Is it true?

Is it true?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=tOfLjGg5gP0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yep. The NRA is complicit in the murder of innocents AND pushes a political agenda, which makes them a terrorist organization.

Thanks user. I knew Sup Forums would clear it up for me with excellent arguments.

>Planned Parenthood

...

The SPLC is a terrorist organization.

>implying that mass of tissue without consciousness are people

Sorry don't speak Russian

>miscarriages ain't no thing, ask anyone who's had one

No.
The NRA is an organization that exists because of contributions from citizens in order to collectivize funds and promote their ideas.
Nobody is forced to become a member, it's simply the manifest voice of gun rights advocates, so to call the NRA a terrorist organization is to call citizens who believe in the second amendment terrorists, which is obviously untrue.

ISIS is an organization that exists because of contributions from muslims in order to collectivize funds and promote their ideas.
Nobody is forced to become a member, it's simply the manifest voice of islamic advocates, so to call ISIS a terrorist organization is to call muslims who believe in Islam terrorists, which is obviously untrue.

citizens who believe in the second amendment are terrorists

everything i don't like is a terrorist

I know this is a bait thread posted every day but I'll answer anyway. No, terrorists aren't known to uphold the constitution.

ISIS also explicitly advocates the killing of innocents. If the NRA supported mass shootings, their membership would drop to 0 and they would no longer exist.

Congratulations on acting like a 3 year old. You can apply this exact logic to the YMCA.

come get us

Exactly my point, you fucking idiot

A terrorist is necessarily in opposition to the state. Advocating for a portion of the founding document of the state is not opposition to the state.

>Equating a wanted birth with an unwanted one.

That like litteraly saying 2=1

The NRA clearly does support mass shootings.

Yeah, I guess. They use propaganda to spread terror in order to increase profits for gun manufacturers. They're pretty good at it.

Could you link me to that statement?

Where did I say it was a statement? It's the policies they advocate that support mass shootings.

Okay, so they don't support mass shootings. Glad that's cleared up.
Your position now is that their ideas lead to mass shootings, which is begging the question.
Now you have the burden of proof to provide evidence that guns themselves are the cause of mass killings and not something else like over prescribing antipsychotics or failure of law enforcement.

>it's not murder if you don't want it
>*kills all niggers, goes free*

No. They don't commit violent acts to promote their political agenda. They lobby for their political agenda. It's not even hyperbole, it's just wrong.

You can disagree with something without it being terrorism.

I advocate punching you in the face. But I don't support it. See how stupid that was?

So yes, the NRA supports mass shootings.

The NRA doesn't advocate for mass shootings. Try again.

>ackshyewallie
Moms Demand Action, an Anti-2A group which wants to repeal an established civil right, is a hate group.

Get off the Internet, you have the dumb.

The NRA has never advocated for mass shootings.

>consciousness is what defines a human being
So I can kill anyone in their sleep and it's ok?

Good news everyone, Geoff was put into a medically induced coma after his motorcycle accident; now we can kill him and split the inheritance, scot-free!

They literally advocate policies that put deadly weapons in the hands of school shooters. That's supporting mass shootings. The NRA is thus a terror organization and all its members should be arrested immediately.

>liberallogic.dll

I'm pretty sure the NRA doesn't advocate for criminal use of weapons, either.

Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that guns themselves are the cause of mass killings and none of the things I mentioned earlier or anything else.

>that guns themselves are the cause of mass killings
Typical massive strawman by the gun loving trash.

>That's supporting mass shootings.
No, it's not. Fuck off you absolute retard

I am pretty anti-gun, but your logic is retarded.

If I advocate road construction, am I advocating for traffic accidents? If I advocate for a space programme am I advocating for astronauts burning up in the stratosphere?

I don't think you understand what a strawman is.

>they advocate the 2nd Amendment you Commy cuckboi
Not exactly the same as pro terrorist

Shit B8, pleb

>If I advocate road construction, am I advocating for traffic accidents?
Of course not. But if you advocated policies that allowed drunk driving or driving without a license or something similar, then you would indeed support policies that cause accidents.

nice dubs
Also, exactly. You get it.

Hey why doesn't gun control work against ISIS, retard?

Ok, I'm not the previous guy, but I'll try and make a more reasonable anti-gun argument:

Given the harm they help cause, and given the very limited household tasks they can be used for other than killing, is it not reasonable that they shouldn't be available just anyone and everyone?

When you join the army, you are trained so you know what the hell your doing, and you're (hopefully) also screened, so they're not making a killer out of an insane person. I would think the same logic should apply when buying guns in general.

But I'm also just euro-trash, so I'm interested to hear your opinion.

>nobody does this
Nobody does this.

Do you understand the meaning of the little word 'if'?

yeah and they take credit for terrorizing people you fucking moron

>When you join the army ... you're also screened, so they're not making a killer out of an insane person
Pic related, sir. Would you like to say that again?

