dollar business. I am sure this has happened before with non-gun related businesses

Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. You now the spokespersons for all the gun owners and manufactures? If you are into lumping people into groups, those rocks don't bounce off of glass houses.

Um......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Paranoid gun nuts threatening other gun nuts!

Jennifer Decker is the non-gunner/gun control position. You think calling 911 when you see an ARMED person walking in a public place is a threat of bodily harm? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

John Crawford lll if calling 911 on a person who is ARMED in public carries any threat of bodily harm...
But please don't let me interrupt your laughing

Here is a DU non-gunner/gun control position

that many of the pro-control side were calling for people to do that exact thing, lie to the dispatcher when calling 911. Now they all seem to have gone very quiet.

that it is still the recommended course of action.

Do some folks have no problem with innocent people being killed when doing nothing wrong as long as they don't like what the person was doing

These fine pseudo-progressives would never dirty their hands in such a manner-
think of them as sort of an "Unarmed Citizen's Council"...

Are the racist murdering pigs armed with "deadly fetish objects" who otherwise are despised...

"Paranoid gun nuts threatening other gun nuts!"

One minor problem with your brilliant theory:

Those screenshots are of moms demand action members, not of "gun nuts".


Thanks for playing.

I kid you not:

One Million Moms and Dads Against Gun Violence

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Sometimes, these things just write themselves...

That is a good thing as it had nothing to do with the article. That article is about a family squabble about money and happens to many types of businesses.

look at the pre-edited version in EM's post and you will see the picture of the menorah that he removed.

Seems to be part of an artists work, I think kind of cool. Has nothing to do with the OP's article.
http://1800recycling.com/2010/07/religious-icons-recycled-weapons

As an aside, Al Farrow definitely makes some thought-provoking sculpture

Here's the deleted photo:




http://www.alfarrow.com/

and yes it is

I wonder if he has a need for spent shotgun shells -- I have a ton of 'em saved up.

IOW, an entirely unsurprising use of a pseudoscientific term by a group of people wont to claim
that inanimate objects cause crime...

But that does not matter.

fertilizer shows.

Almost as bad as ebola caused by the NRA.

they certainly have a right to do so.
There is no need to get all paranoid about the First also.

from your previous post or you would not have mentioned it.

that doesn't mean that I actually care.

Sort of like a poor stand-up comic who "takes on all comers," to hide the fact he/she is afraid to stand for anything.

Are full of passionate intensity."

I'll take Yeats over bumper sticker sentiments any day.

-- Eve Ribotti Unter d'Sunn

"I am sure this has happened before with non-gun related businesses..."

I do so love a good preemptive rationalization.. regardless of its lack of relevance.

If that is the case it is in the wrong forum. I happen to think it is about a messy divorce, money, probably sex and yes that has happened in the past.

http://www.today.com/video/today/42319099#42319099

It has happened before with non-gun related businesses

the world.. like nobody knows that?

You're really not helping your "gun" cause with statements like that.

into one, that is sure

I do not have one, sorry I know facts are hard to take at times but the facts are that guns are not the topic in the OP's article. I am not the one trying to twist it like a pretzel to somehow make this a gun thread. I am doing quite the opposite and sticking to the facts of the story. What are your comments on the story other than the Glocks being assholes? Sure seems like he is, do not know so much for her.

Good try to twist that, what does NON mean?

I said the story is NOT about guns and I stick by that as we all know gun related posts are not allowed in GD, am I right?

Please explain my "gun" cause? to me. Since I do not have one, you accused me of having one. I would like to know what I should be doing?

so other than guns that you are trying to make this about, What do you think of the article?

Meaning this is a "gun related business". You can deny this all you want but you brought it up.

That's OK, I see you have nothing to say about the OP's article.

Twist my words all you want, I think most people know what I meant and the Op is not about guns but about family money and scandals and it has happened before and will I am sure will happen again. The only reason it was posted was the screaming headline that it involved a firearms company.

And once again you fail to comment on the OP's article and just want to make this about me.

what goes around, comes around

dialog you have there.

They're the same folks who have brought you thousands of murders over the year, numerous school shootings and by their wink and nod illegal guns winding up in the hands of rogue armies. They are the ones among others, who spend hundreds of millions of dollars to confuse voters and defeat progressive candidates thus lowering the standard of living for all in this country. They are the ones who brought you the phrase "from my cold dead hands" Nothing civil about that!

I think the individuals that commit crimes should be held accountable for those crimes. The good side of the NRA has an excellent gun safety program unlike the so called "gun safety" organizations. Rogue armies, what does the NRA do equip them and buy their firearms for them? Bloomberg does the same thing by purposely confusing people about semi-automatic rifles calling them assault rifles and machine guns, and he has billions to spend. So do you think bayonet lugs are dangerous, a pistol grip, a barrel shroud?

but my opinions are coloured by being born in Europe and raised there. Lot's less death per capita in those nations where there is very strict limits of weapon ownership. NRA for years fought police departments about melting weapons down, in the past those weapons have been sold to 3rd world nations and have fallen into the hands of rogue armies.

culture in Europe, much smaller countries. We have mega cities like New York and open country out here in the west where you can go hundreds of miles before seeing another person. One size does not fit all here. Rogue armies get more weapons from the ex-soviet block nations. AK-47 are much cheaper, easier to maintain and more prevalent in those "rogue armies". Look at Ukraine today, or Iraq, or Africa. Mostly old Soviet weaponry except what has been stolen from the military in Iraq. Not your dad's rifle that the police would melt down.

These "Fucking asshole gun nut shit stains" are Austrian? They are all European...

...most of whom have no idea their dues are going to promote the deregulation of gun manufacturing, sales and ownership. The NRA's mission has little to do with ordinary gun owners, and everything to do with securing the future profits of manufacturers.

And the cost is measured in our blood.

talking points on DU?

They are the ones among others, who spend hundreds of millions of dollars to confuse voters and defeat progressive candidates thus lowering the standard of living for all in this country.

The NRA is a group actively campaigning against Democrats. And yet their apologists here say that Democrats must cater to them in order to get elected. Because guns. So tired of this nonsense.

And since I was once minor officer in the Virginia Democratic Party, let me mention that it does matter. Many gun owners do NOT vote Republican! If we chased them away, we would lose many elections.

Regulations of a deadly weapon should not give "responsible" gun owners pause.

There are regulations designed solely to attack and make something difficult and not for safety. I've been on the defense of the right to choice front for a long time, even serving as a clinic escort, and have noticed a similarity with what some people propose for guns and what is proposed for TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws. Even voter ID is a regulation, one that is designed to reduce the turn out of poor inner city minorities who don't drive.


I support some gun regulations, those designed to keep guns out of the hands of the violent, like UBC. I support safety classes before a first purchase, to ensure that people know how to handle a firearm. And i support some rules like a maximum on magazine size, though I believe they should apply to police as well as regular citizens.

However,
There are also regulations that are designed to impede and frustrate and not to make a process safer or more efficient.
Please keep that in mind.

Will it be just "another" first step? Responsible gun owners understand the need for regulations, just not feel good stupid ones.

They are already heavily regulated and the RKBA side has been giving in to new regulations for almost 100 years without getting anything back in return. Responsible gun owners know what would work and the pro-control side dismisses those suggestions without a thought. Why not allow sound suppressors like some European countries require? Why not open up the NFA? Why ban bayonet mounts, pistol grips and barrel shrouds? Why is one gun banned while another with the exact same functioning parts legal only on looks alone?

Of course this thread is about greed and a a family squabble and not about guns.

...who is notably not an admin or group/forum host...

"WHY are pro NRA apologists allowed to spread talking points on DU?"

Written in the fine print, there, somewhere, is a statement of what most of us already know:

That you and folks like you, consider anyone pro-gun enough to argue about rights they feel important, to be "nra apologists".


And thus, you dismiss opposing viewpoints as "nra talking points" without having to discuss the issue.

Which is the goal.

Silencing those who disagree with you on this issue.

and, at worst, a PAC for republicans. I do have a perverse admiration for their ability to dupe so many into thinking that they
are constitutional advocates.

The police should have live by the same rules the rest of us have to.

hmmm...I guess that will be an excuse to go buy another gun.

a family squabble about money? This story is not even about guns. Why would you even think that?

