(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Social app shows which Congress members have accepted gun lobby cash, and "you can tweet these elected officials to demand gun control legislation, call them out for hypocrisy, or heck, tell them 'job well done' if you're fond of the 2nd"

05 Jan 2013 04:50 PM   |   3884 clicks   |   SocialNewsDaily
Showing 1-50 of 116 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Voiceofreason01    [TotalFark]  
Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

05 Jan 2013 12:35 PM
vpb    [TotalFark]  

Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.


Yep.  Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.

05 Jan 2013 12:53 PM
Fark It    [TotalFark]  

vpb: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yep.  Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


Yes, people who don't line up behind Feinstein and Bloomberg hate children.

Just like people who don't support the Patriot Act hate America and freedum.

05 Jan 2013 01:54 PM
jbuist     
Article seems lacking.  Let me take a stab at one section:

"...and hosts a donation link to the Brady Campaign, the country's largest gun control advocacy group which consists of 3 paid employees and an intern."

One gun blogger that I like tends to call them the Brady Campaign To Cling To Relevancy.

05 Jan 2013 04:01 PM
Nina_Hartley's_Ass     
I'm sure they're all voting for expanded access to mental health care and against the war on drugs.
Keep up the good work!

05 Jan 2013 04:18 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld     

vpb: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yep.  Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


And that's why we as a society are willing to let 80,000 people die every year in exchange for the freedom to drink beer.

05 Jan 2013 04:55 PM
The Face Of Oblivion     

vpb: Yep. Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


Which of the 5 million terrible policy prescriptions offered on the basis of "Think of the children!" are you advocating here, precisely?

05 Jan 2013 04:56 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld     

The Face Of Oblivion: vpb: Yep. Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.

Which of the 5 million terrible policy prescriptions offered on the basis of "Think of the children!" are you advocating here, precisely?


Most likely every one that doesn't inconvenience his current lifestyle.

05 Jan 2013 04:59 PM
WhoIsWillo     

Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.


Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.

05 Jan 2013 05:00 PM
Wretched     
Yeah, and where is the whining about all of the other lobbyist's cash they accept?

/whine de jour
//yawn
///try again

05 Jan 2013 05:02 PM
TV's Vinnie    [TotalFark]  
"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." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
www.usmilitary.comView Full Size


or


B: Guys like this
i48.tinypic.comView Full Size

05 Jan 2013 05:04 PM
juvandy     
Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.

Yes. And statements like these clearly show that you have a small brain.

05 Jan 2013 05:04 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld     

WhoIsWillo: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing keeping one's self from being killed is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis. realistic assessment that we are not in fact, all supreme martial artists.


05 Jan 2013 05:05 PM
radarlove     
Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.

05 Jan 2013 05:05 PM
Dimensio     

WhoIsWillo: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.


Voiceofreason01's penis size has not been disclosed, and is of no relevance to this discussion. For what reason did you feel compelled to make reference to it and to speculate upon its size? Do you suffer a psychological obsession with male genitalia?

05 Jan 2013 05:06 PM
ck1938     
Good job.

www.atomiccartoons.comView Full Size

05 Jan 2013 05:06 PM
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  
cdn3.socialnewsdaily.comView Full Size


Well, when you've got one organization with 4 million dues paying members, and another that has at most a 28,000 person mailing list that they count as "members", then you're bound to see a discrepancy like that.

05 Jan 2013 05:08 PM
Spirit Hammer     

TV's Vinnie: "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." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or


B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]


Second Amendment

"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."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

05 Jan 2013 05:10 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld     

radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.


My spidey sense is telling me that you were pro gun control all along. Sorry, but while the gun control people are content to ignore the top 6 preventable causes of death, they're not convincing anyone who is truly impartial that they care about life, and they have absolutely no evidence to support the idea that an assault weapons ban will work, even though we tried one for 10 years.

05 Jan 2013 05:10 PM
Farker Soze     

WhoIsWillo: small penis


Drink!

05 Jan 2013 05:10 PM
Ima4nic8or     
Interesting idea but the app should use a more standard form of contacting the lawmakers. There are many folks that dont use twitter but virtually all of us have an e-mail account.

05 Jan 2013 05:10 PM
duffblue     
Still waiting on my app for oil funds, pharmaceuticals, and corn.

05 Jan 2013 05:12 PM
here to help     
uh... I might be wrong on this but I don't think being an advocate of second amendment rights disqualifies you from being a Democrat.

Also...

We're not going to take a side in the gun control debate,

Suuuure you're not. Especially with statements like this...

you can tweet these elected officials to demand gun control legislation, call them out for hypocrisy, or heck, tell them "job well done" if you're fond of the 2nd.

I do agree though that politicians should be called on their sh*t. However I'm sure you'll find a lot more sh*t on one side of the aisle than the other.

But I'm not going to take sides.

05 Jan 2013 05:15 PM
Theeng     
To suggest the second applies to state militias only requires an ignorance of history.

Can we show the fourth some love too?

05 Jan 2013 05:16 PM
God-is-a-Taco     
Interesting concept, I'd like to see it used for lobbying in general.
Maybe people could be spurred into action after seeing all of the money involved.

05 Jan 2013 05:17 PM
Adolf Oliver Nipples    [TotalFark]  

radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.


You keep telling yourself that. You're setting yourself up for severe disappointment when no new laws are passed. Feinstein's new-and-improved Assault Weapons Ban is such an overreach and will be so expensive to implement that it's DOA.

05 Jan 2013 05:17 PM
Hagenhatesyouall     
images.encyclopediadramatica.seView Full Size

05 Jan 2013 05:18 PM
ElLoco     

TV's Vinnie: "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." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or


B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]


As the first picture depicts soldiers in the military at a federal level... that would mean that out of the two choices you presented, it would be intended for selection (B).
Or do people really still believe that the founding fathers felt it necessary to include an amendment, within the Bill of Rights mind you, that guarantees the ability of the government to arm members of their own military? Seriously? Yea. I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking when they were whipping up those first few amendments: "Hey, guys? You know this will probably never come up, but let's just say... what if, what if someone tries to make it illegal for our troops or law enforcement to possess firearms? Or to prevent the government of this shiny new nation from possessing and distributing arms as they see fit? See where I'm going with this guys? That could be a trainwreck if the civilian population decided to do that to us. We need to make sure this sort of thing is covered in one of these riders we're gonna attach to the front."

Right.

05 Jan 2013 05:20 PM
dennysgod     
Taking bribes from the gun lobby, or any lobby for that matter, will not get a "job well done" from me.

05 Jan 2013 05:23 PM
gweilo8888    [TotalFark]  
I am appalled that my rights to surface-to-surface missiles are being withheld. I should be able to purchase SSMs for use in hunting and target practice. And I may need a few SSMs handy if the government forgets it is supposed to be working for me. I'm also going to need a concealed carry permit; you never know when I'm going to be able to foil crime in a public place.

The majority of prospective missile owners are responsible folks. SSMs should be available to the public immediately. Missile control does NOT work: if you ban missiles you take them out of the hands of the good guys, but the bad guys will still have them. And remember, missiles don't kill people. People kill people. You people trying to say missiles are just for killing people clearly have NO idea about the sport, so shut the fark up!

Lobbying clearly worked for guns, so I'll be taking donations to get the SSM lobby ball rolling.

05 Jan 2013 05:27 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld     

dennysgod: Taking bribes from the gun lobby, or any lobby for that matter, will not get a "job well done" from me.


Yeah, a "bribe" to defend an amendment is really immoral. Would you feel the same way if they were taking money to defend the 1st or 13th amendments?

05 Jan 2013 05:27 PM
Rich Cream     

TV's Vinnie: "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." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or


B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]



And which of those two are more likely to shoot someone?

05 Jan 2013 05:27 PM
RandomAxe    [TotalFark]  
I'm fond of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not fond of politicians taking money to suck Wayne LaPierre's crazy cock.

If you dislike "Assault Weapons Bans" and their ilk, you can blame the NRA for them. The NRA has gone so far right of center in its crazy Don't Ban Anything propaganda rush to whip up money from any paranoiac they can reach is what has generated the public backlash. They're far, far more to blame than any two or three nutjobs who grab headlines with a mass shooting.

If the NRA went centrist, gun regulation could stay centrist. But there's a lot less money in centrism. The 2nd Amendment has almost nothing to do with the discussion on either side of the aisle.

05 Jan 2013 05:27 PM
duffblue     

RandomAxe: I'm fond of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not fond of politicians taking money to suck Wayne LaPierre's crazy cock.

If you dislike "Assault Weapons Bans" and their ilk, you can blame the NRA for them. The NRA has gone so far right of center in its crazy Don't Ban Anything propaganda rush to whip up money from any paranoiac they can reach is what has generated the public backlash. They're far, far more to blame than any two or three nutjobs who grab headlines with a mass shooting.

If the NRA went centrist, gun regulation could stay centrist. But there's a lot less money in centrism. The 2nd Amendment has almost nothing to do with the discussion on either side of the aisle.


When you have an administration that sells guns to drug cartels, there is no discussion to be had.

05 Jan 2013 05:33 PM
RickN99     

RandomAxe: The NRA has gone so far right of center in its crazy Don't Ban Anything propaganda...


You've seen NRA propaganda demanding the legalization of bazookas, belt-fed machine guns, tanks, etc. Because I'm pretty sure this "Don't Ban Anything" campaign that you claim to have seen does not actually exist.

05 Jan 2013 05:35 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld     

RandomAxe: I'm fond of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not fond of politicians taking money to suck Wayne LaPierre's crazy cock.

If you dislike "Assault Weapons Bans" and their ilk, you can blame the NRA for them. The NRA has gone so far right of center in its crazy Don't Ban Anything propaganda rush to whip up money from any paranoiac they can reach is what has generated the public backlash. They're far, far more to blame than any two or three nutjobs who grab headlines with a mass shooting.

If the NRA went centrist, gun regulation could stay centrist. But there's a lot less money in centrism. The 2nd Amendment has almost nothing to do with the discussion on either side of the aisle.


Let us know when you're willing to compromise your freedom to speak or consume alcohol. Why is it that law abiding gun owners are the only group that has to give up their right to become "reasonable"? Far more people die from alcohol related deaths, but I haven't ever heard a single person say that "nobody needs" beer, and that it should be far more restricted than it is.

05 Jan 2013 05:38 PM
jso2897     
Damn, Drew. You're going to pump this gun thing till it's coont bleeds, aren't you?
i18.photobucket.comView Full Size

05 Jan 2013 05:38 PM
TV's Vinnie    [TotalFark]  

Rich Cream: TV's Vinnie: "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." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or


B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]


And which of those two are more likely to shoot someone?


I dunno. The beardy fat guy looks more likely to blow the brains out of his girlfriend over a meatloaf dispute.

05 Jan 2013 05:41 PM
TV's Vinnie    [TotalFark]  

ElLoco: As the first picture depicts soldiers in the military at a federal level... that would mean that out of the two choices you presented, it would be intended for selection (B).
Or do people really still believe that the founding fathers felt it necessary to include an amendment, within the Bill of Rights mind you, that guarantees the ability of the government to arm members of their own military? Seriously? Yea. I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking when they were whipping up those first few amendments: "Hey, guys? You know this will probably never come up, but let's just say... what if, what if someone tries to make it illegal for our troops or law enforcement to possess firearms? Or to prevent the government of this shiny new nation from possessing and distributing arms as they see fit? See where I'm going with this guys? That could be a trainwreck if the civilian population decided to do that to us. We need to make sure this sort of thing is covered in one of these riders we're gonna attach to the front."

Right.


Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???

05 Jan 2013 05:42 PM
legalgus     
Tell them job well done.

05 Jan 2013 05:42 PM
bittermang     

dennysgod: Taking bribes from the gun lobby, or any lobby for that matter, will not get a "job well done" from me.


So you oppose the Electronics Frontier Foundation, the group that lobbies against warrentless "wiretapping" of Internet communications, among other causes?

Political advocacy is not inherently "evil", and all lobbyists are not sent from the shadows to corrupt and pervert all that is whole and good. It is what a given group advocates, and the ends by which they seek their means, which determines their charting on the alignment table. Not all lobbyists are on the same team, nor are they all "evil".