That is reasonable, and that's exactly why they are not currently available to just anyone and everyone.

Also, I've never understood the 'more training' reasoning. While I would advocate anyone who lawfully possesses a weapon to learn everything about safe ownership, do you think mass shootings happen due to lack of firearm training?

Yes, a gun is for killing.
Yes, any normal citizen (who isn't a violent criminal or mentally ill) should be able to buy one.
I suggest you research why the second amendment exists in the first place. Pro tip: It's not for sport.

>But if you advocated policies that allowed drunk driving or driving without a license or something similar, then you would indeed support policies that cause accidents
You're shifting the goalpost now. There's quite a difference between supporting policies that cause bad things as a side effect, and advocating for bad things.

I can advocate for better privacy laws and reduced capability of the NSA, but that doesn't mean I am advocating FOR terrorist attacks, even if that is a consequence.

Is that billboard real? Looks like a defamation lawsuit waiting to happen.

>There's quite a difference between supporting policies that cause bad things as a side effect, and advocating for bad things.
Not if that "side effect" is nearly guaranteed to happen. Then it's no longer just a side effect. Then it's just an effect of the policies and it's reasonable to expect that it was the motivation for the policies. Again proof that the NRA is a terrorist organization.

It's not defamation if it's true.

WOW

How does your pic support your position in any way?

In regards to training I was thinking primarily of the many accidental shootings, which I believe far outnumber the victims from mass-shootings.

I think it has already been established that a modern democratic state can exist without the need for the entire populous to be armed. That might not have been the case way back when, but I don't think gun are protecting democracy in America today.

I think the benefit you point out is highly intangible, and the harm is painfully tangible.

Your argument hinges on the assumption that guns are the cause of mass killings and not simply the tool. I would ask how you rationalize the history of gun ownership without mass killings and the recent spike being the fault of availability?

>How does your pic support your position in any way?
It refutes the claim that the Army can be trusted with guns civilians can't be trusted with. The Army is made of human beings just like the peasantry. Human beings are deeply broken and will do evil things to each other.

They are the largest civil rights organization in the world.

> is it not reasonable that they shouldn't be available just anyone and everyone?
We don't. Criminals with violent offenses or any felons are barred from owning firearms. The mental health deal is fucked in our country, but as a rule they aren't allowed ownership either.

>When you join the army, you are trained so you know what the hell your doing, and you're (hopefully) also screened, so they're not making a killer out of an insane person.
There are three types of people in the army. Psychopaths, joe looking for a job, and deadbeats. Joe is the only one I'd give a gun to but Uncle Sam has a use for the other two.

The problem is that our second amendment has nothing to do with sport or hunting.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The only reasoning in that sentence is: because the state needs a military force to be free, the people should have the same.

I never said there are no other causes than gun availability. And those should be dealt with as well.

This; essentially mass shootings were nonexistent until the late 80's - early 90's, by which point several things had changed:

1) Gun laws were already MUCH stricter
2) Psychotropic drugs and amphetamines were much more commonly prescribed
3) Media sensationalism had been exacerbated by the propagation of the 24-hour news cycle
4) Postmodernism and secular humanism had replaced traditional values in the American mainstream.

I agree people should have substantial knowledge of their weapons and how to safely keep them, but I don't think it's the government's place to impose restrictions based on level of knowledge. Also, I was framing my argument in the context of preventing mass shootings. We'd both agree people should be more educated, but my position is that's the job of the individual.

>a modern democratic state can exist without the need for the entire populous to be armed.
Take a look at Canada, or England, or Germany, or Sweden, or France... You are mistaken.

You are saying it. Mass shootings are not in any way a result of the NRA existing or not.

Still no. If you construct a new motorway somewhere, you KNOW that people will die on it at some point. The statistical data says it's all but an absolute certainty. But that's not why you build it. That is a side effect, and you are not building it to achieve the side effect.

But let's say I granted you the argument (Which I don't) that would still not make the NRA a terrorist organisation. It would make them a muderous organisation, but they are not committing, or promoting violence to attain a political goal. So the're still not a terrorist organisation.

That doesn't mean I'm pro NRA. I just think it matters what language we use, and simply calling something you don't like a slur, is a lazy excuse for an argument.

This is the discrepancy he's asking you to explain. He's not chiefly saying, "You have to accept that there are other causes!", he's asking you to explain how an INVERSE correlation supports your theory of causality.

But you would claim legal availability is partially a cause? If yes, then I'd still be interested in the rationalization of mass shootings being a recent phenomenon in light of our entire history having comparatively more powerful firearms without mass shootings and how removing firearms from the marketplace would affect anyone other than lawful, responsible owners.

>The mental health deal is fucked in our country

When public schools were forced to mainstream retards with their tard wranglers with normal students, this is when problems started.

When all tards were segregated in their own room at school, little if any problems.