Oh, and criticism of gun culture

Because I do not see anyone feeling threatened by a story on a family squabble about money. They happen to own a firearms company and there are hundreds of those out there. I do see some here attempting to make this about guns but it is not.

heroin, or video poker machines. They would be irrelevant to this story and comments.

y'know

I see just putting the accusation out there is enough, but you seem to be afraid to actually substantiate your accusation.

It is courtesy, not fear, preventing me from pointing out one rather obvious individual.

You are the one pushing the accusation about the 'Poor beseiged gun advocates hereabouts seem to fel threatened' in a thread that is about a family issue about divorce, a mistress and monetary crimes and possible RICO violations, not a damn thing about guns in the OP other than Mr. Glock started a gun business and made lots of money at it. You made the charge now stand up and follow through with the proof of your accusation.

...as there is none.

Put the accusation out there and hope they are not called on it. Well I call them out to prove it and they can't.

Let's see what this one does...

I don't really care if it is about guns, Batman, or Apple products.

Is that right, what kind of "fanboy" would you say I am?

I like having an intelligent and civil discussion about the posted article, how about you?

I tip my hat to you.........

while I assume you do it only out of love.
That's kind of sweet.

or guns. But I am sure you know that and are just trying to get someone upset and have a hidden post.

It is sad how the pro-controller side has to try and take over a non-gun post in GD and make it all about the NRA and guns.

What do you think about the posted article?

Herr Glock seems to be a real scumbag.
However, that's not really so shocking.

Or am I just imagining all of your responses in this thread?
There are quite a few.
With passion.

accusation? well lets see the proof of "Poor beseiged gun advocates hereabouts seem to fel threatened"

I know I do not feel threatened, just that some here are trying to make a monetary dispute about guns and it is not and I have said so.

You're not going to challenge me to a duel, are you, Mr. Duckhunter?

I know that often goes with defending honor and all that, but I have prior plans for daybreak.

just pointing out that is not what the OP posted story is about even as hard as you try and twist the facts to make that so. I know facts are hard.

So once again you refuse to provide proof of your accusation, right?

At least you chose the creation of a writer with some skill- Brett Easton Ellis is
a too-clever hack, and Ruth Rendell has had far too many crazies to remember just one...

Unfortunately, literacy is not as it should be.
However, I hope that you did note that I have not felt compelled to rush to the defense of the blunt instrument industry.

...if it's really about guns then the OP is in the wrong forum.

did nothing wrong? Only the man is to blame?

without me. i obviously am not needed. you will simply speak for me..... duck

You only mentioned the one side that was at fault and did not mention that there were two parties involved. I am sorry you must go when an omission like that is mentioned.

To me it sounds like a sleazy situation and I am sure both the male and female parties are to blame for this. We also all know that false accusations from a messy divorce and lots of money at stake never happens. I will wait for the courts to decide.

I read what I read and see what I see and I also know things are not black and white. I am sure a lot of things went on between all of the parties, male and female.

Your earlier post only seemed to blame one person, with your history of posts I have read in the past, I am quite sure I knew what you meant.

Care to retract you cock joke now also, I find that seriously demeaning and insulting.

So nice of you that fight so hard on the feminist side that off color jokes about men are fine for you to make. Let one person make a joke like that about a female and see how much you will scream bloody murder about it.

I do not care for the hypocrisy myself.

I find that seriously demeaning and insulting.

I would think you would be above that as much as you work to point out derogatory posts about females.

Are males fair game?

Tell them thanks for me will you?

from someone who complains wildly about similar things directed at females, I really get offended by that talk and it is just insulting.

so what actually is your point, be straight and just say it. Don't be coy, just say it in plain english.

Has nothing to do with penis jokes.

Can you urge the NRA to let us have a Surgeon General?

as I am not a member, I have already voiced my displeasure with the there stance on many issues.

https://www.nraila.org/secure/contact-us.aspx

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wow. I hope this kind of sexism doesn't become acceptable under the guise of "feminism." This kind of crap is increasingly tolerated, then folks wonder why gender issues can't be discussed on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 14, 2014, 03:11 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: tough call to make, i'm sure it will be hidden but it shouldn't be on the grounds of whats good for the goose is good for the gander. 'nuf said.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sexist; if a similar comment was made about female genitalia it would be banned in a heartbeat.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.