NRA: Fuck It, Let’s Just Ban Guns - The Global Edition
Published On: Fri, Dec 14th, 2012

NRA: Fuck It, Let’s Just Ban Guns

DavidKeene

Enough!

Sponsored Links


By NRA President David Keene

Fairfax, Va. (The Global Edition) – As president of the National Rifle Association, I’ve been the first to support the Second Amendment in even the most extreme cases. Following national tragedies in Columbine and Tucson, I rallied around gun rights, knowing that if I didn’t stand up for constitutional protections when it was hard then I didn’t deserve to take them for granted when it was easy.

But killing something like 20 kids at that elementary school in Connecticut? Fuck it, let’s do it: Let’s ban guns.I know I’ve defended private gun ownership after some pretty heinous acts, but this one takes the cake. I’m absolutely appalled that the guy who did this was able to acquire the guns legally and without issue. Seriously, nobody should be able to do that. What kind of sicko needs that kind of firepower?This demented fuck shot a bunch of KIDS!!! Somebody needs to stop this kind of thing from happening again and I’m willing to do my part. As president of the NRA, I want to assure the American public that I will not rest until every gun has been rounded up and destroyed.Congress should act now to wholly criminalize all forms of gun ownership, because did you see what these fucking whack-jobs are doing with them!? Holy shit! Is everybody blind to how rampant, unchecked gun violence been tearing this country apart!? Who in their right minds thinks that hunting a deer or sharp-shooting at the range is fucking worth this!? Not me, that’s for sure! And don’t give me that “tradition” crap either. You can stuff that “tradition” garbage or I’m going to have the NRA beat you over the head with your former gun, which we’ll be turning over to more responsible parties for proper disposal.

And it’s not just the guns themselves. No, it’s the whole culture of gun worship. For decades, we’ve been elevating gun owners to some Christ-like status, like you have to own a gun to be American. Or like owning a gun is the solution for every problem. What moron thinks like that!? If more people had a gun at that elementary school, there just would’ve been a shootout and more people would’ve gotten hurt or worse. We have to end this twisted firearm deification and start prioritizing people’s lives over property.

The only answer is to wipe guns off the face of the Earth, starting with here in the United States of America. Join me, fellow patriots, as we lead the NRA’s charge to replace guns with compassion. Together, we can eradicate this terrible scourge to our society.

Additional editing by TGE Correspondent David Ross

http://www.theglobaledition.com/about/ 

Share your view
  • ishiibrad

    Weston, so you were always the little spoon eh ? got it !

  • Ron Hutchinson

    Call me stupid but… Is the writer being sarcastic? I can’t really tell… What do you guys think about the saying that goes: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will remain with guns”? I think it has some depth to it. I would happily turn my assault rifle in if I could be guaranteed that all the bad people turned theirs in too.

    • redeye

      I am sure Adam Lanza share your opinion.

      • texaninsumatra

        Please read my post above. Banning guns as a solution to ANY crime would not only be ineffective, following that line of thought to the eventual conclusions is just plain ludicrous because you simply can’t make everyone behave if they know that there will be no really bad consequences (to them personally) for their actions.

        Admittedly, my solution may be a bit cruel, inhumane, and uncivilized (then again, so are the crimes we’re discussing such punishments for), but it would be one whole helluva lot more effective than coddling the criminals and not permanently locking up those who are truly insane.

  • amediawatcherinbeijing

    This is obviously fake. No one takes such a 180 so casually, so quickly, and without causing a mainstream media extravaganza. This is a joke, or just wishful thinking

  • texaninsumatra

    What a crock of crap. Sure, let’s ban guns; you can kill people with them after all.

    The first thing you will find is that crime rates skyrocket (which has happened pretty much everywhere they’ve done it) because – surprise, surprise – the criminals don’t comply with the laws.

    Second, you will find that the those wanting to kill others will just find another way. It wasn’t covered much in the US, but a man in China hurt a similar number of school children using “just” a kitchen knife. So let’s ban knives too, you can kill people with them too. (Of course, you’ll have to roast all your meals (meat and veggies) whole and gnaw them into pieces with your hands and teeth, but that’s a small price to pay for a safer world aye?).