05 Jan 2013 05:45 PM
BMFPitt     
Why an app, rather than a simple mobile-friendly website?

05 Jan 2013 05:52 PM
stirfrybry     

vpb: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yep.  Who cares about kids, you can always make some more just like them.


BZZZZT!
Appeal to emotion! Try again

05 Jan 2013 06:00 PM
Great Janitor     
My $0.02:

The police are only a reactionary response force. They are not there to prevent crime from happening. All gun control policies do is strip law abiding citizens from the ability to legally defend themselves. I have never been mugged, and for that I am happy. But I will never again live in a place that prevents law abiding people the ability to use a hand gun for self defense. If some asshole pulls a gun on me for any reason, I will pull one on them. That should be my legal right, that should be everyone's legal right. If you decide that you do not want to carry a gun or if you don't like them, that's fine. Don't use your hatred of guns to take away my right, and everyone else's, to properly defend themselves if they so choose.

Remember, it's not the law abiding population that you have to fear. It's the population that uses guns to commit crimes that you have to fear.

As for taking lobbyist money:

The rules that Congress runs on needs to change. It should be viewed as accepting money from a lobbyist is no different than accepting a bribe, and in doing so, they should instantly forfeit their congressional seat, charges placed against them, no less than 10 years in prison and an emergency election held to find someone to fill that seat. Congress should not be an entity that is for sale to the corporations to serve corporate interests, but rather an entity that serves the people of the United States. Hell, when it comes to Congress, I think the best things we can do is to change their pay to simply what the average American makes, make their benefits no different than average American worker benefits (2 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick leave, travel covered only if it's for business), and upon leaving office the benefits expire (just like the average job out there for the average American). Do that and will see a radical shift in who serves in Congress from the self serving people currently in power to those who really have a calling to make this a better nation.

05 Jan 2013 06:01 PM
yingtong     

TV's Vinnie: This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this
[www.usmilitary.com image 300x300]

or

B: Guys like this
[i48.tinypic.com image 600x465]


Answer: B..

just like the concepts of 'due process' and 'innocent until proven guilty' were intended for guys like this:

i2.cdn.turner.comView Full Size



and this:
media1.policymic.comView Full Size


Gun control policies from people who think like you invariably boil down to "rich people get guns, poor people don't"

05 Jan 2013 06:07 PM
StoPPeRmobile     

jso2897: Damn, Drew. You're going to pump this gun thing till it's coont bleeds, aren't you?
[i18.photobucket.com image 384x400]


Fuk'n all in!

/too bad

05 Jan 2013 06:08 PM
hundreddollarman    [TotalFark]  

WhoIsWillo: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.


What is it with gun-grabbers and their fixation on penises and penis size? Something Freudian? Afraid to come out of the closet? Latent anxiety over your own size? Is it just a phase like Jonah Hill's character in "Superbad" where they just envision being surrounded by dicks?

/Dicks

05 Jan 2013 06:22 PM
Mrbogey     
Looks like the general popularity of gun control is rather low when you count the actual cash the supporters of it are willing to shell out. Gun control advocates have too much of a say in politics.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And that's why we as a society are willing to let 80,000 people die every year in exchange for the freedom to drink beer.


And let's not go into all the health problems caused by allowing people to have promiscuous sex.

Let's have a discussion on reasonable restrictions folks...

radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.


Uh huh... And let me tell you how I was totally anti-gun but this debate has made me anti-gun control instead.

05 Jan 2013 06:25 PM
juvandy     
where they just envision being surrounded by dicks?


Well, this is FARK after all...

05 Jan 2013 06:27 PM
BigNumber12     

WhoIsWillo: Voiceofreason01: Clearly the "gun lobby" has been buying elections for decades!

/either that or the actual amount of money given to politicians is relatively small in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot of people who don't blame guns for tragedies like the Connecticut shooting are unwilling to see their Constitutional rights sacrificed to the god of political expediency and the inability of some people to correctly evaluate risk in the face of emotional distress.

Yes. And every attempt to regulate the ability of people to purchase machines designed for the expressed purpose of killing is a violation of your right to compensate for your small penis.



Not sure if teenager or lonely feminist.

05 Jan 2013 06:28 PM
Showing 1-50 of 116 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined