First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply NRA blog has Fairy Tales with Guns
17099 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 3/26/16
I don't care if you're either 2nd Amendment or if you're against:

I find this simply hilarious...in an 'Only in America' way.


(for the foreign CR crowd: NRA =National Rifle Association)


http://gawker.com/what-if-little-red-riding-hood-had-a-gun-story-time-wi-1767247873
13261 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/26/16
Hooray for propaganda!!
27901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/26/16
I thought you wrote Fairy Tail with guns
15959 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 3/26/16
wtf is this... was any of them any better or good?
49 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/26/16 , edited 3/26/16
Here I was in canada thinking that it was pictures of another crazy nutjob anime...
82934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/26/16 , edited 3/26/16
Pretty funny; Red would have been a lot better off if she had been packing heat.

With all the leftist propaganda out there, it is nice to see a little "counter argument".

With religious fervor people on the left believe the NRA is evil - those people are... wrong.
290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / F...F...Florida!!?
Offline
Posted 3/26/16 , edited 3/26/16
I thought you also said fairy tale with guns I was disappointed XD
Posted 3/26/16 , edited 3/26/16
Personally, I do want people educated on guns, but I don't want the NRA to be behind it.
33079 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 3/26/16
NRA does not speak for most gun owners.
17099 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 3/26/16

nanikore2 wrote:

I thought you wrote Fairy Tail with guns


I'm sure one of them probably got guns.


17099 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 3/26/16

bensonc120 wrote:

NRA does not speak for most gun owners.


Honestly I think the NRA are evil as hell, but I just found this kind of funny.


Junior needs to be armed and dangerous to battle the bad guys in preschool!

27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 3/26/16
I've literally read that doujin.
35465 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/26/16 , edited 3/26/16
I recently saw an advertisement from the NRA pointing to an Australian buyback programme as cause for alarm given Clinton's bid for the White House and her mention of Australia's restrictions. I will warn anyone wanting to watch the ad for themselves: it amounts to nearly two and a half minutes (nearly all of the ad's run time) of people working at a disposal site without any voice overs, music, text, or substantial dialogue from or between disposal workers. It is, therefore, likely to feel very boring and drawn out after a while. That's not my problem, though. The problem I have is that the ad is unforgivably short of information about the subject it seeks to discuss given its length and the urgency it assigns to the matter, though I nevertheless do understand that its apparent purpose is not to inform or persuade a neutral or opposing audience but rather to rouse an already supportive one since it's an election year in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiNHt13WRw

So what was the context, nature, and impact of the programme the NRA wants to warn people about while simultaneously providing so little information about it? First, the event that spurred the reforms and their nature. The buyback programme referred to by the ad took place after a particularly terrible killing spree in Port Arthur, Tasmania on April 28, 1996 resulted in 35 fatalities. The buyback programme was conducted in tandem with passage of the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act of 1996, and a total of more than 700,000 firearms was collected over its course. The buyback therefore dramatically reduced the amount of privately held firearms in Australia, and the associated law very strongly regulated access to firearms, parts, and ammunition. The particulars included things like a borderline total ban on semi-automatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, introduction of uniform weapon classifications to be used nationwide, restriction of firearms sales and purchases to registered vendors who would have to follow standard sale protocols, and restrictions on the amount of ammunition people could purchase at once and the sorts they could purchase at all. Restrictions had been, relatively speaking, fairly lax in Australia prior to that point, so the shift was markedly sharp and gathered lots of attention.

So those are the what's and why's, but what about the who's? The National Firearms Programme Implementation Act of 1996 was passed by John Howard's government, which was composed of a coalition of the Liberal (not in the US sense, they're conservatives in that sense) and National (think emphasis on local governance and concern for the fossil fuel and agricultural industries and you're most of the way there) parties at the time. In other words, contextually speaking, imagine the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act of 1996 and the buyback programme associated therewith as passing a Republican-controlled Congress and being approved by a Republican in the White House. That's the equivalent of what happened in Australia in 1996.

Finally, what impact did the buyback and restrictions have? This is an area of some dispute, and depending upon which research you look at the data tend toward either a dramatic decline in firearms related homicide and suicide rates or no significant effect on these whatsoever. What isn't particularly disputed is that despite successful collection and disposal of massive quantities of firearms illicit firearms trade remained a significant problem in Australia whether or not the data collectively indicate a decline in firearms related homicides and suicides. It's also worthy of mention that Australia constitutes a significantly different landscape than the United States given its constitution does not actually provide any explicit protection of firearms ownership and that in the United States handguns are a much bigger problem than longarms, so it wouldn't actually be possible to carbon copy its firearms policies in the United States even assuming the best about these policies' results.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

There is one other thing to bear in mind about the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act of 1996: it's not in effect anymore. It was repealed as part of the Statute Law Revision Act (No. 1) of 2014 under Tony Abbott's government. In fact, a great deal of firearms legislation from the 1990s and early 2000s was repealed in full by that act.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014A00031

That is how you talk about the 1996 Australian firearms buyback and legislation and attempts to emulate it in the US.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 3/26/16




All I know about Australia and guns is that their Army literally fought a war with emus and lost.
7111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/26/16
Okay I did not read this. I saw the title and saw the pic and had a big face palm moment. Then I laugh. I want to find the person who wrote this and ask him; Are you high?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.