Gun-Grabbers Claim Top Activist Was Shill For NRA

[Guest]

Paranoids.

Story

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[1969912 0]

It's true. And I like it.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[birdlike 0]

Quote

It's true. And I like it.

RIGHT ON!

What, the anti's haven't pulled dishonest shit on gun-rights advocates? Michael Moore did not buy himself a Life NRA membership to attempt to get on the board of directors?

Didn't the Soros bunch come up with "AHSA" (American Hunters and Shooters Association), a FRAUD, FAKE "pro-gun" organization that was created to try to fragment gun owners into those who support the 2nd Amendment, and those who think we need to "compromise" with "common-sense, reasonable restrictions"?

If the anti's could get their zealots into high-up NRA positions, you know they would. I bet the reason they haven't is that their true-believers are shrill whackos who would never get past the NRA's vestibule.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kelpdiver 2]

"In the battle of ideas with the gun lobby, we're at a constant disadvantage because we're honest."

I'm still laughing.

Personally, I don't buy it. Looks more like a cry for attention. I especially don't buy that the NRA would pay someone 4500/month to infiltrate a small time gun grabbing outfit in their spare time. It has better use for its money and it seems unlikely that the knowledge that could be obtained would be worth much at all.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

"In the battle of ideas with the gun lobby, we're at a constant disadvantage because we're honest."

I'm still laughing.

Personally, I don't buy it. Looks more like a cry for attention. I especially don't buy that the NRA would pay someone 4500/month to infiltrate a small time gun grabbing outfit in their spare time. It has better use for its money and it seems unlikely that the knowledge that could be obtained would be worth much at all.

The ANTI'S are the ones saying that THEY'RE at a disadvantage because WE'RE dishonest?

Holy fuckin' shit are they delusional. That's just proof of their INSANITY, man.

WHO were the ones trying to confuse the public into believing that the Assault Weapons Ban in '94 was going to save us from MACHINE GUN CRIMES?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kelpdiver 2]

don't forget their claims that Glocks were plastic guns that wouldn't show up on airport xrays.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

don't forget their claims that Glocks were plastic guns that wouldn't show up on airport xrays.

Despite over a pound of metal in them, and the fact that the ammunition cartridges are unavoidably metal, too. Thanks for that reminder.

But no, it's the NRA that's pushing the lies. Suuuure.


*P.S. that anti-gun lie about the Glocks is actually traced to an article from Jan. 13, 1985 in The Washington Post by columnist Jack Anderson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock Read down the page at the header " 'Plastic pistol' myths."

Quote

Glock pistols do set off metal detectors and can indeed be detected by X-ray machines, due to their metal barrels, slides, magazines, and ammunition. The erroneous claim that they could not was first made in an article by columnist Jack Anderson, entitled, "Quaddafi Buying Austrian Plastic Pistol", published in The Washington Post on January 13, 1985. The claim was then reported by the Associated Press and further reported by many United States television news stations and newspapers. It has since become an urban legend that to this day continues to appear in news reports and movies, and has even been a topic of debate in the United States Congress and during oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

The important thing to know and remember is that no such undetectable "plastic pistol" exists, yet the anti-gun left still runs on at the mouth about it!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If the anti's could get their zealots into high-up NRA positions, you know they would.

That's one of the reasons that the NRA requires you to be a member for something like three years before you're allowed to vote in an election. That keeps anti's from signing up in droves as a fad to try and influence the NRA in a bad way.

I think it's funny as hell. I can just see them huddled and whispering in dark corners, spreading rumors about who they think is a mole amongst them.

Corporate espionage is nothing new. It helps to know what your enemy is planning. I'm sure the anti's send people in to all the open NRA meetings.

[lawrocket 3]

I read the article and I saw no confirmation of the veracity. But there are a couple of interesting things to point out.

Assuming it is untrue there is a big problem now because they are being reactionary before the facts are in, which destros credibility. They will then likely never, ever say that the allegations are false.

Also, whether true or untrue, they are not "transparent.". They are wondering which of their secrets got out. Are they bugged? Etc.

So they framed it as NRA evil. How about, "we are concerned about this. We cannot yet comment on the veracity of the reports that she was a spy. But as a prophylactic measure, as any business, we will investigate to insure there is nothng that breaches our security. We should have been doing this but never foresaw this kind of threat. In the event that nothing comes up we can just breathe more easily that our privacy has not been breached."

Also regardless of whether it is true or untrue, every anti-gun organization will be spending a great deal of resources to ensure that they are secure - instead of lobbying. Then they'll lobby on, "Look how evil the NRA is."

No matter what, this is bad for the anti-gun movement. It COULD be bad for the pro-gun movement if it is true. One or more lawsuits will follow.

P.s. - if I see professor Levinson comment on another thing I'll vomit. She knows her criminal law, but I can think of other professors at Loyola who could provide more insight.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No matter what, this is bad for the anti-gun movement. It COULD be bad for the pro-gun movement if it is true. One or more lawsuits will follow.

One or more unsuccessful lawsuits. I see no law being broken here.

[birdlike 0]

Some internet discussions I've seen have included anti-gunners taunting pro-gunners, saying, "Yeah, wait and see what the anti-gunners do when they infiltrate the NRA."

To which I suggest that all the NRA or other pro-gun organizations need to do to vet would-be infiltrators and eliminate them is to have an "all-our-members-go-to-the-shooting-range day" once every few months.

When the diaper-shitting mewling pansy-ass effete anti-gun pussies realize they are going to have to handle and use firearms or else expose themselves, they will shit themselves and run screaming out the door.

And that's before anyone tells them they'd be obligated to bring "at least a few" of their own guns.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Something just occurred to me; not sure why it took this long, but oh well...

The headlines have been saying "top activist and such, right?

Wouldn't you think it speaks volumes to the public that the anti-gunners are admitting outright that they got SUCKERED THIS BADLY, and let a total pro-gun spy rise to a high level in anti-gun circles?

They're pretty much openly admitting that they are incompetent boobs, but they're happy to do it just to try to paint the NRA as... what... successful at what it's supposed to do?

Talk about a pyrrhic victory!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[downwardspiral 0]

It's not far fetched the NRA would have the desire to infiltrate the brady campaign. Perhaps the suspected infiltrator was outed too soon. You'd think the anti-gunners would investigate before outing her and possibly look for opportunitiesto use her to their own advantage. Perhaps they should read more Clancy novels.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[birdlike 0]

Quote

It's not far fetched the NRA would have the desire to infiltrate the brady campaign. Perhaps the suspected infiltrator was outed too soon. You'd think the anti-gunners would investigate before outing her and possibly look for opportunitiesto use her to their own advantage. Perhaps they should read more Clancy novels.

If the were that smart, they wouldn't fuckin' be ANTI-gunners, dude! C'mon, now!

These are people who believe that when facing an armed robber, you are somehow BUYING his agreement to not hurt you after you've given him your wallet and jewelry, and that surely he won't, or perhaps even can't, hurt you after that.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

To which I suggest that all the NRA or other pro-gun organizations need to do to vet would-be infiltrators and eliminate them is to have an "all-our-members-go-to-the-shooting-range day" once every few months.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who know how to shoot and still oppose second amendment rights. Same as there are people who support second amendment rights and still have never owned a firearm.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

To which I suggest that all the NRA or other pro-gun organizations need to do to vet would-be infiltrators and eliminate them is to have an "all-our-members-go-to-the-shooting-range day" once every few months.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who know how to shoot and still oppose second amendment rights. Same as there are people who support second amendment rights and still have never owned a firearm.

Tom, you clipped off the part where I wrote, "And that's before anyone tells them they'd be obligated to bring "at least a few" of their own guns."

Now, if that were a requirement, and these people who know how to shoot but oppose the 2nd Amendment had their own guns to bring, well, two things:
- Yes, they'd be able to maintain their "cover"
- THEY'D BE THE FUCKING HYPOCRITES WE'VE BEEN SAYING THEY ARE. (Like Carl Rowan, the anti-gun D.C. columnist who shot a kid in his backyard with a gun he owned illegally in the district; like Rosie O'Donnell who sends her kids to school with armed bodyguards and thus benefits from guns' protection; like Chuck Schumer, who has secret service protection but rails against RKBA)

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire