ET)
          22 4
          Swindling a bunch of rubes out of their money with alarmist falsehoods while encouraging paranoid fantasies of government conspiracies? Yeah, what's not to love about that?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dave (December 27, 2011 11:19 am ET)
            4 27
            Why does it matter? It cost you nothing.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by What Happened to Gannon (December 27, 2011 11:36 am ET)
              16 5
              Care to comment on the NRA's rampant paranoia?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by heehee..santorum (December 27, 2011 11:51 am ET)
                17 4
                I will! The NRA has devolved into a sad joke by trying to appeal to people fears and paranoia. The most absurd lies can now be spread with impunity, as opinion and rumor now are suitable stand-ins for fact. There will always be access to weapons in this country, but it is a hideous aberration to conflate events like Fast and Furious with some insane conspiracy theory that gun owners are to be disarmed.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Gideon (December 27, 2011 12:10 pm ET)
                     
                  As a member for a long time, I cna honestly say that I've never seen what you so blatantly proclaim about a group you are not a member of, nor support.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by jjamele2880 (December 28, 2011 8:29 am ET)
                  5 1
                  I wish there were at least a few progressive groups that had anywhere near the clout of that "sad joke." Actually, it's an incredibly successful lobby. If it's a "joke," it's a very unfunny one, and it's on us.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 11:48 am ET)
                    5 2
                    Well, progressives have CREW and PFAW, although the former deals mostly with Congressional ethics. And I think they're non-partisan.

                    Yeah, where is that "organized left" when you need them, eh? Lol! I guess they reside only in the wingnut imagination. And their imaginations are vewy fecund. Or it's just the paranoia talking to their very fevered schizophrenic minds.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (December 27, 2011 12:36 pm ET)
                26 4
                The KKK doesn't get tax money either. Gotta love 'em!!

                Imagine the bliss of having that simple a love /hate decider in your head..
                Report Abuse
                • Author by heehee..santorum (December 27, 2011 1:04 pm ET)
                  11 3
                  You can now do the "Dave", it is just like the boxtop, the james B, the ilovedoughnuts, the katanakumori, the panzer and the mama earth.....it is an extremely popular dance.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (December 27, 2011 8:05 pm ET)
                  6 2
                  That shot surely did some internal damage.

                  What I like about this thread is the suggestion that donations from the gun industry...to the gun lobby...is in some way supposed to be different from "payment for services rendered".
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by yoiksaway (December 28, 2011 10:53 am ET)
                  7 2
                  The U.S. Postal Service doesn't use one cent of tax money either. All paid by postage fees, and a bargain at twice the price. Presume that dave loves them too.

                  Ahhh, binary thinking. Base two: one / zero, on / off.
                  Tax / no tax
                  good guy / bad guy
                  with us / against us
                  freedom lovers / freedom haters
                  guns / no guns
                  free market / whatever really happens
                  screw top / cork
                  me / all of the other drivers

                  You're right, dave, what does it matter?

                  All of these blissful criteria, and so many more! My world is so much more simple now.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 12:01 pm ET)
                    6 2
                    NICE!! Not saying I have a crush or anything, but I do love your posts, ;-)
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (December 28, 2011 8:27 am ET)
                3 3
                Maybe the bigger story here is that the White House and the Democratic Party has basically run up the white flag where the NRA is concerned- they are such "insane, paranoid" conspiracy theorists that no one will stand up to them, instead "abandoning meaningful gun control legislation." Maybe the bigger story is how the Democrats consistently treat the NRA with kid gloves and do it's bidding almost as commonly as the GOP does.

                Then again, it's hardly news when the current version of the Democratic party abandons the idea of passing progressive legislation, is it?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by cripto9t709 (December 29, 2011 9:41 am ET)
                  2 1
                  You can't fight "stupid". I've seen it tried on this site on a daily basis, "stupid" always prevails.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by MickD (December 27, 2011 11:39 am ET)
              15 3
              Are you saying the NRA should have taxpayer or govt. support? They're okay because they don't, even though they perpetuate fear and paranoia on a daily basis?

              For a bunch of gun toting macho posturing, they sure are a bunch of fearful p*ssies.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne1 (December 27, 2011 12:18 pm ET)
                17 4
                Gun toting, maco posturing, fearful p*ssies need to let their guns do their talking. Maybe because they aren't "packin" brains? Just askin'? ;-)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by heehee..santorum (December 27, 2011 1:09 pm ET)
                  12 3
                  I am afraid that it is another appendages' petite nature that animates these "little guys"....brains are secondary at best!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MiniTru (December 27, 2011 3:10 pm ET)
                    11 2
                    "My brain? But it's my second favorite organ." --Woody Allen
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (December 27, 2011 5:21 pm ET)
                    8 2
                    I read somewhere that guys that live in trailers, own firearms, smoke cigars and listen to jazz are great lovers.

                    Then again, this might be some more NRA propaganda. ;-)

                    Actually, a friend of mine from HS that I recently got reacquainted with is a professor at Tufts and has done all of those things, just not concurrently! And he has a big brain. Um, could only speculate about the other organ! Lol.

                    I'm in process of asking him if he's an NRA member. I'll report back if possible...
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by chazmanr (December 27, 2011 11:42 am ET)
              15 2
              Dave, as much as I hate the ideology of most people who would be swayed by the NRA's tactics, I still don't like to see anyone duped. That is the difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives seem only to care about themselves while progressives seem to care about everyone.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ScienceBuff (December 27, 2011 12:18 pm ET)
                15 2
                Apparently we should also admire people who con grandmothers out of their retirement savings because they do it without taxpayer money.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by juliajayne1 (December 27, 2011 12:23 pm ET)
                  12 1
                  I sure wish we Texans could get OUR taxpayer funds back used to provide Rick Perry's security detail while he's out of state botching debates and making a mockery of us, er...running for preznit.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by juliajayne1 (December 27, 2011 12:30 pm ET)
                  14 1
                  Hey now, what do you have against Pat Robertson converting a tax exempt charity into millions for himself whilst pilfering Grandma's pockets?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (December 29, 2011 10:29 am ET)
                1  
                Dave, as much as I hate the ideology of most people who would be swayed by the NRA's tactics, I still don't like to see anyone duped. That is the difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives seem only to care about themselves while progressives seem to care about everyone.


                Also, as evidenced by many right wing posters here, and by the nature of their arguments I think the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe that achieving those selfish ends always justifies the means.

                I've always been more of a pro-gun liberal, but I can't stand the NRA because of their unhinged and fraudulent rhetoric.

                I really don't know if they receive any subsidies, but they sure try to influence elections through paranoia campaigns like these. I only hope these lies don't inspire any additional gun violence, we have enough of that in this country without fear mongering about black presidents wanting to take all yer' guns.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (December 27, 2011 11:42 am ET)
              15 1
              It matters because their members vote based on NRA's outrageous dishonesty and some are willing to take violent action based on those lies.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Gideon (December 27, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
                   
                I think you seriously underestimate the NRA membership. For the most part, they are great folks, and you will find, if you cared to look, that they are some of the smartest, best educated people on our planet. Ask your doctor the next time you visit him if he is NRA.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by danielsangeo (December 27, 2011 12:17 pm ET)
              14 1
              It actually DOES cost us, dave.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (December 27, 2011 12:45 pm ET)
              15 1
              You don't think the gun manufacturers pass the cost on to consumers, Dave ?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (December 27, 2011 1:06 pm ET)
                15 1
                Nor do they sell their wares to government military and law enforcement that are paid for with tapayer moneys....which in turn are handed off to the NRA lobbyists and funding for paranoid misinformation campaigns.
                A binary brain can only connect two dots per calculation.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (December 27, 2011 4:05 pm ET)
                  12 1
                  Good points, aBeck. Even if I don't buy any guns, I pay for them. Dave sure is wrong a lot.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (December 28, 2011 3:18 am ET)
                    9 1
                    It all boils down to selective application of reality to specific situations, doesn't it? In this case, it is the nature of money as a fungible commodity.

                    Folks like Dave will argue that collected taxes are not paid directly to the NRA to support its agenda.

                    On the other hand, he would be perfectly willing to diagram the serpentine route of his tax dollars in circumventing the Hyde Amendment and several other legislated firewalls to finally arrive in the pockets of abortion doctors.

                    Then he will also tell us how untaxed donations that support MMFA somehow came out of HIS pocket.

                    Of course the post script is always how my nonfunctional liberal brain is incapable of understanding how the binary brain's conclusions are reached.



                    Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (December 27, 2011 3:02 pm ET)
                10 1
                Andy

                What can you say to someone so utterly alien to the very CONCEPT of morality that the idea a group lies to its sheeple to fleece them for money brings astonishment from dave that anyone could POSSIBLY care about immoral behavior. What do YOU care it doesnt cost YOU any money. The very concept that someone might care about someone else being wronged doesnt even register to the sociopath dave
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (December 27, 2011 4:06 pm ET)
                  9 2
                  The modern right wing ideology has that appeal to the toddler and sociopath in people. If they don't see any immediate negative effect to them, it's OK.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by danielsangeo (December 27, 2011 9:49 pm ET)
                    8 2
                    I think of their view of the country as a toddler views their parents. They love their parents with all their heart and feel they can do no wrong and any criticism whatsoever is seen as a hateful attack.

                    Meanwhile, the current left (which is actually the middle) views the country as someone views their spouse. They love their spouse with all their heart and want to help them when they are having problems and doing wrong.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (December 27, 2011 9:55 pm ET)
                      8 1
                      I think Al Franken said something like that a while back. It's an excellent analogy.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Jeremy Danials (December 28, 2011 12:30 am ET)
                        6 1
                        It was in his book Lies, And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 12:33 am ET)
                          6 1
                          Probably; I've heard the comparison used several times in multiple venues without credit and I liked the analogy.

                          I apologize if it was something Al Franken published; I didn't know.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by 17andLiberal (December 27, 2011 11:14 pm ET)
                      8 2
                      Go a little further right, and people start seeing the country/government like a rebellious teenager sees their parents. They expect comfort, support and protection, with none of the rules or limitations those things come with.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by syrabell (December 27, 2011 1:21 pm ET)
              11 1
              Yes it does. It causes things like Columbine and fuels the ideology of people like McVeigh. It takes money from people that can least afford to lose it and leads to poverty and the dependence on Government assistance and Social charities.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (December 27, 2011 2:59 pm ET)
              10 2
              dave

              I understand that constant LYING is not a problem for you. That you hate truth and reality. That you love to tell lies and be lied to but most people find charlatans that fleece good hearted people with lies to be repulsive. Probably just ONE of the reasons you will never be within smelling distance of healthy distaff human being
              Report Abuse
            • Author by liberalXtian (December 27, 2011 7:24 pm ET)
              9 2
              Why does it matter? It cost you nothing.



              It cost a lot to those who are victims of gun violence and their families. That 3 year old who shot and killed a 5 year old yesterday may have cost you nothing, Dave, but as a human being it should cost us all in more than just money. I am also sure that not every gun victim brought to the ER has health insurance. Who pays those medical (and funeral) bills?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Adendrools (December 28, 2011 2:15 pm ET)
              5 1
              Dim wrote: Why does it matter? It cost you nothing.


              Seriously? the right they use this delusional propaganda to protect, happens to KILL people every day in this country you buffoon.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by danielsangeo (December 27, 2011 12:09 pm ET)
          11  
          So, no donations come from people in government or other taxpayers?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by cst (December 27, 2011 12:17 pm ET)
          13  
          [To sustain its $200-million-plus annual budget...}

          WOW, that's a LOT of money. Somebody's getting rich fleecing the flock.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by xlrrp173 (December 27, 2011 3:56 pm ET)
            10  
            Makes me wonder what Mr. LaPierre (sounds kind of French surrender monkey to me) pull down a year.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by heehee..santorum (December 27, 2011 1:19 pm ET)
          8  
          I can see some instances in my country when staying strapped for personal reasons needs to be PROPERLY defended, but I don't need screwball LaPierre to make sh!t up....Your text to link here...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (December 27, 2011 2:57 pm ET)
          9 3
          dave



          You are seriously one mentally disturbed, ethically repugnant, morally retarded subhuman moron
          Report Abuse
        • Author by GERATMO (December 27, 2011 4:30 pm ET)
             
          Im glad there are some sane people on this site. First time I have been here.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by datruthfarmer (December 27, 2011 6:18 pm ET)
          8  
          Not one cent?

          The NRA benefits from Taxpayer money every chance it gets.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bar2 (December 27, 2011 9:58 pm ET)
          6  
          And just where do you suppose that much of that $200-million ends up? Hmmm, perhaps in the pockets of government officials! Yes, it does matter.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Nihilist (December 27, 2011 10:52 pm ET)
          7  
          the NRA burns thru 200meg a year to do what? lobby so you can buy a 50cal semi? NO ONE needs a 50cal, except to blow up buildings and armored vehicles....yet in good ol boy texas, you can go to a NRA sanctioned gun show and buy all kinds of stuff by the truck load, without a BG check. no one needs a glock with a 30 round clip. and you dont duck hunt with a 44mag.


          Report Abuse
    • Author by PeterM (December 27, 2011 11:57 am ET)
         
      Imagine what would happen it the Brady Center and other gun control groups admitted that they are not interested in "gun safety" (have you ever seen them offer or advocate for a gun safety class) but rather want to make it has difficult as possible for anyone -- criminal and law abiding alike -- to purchase a firearm. Maybe if they stopped the spin and lies it would be possible to have a rational conversation on the subject of guns. Yes, the NRA is an alarmist fund raising machine, but they happen to be largely correct about the true goals of gun control organizations. Just ask Sarah "Obama promised me to pursue gun control under the radar" Brady.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (December 27, 2011 12:40 pm ET)
        15 2
        Good thing Mr. Obama's evil plans won't... ummm... float water.

        The fundraising call is just ridiculous-

        Hillary Clinton has teamed up with countries like North Korea, Iran and Cuba


        WTF can listen to crap like this with a straight face? I got a Robocall once asking if I supported "Nancy Pelosi's government takeover of our healthcare", and I thought that was funny. They're ratcheting up the crazy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by montanabuddha (December 27, 2011 1:01 pm ET)
          8  
          Good thing Mr. Obama's evil plans won't... ummm... float water.


          Ya...it was such a good phrase he used it twice.

          Mull over this one..it made my brain sore....;

          "And why hasn't someone pointed out to him that spending money appropriated for one purpose on another purpose he came up with himself is a felony? Who issues these checks, and why don't they know?"
          Report Abuse
        • Author by syrabell (December 27, 2011 1:17 pm ET)
          13  
          I got that call and I said yes. I like Medicare and the VA and want healthcare just like congress gets.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (December 28, 2011 12:16 am ET)
        5 1
        It truly gets comedic but it is so stupidly tragic to hear that swill. But, I know that is exactly the derangement syndrome folks have about our President and they push all this crap about him and it has no basis in fact. I am a life long Republican but that does not require me to check my brain to be able to promote this anti Obama derangement. I have to have a giggle about their ignorance or I would break down in tears!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by X22 (December 27, 2011 12:43 pm ET)
         
      Sadly enough I have a friend who believed all that NRA conspiracies. I don't think he even voted in the last presidential election but he was sure that Obama was going to take his guns away. I tried to set him staight but I'm sure he realizes now that Obama isn't after his guns. He went out and bought another handgun that he didn't really need but it was a good deal. So I bought myself one also. Thanks NRA for great sale prices when your fear mongering creates paranoid people.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donwelty (December 27, 2011 1:40 pm ET)
      14 1
      Does the NRA know that to take guns away would require a constitutional amendment?

      There are some minor restrictions that local governments have enacted, but a major change will not happen.

      I have lived in Tokyo, Japan, where there are no guns except for the gangsters, and it is one of the safest places on earth.

      It would be ridiculous to claim that if we take away all of the guns in America that the cities would be as safe as those of Japan, but it would be a good starting point. However, even without the NRA to oppose any limitations on guns of any kind, an amendment probably would not pass.

      This stance by the NRA is paranoid. They are apparently demonizing the president by attributing powers to him that he does not have so that NRA people can be more fearful and cling more closely to a cult-like organization. Why don't they just come out with some racist comment?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Boswell (December 27, 2011 2:23 pm ET)
        7  
        but you can't raise $200 million a year calling them "minor restrictions"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by xlrrp173 (December 27, 2011 4:00 pm ET)
        6 1
        Why don't they just come out with some racist comment?


        Give them time. 2012 election is right around the corner. Give them time.


        Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (December 27, 2011 2:13 pm ET)
      8 2
      Isn't it time a few politicians and "pundints"(sic) got stuck into the NRA as a subversive organisation that has promoted a perverse view of the 2nd Amendment in order to further their own interests whilst sowing dissension, fear and loathing amongst the nation to sustain their money and power.

      They must be called for the loony tunes, neo-fascist, vigilante organisation bordering on the paramilitary in its outlook, that they are. Put simply, the greedy megalomaniacs that run that shower are a menace to civil society.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne1 (December 27, 2011 5:08 pm ET)
        9 3
        I wasn't sure if your (sic) after the word pundit was because pundits are supposed to be learned individuals and one sees so few pundits that could actually be categorized as such. OR if it was just the play on the word that you purposely misspelled to indicate that they don't do their jobs?

        But then I realized it was probably both. ;-)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grmce (December 27, 2011 9:31 pm ET)
          9 2
          I was also having a go at people who, as they make their living using the English language, should know better than to habitually stick nonexistent sounds into word for no apparent reason than, it seems, than ignorance born of laziness i.e. "pundint", "nuculah"(a cot-case of phonic atrocities) and "burgular".

          I also get sick to death with dopey malapropisms. Sometimes my television or radio sounds like it's being scripted by Sheridan.

          One of my particular peeves is people who complain about how hard it is to hoe a road. Well I suppose it should be, particularly if said road is bituminised. As for those people who keep something of sentimental value for a "momento", I can only assume that they are suffering from a peculiar form of Italian attention deficit disorder.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by grmce (December 27, 2011 9:37 pm ET)
            7 1
            Oops, redundant "than" in first sentence - the pedants' curse strikes again. Maybe I should do what my old maths teacher did and pre-announce deliberate errors and then claim the accidental ones.

            I guess there is no substitute for "fresh eyes" when it comes to subbing.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (December 28, 2011 11:38 am ET)
            9 1
            grmce, I saw your "pundint" earlier and had a good laugh. That one really bugs me, I hear it all the time.

            I cringe when people add an extra syllable to a perfectly complete word, to make it mean the opposite of what they intended ( irregardless).

            "Begging the question" is almost a lost cause, it's used by everybody in the media to mean "prompting a question", instead of the logical fallacy.

            Maybe the reason "pundint" gets under my skin is that it's abused by people whose job description is pundit. Shouldn't they know better?

            Then again, I've known people who sold houses and called themselves " realitors", and masons who described what they do as masonary.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by danielsangeo (December 29, 2011 12:30 pm ET)
              1  
              So, would you go nucular on someone that visits the libary in Febuary? ;)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (December 29, 2011 1:14 pm ET)
                1  
                I would cringe and reel if they followed that with irregardless then asked where I was going TO...I would be down for the count. I dont have the best grammer and am among the worlds worst typists but those things just put me in a coma
                Report Abuse
    • Author by altsoba (December 27, 2011 7:46 pm ET)
      2 14
      Obama has a history that supports many of the claims by the NRA.

      NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"
      S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 which sought to "expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition."

      Obama supported this amendment that could have been interpreted to include many types of rifle ammo used for hunting as armor piercing.

      NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns"
      Obama claims that his campaign manager answered yes to a question on the survey by mistake and Obama sent in a written signed letter clarifying his position on this. He did so after it grabbed media attention and we know that Obama NEVER tells the media what they want us to hear but does the opposite just as he did with many promises he made that helped get him elected.

      NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm"
      Obama indeed has spoken in favor of licensing guns. He also said a national gun registration law isn't politically possible: "I just don't think we can get that done." He knew it was political suicide to attempt this and that he did not have support to pass such laws but if the support had been their I believe he would have tried to get such laws passes. These laws have no affect on criminals because they would never obey such laws and this would put unneeded burden on law abiding gun owners.

      NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"
      In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for Senate, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms.

      NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms"
      Obama called the ban a "common sense gun law" and favors bringing it back on a permanent basis. Obama's "Urban Policy" fact sheet says he "supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

      NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent"
      This claim is based on an article that appeared in the Chicago Defender on Dec. 13, 1999, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate. According to the Defender, at an anti-gun rally, Obama "outlined his anti-gun plan," which, among other things, sought to "increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearms and ammunition.

      NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America"
      This claim also is based on the 1999 Defender article. It reported Obama was pushing "all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park." The NRA states that the 5-mile limit would have resulted in the closing of 90 percent of gun shops in the country.

      Many of the NRA claims that MMFA are ranting about have not been instituted because Obama does not have the support to pass these laws but has made it clear that he supports doing so. Obama also knows that if he seeks a second term he cannot attempt to pass such laws or it would end any chances he might have of re-election but if he is re-elected he will have no such limitations and he could start making good on many of his beliefs.
      Also Obama picked Eric Holder as AG and he was the architect behind the Clinton gun ban and has also said he would like to see it a permanent law. Then look at Obama's two picks for Supreme Court judges they are both very anti-gun.

      Bottom line is Obama has fueled many of the claims the NRA is making by his own words and actions.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (December 27, 2011 8:19 pm ET)
        15 1
        "Obama supported... Obama indeed has spoken in favor of... Obama indeed called for... Obama 'outlined his anti-gun plan'... Obama was pushing"

        "Bottom line is Obama has fueled many of the claims the NRA is making by his own words and actions."
        WHAT ACTIONS???? What has Obama actually DONE with regard to guns? He's been in office for nearly three years, and the real bottom line is that business has never been better for the gun industry.

        More fear = more guns and ammo purchased = more donations to the NRA.

        Obama, the NRA and the gun industry constitute a fear-fueled, money-generating symbiosis.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (December 27, 2011 8:54 pm ET)
          7 1
          We can go back farther than the three years he's been President. He's held political office now for seven years. In that time he hasn't taken one single step toward enacting even the mildest forms of gun control. The NRA is engaging in groundless fear-mongering, plain and simple.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ScienceBuff (December 27, 2011 8:57 pm ET)
            10 1
            Actually, I should say fifteen years including his time in the Illinois Congress. That's a long time to not act on gun control if that's what he wanted to do.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by altsoba (December 27, 2011 10:45 pm ET)
                12
              What you want and what you can actually accomplish are two diffrent things. Just because he hasn't tried to bring stronger gun restrictions into law doesn't mean he wouldn't like to. He has been in the minority on this subject and is the only thing that has stopped people like him.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (December 27, 2011 10:55 pm ET)
                10  
                So why does it concern you? Can't people hold opposite opinions?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (December 27, 2011 10:57 pm ET)
                10 1
                You'd think he could get some support when Democrats had control of Congress, wouldn't you? What else could he possibly be waiting for?

                Besides, I believe you did use the word "actions" above, which is not the same as your assertion of his intentions.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by 17andLiberal (December 27, 2011 11:51 pm ET)
                13  
                What you want and what you can actually accomplish are two diffrent things. Just because he hasn't...doesn't mean he wouldn't like to.

                Exactly! Obama wants to do all these things, even though he's not actually trying to. The reason he's not actually trying to is because he can't accomplish them regardless. He can't accomplish them because the majority is against him. So THAT'S why the NRA is right and we should be afraid! Because Obama isn't trying to do the things that he can't do anyway because his side has no support!

                This is why I've founded the National Protection Association. You see, there are all these bad guys in prison. Everyone knows they all want to commit more crimes, they just can't accomplish it. But if you donate to my organization, together we can fight the inaction of these people who aren't making any progress toward doing anything to harm us!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 12:15 am ET)
                12 1
                alt

                In other words you are resorting to MIND reading to tell us what he WANTS to do since you cannot point to a single thing he has ever TRIED to do. Good job being the mindless, brainwashed minion of ignorance you have been since your first post here
                Report Abuse
                • Author by altsoba (December 28, 2011 1:51 am ET)
                  2 5
                  kab

                  Nice to hear from you again.
                  I hope you had a Merry Christmas.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 2:54 am ET)
                    8  
                    alt

                    I did indeed though I had to work on Xmas eve, day and the day after. That happens sometimes. I hope you also had a merry Christmas
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 11:08 am ET)
                      9  
                      kab: That can't be true! Libs would rather sit on their posteriors collecting free money from the government than work! That's what people on the right tell me!
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 12:14 pm ET)
                      6  
                      My gentle giant has had only 4 days off so far this month and had to work the holiday too. But then he works in TV, so what can you do. It's on 24/7 and someone has to be responsible for the programming.
                      Report Abuse
        • Author by altsoba (December 27, 2011 10:35 pm ET)
          5  
          The war on terror is a fear-fueled, money-generating symbiosis.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 12:16 am ET)
            5  
            Well I dont disagree with that
            Report Abuse
          • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 12:24 am ET)
            6  
            I'm glad that Obama is actively working to end it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by altsoba (December 28, 2011 2:02 am ET)
              1 8
              Sorry to burst your bubble but he is not ending it he is only pulling most of the troops from Iraq, which is a good thing but he is still bombing the he!! out of other countries with drones and beating the war drum with Syria and Iran.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 2:07 am ET)
                7  
                [citation needed]
                Report Abuse
              • Author by 17andLiberal (December 28, 2011 3:13 am ET)
                8  
                Please elaborate on which countries we are currently "bombing the hell out of" and how exactly we are "beating the war drum" with Syria and Iran so that I may debunk your claims more specifically at your earliest convenience. Thanks.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by altsoba (December 29, 2011 2:25 am ET)
                    3
                  Well if you are unaware of who we are bombing with drones and do not see how the government is beating the war drum with Iran than you really are a very uninformed person.

                  We are currently using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somilia. Look into the Human Rights Watch, they have petitioned the government over the innocent deaths and abuse of the drone attacks.

                  Here are some links for the war drums against Iran. This is really an easy subject to reasearch because a lot of people are seeing the parallels between the lead up to Iraq and now they hype over Iran.

                  Your text to link here...

                  Your text to link here...

                  Your text to link here...

                  Your text to link here...

                  Please debunk at your earliest convenience. If you can.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by cripto9t709 (December 29, 2011 11:35 am ET)
                    2  
                    The same liars that lied about Iraq are lying about Iran. You're right, they've been doing it for years, it didn't just start. But a couple of vague statements from the SOD and a General don't equate to drum beating.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by Johaely (December 27, 2011 8:21 pm ET)
        10  
        You guys love your car analogy,, but why is it that you guys always vehemently oppose treating guns like cars?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by notsure5 (December 28, 2011 5:58 pm ET)
             
          Probably because the car industry is much more heavily regulated than the gun industry.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (December 27, 2011 9:03 pm ET)
        10 1
        [Gun registration] laws have no affect on criminals because they would never obey such laws and this would put unneeded burden on law abiding gun owners. - altsoba
        I'm curious. Do you favor Voter ID laws that would put unneeded burden on law abiding voters and would have no effect on voter fraud (which is almost nonexistent)? I'm sure you're consistent on the principles involved, aren't you?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grmce (December 27, 2011 10:02 pm ET)
          9 1
          I do find it bizarre that there is a movement within the U.S. to make it more difficult to vote than to possess a weapon that is solely designed to kill.

          What is the fundamental difference between the rabid rants of the gun nuts and those of Theodore Kaczynski? They seem equally dystopian in their view of society.

          As a matter of interest, which had the greater death toll? Kaczynski's reign of bombing terror or the continual stream of death, maiming and sorrow caused by firearms that are tragically to hand when someone "does their nut", let alone improperly stored weapons and ammunition getting into the hands of minors (as a matter of courtesy I'll leave out the dumb accidents that occur amongst "hunters").

          I put it that the gun lobby and its fellow travellers are not only more dangerous than the Unabomber but pose a greater danger than all of the acts terrorism that have been perpetrated in the U.S.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by altsoba (December 27, 2011 11:06 pm ET)
              13
            I do find it bizarre that there is a movement within the U.S. to make it more difficult to vote than to possess a weapon that is solely designed to kill.

            Sorry to burst your ignorant bubble genius but asking someone to show a drivers license to vote is not like having to show your drivers license and submit to a background check at minumim and some states require special license to purchase and own firearms.

            Besides we vote for polititions that are supposed to serve the American people but instead serve the large corporations and offshore banks that have them in their back pockets. Also how many innocent people have been murdered by Bush and Obama with the unconstitutional wars and the bombing with drones.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by 17andLiberal (December 28, 2011 12:02 am ET)
              14 1
              Sorry to burst YOUR ignorant bubble, but giving someone the right to vote is not like giving someone ownership of a product solely designed to maim and/or kill. One of these things is a hell of a lot more dangerous in the wrong hands, and should be a hell of a lot harder to get as a result.

              If you have a problem with submitting to a background check, I frankly don't want you owning a gun. People go through more strenuous requirements for babysitting gigs. Saying gun regulations are pointless because criminals won't follow them is like saying we don't need to outlaw muder, because murderers won't listen.

              Also, how many innocent people have been murdered by people who should not have been allowed to own a firearm, thanks to gun show loopholes and NRA lobbying?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 12:04 am ET)
              7  
              There is no need for someone to have to show a driver's license to vote.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 12:18 am ET)
              5  
              alt

              Sorry to inform you but you are FAR too stupid to be calling someone else ignorant. You are the epitome of ignorance. You are ignorance personified. And you are a LIAR with your constant claims about what YOU think is unconstitutional. You are far too stupid to understand the constitution or tell us anything about it
              Report Abuse
            • Author by grmce (December 28, 2011 2:33 am ET)
              8  
              News flash alt! Not everyone has a drivers' license. Not everyone needs a drivers' license.

              I live in a country where voting is not a right - it is a legal obligation. Being a secret ballot - something we did first - the actual selecting of a candidate is a matter between the voter's conscience and the ballot box (there is always a number of informal votes, some of which are mistakes and some of which are deliberate). As voting is a legal obligation for all eligible residents it is also an obligation of the Electoral Commission to assist all those eligible to vote to do so. Voter suppression is not our national sport as it seems to be amongst U.S. Conservatives.

              Australian election campaigns are focussed on getting people to vote for a particular party/candidate. We know they are going to fill out a ballot paper, we just need to convince them to support us.

              We also have sensible firearms control which, although not perfect, reduces the threat to ordinary citizens.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 11:14 am ET)
                9  
                It's true that a lot of people don't have driver's licenses. My in-laws in Chicago are some that don't. My MIL didn't drive and my SIL doesn't drive. My friend in Fort Worth has to drive his Mom to the race track, because she doesn't drive. There are people all over, for whatever reason, who don't drive.

                Now this is unfathomable to me. I grew up in the country and driving was a must to get anywhere. But city dwellers and folks that perhaps can't afford a vehicle and all the the attendent costs may not drive.

                Does not having a DL mean you're not qualified to vote? Or that you're less of an American? Yeesh...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 11:22 am ET)
                  9  
                  I don't have a driver's license.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 11:39 am ET)
                    8  
                    Well, let's lock you up in the for-profit prison system for THAT offense. ;-)

                    May I be so nibby to ask why? Just curious. But if you prefer not to answer, no prob.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 11:48 am ET)
                      8  
                      It's a bit embarrassing, but earlier in life, I had this recurring nightmare about driving and losing control of the car and the car going off a bridge or suddenly accelerating into a traffic jam of cars or landing in a huge pool of wet cement trapping me in the car as the cement hardened around me. For the longest time, it made me irrationally petrified of driving. I never got a license as a result and took mass transit, walked, or biked everywhere.

                      I'm working to get over this irrational fear and I hope to work on getting a license soon, but it's tough. I sometimes still have the nightmare.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 12:10 pm ET)
                        8  
                        My step daughter, who's 29, drives, but she won't take the highway, only side roads. She has some fear of crowds as well.

                        Otherwise she's a highly functioning person.

                        The beauty part of what you do is that it's more ecologically friendly! Hey, you're part of the new trend in "degrowth" economics that may save the planet and the economy! I'll call you a "difference maker"! <---Stole that from Colbert, ha!
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (December 28, 2011 11:40 am ET)
                  7  
                  At least for New York City, driving is only a necessity if you have to be on the move constantly. Here whatever is not at walking distance is just a train or bus away. I personally haven't gotten my driver's license either.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by yoiksaway (December 28, 2011 11:23 am ET)
              4  
              "we vote for polititions.."--altsoba

              Do you have any updates on Building #7?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by altsoba (December 28, 2011 1:59 pm ET)
                  4
                Yes it was taken down by DEMOLITION not from the planes that hit buildings 1 & 2 only a complete moron would believe that.