Don't forget that every single one of those catalogs sold FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OH NO

I mean, mass shootings are mostly done with legally acquired guns. Making it harder for those kids to get guns would probably lead to fewer mass shootings by that... These kids don't know fences or black market sellers

Maybe people are more fucked up now than before. I don't know. That still doesn't change the fact that the NRA puts deadly weapons into the hands of these fucked up people.

It isn’t, but it’s also not a good aligned organization
Lawful impure I’d say

You do get that the picture you posted was of a war hero, right? A soldier doing what he was trained to do? You're undermining your whole line of reasoning here.

I would say that all the places you just mentioned are AT LEAST as healthy in terms of their democratic process as the US. I'm not US bashing here, but by just about any metric these countries are functioning reasonably well. Well... Excluding Sweden that is, fuck them.
But I can't really see that the guns have brought you a better democracy. You have the same problems as everyone else AND a major gun-crime problem.

Do you also oppose the need for drivers licenses? When people are operating machinery that could very easily kill other people, I think it's entirely fair that you pass some tests documenting that you are not a danger to your surroundings with your new toy.

Where can I get my free NRA gat?
oh wait, they just protect gun company interests and dont give a fuck about you or i. stop being such a fucking retard user, the NRA doesn't do shit.

>NRA puts deadly weapons into the hands of these fucked up people

you do realize the NRA doesn't sell guns or perform background checks????

Do fucked up people shrug it off when they don't have access to a particular tool, or do they take cars and indiscriminately run people down, stab 30+ people, and make bombs out of household items? My position is that guns aren't the cause and any legislation preventing legal ownership doesn't solve any problem, which I believe is self evident.

FUCK YEAH! I just formed another group. Niggers Against Moms Demand Action. Website will be up in 48 hours unless some non-nigger takes the domain name before I get it. Having a hard time finding a service that will host any website with the word nigger. What has the world come to?

>You do get that the picture you posted was of a war hero, right? A soldier doing what he was trained to do?
Follow the link at the bottom of the image, fuckstick. That's the Fort Hood Shooter. He shot like twenty of his fellow soldiers while screaming, "Allahu Akbar!"
>and Obama said it was workplace violence and not terrorism

Dumbass these shooting happen in big cities/ populated areas. U think these kids can't find a gun illegally? U CAN FIND ANYTHING IF U REALLY TRY even if u live in a small town and populated areas are twice as easy. I don't wanna spend the time to explain all the reasons why you are wrong but trust me, YOU ARE WRONG!!
P.s. do some fuckin research before you take the liberals side you fuck!

I'd instead advocate the FBI and local law enforcement do their goddamn job when they get multiple tips instead of taking away the right from young adults to lawfully defend themselves.

>I think it's entirely fair that you pass some tests documenting that you are not a danger to your surroundings with your new toy.
I feel safer with Cleetus on the range than with Becky texting and driving

>Do you also oppose the need for drivers licenses?
Yes, because you operate vehicles in public. In the majority of states you need a permit to carry a firearm in public, so there's no contradiction there.

The faggot FBI was too busy chasing Russian ghosts then follow up on a real tip!

If you want me to follow a link, post the link. Don't post a picture and expect me to play cicada 3301 with it.
But fair enough: Shit happens. Maybe the army screening process isn't good enough, but I don't think it undermines my point. In fact it makes my point. He was able to kill (presumably) armed and trained individuals, so that kind of destroys the whole "But if everyone was armed" argument, from where I'm standing.

You should also need one to even purchase a gun, in my opinion.

And because of the limited applications of a gun, I also think you should need a damn good reason for acquiring one. Maybe a hunting license or something.

100% agree. It's the FBI dropping the ball on background checks that leads to tards getting guns legally. When the gun used is legally purchased yet it comes out after some defective kills a bunch of innocents, the blame lies solely on the system.

It’s the kind of accusation the NRA would imply about anyone who opposes it, but no.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=tOfLjGg5gP0


It is however no longer about gun rights. It’s about gun sales.

>And because of the limited applications of a gun, I also think you should need a damn good reason for acquiring one
the second amendment is my reason.

What if I want one to defend my home?

You can literally be arrested in those countries for saying mean things online, or placing bacon outside a mosque, or for teaching a dog to raise its paw when you say "sieg heil."

You mean the original 2nd amendment?

which gun makers contribute to the NRA? The answer is none per their 501c3 filing.

>The United States is a terrorist organization

Unarmed.

>He was able to kill (presumably) armed
your presumption is wrong
it is illegal for anyone to carry firearms on a military post except when under explicit order
that means most soldiers only carry firearms to, at, and back from the firing range
there are a few military police that carry firearms around post on a regular basis, but even they are not allowed to carry when off duty

You should need a license for that as well, but it should be free. We could fund it through a tax on bullets over .22 cal. That way you could still practice through plinking without having to pay a fortune

I enjoy putting holes in a two inch group on a paper target at 300+ yards. I don't want to buy a license for that.