Images of the Antis: Freedom is Slavery!

Man whoever made this image is really messed up!

First up that support for Universal background checks is quoted as fact. Now note that is the SOLE argument they’re standing on.

Of course I would postulate that the idea that NRA members are NOT heavy supporters of gun control and background checks and the various surveys are faulty or outright bogus. You decide for yourself.

Now it is true that the NRA board members are elected from a very small percentage of the total NRA body. Now first, not all NRA members are eligible to vote, you need to have 5 consecutive years of membership, or a higher membership level to vote. Second like any election, not everybody votes. Lastly the board is HUGE and the people running for each seat is MUCH bigger. I won’t lie, some years I don’t recognize any of the names on the roster, so sometimes I don’t vote, or just vote for a few names I do know.

Still this low voter turnout means these votes were DENIED??? So can we safely assume there was a massive Democrat plot that DENIED voting rights to all those massive and countless Mitt Romney supporters, since that year had a HORRIBLE turnout?

Yep War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength!

It just makes you wonder if there aren’t just piles of anti-rights activists just sitting around, staring at the wall, and asking to the Aether “Why are we losing?”

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Images of the Antis: Freedom is Slavery!

  1. Colin says:

    The NRA conducted an internal survey just last year that disagrees with the “75% support” lie. Link (PDF)

    The question was put as it should be elsewhere, “A new federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens.” 92% of NRA members oppose.

    • Archer says:

      Yep, that “74% of NRA members that support ‘universal background checks'” really is ~70% of polled NRA members that support “background checks” done as they are, via the NICS system on retail sales only, plus a tiny fringe that think UBCs would be OK.

      But as you point out, when you do away with the catch-phrase du jour and write the question to ask if they support what the law would actually do, suddenly you get overwhelming opposition.

      Propose a ban on “assault weapons”, and you might get support.
      Propose a ban on all magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifles, and you’ll get trounced, and hard.

      Propose a ban on “high-capacity magazines”, and it might pass.
      Propose a ban on “the standard magazines that shipped with your gun” with the understanding that people would have to dispose of the old magazines and purchase all new ones for every modern gun they own (good luck finding them in stock, with that sudden artificial increase in demand!), and it becomes a much harder sell.

      Propose a ban on “ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor”, and you’ll find some support.
      Propose a ban on “rifle ammunition greater than .22 caliber”, and you’ll have a crap-ton of pissed-off people on your hands, including non-gun-owners!

      It’s the age-old problem with “low-information voters”. They will buy into anything that sounds reasonable … which effectively means anything that can be made to sound reasonable … which LITERALLY means “anything”.

  2. Bob S. says:

    Missed the biggest point of all Weer’d. Very disappointed.

    Where and when are the Board elections for the
    Brady Campaign?
    Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns?
    Moms Demanding Action?

    Just how are those people elected to the board; I have never seen a single election result.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      DAMN good point!

      See I’m too much in a rational mindset when I typed that. Yeah I know those groups have “Members”, but anybody can join the NRA, it’s easy and it’s legit. There is NO way to “join” those groups, unless you count being added to a mailing list.

      And same goes with the Board, yeah they’re CALLED the same thing, but it’s not like they have anything in COMMON.

    • TS says:

      Imagine if they did have board elections. We’d take them over. Even if you had to pay dues, we’d still get 10:1 membership being pro-gun. Hell, I’d plop down 30, 50, even 500 bucks a year to get to vote for Ted Nugent as a Brady Campaign board member. I wouldn’t vote for him on the NRA board, but i’d love to see him on the Brady board! And that money would be much more affective being spent that way than donating to the NRA-ILA.

      • TS says:

        The more I fantasize about this, I’d still keep Japete on the board, surrounded by The Nug, R. Lee Ermey, and Adam Kokesh. That would make for some good times…

        • Weerd Beard says:

          Hell I’ve been a “Member” of the Brady Campaign for over a decade, if you count it how they do. I signed up for their news letter AGES ago. Of course the letters have stopped for a good while…do you think it could be that the name “Weer’d Beard” is known to the Brady Campaign and they have declined my “Membership”? 🙂

          It certainly has been tried in the past to have an anti-rights coup in the NRA, you probably have seen the results of that. *snicker*

          Still with such a small membership, and such a lack of motivation on behalf of their few remaining “members”, it really wouldn’t be hard. Hence why the anti-gun groups INDEED suppress the votes of their members (by not holding votes), and further, by all these groups being top-down political groups, they suppress the OPINIONS of their “members” as well. You can choose to agree with Dan Gross or Michael Bloomberg, or you can stay silent and keep mailing checks. 🙂

          • Archer says:

            If they’ve “declined” your membership, then they’re DENYING your vote!!!!1!11!!11!

            Voter Suppression! Unacceptable in a “grassroots” movement like the Brady Campaign!!!

            *snicker* 😉

  3. AuricTech says:

    The NRA has the power to levy taxes? Then why do they keep sending out fund-raising letters?

  4. lucusloc says:

    Another question: Why do people join if the organization does not support their views? It is a voluntary organization with a monetary requirement to join, so there is a relatively large barrier to entry that must first be overcome. Seems like there needs to be a certain critical amount of motivation to cause someone to join, and a having the leadership opposed to the membership would be be counter to that.

    I think this attack fails on more than a few levels.

  5. TS says:

    And during this period of “silencing its members”, instead of a mass exodus, one million new members joined (most without a vote for board members).

    How is that possible?

  6. Bubblehead Les says:

    Funny. I can’t recall anytime in the past 10 years or so where the NRA has Lobbied Politicians to make Ownership of a SMALL EMPTY METAL BOX (a 30 round AR Magazine) the Felony Equivalent of running a Stop Sign, hitting a Cripple in a Wheelchair and Killing them. But Brady, Every Mommy and Bloomie sure did in New York State. See Zercool’s latest post for details.

  7. Wally says:

    It must be true – the receiver says so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *