Stark wrote:It doesn't matter why you support something once you're funding them. The obvious parallel is to people who fund local organisations who are the only way to get water or security and who are actually terrorists.
Except water is life and guns aren't. :v
Terrorists that provide water and security for the local civil population are basically states.
And sometimes, guns can be life.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The NRA is indeed being a lot more rigid and unyielding over the issue than most of its members want, myself included, but they've also got the only lobbying game in Washington that's serious enough to get our voices heard on this issue, so we've got to accept the fact they won't compromise at all to at least force our opinion to be heard through the tidal wave of anti-gun propaganda. Nobody else can do it, so I swallowed my bile over the total refusal to compromise and signed up and paid the membership fee, and I don't regret it.
Out of curiosity, where do you stand on Obama?
One of the other N&P threads that is boiling up right now is the debate over the morality of voting for Obama. The logic a lot of Obama voters used is essentially the same logic you use here. That is, "They're aren't the best, but at least they are looking out for some of our issues."
You think this guy is bad? How about conspiracy theorists saying Sandy Hook victims are really just actors hired by DHS/Obama in order to BAN GUNZ, something that surfaced so often Snopes.com actually noticed and checked? Also, check out the other entries on this page, most of them are invented quotes or various lies by gun supporters. Virtually the only thing possible that is missing there would be fictional letter from one of the kids written during the shooting stating "please no ban gun, we die for freedom"