                I hope you are not stupid enough to believe what the Bush administration said happened but you probably are.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (December 28, 2011 2:22 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Yes a complete moron would say it was taken down by the airplanes. The building was destroyed by a fire caused by the debris. Seriously, what would be the point in demolishing it (aside from to prevent collapse). WTC 1 & 2 would have provided enough fuel for the NWO conspiracies.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by altsoba (December 29, 2011 2:42 am ET)
                      2
                    Well the building had minor structural damage and their has NEVER been a building of that size and construction brought down by fire.

                    I am an engineer and I understand strengths of material and the effects of heat and office furniture and interior walls would never give off enough heat to collapse the building especially at free fall speed and perfectly into its footprint. Have you ever watched the videos of it collapsing? Are you that stupid to think it would collapse at free fall speed and perfectly into its footprint without the aid of explosives.

                    If you do than that is beyond stupid that is willfully stupid because common sense should tell you that if it was structural damage and fire the building would have collapsed much slower and not all at once perfectly into its footprint. This is the reason the Bush administration got by with their lies, many American people have become stupid and gullible.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by danielsangeo (December 29, 2011 12:24 pm ET)
                         
                      Minor structural damage.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by altsoba (December 29, 2011 2:06 pm ET)
                           
                        Have you ever watch the video of the collapse of building 7?

                        It would have never collapsed like it did from the damage and fires and only a complete moron would believe it did. Also their we're several NY fire fighters that came out and publicly said ther heard multiple explosions when the building fell. The building would not have fallen as neatly as it did by the fires and damage and many engineers have stated this. People like you are the reason our corrupt government is getting by with the lies the push through the media they control. You are a very foolish and illinformed person.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by danielsangeo (December 29, 2011 2:14 pm ET)
                             
                          Yes, I've watched the collapse of building 7 both live and in video format. Thanks.

                          Also, please provide evidence for your assertions.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by altsoba (December 29, 2011 2:55 pm ET)
                               
                            The most obvious evidence is the videos of the collapse and some commen sense. It is not possible for the building to collapse in the manner it did from the structural damage and fire and yes it did collapse at free fall speed so that proves you are not capable of understanding the evidence that the videos provide.

                            Since you are not capable of thinking for yourself here are some links to creditable evidence that the building did not collapse on it's own.

                            Your text to link here...

                            Your text to link here...

                            Your text to link here...

                            If you believe the governments story you are a foolish sheep because many experts dispute the official story which is absolutely a lie.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by danielsangeo (December 29, 2011 3:07 pm ET)
                                 
                              I don't believe a story because it comes from government. I believe it because of the facts.

                              Your first link begins with a lie: "For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time." No, it doesn't. The "load bearing supports" failed because of the massive weight of 40 stories of building on top of it.

                              7WTC collapsed NOT in free-fall time but it took about 18 seconds. 7WTC was weakened by the SEVERE internal fires (in contrast to the claim that there were only a few small fires). 7WTC fell backwards and to the SE just as physics says it would. And pieces of debris from 7WTC landed on top of a building across Barclay Street. 7WTC did not fall symmetrically into its own footprint. All four links you've provided are not telling the truth. If you believe these sites unquestioning, you are a foolish sheep. I can't find a single expert that claims otherwise.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by danielsangeo (December 29, 2011 3:12 pm ET)
                                 
                              By the way! Here's PROOF that we didn't land on the moon!

                              Your text to link here...

                              Your text to link here...

                              Your text to link here...
                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by danielsangeo (December 29, 2011 12:27 pm ET)
                         
                      By the way, the buildings did NOT collapse at free fall speed perfectly into their own footprint. The collapse of the WTC towers seriously damaged building 7. But the towers did pancake downwards...just as physics said it would.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by highlyunlikely (December 28, 2011 6:15 pm ET)
                  6 1
                  this one, as demonstrated in nearly every comment, has a serious intellect complex.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by heehee..santorum (December 27, 2011 9:05 pm ET)
        5  
        That naughty Barack, you ALWAYS want the gun zombies on your side!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by 17andLiberal (December 27, 2011 11:41 pm ET)
        8  
        ...Obama supported this amendment that could have been interpreted...

        Obama sent in a written signed letter clarifying his position on this... [but your paranoia tells you] Obama NEVER tells the media what they want us to hear...
        I believe he would have tried to get such laws passes...

        This claim is based on an article that appeared in...1999...

        According to the Defender...
        This claim also is based on the 1999 Defender article. It reported...
        Note how you give the NRA the courtesy of direct quoting, while everything you attribute to Obama is coming from your interpretation of what the NRA told you, your personal beliefs/paranoia, or a decade old newpaper article.

        You also conveniently ignore that Obama has taken literally NO action to significantly change gun control policy, despite the Democrats having had Congressional control and despite having had politically convenient opportunities to do so.

        You can't help but look at the realities of Obama's gun policy, and realize it is nowhere near the big scary government intrusion to take your guns and put you in camps run jointly by the "team" of Clinton, N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Yet somehow you still say "but we all know that's what he REALLY wants to do".

        I'm pretty sure that's textbook paranoia.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 12:13 am ET)
        6  
        alt

        Once again you spew a bunch of nonsense already debunked HERE. You are pathetic and you are brainwashed and you NEVER have even a dim clue what you are talking about. The bottom line is what the others have said. He has done NOTHING to try to curb gun ownership. NOTHING. That YOU were easily brainwashed by liars is not a suprise to anyone. You think exclusviely what you were told to think. I pity you

        And NO, you are a LIAR, Obama has DONE nothing to fuel such idiocy. You are just spewing NRA propaganda. Gun rights have actually expanded since Obama took office you moron
        Report Abuse
        • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 12:39 am ET)
          6  
          Let's not forget that what Obama has done regarding guns rights is EXPANDED them.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Psycho3D (December 28, 2011 12:59 pm ET)
      4 1
      Absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but y'all might find this interesting.

      The Blaze has a story up about MMFA being mentioned in a Girl Scouts book dealing with Media, lies and misinformation.

      Here is the Link

      Since I saw no story on this here yet, I really had no where else to post it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by altsoba (December 28, 2011 2:21 pm ET)
        3 9
        Ah yes MMFA and Snopes are the only sites you should get the truth from, or should I say the liberal truth, which is not nessicilary the real truth.

        The Girl Scouts should not be promoting any sources for the girls to turn to for their media source they should be teaching them that they must think for thenselves and reasearch what the read from any web site or the main stream media.

        The problem with liberals is they portray Fox News as the only news media that lies and exaggerates news stories but the truth is all main stream media do this. MSNBC and NBC are just as bad as Fox but you do not see MMFA going after them like they do Fox and that is because most of the other main stream media outlets have a left leaning agenda that MMFA supports but is not nessicilary supported by many Americans and Fox has a right leaning agenda that MMFA despises.

        My point is the Girl Scouts should not be pushing their sources for accurate news that is something that every individual should decide for themselves otherwise it is indoctrination of young minds.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 2:39 pm ET)
          8 3
          Bottom line is that the whole of the corporate media is slanted in favor of big money and corproate plutocrats. Fox IS just the worst offender by far.

          If you want to find "liberal bias" (aka the truth) anywhere, get a subscription to "The Nation" or "Mother Jones". Tune into Bill Moyer's new program that starts in Janurary.

          Sister or brudder, you've got nada, zip, zero, squat and bupkis to complain about regarding liberal bias. Get real and take the blinders off.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 3:27 pm ET)
          5 3
          alt

          You are a LIAR. Truth is truth. You are just too stupid to know what the word means and have this delusion that truth means whatever you were TOLD to think. Your snide comment about liberal truth shows only that you are a brainwashed moron.

          It is hilarious to read someone as completely brainwashed as you are talking about someone thinking for themselves. Since MMFA backs up all the things they post this is a very decent site to do research IF what you are researching is conservative media misinformation.

          You are a LIAR. Mostly because you are so stupid and so brainwashed. Most of the media does NOT lean left. That is just the lie you like and were told to think. There is very little left leaning media. For the most part media doesnt lean left or right, besides FOX which is an outright propaganda arm for the right. For the most part it has a business bias. If you werent such a moron you would know that on policy issues Americans overall lean toward more left than right policies. If you read Pew polling which has been polling on policy issues since the sixties when you take religious issues out of the mix we poll about like Finnland and have consistantly for decades. Almost 70% want a single payer health insurance. What left leaning media put THAT out there?

          My point is you are too stupid and too brainwashed to tell the Girl Scouts what they should do.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by altsoba (December 28, 2011 7:22 pm ET)
            4 7
            And just what did I lie about?

            MMFA does lean left and MSNBC is absolutely a left leaning news media. MSNBC was also absolutely doing everything they could to get Obama elected.

            Also just because MMFA links to some of their sources does not mean that all of their sources are creditable. Many of their sources are left leaning and their evidence of media misinformation is sometime still someones opinion without actual evidence.

            Psycho3D asked a good question and that is if the Girl Scouts listed The Blaze as a source for news would you be outraged by this? I believe the answer is yes. I would not want them to list The Blaze either because it is not what the Girl Scouts is supposed to be about. The girls do not join the Girl Scouts to be told where to get their news so NO source should have been mentioned in the book and I do not believe the Girl Scouts should be giving books to the girls about media at all.

            So please tell me what I lied about? I consider MMFA and MSNBC to be left leaning and that is my opinion and I am not alone in this opinion so how is this a lie when evidence shows otherwise?

            You also call me brainwashed and that I only think what I am told to think but that is not possible because we all read and watch the content we process in our minds so what makes you so brilliantly smart that you just know all this information without ever reading or watching anything to shape your opinion?

            I have decided to no longer stoop to your level and start calling you names because I do not give your responses any credibility. They are mostly just childish rants with no proof or substance just your OPIOION. A opinion that you came to by reading and watching content just like the rest of us.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 9:23 pm ET)
              5 3
              alt

              THIS

              or should I say the liberal truth, which is not nessicilary the real truth


              Is a lie. You are a liar. You are just being an obnoxious jerk

              THIS

              MSNBC is absolutely a left leaning news media. MSNBC was also absolutely doing everything they could to get Obama elected


              Is both a LIE and nonsense. The term lean left is so vague and subjective as to mean nothing. Your FIRST claim was they are as bad as FOX, which of course was another in your ongoing string of lies. They are NOT liberal in the way FOX is conservative. I am a liberal and MSNBC doesnt push my point of view. This is just another bit of stupid you were TOLD to think.

              You have become a pathetic moron blah blah liberal blah blah left. You are stupid. You are brainwashed and ignorant. Just because you SAY something leans left doesnt mean it is so. It just means that is what you were TOLD to think. You just dont want to accept anything that hasnt been programmed into you by those who do your thinking for you.

              I dont care WHAT you believe. You are stupid and brainwashed and believe what you are told. I answered his question. The Blaze is a propaganda site and Beck is a complete psychotic moron and liar. In that he is a lot like you. They do NOT back up their sources. You just want to regurgitate the same false equivalence that the blaze is the same as MMFA. It isnt stop being such a moron.I already told you that I dont CARE what a brainwashed moron like you thinks and that you are FAR too stupid to be advising the Girl Scouts about anything

              I already showed where you lied. MSNBC doesnt lean left in the way FOX leans right and that is the claim you made and it is a lie. Only the stupidest and most brainwashed morons on the planet beleive it does. MSNBC did NOT do everything they could to get Obama elected that is another lie. The evidence shows no such thing that is just one more lie. Basically you are just a liar.

              You spew nothing but talking points. Stupid, long ago debunked talking points along with somewhat newer ones. The fact you are too STUPID to know how brainwashed you are doesnt really change factual reality. Your spew about the liberal media and MSNBC being as bad as FOX is pure brainwashing. It is far too ridiculous to be taken seriously or come to as a rational opinion. Brainwashing is the only answer. How many times have I heard MSNBC worked to get Obama elected. An outright lie and ignorant to boot. Only brainwahed morons like say YOU keep saying it.

              WWWWWAHHHHH. You are a punk. You say rude and insulting things about the left all the time including your post above. Do you really think that BULL about liberal truth isnt really the truth was meant to foster a discussion? It was an insult. A childish and ignorant poke at us so spare me the snivelling about the punk you are that I dont treat YOU with respect. When you actually discuss something and stop telling us what we want, what we think, or push your rude mischaracterizations of us. Stop just spewing out the ignorant talking points I have heard dozens of times then pretending that you thought them up yourself I will give you a rational non hostile response. As of now you are just a punk troll and that is how I treat you.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by altsoba (December 29, 2011 3:19 am ET)
                3 6
                You haven't proven anything to be a lie because again just because you SAY it is a lie dose not make it true especially when their is evidence to support my claim but you offer no evidence to support yours.

                Your text to link here...

                MSNBC does lean left and even Chris admitted this and YES they did help get Obama elected.

                You say these are lies because that is what you are TOLD to say but you can't even do a simple google search on the subject that will prove I am not lying but that you are uninformed.

                You also call someone's OPINION a lie but it is not it is an OPINION you just can't seen to get this.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MiniTru (December 29, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
                  2 2
                  Yeah, MSNBC leans so far to the left that they have that well-known liberal hack Joe Scarborough on for three hours every weekday morning.

                  As kab said, You are just an ignorant liar.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by kabniel (December 29, 2011 12:26 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  alt

                  You are STUPID. I guess I have to dumb this down to your submoron level. Just because you have an OPINION doesnt mean it isnt a lie. I can have the OPINION that you molest small furry animals. I can believe that just because you are so stupid and I want to think so. That is the level of your thinking about MSNBC because there is NO POSSIBLE rational reading or evidence this is true. IF I go around telling everyone that you molest small furry animals and dont have a couple of them to wave around and prove my point it is legitimate for you to say I am lying without proving the negative. That is how it works.

                  You are very stupid and very brainwashed if you think MSNBC is as bad left and Fox is right. The very proposition is ludicrous on the face of it. You only think it true because you were told to think it true. There is no such evidence and considering the incredily lame sources you usually use like pajamas media I wont ever bother to click your link. Yes there are propaganda sites out there that say anything. I once ran a across a site about how the Smurfs were a socialist conspiricy. The fact it is good enough to brainwash someone as stupid as you doesnt make it evidence.

                  I dont CARE what Chris said. Tweety is a moron. What would that even mean anyway. That they did EVERYTHING they could to get Obama elected as was your claim or they didnt push the rightwing LIES like EVERY station including MSNBC did with the Swift Boat Liars for Rent thing. That they told the truth and did a good journalistic job could have helped get Obama elected. Your claim is stupid. You have to be monumentally stupid to repeat it. MSNBC did not do everything they could to get Obama elected it is a moronic thing to even say

                  I am NOT lying nor am I uninformed. I have no obligation to prove a negative. That is another logical fallacy. The very sugggestion that a station that employs former GOP Congressman Scarborough and Racist rightwing jerk Buchannon is a far left outfit as bad as Fox is too stupid to even take seriously. I am sorry that you are so stupid you were so easy to brainwash to believe such blatantly ignorant tripe.

                  I already dealt with that bit of stupidity. As Hunter S Thompson said if you are going to call someone a pigf*&er you darn well better have the pig. When you make such baseless assertions that are insulting and frankly too stupid to even take seriously you are a LIAR. If I kept telling everyone you molest small furry animals and had no reason to believe this other than it was my OPINION, you would be quite right to call me a liar. That is what you are doing and hide behind the its my opinion all you want. Since there is no rational reason to have such an opinion then it is MY opinion that you are a LIAR.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by SteevK (December 29, 2011 3:44 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  How could they help Obama get elected? Fox says NOBODY watches MSNBC...

                  Fox & MSNBC on the same level? When's Fox gonna give Barney Frank a 3-hour morning show? Maybe just parity of left/right on panels, instead of their standard 3, 4, or 5 to one RW bias?

                  ..
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by highlyunlikely (December 28, 2011 6:16 pm ET)
          5 2
          SERIOUS intellect complex.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by danielsangeo (December 28, 2011 11:57 pm ET)
          5  
          Can you show me anything that MMFA says is inaccurate? Or do you not like MMFA because they monitor, report, and sometimes correct misinformation coming from conservative media sources?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne1 (December 28, 2011 2:34 pm ET)
        8 5
        Thanks Psycho3D , I just called the Girl Scouts and told them not to bow to pressure from the sycophants at "The Blaze". They seemed pleased to get another viewpoint.

        I see no reason not to include MMFA in their book.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Psycho3D (December 28, 2011 3:47 pm ET)
          3 6
          Question though, would you be offended if they included "the Blaze"? in the same context?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 3:56 pm ET)
            6 3
            psycho.

            Question is the BLAZE a source that links to source material to back up their claims like MMFA does or do they just make unsubstantiated, baseless assertions? You constantly add logical fallacies to your arguments. The fales equivalence is by definition a logical fallacy. You always want to equate things that are not the same
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bluhawk7398 (December 28, 2011 4:49 pm ET)
              3 3
              I would hardly refer to a poll provided by VPC as credible source material....
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 5:06 pm ET)
                5 3
                probably the only source available and unless you can show a mistake in methodology then a poll IS a very credible source for what it is, that is what peoples OPINIONS are. I have also seen however MMFA link to the congressional record, the Labor dept, the CBO and so on. It is pretty much impossible to say they do NOT link to credible source material. That it isnt the ONLY thing they link to is another discussion
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bluhawk7398 (December 28, 2011 5:25 pm ET)
                  3 5
                  Again, it is NOT credible... every time mmfa has a firearms topic, they use MAIG, or VPC or some other gun control group for their polling data, and curiously they never credit the data source in the column. If the data was that credible, why not source it? Otherwise I'm sure they can find a group with a more impartial veiwpoint...I'm certain you wouldn't trust a poll from the NRA, why should I trust one from VPC?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eweston8542983 (December 28, 2011 8:49 pm ET)
                    3 2
                    If an NRA pole was well done, we'd acknowledge it.

                    While most of us are progressive, we will admit relevent infomation from sources on the rightwing. It is rare, but has been duly noted on occasion here.

                    Do you have a problem with VPC work, or is it untrustworthy do to a percieved liberal bias on your part?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (December 28, 2011 9:27 pm ET)
                    4 3
                    AGAIN. If you cannot show a problem with the methodology then your sniping about the source of a POLL means nothing. The viewpoint of the people who CONTRACT a poll has nothing to do with how impartial the POLL was. Either show problems with the methodology or you are just making noise and not valid arguments
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (December 30, 2011 2:29 am ET)
          2  
          Looks like some of the sychophants from "teh blaze" didn't like that their hissy fit caused some to contact the GS to counter their pressure.

          And Psycho, there is NO comparison to the scholarship exhibited at this site and what passes for reality at "teh blaze" to answer your bizarro world question.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Pedro2 (December 28, 2011 10:40 pm ET)
      8 3
      Fast and Furious was started by George Bush II as a way to get Mexican peasants to abandon their valuable farm land. By giving weapons to drug trafficers, border violence would push poor Mexican farmers off their land and into the safety of the inner cities.

      The abandoned property is claimed by land developers with the assistance of the Mexican military to develop maquiladoras with cheap labor and neighboring communities attacting retired US citizens receiving Social Security.

      The idea that Fast and Furious was to circumvent the Second Amendment shows just how out of touch the extremist right wingers are.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tuersm3856 (December 30, 2011 8:19 am ET)
      1  
      Yeah, LaPierre sounds like an idiot who needs a refresher course in PR. About that UN treaty, though...The Washington Post is your last word in what is truth and what are lies?

      And Fast and Furious...yeah, sure. It was an "investigation". It was the ATF "investigating" how well they could arm the CIA's drug-cartel allies against rival groups who weren't paying their cut to Wachovia.
      Report Abuse