    While we’re at it, we’ll have to ban planes, buses, and automobiles too: we already have ample proof that any of them can be used as weapons to kill others in even larger numbers than guns. This means we’ll all have to walk everywhere and take boats for international travel, but again it’s a small price to pay for a safer world aye? (Not so good for those who get sea-sick or want to get anywhere in a hurry, but we’ll all be safer, aye.)

    While we’re at it, I guess we’ll have to ban all racket and bat related sports (baseball, cricket, tennis, etc.) because a bat or racket to the head can obviously kill. And rope, you can hang people with it. Sticks and stones? Sure, you can kill with them too, so let’s ban trees and rocks…. Of course, it’ll be a little hard to enforce this regulation, but I’m sure with enough our hard-earned tax dollars, I’m sure they’ll make a valiant effort.

    Rats, it occurs to me that you can also kill someone with your bare hands. No black-belt or years of training required, strangulation is pretty low tech and low skill. I guess this means we’ll have to start removing everyone’s thumbs at birth (can’t strangle anyone without an opposing thumb). Of course, mutilation of future generations will probably lead to more mental instability and higher frustration levels; but hey, another small price to pay for a safer world, aye?

    OR, instead of trying to punish everyone for the crimes of a few … we can start CATCHING the criminals in question (who are out for their 15 mins of fame and notoriety and maybe a book writing or movie deal later on after 10 or 20 years in a nice air conditioned cell with 3 meals a day, TV, and exercise breaks) and making their punishment for such crimes so humiliating and so horrible that even the mentally unstable will shy away from such acts.

    If potential criminals knew that they were going to be put in a cage in the city square where everyone could walk by and spit on them or throw rotten vegetables and human excrement on them for several months while they were slowly starved to death… all the sudden such acts would become a lot less tempting to possible notoriety seekers. “Mentally ill”, either by choice as a defense strategy, too bad. The same punishment would still apply. Even those who are depressive or maladjusted (but still definitely off in the head) like the Colorado theater shooter wouldn’t want to face a fate like that.

    Cruel and inhumane you say? But all more effecting than trying to ban things, coddle the criminals (whether mentally balanced or not), and cry about the crimes and over the victims. A little cruel and cold-blooded you say? So are the crimes we’re discussing.

    Ask the parents of all the slain children if they would agree.

    • jobrighton

      They severely tightened gun laws in Australia in 1996 after a mass shooting. Guess what? Crimes rates did not skyrocket as you assert, in fact they fell, significantly. Arm yourself with some real world examples.

      • texaninsumatra

        I don’t know what stats you’re looking at, but you need to check them again. My wife is Australian. After the 1996 law (and subsequent gathering up and public destruction of firearms), crime in some Australian cities went up +/-300% the next year. The second year, it “only” went up 10 to 20%, then 5 or 10%, then “fell” by 5 or 10% and many said “see, it’s working”.

        The problem is that was 10 or 15% over the previous year. So even taking the best case you have 1.1 x 3, then 1.05 x (1.1×3), then 0.9 (1.05(1.1×3)) = 3.12. So even though crime rates were “falling” after 3 or 4 years, they are still SIGNIFICANTLY higher than before the law was passed.

        Besides, if you’ve never visited there (and I have, many times), Australia is, in many ways, more like the USA of the 1950′s or ’60′s and Australians are almost invariably more polite, civilized, and laid back than Americans (or Canadians or Brits).

        Any more “real world examples” I’d like to discuss? Sure: How about Germany, Hitler enacted gun control in 1936-38; or maybe China, Mao Tze Tung did it in 1935; or Laos, Pol Pot got it in 1956; or Russia, Stalin and Lenin got it in 1929; Italy, Benito Mussolini started confiscation in 1931; Fidel Castro, “Armas para que?”; Hugo Chavez, trying desperately to follow his idol Fidel’s lead even now.

        It turned out OH so well for all of those unarmed and defenseless citizens in those other places; so why don’t we try it out at home?

      • http://www.facebook.com/leonard.umina Leonard Umina

        texaninsumatra is right. His math is correct, and you can find lots of data on the web, particularly on Wikipedia and much of it actually sourced from the anti-gun U.N. or the U.S. CDC. In fact their decade long study of every county in the U.S. proved (to their disappointment) that gun ownership decreases crime, decreases the severity of crime, and is not the danger the media and gun grabbers would have you believe. In fact, even with inflated numbers for gun wounds and death that include people shot by police and felon on felon violence generally occurring in gangs, a child in the U.S. is 4 times less likely to suffer a gun injury than to die in a fatal bicycle accident. Research the figures and question the motives of those feeding you the false information.

    • Joe Bloggs

      What a stupid comment. Probably one of the stupidest I’ve read here. Gun laws certainly prevent crime and killings throughout most of Europe. America’s deaths are 20 times higher.. like 2000% higher.

      • texaninsumatra

        Get some facts before you spout off, Joe (or do some traveling to Europe and look around). As best I can remember, only the UK (and maybe France) have really restrictive gun laws that I’m aware of, in many other countries
        there are plenty of guns and they are fairly easy to acquire.

        Take Switzerland, for example. Not only are there lots of guns (more/household
        than in the average American city), but quite a few are fully automatic
        machine guns because members of the military (which, at one time or
        another, includes every male in the country because they have mandatory
        service) take their guns home with them at night.

        Yet they have amazingly LOW crime (gun related or otherwise) in
        Switzerland. (What criminal in his right mind wants to break into a
        house where there is a good chance of the owner having a gun, much less a
        machine gun).

        Very much the same situation in Israel – not in Europe, but mandatory
        service, guns everywhere, and relatively little gun related street
        crime. (Criminals who start tossing off rounds in public in Israel are
        likely to be turned into Swiss cheese in a few minutes by multiple armed
        citizens.)

        One of the big differences for both of these cases is that there is
        mandatory service, so EVERYONE is educated about guns and gun safety.

        • Paul__Revere

          You forgot to leave out another huge difference. Almost zero “african descended” population.

        • Sweeeny

          Yes you are right in much of what you say. However, in the UK pretty much anyone can get a gun – not a pistol and certainly not a AK47 but a gun nevertheless. But we don’t. Why not? Nor are the police armed as a rule, nor guards in banks or shopping centres – ever. I’ve heard that Canadians have more guns per capita than the USA but a small percentage of the gun crime. Why is it that Americans think they need to have stonking big guns and lots of them? Guns aside, are you more likely to be attacked by your neighbors than the Swiss or is your government more likely to decide to attack its own people than in Britain?

          And just one last thing – I have not researched this but it is a quote from an article in the Wash Post – “The only problem is that Israel actually has quite strong gun restrictions and
          very low gun ownership rates, some of the lowest in the developed world.”

          • texaninsumatra

            @Sweeny: Obviously, the reporter for the Washington Post was more
            interested in propaganda than facts. I have BEEN to Israel (Jerusalem
            all the way to Elat and into neighboring Jordan) and can tell you there
            was no shortage of guns out in plain sight on either side of the border.
            Both a couple of the local security types in Israel and my Jordanian
            guide Muhammed (a Beduin Sunni) told me that conceiled carry (usually
            pistols) is extremely common as well.

            Regarding your other comment: Yes, there are unarmed cops (bobbies) and
            guards and less gun crime in the UK (although higher overall crime
            rates, check Home Office crime stats vs. FBI crime stats) and in
            Canada. But that is a function of the population, not the number of
            guns per person. (Americans have a much higher percentage owning cars
            than the UK, but traffic injuries are lower per capita because of
            mandatory driver’s ed.)

            You are missing my main point, however. That is that it is not the guns
            themselves that are the problem, guns (or cars, or knives, or cricket
            bats) are merely tools. It’s the intent of the person using them that
            it sometimes the problem.

            We don’t attempt to ban automobiles, knives, cricket bats, or airplanes
            when people choose to kill or maim others with them; we punish the
            criminals who committed the acts. So why are guns demonized and treated
            differently?

          • Sweeeny

            I think you missed my point which was that although in the UK people can have guns but don’t – why? Is it that Americans still fantasize about the old west and the OK corral or that they feel more threatened or what? I think that, at least part of the problem, is the latter and it is a naturally escalating phenomenon .

            Your argument re knives and cricket bats is fallacious in the extreme and simply an NRA cut and paste. Why not electricity, air planes, natural gas? Please do not accuse the WP reporter of propagandizing and then use a specious argument like that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/william.strand.961 William Strand

    hello i do like what the nra saying that we do need cop’s in the school But if the gov are going to stop the people of having assault weapon then think the the cop’s and swat should not have them to

  • http://www.facebook.com/william.strand.961 William Strand

    my dad has been telling me as i was growing up that it’s the guns that hurt’s or kill’s people it’s the person behind the gun that dose the hurting and the killing of people And i look at it like this when one bad apple gose bad then he or she make it bad for the good one

  • James Murphy

    It appears that the same gaggle of folks screaming for gun control are the ones who cried for unilateral (nuclear) disarmament year ago. For those of you Gen X and Gen Y types, let me explain. Yes, there were actually people in the USA who fervently believed that if the US gave up its nuclear weapons an impressed USSR would, in turn, do the same.

    Now, law-abiding gun owners are being asked to turn over their weapons, despite the fact that the gang-bangers and assorted criminal types have no intention of parting with their weapons.
    Washington can pass all the laws it wants. But Americans have sensed this time was coming, and guns and ammunition sales have sky-rocketed since Obama was first elected. Any law promulgated now is too late.

    Perhaps US citizens should vent their rage against those who profit from glorifying death and destruction: Hollywood. (But that day will never come to pass, as the Democratic party relies on it’s Hollywood elitists to fund its campaigns.

  • spanishbill

    I think the really funny part is that message from David Keene “Please remove it”. Has he read the First Amendment? Or does he just skip ahead to the Second? (Maybe that is part of the satire too. Which, in a sense, would make it even funnier.).

    Gun owners rights can be protected at the same time as we protect innocent civilians from mass murderers. The real crimes being committed are by weapons manufacturers, sellers and greedy self-serving politicians. Gun manufacturers contribute more than $100 million dollars to the NRA every year. Where do you think that money goes? It goes into the campaign funds of spineless, power hungry and ego-maniacal Congress people and US Senators who are so afraid of being thrown off of the public teat that they are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder. It really is disgusting.

    In the meantime the national debate (as well as the debate in forums such as this) revolves around either/or positions that are simply irrational and get us nowhere. And in the meantime the killings are continuing to occur everyday.

    I saw a survey years ago that said Europeans have the sense that Americans all carry ‘a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other’. (The same thing used to be said of imperialist Britain). Maybe it should be ‘a gun in one hand and a copy of the Constitution in the other’.

    I suspect that in either case the gun is loaded but the Bible and the Constitution are unread or at least not comprehended.

    • texaninsumatra

      I’m sure that Mr. Keene understands the First Amendment, but evidently your own understanding is somewhat incomplete. YES, they have a right to publish their opinion and this article, but they do NOT have the right to claim that he wrote it (i.e. By NRA President David Keene). Doing so is called Slander and Libel because he didn’t actually say or write it.
      Anyone with a brain in their head (including Mr. Keene) knows, of course, that this is satire and treats it as such. But Mr. Keene not only has every right to ask them to remove it (or at least label it as satire) and somewhat of an obligation to do so (or risk being labeled as in “complicit agreement”).
      You are, however, correct that both sides are polarized and getting nowhere and that both gun owners and innocent civilians can be protected. That was the point of my original post above (which was also satirical).
      Instead of punishing all of us, they need to make the punishments for gun related crimes so heavy and heinous that any half-way sane person would want to avoid them and to lock up those who are NOT sane.
      You are also correct that there are many in Europe who think that all Americans swagger around with a gun on our hip like John Wayne. They also think that everyone who lives in Dallas has a mansion, owns oil wells< and has tons of money like JR Ewing, which (unfortunately for me) is not true either.

      • Spanishbill

        We can agree to disagree here or we can just disagree. Frankly you seem like the type of person that may be responsible for much of the kind of unreasoning discord prevalent in what passes for society today. Mr. Keene has the right to ask them to remove the article (as far as having ‘somewhat’ of an obligation, what does that even mean?). As a public figure, satire of Mr. Keene cannot be considered Slander or Libel (which btw are two different things). You may consider your original post to have been satirical, however it really was not very funny. When, in this reply, you refer to “punishing all of us”, please don’t include me with gun rights advocates (I’m trying to avoid being in ‘complicit agreement’ as if that would really matter). Also I resent your incorrect re-interpretation of my remarks in the last paragraph of your response. I was not talking about movie actors or fictional soap opera characters. Polarization of citizens is a very real problem and it is not helped by right-wing extremists spreading misinformation, hatred and fear yet claiming constitutional rights and Biblical authority only when it suits them. Have a nice day Tex.

        • Paul__Revere

          Mr Keene is not a “public figure”. He is not elected to a publicly held office. His salary is not paid with public funds (aka tax money). He is not in the entertainment industry. He is president of a private membership group. He is no more “public” than you or me.

        • texaninsumatra

          Spanishbill: 1) Please tell me how any of my previous posts promote “unreasoning discord” when the intent of them is to make people THINK about the issue instead of just reacting to it emotionally. 2) Public figures (including politicians and movie stars) CAN, and most certainly do, sue people for both slander (spoken) and libel (written) defamation and character attacks. Otherwise anyone could say or write anything they want and get away with it. 3) I was not attempting to be funny, I was attempting to be educational. 4) Yes, I do include you in “punishing all of us”. I originally meant “all of us legally responsible gun owners”. However, after a little thought, it occurs to me that if crime gos up and our collective rights are diminished even a little (even though you don’t seem to mind giving up yours), then yes, we (society in general) are being collectively punished for the actions of a few loons and criminals. (When we should be punishing them instead of society in general.) 5) Resent the interpretation of Europeans’ perception of Americans all you want, it is nonetheless true.

          6) Last, but certainly not least, you are worried about right wing extremists spreading misinformation, hatred and fear yet claiming Constitutional and Biblical authority (although I fail to see how that figures into the firearms debate as they weren’t invented yet and I haven’t heard even the most rabid pro-gun advocate claim that having an AK is a God-given right) only when it suits them….yet at the same time you seem to have no problem whatsoever when liberals such as yourself do the exact same thing. (i.e. Pot, come in; this is Kettle, over.)

  • Redh4242

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2963282/posts
    Another weapon that needs to be banned! Can’t forget how dangerous breasts can be!

    Frozen chickens have been used to hit people over the head with as well.. So we should also ban all frozen meats. What about beer bottles? Those are deadly too! ..and screwdrivers. Many murders have been committed with those. It’s amazing how many things can be turned into assault weapons. I’m looking at a pair of stiletoes that would do nicely. Oh! Or the frying pan I used for dinner. Or the trash bag I lined my garbage can with. That could easily used to suffocate someone. I better get rid of all of the above to make sure I live in the safest bubble around!

    • texaninsumatra

      Thanks for understanding the point of my larger posting; maybe you can explain it to some of the others here (who only seem to understand sarchasm or satire when written from the liberal perspective).

  • http://www.facebook.com/kamiel79 Kamiel Choi

    I’m afraid there are many issues conflated here.
    1) The right to have armed guards in schools (see NRA tv ad)
    2) The right to own assault weapons
    3) The right to protect yourself

    When gunners defend the status quo, they invariably try to change the direction of the conversation, away from the justification of citizen ownership of assault rifles. Some just say the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct (Alex Jones). Some try to ridicule the idea of causation (texaninsumatra) saying we should ban bats and knives as well. There’s also a lot of paranoia that the State would start to suppress people if there was a “gun ban” (here they refer to a general gun ban for the sake of their argument).

    I think left and right should try to understand each other better. I am a left libertarian. Fuck, how I love my freedom, I’d protect it anytime. It’s why I haven’t enslaved myself in the system with a job, working independently. But I don’t need a gun to protect myself. I need to make sure the state police can’t find me, I need to keep mobile. People seem to think that they can fend off a military invasion of their home if only they have some AR15s lying around. I think they missed the point: the state does have overwhelming firepower and the only way to bring it down is to lower the defense budget and break the nation into many small pieces. Go Vermont.

    Anyway. Didn’t like this satire. It would have been much better if we let the head of the NRA say something that really sounds like he did it. Remember the Yes men? That was good stuff.