Happy Valentines Day From the NRA

[BSB]

"RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Which is exactly what is happening with Lapierre. "


People do do this sort of thing to others both naturally and by design. However, in the two cases we have here, Mr. LaPierre, and this chimp like poster you have "sirs", that is not, in the main, what is occurring. These two individuals have polarized themselves. They have made themselves targets.


BSB

[BT]

That certainly is one point of view.

[Xavier_Onassis]

La Pierre did not have to comment on the Newtown massacre at all. Then he said that the government is powerless to pass even a single law to address the massacre, and that this was a;l it should or even could do. If he is a target, it is his own fault.

[BT]

Was Lapiere commenting on the Newtown tragedy or was he commenting on the emotion laden rush to pass legislation that would have had little to no effect on stopping another tragedy.

Let's not conflate the two events.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If Newtown had not occurred, he would have had no speech at all. He made enough of a fool of himself that some other NRA clown followed up his speech.

[BT]

If Newtown had not occurred, he would have had no speech at all. He made enough of a fool of himself that some other NRA clown followed up his speech.

If Newtown hadn't happened would we have seen the rush to enact emotion ridden gun laws? And thus no need for the NRA to spring into action? I don't think so.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The NRA has no reason to "spring into action", other than to focus its members and sympathizers on the imagined need to go out and buy yet another gun to add to the dozen they already own, because, you know, it might possibly become illegal to buy such guns. The NRA is not nearly so much a defender of the 2nd Amendment as it is a promoter of of the gun industry.

You can judge the amount of profit in an industry by the number of magazines dedicated to the purchase and use of specific high-profit items.

How much can anyone say about cigars? Yet we have "cigar aficionado" magazine. There is as much of, or more variety of pipe tobacco sold as cigars, but pipe tobacco isnot so high profit. Hence, no magazine. There is no magazine for those who roll their one cigarettes, but there are at least half a dozen dedicated to Black women's hairdos.

I see there is an Open Carry magazine now trying to sell itself as well.

Men's magazines featuring clothes are also a riot: $90 neckties, $200 jeans, $1000 shoes, I have even seen a recommendation for white t-shirts selling for $29.95.

[BT]

The NRA has no reason to "spring into action", other than to focus its members and sympathizers on the imagined need to go out and buy yet another gun to add to the dozen they already own, because, you know, it might possibly become illegal to buy such guns. The NRA is not nearly so much a defender of the 2nd Amendment as it is a promoter of of the gun industry.

You can judge the amount of profit in an industry by the number of magazines dedicated to the purchase and use of specific high-profit items.

How much can anyone say about cigars? Yet we have "cigar aficionado" magazine. There is as much of, or more variety of pipe tobacco sold as cigars, but pipe tobacco isnot so high profit. Hence, no magazine. There is no magazine for those who roll their one cigarettes, but there are at least half a dozen dedicated to Black women's hairdos.

I see there is an Open Carry magazine now trying to sell itself as well.

Men's magazines featuring clothes are also a riot: $90 neckties, $200 jeans, $1000 shoes, I have even seen a recommendation for white t-shirts selling for $29.95.

Nonsense. The NRA sprang into action because certain segments of society were pushing gun control while standing on the graves of the sandy hook children.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I see no reason the them NOT to do this.

It is a free country, and those children were slain with guns which the murderer should never have been permitted to shoot.

[BT]

I see no reason the them NOT to do this.

It is a free country, and those children were slain with guns which the murderer should never have been permitted to shoot.

Who gave Adam Lantz permission to shoot?

[sirs]

Last I checked, he stole them, and used them without anyone's permission