Oh, yeah, I got an ad from them before the video, AND banner ads on the side. I'm not sure what they're hoping to accomplish, though, other than making themselves look like tools.
I am a gunsmith, and I've worked as a range safety officer and an instructor. I've been shooting for over 30 years and I'm not yet 40. I love guns. I hate the NRA. They don't represent gun owners, but serve their own interests, they even support laws that will restrict gun ownership from time to time, and to write themselves into the laws. To work as an instructor for state recognized carry classes you have to be certified by the NRA, it is the only option. This certification process is a 2 day class. I would like to start my own firearm instructor business, one of the reasons being that training is so important to own a firearm, but literally the only way is to be certified by the NRA. Even though my schooling was nearly 2 years, full time at an accredited and well respected institution in the industry.
Yall forgot to mention how the NRA lobbied for extreme gun control in CA when the Black Panther Party for Self Defense was exercising that 2nd amendment making CA one of the strictest states on guns.
@@dickcastle yes but it was also prior to the big shakeup in NRA leadership - not that it would've changed anything since it's a deeply racist organization
@@dickcastle Wouldn't matter what president it was under as you should know by know states are separate from the president. The president has no rights to tell a state what to do. Now federal banks run everything in this country just checkout what they did to JFK when he took their power away from money.
Man I love this series, it's fantastic when Cracked does real journalistic videos and articles. Far and away my favourite article about Ferguson in terms of information and genuine readability was written way back then by Cody, and I often point to it as an example of genuinely good journalism. Keep it up guys!
You should do an episode about MAAD next! They started with a goal to get a certain BAC declared 'drunk driving', then after they succeeded in that, the founder wanted to disband the organization... but because people were making salaries in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the org they forced her out and continue fighting pointless political battles they don't even have any real interest in winning. They've turned freaking out over drunk driving into a niche industry they've got a monopoly on and they're not going to let anything like the truth get in the way of their paychecks. The original founder of MAAD is now an anti-MAAD activist.
That's actually not the acronym - the organization is called MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It was founded after a mom lost her kid to drunk driving, not surprisingly.
The proper acronym is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), but everything else Dustin said in his comment is true. Although, it's one of those things that's hard to speak out against, because then you are somehow labeled as pro drunk driving.
Only with drilling and submission to discipline does an Armed Rabble, Dangerous to Liberty, become a Well-ordered Militia, Protective of Liberty. --- George Washington, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1789
"Didn't Jefferson also write that people have the right to overthrow their government when it becomes a burden?" He did say things to that effect a few times. The problem is that "becomes a burden" is a pretty subjective standard.
Kitten Katt i agree but actions do speak louder than words. But we shouldn’t idolize people from the past we should idolize individual traits and actions.
Cheshire Kat Well bolt action rifles were originally built specifically for soldiers in war. But we found a excellent use for those firearms in civilian ownership. These "assault weapons" are actually great tools for defense against home invasions because of greater inherent accuracy due to the ergonomics of the rifles and lower risk of catastrophic over penetration because the projectiles slow faster after hitting walls.
+Andy Neeley Accuracy goes down for each consecutive bullet fired. Semi-automatic weapons, like pistols, avoid this by allowing you to fire at your own pace. Assault weapons, like AK-47s and AR-15s, have a full-auto and often burst setting, but even the burst setting can cause bullets to be fired somewhere other than your intended target. "Slow faster" can mean very little for the speed of a bullet fired in front of a window in a rural neighborhood.
ZXTMA Smith yes, that is indeed kind of the point he is making here. The NRA is untrustworthy, even if you agree with what they achieve. If someone does you a favour while having reputation for being a backstabber, you can thank him for the favour done, but you don't have to trust him afterwards.
I don't understand people's issue with regulating guns. I don't want to ban them, but we have to acknowledge that they are deadly. A car can be deadly and it's not even designed to be. So what do we do with those? We make you learn how to use one safely and then you get a license to operate it. And that license can be taken away if you're proven to be a hazard to others
I agree. the counter arguments I always get are that it'll just increase bureaucracy or that the government will Have a list of gun owners so they'll know who to come for when they do take away guns.
In the perspective of some, any form regulation is a prelude to a forced disarmament. The fact America is armed and capable of a measurable quantity force (even if the military is capable far greater force) acts as a preservative measure against military backed police states, coups, and tyranny. In a diverse and disparate culture like the United states, armament also behaves as a form of equality, preventing an armed ruling class from oppressing an unarmed sub culture through threat of violence.
While you might want to ban them, there are certainly people that would. Those people often take regulations that were written for a specific reason and twist the wording to allow regulations that were never intended. Take the National Firearms Act for example. It's intended goal was to limit access to fully-automatic weapons and sawed shotguns. The ATF we have now has used it to or attempted to use it to restrict suppressors, short-barreled rifles, pistols, ammunition, attachments for certain firearms, etc. That is the problem with Federal Gun regulations. The states have much more leeway(legally), or at least used to, to regulate firearms. The reason for that was because the state governments were closer to the people and better reflected the consent of the governed. Hope that helped.
TheKiltedGerman That's not enough of a reason to resist enacting potentially life-saving legislation that requires people to be educated before they can use or buy something that is designed to kill
www.criticallayouts.com/component/option,com_rsgallery2/Itemid,384/catid,1017/ Link that I only read the title of to illustrate and prove my point against the original angry reply.
As for Clinton, Clinton did want to pursue more gun control measures. She did. She mentioned this passionately multiple times. Heck she even criticized poor old Bernie Sanders of VT for being too lenient on gun companies (because we all know VT is a hotbed of gun crime and Sanders is a gun lobby shill). If you think the regulations in place are sufficient and someone comes along saying they're not and they need to be expanded to a degree you see as dramatic, that can be argued as someone coming for your rights. If someone told you they didn't want to ban the first amendment but wanted to make all online publication subject to government censure you'd probably have some issues with that. Is saying, "they're coming for our guns", a bit of hyperbole? Sure, but this is politics and all sides and candidates engage in hyperbole to an extent.
Murphy82nd no he wasn't, the NRA still gave him an f- and he still wasn't crazy like the NRA, he just owned guns and was more relaxed. Also, I don't want crazy people or possible terrorists to be able to buy guns, or convicted felons for that matter isn't "taking your guns away" it's keeping them out of the hands of crazy people and proven felons/suspected terrorists. Making buying a deadly weapon, especially one designed only to kill, a little harder to buy that candy isn't unreasonable. If you need a gun in 10 minutes it better be the zombie Armageddon. Otherwise you are a severely unprepared or mentally unstable individual. I plan my dentist visits 10 days in advance, and some doctors visits a month in advance. Grow up.
Kate Given Buying a gun is actually a bit harder than buying candy there's federally mandated paperwork and a background check which has been legally required for more than a two decades
You're not wrong, but I think his point was that the NRA will say anything against the Democrats simply because they're Democrats, where it doesn't matter what was actually said, done, or attempted.
There are already measures in place to stop convicted felons from buying guns, that's what background checks are for (not that background checks stop straw purchasing, which is illegal, or theft, which is also illegal). The vast majority of purchases do go through background checks. The ATF performs tens of millions of them a year. Yes private transactions are allowed in some states, but there is no evidence to point to those being a major source of firearms used in either mass shootings or other crimes. www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html While we're at it, many of the mass shooters have gone through background checks. Background checks aren't a magic cure all. Unless you decide to throw away HIPAA there is a lot that they cannot contain and its overwhelmingly based on past illegal activity. www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-shootings/ www.cbsnews.com/news/colo-shooter-purchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/ www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-shop-owner-orlando-nightclub-shooter-omar-mateen-passed-background-check/ nation.time.com/2013/09/17/navy-yard-shooters-gun-purchase-was-probably-legal-any-way-you-cut-it/ As for the "no fly no buy" list, the terrorist watch list was already argued as unconstitutional before a federal judge and even the left leaning ACLU doesn't want to see it used as a benchmark for firearm ownership because of how flawed that watch list is. www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms time.com/4146025/guns-no-fly-list-constitution/ It is harder to buy a gun than candy, saying otherwise is just hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole. As for growing up, come back to me with the actual facts of the situation instead of dramatization. Until then realize that ad hominems make your argument appear weak.
To be fair, thats what the federalists said. Less than half of the signers of the constitution became federalists so you can't really argue legislative intent when less than half the legislators aren't represented
Kilo101 right, but in the first bit of the video he was specifically going on about how the 2nd amendment has been mis-interpreted over the years, but it's all clearly laid out in the federalist papers, the Supreme Court referenced them in their 2008 ruling
MonJoe20 no, to prevent the federal standing army from having the ability to overcome the state and local militia and impose martial law.... at least that was the idea
Salvador Villagomez They prevent research and common sense regulation that most gun owners support, so you are more likely to be hit by someone who was just stupid and negligent with handling their gun, and they do it for the money from the manufacturers. Fuck the NRA, gun owners are better off without them
He didn't say this, but all of the rhetoric of the NRA (especially the "Democrats want to take away our rights so they can become a dictatorship" BS) is made to increase the price of guns using supply and demand. If they convince Americans that you only have a few months to get a gun, demand goes up, and so does the price. They are making up reasons to make our guns more expensive. Also, the lobby allows gun manufacturers to have a monopoly by being part of the NRA, further increasing the price. The NRA also fights against regulations that keep guns in the hands of the responsible (for instance, Obama's suggested regulations that remove the 3 day rule that allowed the Orlando shooter to get a gun, even though he was on 2 FBI terrorist watch-lists) Also, they target democrats specifically, which hurts democracy, all because the republican party pays them in a corrupt bargain to keep them both in power.
This "most gun owners" is a monolithic term used by the other side of the argument to justify their side. Lumping millions of people into one mindset without justifying your evidence is just as misleading as the NRA. I support the NRA-ILA solely to stonewall any legislative action, because I know there will never be compromise from anti-gun groups on the issue. I do not like the NRA but they are the largest organization that will protect my rights for their own interests.
That's my big issue with gun control. It's like, gun control isn't bad. Universal background checks arent bad. But they are bad for gun manufacturers who want to sell as many guns to as many people as possible with no regard on who buys them. It's all about dat dolla dolla Bill ya'll
Can you elaborate? I don't necessarily agree with the guy but I'm curios to why you think universal background checks are bad and gun manufactures don't want to sell guns to people with no regard? I'm not trying to be condescending I'm genuily curios.
For starters, there is no single definition of universal background check standards, who would have to do it, will every state agree to same standards, will every doctor have to report every health condition, who will control that data, etc. Second, the NRA and most gun rights advocates are asking that the government start using the current system or fix what is already there before adding new laws. How can Obama ask for more gun laws if he's pardoned over 100 criminals serving time for multiple felonies that include gun laws?
Doctors are already required to report mental illness issues where they deem an individual a danger to himself or others. Those individuals are supposed to be banned from owning guns. The fact that you might have had a bladder infection ten years ago doesn't matter.
I want to get one thing straight in this video, when gun sales spike after a mass shooting it's not because people are "fantasizing". It's because they are worried about gun bans like the NY SAFE act being enacted and they want to get their firearms grandfathered in before they become illegal to purchase.
Henrik Larsen I've sold guns for a living. whenever there was a rush after something happened or before an election the majority of people wanted to get one before they get banned. It was almost universal when talking with them to find the right gun for them.
magurgle Huh.... That's an interesting angle on it. So they weren't really afraid they would need them, they were just/mainly afraid they wouldn't be able to get them if they ever DID need them?
Henrik Larsen yup, or they have their grandfather's .38 and maybe a .22 or a shotgun. They want to get an AR-15 or an AK. the biggest seller constantly, without the panic buying, is small handguns for conceal carry, then large handguns for home defense. A small number are people that are afraid and want something for defense, but not because of anything political, their house was robbed, or they were mugged, or maybe a family member was robbed. That only takes into account the people who weren't active shooters and gun owners who were just expanding their collection
You missed Taurus, which buys you an NRA membership if you buy one of their guns, and Ruger, which has pledged to donate $2 to NRA for every gun sold. Then there's also the gun club recruitment program, in which NRA pays local gun clubs if the club recruits new NRA members, which is why a great many gun clubs require their members to join NRA.
Kinda confused by all the people in the comments complaining about the video. Are you saying that spreading lies, hate, and fear is a good thing? Oh, right. I'm on UA-cam...
brain death doesnt kill people, lack of intake of oxygen due to failure of the lungs and lack of blood due to heart failure do... so i guess blood loss and organ faliure really do kill people
Miron Gaines Ideally, we wouldn't need lobbyist groups for anything. These groups can't help themselves but be corrupted by their own desire for profit.
As someone who does lobbying in connection with my work, and with a mother who literally does it for a living and at a reasonably high level, I can most definitely tell you this: Were it not for the NRA, American gun owners would undoubtedly still have representation. These are the reasons off the top of my head: 1) It's a hot button issue 2) It is, as an issue, part of the current political machine, meaning it *has* to be there for many political movements to have any kind of relevance 3) There are millions of gun owners in the US, so there are bound to be associations 4) It is a *_HUGE_* economic interest, both domestically and internationally 5) There's really no reason you wouldn't 6) Even in a world without the NRA, there would still be a lobbying gap, meaning that even if we disregard the millions of Americans that feel strongly either for or against the NRA, there would still be a viable career for quite a few lobbyist, just waiting for them Thinking that the NRA is the only viable option for gun owner representation is like thinking PETA is the only animal rights group in the entire world.
MalleusSemperVictor lobbying is the backbone of democracy. That is why it is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Still, it can be abused. The best lobbies represent large constituencies of voters. The power of the NRA isn't money, it is turning out passionate voters to call their representatives or decide elections. The worst lobbies rely on money over voters. That is why big investment banks and media companies spend hundreds of millions on lobbying and campaigns. You don't have to agree with the NRA to recognize its voter driven political influence is a model for democratic political action. Better funded groups rightly envy what the NRA has accomplished for its constituency.
MalleusSemperVictor Of course I never said that there was no industry influence within the NRA. Whether that is reflected in Pierre's salary, which is not out of line with many major advocacy and charitable institutions (sad to say), I leave to others. _My_ point is that the _political influence_ of the NRA is voter driven. I.e. no voters, no influence. This doesn't mean that industry can't influence content of advocacy, but it still has to be accepted by its politically engaged membership to have any political impact. A great example of this was the 1986 automatic weapon civilian registration ban. The NRA readily agreed to this provision as an insignificant throw away in negotiations over a gun bill. This caused a revolt among members over principles, and leadership got the message. They have taken a harder line to any further similar concessions since. I am not arguing the merits of this position. I am just pointing out that when it comes to political influence, the NRA's biggest asset is politically engaged members, not its industry funding. Ask Bloomberg how influential outspending the NRA is in terms if political results. You can hate the NRA and disagree with all of its positions, and still admire the political will of its constituency. It is a model more advocacy groups would do well to follow.
Hell, some of us liberals do happen to like guns and gun history. Just don't think no one should be able to have enough guns to re-create the scene where Neo is tooling up. Unless you're Hickok45-cause, his videos are pretty good.
I appreciate the humor in your comment, Jon, but I think it demonstrates the slippery slope that gun control may present. I'm a fan of Hickok myself (his pumpkin rolling, shotgun blasting, giggle-inducing video earned my sub), but who's to say who can and can't own as many as they want? I have a safe full of handguns and two AR 15s I built myself. You don't know me from Adam, so why would you trust me with an arsenal? You shouldn't, but I'm know I'm mentally stable and won't harm anyone. I guess all that to say "slippery slope." That's all.
Fair enough. I just think the only place anyone should drool/fetishize/worship guns is when you get a cool new one in a video game. Otherwise, IRL, unless you're target shooting, using a gun should be the last thing on the planet you'll ever want to do IMHO. I just don't like seeing people who love/worship guns so much that you get the horrible feeling that if they ever blew away someone for real they'd have a orgasm.
This is actually a pleasing, comforting video to me. It shows that the majority of gun people aren't in line with some disturbingly alarmist organization. Could you do similar videos for a bunch of other scary organizations?? I don't know which, but then again, I'm not on your payroll ;-)
Solomon Bundy the only reason they have any power is because liberals cannot stop talking about how bad they are. Nobody actually likes or finds the NRA necessary until someone tries to claim how stupid all gun owners are for buying into their rhetoric.
ShepherdsWrench. "democrat KKK" funny you say that, although true but today those democrats would be today's republicans due to a shift in party allegiences. see: Dixiecrat.
Want to stop gun violence without banning guns? Help the poor. Easiest way. Give criminals a way to support themselves and their families. Make education cheap if not free. Give people help when they need it. Then gun laws wouldn't be necessary.
Also eliminate prison sentences for non-violent offenses. It puts an immense burden on offenders families when they can't contribute monetarily nor parentally because they're behind bars.
and where is this money going to come from to do this in a country already $20 trillion in debt, and rapidly growing? also, school already is "free" up until 12th grade. how many of the crack dealers and gang members and people committing these shootings/murders in Chicago for example (or anywhere else) do you think are the "college type", or even graduated from high school? I'm all for improving education as our education standards in the u.s. are pathetic especially in math and science(not to mention the seeming lack of hard work, and growing sense of entitlement with each passing generation)but I don't see how free college is even remotely possible.
Mockturtlesoup1 Listen studies show strong correlation between better education and welfare to limit violent crime. Taxes are the natural answer. Of course just eliminating a lot of the tax breaks for the wealthy might also work. Ensure that the rich pays what they're supposed to might actually be enough. In other countries you get a net positive on taxes even though they are higher and more progressive with less loopholes. But if you are talking about entitlement I'm guessing you're not a fan of taxes to increase spending. This is why I don't think gun violence will be reduced. Because you can either limit guns or limit the factors causing gun violence. You can also do both. But doing neither ensures gun violence. Keep your guns and pay more taxes or get rid of them and pay less. Those are the only options empirically valid.
Olaf Your comment is too high-brow for the cave-men this video attracted (I suppose that includes me). The entire concept of poverty > leading to violence > leading to the need for more self defence, is a cycle that intelligent "members of the elite" have been shouting from the sidelines for decades. It is completely agains the conservative's spirit to acknowledge this, since in their mind -- all you need is a lil' hard work to become a millionaire. Anyone in America can do it if they pull their own bootstraps up. Every man for himself. No help from the Government (until they themselves actually need help and then change their tune). Go figure I'd see a comment like Mocktutlesoup1's .. I absolutely agree that figuring out how to pay for all that is a *major issue* ... in fact it should be *the* major issue, if we can all agree that it's something that needs to be done. Unfortunately the debate has been hijacked by all of the whacky shit that Trump and Republicans steer the conversation to. Religious nut jobs, 'war on white people', etc. If anyone had listened to Bernie Sanders they'd have seen how - oh so close we came to this being the main conversation. How do we eliminate income inequality and ensure every kid can go to college? But people were too busy yelling and screaming about "socialism" as if that means Soviet era Stalinism. Instead of moving forward we're moving wayyyyyy backwards. Shutting ourselves off from the world, and beginning the descent into the fall of the American Empire. We're fucked when the most ignorant in society are the ones who control the dialogue.
Sooner Admirer - Agree any fact eff up isn't great, but would be preferable if you debunked anything except the most mundane fact and instead hit some of the relevant details in the video.
Two things: First, it kinda saddens me to know that this was solid reporting on the NRA and I'm 99% sure it will be devalued because it came from Cracked, a mostly comedic source. Second, you guys should have also taken another minute to address the most common and ridiculous claim about gun control: "well if they take our guns away only criminals will have them!" Which takes all of 5 minutes to prove invalid. I won't use European statistics because they have their own issues so let's use a more recent on with Australia. They cracked down hard in 2014 on gun ownership, instituted a buyback program and went after illegal arms dealers. A basic semi-automatic pistol on the black market went from barely $1000 to over $15,000. To quote Jim Jeffries an Aussie comic "If you have $15,000 you probably don't need a gun to commit crime. You have 15,000 dollars!"
I object to the statement that Europe "has their own issues" in this context. The very real issues Europe is facing right now is the exact same populist bullshit that the NRA is spouting, only with democrats switched with refugees, and guns switched with white, christian rights. That being said, Australia is the perfect example of peaceful, constructive disarming, and Europe is the perfect example of a disarmed populace that thrives because of it. If the US would only disarm the nutjobs, and maybe spend their police budget on training instead of military grade equipment, the whole country could be safer, and more trusting.
OgreSamanosuke this isn't a good article. he ignores that the 2nd amendment argument wasn't made by the nra. it was made by Malcolm x and the nra later adopted it. but ya know, that wouldn't follow the narrative he was trying to paint.
and violent crime went up in Australia! huge success! and of course they dealt with that pesky southern border over which many guns/criminals come over perfectly! no matter which side you're on, Australia is a terrible example.
OgreSamanosuke the whole point is they would need to go door to door and search ever single citizen's home to collect the firearms which I doubt they would do. if they just start collections at police departments people who have guns illegally and don't follow these laws in the first place will not turn them in and if every law abiding citizen did turn there's in criminals that have no intention of following the law would still have guns Reminder law is for the most part reactionary not preventive and only works if you enforce it
Well I have to say, when I saw the title of the video I let out an audible sigh. I expected something that would likely annoy at least and infuriate at worst. Thankfully, that was not the case. You argument seems fair, well researched and mostly on point. Well done. I don't agree with all of this, but certainly found it even handed and nonjudgmental. All the Kudos to you on this one. I'm a Texan, so guns are everywhere here. And I admit, I am a fan and gun owner. All legal of course and I keep up with a personal training regimen to make sure they are always in working order, well kept, and that I'm proficient with them. I'm also an NRA member, tho I do not know how long I'll hold that status. They do like to hit you up for the donations and it gets old quick. Though there are benefits as well. I genuinely enjoy the periodicals they produce for their members among other things. I do hope Trump lives up to his promise to limit lobbyists power in Washington though (part of his "5 point plan for ethics reform if you aren't aware- info can be found on his site). If he can manage any steps in that direction, I'll applaud him for it. Even if it means the gun lobby I'm a part of has less power, I think it would be better for the country overall (so long as it affects all lobbys).
"I do hope Trump lives up to his promise to limit lobbyists power in Washington" You guys act so fucking tough, but seemingly fail to do any research. Listen, everyone Trump has put forward for office so far wanted MORE money in politics. That is the opposite of curving lobbies. Yet people like you state stuff like you did above. Which basically means Trump can just say "He looked at it, made a few adjustments and now its fixed", while doing nothing, and people like you are gonna quote him on "fixing the issue". Why? Because you dont do any research and you think a person will curve money in politics by hiring all the pro MORE money in politics guys. ", well kept," I would find that hilariously funny if you do NOT own a gun safe.
America, we love you. Well... some of us do. I do. I genuinely want you guys to get your shit together. Other countries have a fuckton guns, thriving hunting/sports shooting communities, gun ranges, and gun enthusiasts. The only difference is those countries don't have a school massacre every other month.
I was an NRA member for about a year when I was 18, and they suck. They're working for the gun manufacturers, not gun owners. You should never wear a suit coat. Or a dress shirt. Or a tie
you seem to be defensive about guns so before you embarrass yourself: Link to all your sources of historically incorrect parts, and legitimate news sources only please! Wallstreet Journal and somewhat Fox news if you're conservative.
If the 2nd Amendment was "rejected for centuries" as your graphic indicates, the why wasn't it overturned in ANY one of the years-decades-centuries that have came along since then? Yeah, try again.
He said the *2nd amendment*.. not the current "interpretation". Yeah, try again. #readingishard +J. Siemion We know the interpretation that existed before 2008 lasted until around the Civil War. It's easy to see why *that* interpretation would have started around then. There is *plenty* of documentation to support the 2008 interpretation that exists directly from the founding fathers, who clearly outlined it as an individual right, not a "group" right. Just because the other interpretation lasted so long doesn't make it right. Or, you know, perhaps Gay Marriage should be illegal because of millennia of it being illegal. #foodforthought
Will Lastnameguy the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the founding fathers, who in documents from the revolutionary days laid it out plainly (in the federalist papers, amongst others) as an individual right is self serving? I guess you could be, from just the right angle, correct. I mean, your statement, and the facts, don't intrinsically present a dichotomy after all. It *can* factually be both self serving *and* be historical fact. Interesting direction to take with that. Perhaps a real argument instead of infantile ad homenims? Come on, I believe in you. ;)
The fear the NRA instills causes the price of my ammo to go up. I also dropped my lifetime NRA membership because the begging and begging for money giving one unbelievable apocalyptic reason after another.
David Grover lol, you will be wrong, but go ahead. Btw, one regret I have is not using the insurance included with my lifetime membership to replace the shattered stock on my Remington 7600 pump action 270. This was about 1994. When you are done, care to argue about the term clip vs magazine?
David, where are you...? your empty assertion has only convinced me more that NRA people are full of shit. If you don't deliver on your claim everyone who reads this is gonna know you are an assclown!
Jacques Lapeyre It's OK, give him time and then in perhaps a year he can also tell me how he knows I was not a commitee member for Duck Unlimited and sold the most merchandise ever before the banquet...
ALL I HAD TO DO IS READ THE HEAD LINE AND ONE LOOK AT THE UN-BATHE YOUNG KID AND I ALREADY KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THIS CRACK HEAD OR CRACKED PERSON OR I SHOULD SAY MAYBE A MAN OR A WOMAN, I DON'T WANT TO HURT HIS OR HER FEELINGS. BUT GROW UP AND TAKE A SHOWER AND SHAVE AND MAYBE I WOULD HAVE LISTED TO WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY. BUT NOPE I COULDN'T FINISH LISTENING TO THE GARBAGE YOUR YELLOW TEETH WHERE SPITTING OUT. AND YEAH YOU PROBABLY STILL AT MOMMAS HOUSE?
Say what you will about this video, but it has persuaded me to take a much harder look at the 9th Amendment... Which I will do while cleaning my Smith and Wesson.
Harvard Injury Control Research Center 1. The United States has a very high rate of firearm death 2. The risks of a gun in the home typically far outweigh the benefits 3. More guns, more violent death 4. Better mental health treatment may help but effective legislation is crucial to reduce gun violence 5. Per capita U.S. gun deaths vastly exceed all other high-income countries Source: www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/overall/
Hey America. Rather than keeping up this charade about guns being necessary for personal safety (did you know that in most developed nations, citizens don't need to kill other citizens to stay safe?) why don't you just admit the truth? You guys want to be able to own guns because *guns are fucking bad-ass*.
Seriously. As an American, I agree that the sentiment of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is fucking stupid. I think guns are cool as hell, and shooting one is easily one of the most gratifying feelings (which, to be fair, is a terrifying statement in of itself).
Alucard Of Romania I didn't say I was. I meant that, for others that didn't grow up around or learning about guns like I did, the idea of everyone having access to a gun can be a terrifying thought. I know that, in responsible hands, guns are about as dangerous as a damp towel. But we also can't dismiss the fact that there are others that are uncomfortable with guns, regardless of who owns them.
I used to think guns were cool, then i argued with some NRA members after they lied about Australia. Here's my opinion: have as many guns as you want as long as you don't get emotionally attached to them. If your attachment to your guns is ever remotely Gollum-like, I don't think you should have kitchen knives.
Gamera there's a big difference between banning guns and banning guns just for one group of people based on their ethnicity. The second one is a violation of civil rights based on prejudice and scapegoating There's nothing wrong with limiting gun ownership especially when it can save lives. You really think you're going to rise up against the government? Sorry to tell you, you're bringing a gun to a drone fight. Good luck
That can applied to many things. Personally, guns can be used for protection...and as a NRA member, I do agree that the NRA uses fear mongering as well. But I honestly believe that guns can help keep people safe and a government more honest.
We should make meth and heroine illegal while we are at it to save lives. That is the main issue. It something that is difficult to legislate/enforce. Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens with laws does not take them out of the hands of "bad guys" who already have them.
Gamera the problem I have with the tyrannical government argument is that if the government somehow decided to fight the people and the military supported the government, we're not standing up to the military gun or no gun.
I must admit that the rhetoric coming from the NRA is beyond laughable and the worst part is that there are good people out here who actually fall for it. I believe in the 2nd Amendment as I do in all of them but there has to be come common sense with some items that are being sold. I believe that high capacity drums should have serial numbers and be registered at purchase just in case they are used in the commission of a crime. A modern assault rifle can make fast use of around 7 100 round drums before it fails making the potential and foreseeable liability very high if a person used them during the commission of a crime. I get that from watching people perform tests on AR and AK style rifles in rapid/auto fire to see how many rounds they can fire before malfunctioning or failing. I also believe that gun owners should be held accountable for not securing their firearms. Look at how many instances children are hurt because they had access to a weapon that didn't have a trigger lock or was not secured in a safe. Irresponsible gun owners make responsible owners look bad. Look at Sandy Hook, the kid got access to the rifle after he killed his mom. Was that rifle secured in a safe? Guns need to be locked up to prevent their illegal use!
Yeah psychologically bottling up and ignoring violent tendencies lead to more violent outbursts, whereas video games act a safe outlet for violent urges. To summarize what one psychologist said; the person more likely to have an outburst is the one who represses their desires in an unhealthy way until; like a dam, it bursts.
I liked this video a lot, but I have an issue with the "people buy guns after mass shootings because the NRA tells them liberals are taking their guns away." Well I live in california, regardless to how much the NRA lies (and it seems like they do a lot) In california, they ARE taking our guns away, incrementally, yes, but it's getting pretty ridiculous, no over 10 round magazines, no ammo purchases without backround checks (Which really only bothers me because now I can't get hard to find ammo by going online, that includes .22's the squirrel and tin can hunting ammo), and now there's talk about how we can't have ANY semi automatic guns, only bolt actions, lever actions, ect. So for us Californians, the NRA's bullshit is somewhat of a reality. But the NRA hasn't been helping us out, so I say fuck em, too.
now YOU have an argument! I've been trying to find the one well researched and versed pro gun dude on here. haven't found them yet. but you have good points. gotta ask. how bad is the background check thing? do you feel like most of these restrictions are just makeing it difficult for law abiding citizens? and what measures should be done to make for sure the citizens who wish to do harm to others from getting guns should be enacted?
AaronArcLOL Appreciate it, man. I'm a pretty pro gun person. admittedly to a fault. The idea of background checks are actually fine by me when you're talking about guns, although If I remember correctly, nearly no one is rejected from them, whether that's because the checks are faulty, or the people who would fail them don't buy legally, I don't know. The issue I have with the new law forcing background checks for ammo sales really pisses me off, because in CA there's an ammo shortage for a lot of cheap rounds. And those rounds aren't even like the bullets in AK's or AR15's, it's like I said, .22's the squirrel and tin can hunting round. They're very cheap, and not too powerful, yet now I won't be able to buy them without driving to nevada or oregon, all because californians saw the words "background checks" and blindly voted yes. (i don't blame them, I voted for the really shitty weed legalisation law because I was ignorant, it happens.) At the end of the day, California has basically abandoned gun owners, we have no one to speak up for us. They keep making regulation after regulation and yet the shootings haven't gone down in significant or correlative ways. And that's because our shootings don't happen because of the guns, they happen because of the gangs, and so far, with this many guns in circulation, we're not gonna take guns from gangs by screwing over legal gun owners. A perfect example would be the magazine capacity restrictions, and the bullet button. My family has plenty of magazines with more than 10 rounds, we're criminals because of that, we're not in any sort of black market, yet even WE can get ahold of extremely illegal AK's and clips, so how many of the gang members out there do you think do as well? It just doesn't help the problem, gangs don't walk into gun stores, they just don't.
Mark Smith well mark i've been telling people for years. there are shit loads of ilegal guns in circulation. i think some of the politicians are going off of what there constituents are saying without consulting with gun owners. bro. right in our country more then ever. i think you need to talk to people, host debates, and start changing public perception in CF about guns. as long as enough people are against it. your state will be against it.. where i come from guns are not deterrents they are the random cause of death attributed to a few of my friends. both me and my brother were shot before. and it is a horrible experience. despite that having friends from different walks of life i was able to move past what the politicians say on the matter and see the truth. i live In CT and i wanted to defend myself i would have a harder time getting a gun meanwhile a criminal would not due to the amount of illegal guns in circulation. i do not wish to own a gun but i do want to fix the problems that the people who use the illegal ones Cause.
AaronArcLOL I'm telling you, mass shootings? Not as big of an issue as people pretend, they're pretty rare all things considered. The gun deaths in this country extend from gang violence, and the way you deal with that is to legalize drugs and fix our absolute garbage prison system.
Yes it was. Ricardo Montalban famously had an extreme fitness program, even in his sixties, and they designed his Khan costume around his physique. Montalban was just _awesome_. And yes, due to the film quality it _looks_ fake, hence the rumors. But no, it's really him.
I find it hard to listen to any argument from 'Christians' who think Jesus would have owned a gun rack. Thinking doesn't matter much to them.. and they got firearms, so.. Oh look.. is that Canada up there? **wanders north**
May I make a very random suggestion? Don't use the term "assault weapon". It clouds the issue, especially since there's no real definition for what an assault weapon is. Personally, I'm still confused as to why we even have _semi_-automatic rifles. If it's for hunting, why do you need more than one shot? If it's for home/self defense, why do you need a rifle as opposed to smaller armament?
highdough it would say a lot if they were but they aren't. They are equally as bad at lying to make people believe something. Lies just blend in better with facts when there's a joke at the end.
highdough Like most of America, (including most gun owners) I find the NRA nonsensical. Nobody needs to be reminded of that but this video goes ahead and does that unnecessarily and then adds in a load of biased misinformation. Warren Burger was appointed by Nixon but why not take a shot at "Republican Jesus" Reagan and associate him with this even though he has 0 association to this topic. Two NRA presidents saying two different things over 50 years apart doesn't make them inconsistent it means they've changed at some point in over half a decade which is normally how the world works. What the guy says about Neal Knox is completely inconsistent with what Knox actually says in the quote. He doesn't bother to say that harlon carter was only 17 when he killed ramon but that makes carter look more like a bad guy so we'll just leave that out. And the kid attacked with a knife making it clear self defense. he also didn't cover it up after newspapers released it. he acknowledged it the same year it was uncovered in 1981. the right to own a firearm was acknowledged as early as 1876 all of these lies are just from the first 5 minutes. Again I don't find the NRA necessary or support them in any way but the way this video presents itself lacks any credibility. this video is just as bad as anything from CNN, Fox News or NBC but since its funny and makes one side look stupid it seems credible on the surface to most people.
The Courts have been interpreting the second amendment to recognize the individual's RKBA for at least a century. Need to do better research. The Justicar covers this pretty well.
I'm a gun owner who supports regulation because A) they have yet to be any form of actual inconvenience and I live in NJ which has some of the toughest laws B) some people should not be able to get a gun such as terrorists (suspected would-be terrorists), who have videos online discussing which states its easiest to get a gun in, and people who just want to go home and kill themselves with it. (waiting periods can stop suicide attempts or shift people to try less fatal methods) C) The argument they spin is about the right to defend yourselves. Most people have no desire to carry a gun on them at all times and be in a state of constant hyper-vigilance. Some people like myself just want to target shoot or hunt. The narrative they spin of they have a gun so you need a gun to protect yourself is disconcerting and just as much a reason for regulation. D) 90% of illegal guns come from 5% of stores. those people are protected rather than prosecuted so that argument C remains valid. This in turn brings scorn upon all guns and owners and feeds the us vs them argument rather than supporting safe and legal gun ownership for law abiding americans and the full weight of the law vs criminals. Every time someone lumps every gun owner together I cringe a little because we all have different opinions
anyway i agree with you on all points. i don't own a gun yet, [need money will work for bullets] but i will one day...soon😈. nah thats ominous as shit, but i don't actually want to go bothering anyone that isn't bothering me. is it wrong to assume most people think this way? according to the media it is...maybe im the only sane person left on earth😓
Well said, Ed and completely in line with the second amendment since it called for regulation. Those of us who advocate for gun control do not want to take guns away but wish for regulations to be put in place. We want to be able to protect innoncent people from those who would abuse them. Thank you for advocating for regulation. I lost people due to gun violence so I appreciate your willingness to think about the victims in that sense.
Very good points made in this video! Unfortunately, the NRA is likely going to be one of our most powerful lobbying groups for a long time, and that status will not change. Why? Because they are a single-issue organization with only ONE goal: to prevent the passage of anymore gun laws/restrictions! That's it. That's all they have to do! That makes it easy for them to organize whenever something is going on with guns politically.
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the safety and security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds like they're talking about a militia, but what do I know lol
since the USA has a standing professional army now does the militia even have any reliance anymore. I think that maybe its time the amendment's get written for a modern time. update them and correct them so then no one can mis understand them.
Militia is armed people rallied for military service without being part of a standing army. Yes, they tend to be armed people, but not all armed people are by definition militia.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
Because it is. And no it's not. Maybe cracked should do a video of all the logical fallacies next, since you seem to not learn much with your time on the internet. Turn this into a proper edu channel and get some more responsible voters in here.... the fuck is wrong with your viewer-base cracked?
Obviously I'm not the target demographic for this shit. Why didn't you cover any of the subsequent writings of the people who wrote and amended the fuckin Constitution about the 2nd amendment? It's pretty clear from those writings that it was intended as an individual right (also, it's inclusion in the Bill of rights might be a hint) to be exercised as a protection against our own government? I think I'll side with Jefferson. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.
The phrase "the people's right to bear arms", both within the second amendment and paraphrased in that quote, is very vague; "the people" in particular can be interpreted as either individuals OR the local militias established to serve, protect, and represent the people, i.e. police and the national guard. To be fair, the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject favors the former interpretation, so you're not wrong; I'm just pointing out that it's not as black and white as you seem to think. Also, Jefferson didn't write the Constitution (he wasn't even at the convention), and courts generally ignore any argument that begins with "the Founders intended...", because "the Founders" were just as ideologically diverse and argumentative as modern politicians, and a lot of what's in the Constitution is actually a result of compromises and political maneuvering. If you want to interpret the Constitution a certain way, do it on the basis of what's actually in it, not on what the person who wrote it meant. That actually applies to just about any written work. One more thing: the quote you used makes it sound like Jefferson is saying that the existence of popular sovereignty, i.e. rule by the people, is contingent on the people's right to bear arms. But upon looking up the letter in question, I found that those two things are contained in two separate clauses, and all Jefferson is saying is that both are fundamental rights.
Aldreth or In the world where we have a representative democracy in which we take it for granted that those in power are acting in the best interests of the people. The term "the people" can be used to mean the citezenry as a whole, rather than the individual citizens. Remember, the 2nd Amendment was written during a time when carrying a gun for self-defense was completely impractical (because of the laughably slow loading process) and/or incredibly unsafe (because gunpowder is really volatile), so they probably didn't even consider that aspect of the 2nd Amendment. The point of the thing was to avoid the necessity for a standing army. Of course, times have changed; guns have improved, and a combination of economics and international politics have led to the creation of not only a standing army, but a full-blown military-industrial complex. The 2nd Amendment has evolved into something far beyond the scope that the Founders intended. But again, the Founder's intention doesn't really mean much, and the current Supreme Court interpretation is that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect individuals' rights to own and carry a weapon, and when it comes to the Constitution, the Supreme Court always has the last word; they are much smarter than us. Like I said, I'm just trying to provide a different perspective.
"what is people?" "interpret the Constitution" "Jefferson didn't write the Constitution" "the Founders were argumentative as modern politicians" we are clearly speaking with a genius.
I find the transition of power within the 70s enlightening, but the video itself smells of dishonesty. Firstly the NRA started its legal action team called the institution for legislative action (ILA) afternoon the large expansion of gun control in 1968. up until then there wasn't much in the way of legal action called for because there wasn't much gun control. JFK was a member of the NRA as anecdotal evidence of the organizations lack of merely being a lobbying group pre-1968. Why would one of their members sign into law such a large expansion of gun control? because Before 1968 they were mainly concerned with gun safety and training because there was no evidence that they needed to be anything else. There was little association with lobbying or political activism before this time. also one only needs to look at the actions of the other former British colonies to see the progression and ultimate end goal of gun control. it isn't fear mongering if it's happened in other nations. Lastly saying that Hillary Clinton had no history of gun control is laughably false. she was a huge advocate of the Brady bill and said in the Democratic primary that the Australian "buy back" (a widespread gun confiscation program) was "worth looking at".
speaking as an avid gun enthusiast (Not an NRA member) this was an excellent video explaining why the NRA is not in the best interest of the majority of gun owners. well thought out and executed. great job
MyNameIsJ3ff no, that's how the NRA is. He didn't even make a stance on guns, just the organization, which is a lobbying giant and does a lot of fucked up shit
In your defense, yes, it's biased against the actions of the NRA. But if you want something completely devoid of bias, you'll need to stare at a blank wall. Anything that talks about anything or anyone will be biased, so that statement is meaningless. The question is, did he lie? Did he omit anything (that is true) important to his argument?
I quit the NRA because I got tired of them calling me at home to ask for donations. If you charge me a membership fee, I don't want to hear from you again until it's time to renew my membership.
I am certain this comment section will remain a hospitable environment.
Can't imagine anything else.
I got ah barret 50 cal...
give me the fucking money!
where the fuck are the robotic dinosaurs who fuck people! I need to kill them!
crack. mmmmmm.
How rich. I got an ad FOR THE NRA when I tried watching this video. AN UNSKIPPABLE MINUTE AND 8 SECOND LONG AD
They know man. The freaking know lol
Oh, yeah, I got an ad from them before the video, AND banner ads on the side. I'm not sure what they're hoping to accomplish, though, other than making themselves look like tools.
really cause i got an add for a gun holster lol
B Marti I would have appreciated that! Or even an ad for a single-action revolver since I'm in the market for one, but not an NRA ad -_-
Bajur's Carl It was one of those concealed carry type of holsters. If I was a gun owner I would think about getting one cause it looked snazzy.
Bajur's Carl I find it strange that I get a envelope in the mail offering a free NRA duffel bag with a membership every single time I buy ammo.
I am a gunsmith, and I've worked as a range safety officer and an instructor. I've been shooting for over 30 years and I'm not yet 40. I love guns. I hate the NRA. They don't represent gun owners, but serve their own interests, they even support laws that will restrict gun ownership from time to time, and to write themselves into the laws. To work as an instructor for state recognized carry classes you have to be certified by the NRA, it is the only option. This certification process is a 2 day class.
I would like to start my own firearm instructor business, one of the reasons being that training is so important to own a firearm, but literally the only way is to be certified by the NRA. Even though my schooling was nearly 2 years, full time at an accredited and well respected institution in the industry.
Thanks for sharing this, friend. Helped tune up my worldview a bit. Good luck out there.
Yall forgot to mention how the NRA lobbied for extreme gun control in CA when the Black Panther Party for Self Defense was exercising that 2nd amendment making CA one of the strictest states on guns.
i was really surprised this wasnt brought up in the video
Wasn't tht under saint Reagan
@@dickcastle yes but it was also prior to the big shakeup in NRA leadership - not that it would've changed anything since it's a deeply racist organization
Now remember the “43 times more likely,” does NOT equal “a 43 percent chance.”
@@dickcastle Wouldn't matter what president it was under as you should know by know states are separate from the president. The president has no rights to tell a state what to do. Now federal banks run everything in this country just checkout what they did to JFK when he took their power away from money.
Man I love this series, it's fantastic when Cracked does real journalistic videos and articles. Far and away my favourite article about Ferguson in terms of information and genuine readability was written way back then by Cody, and I often point to it as an example of genuinely good journalism. Keep it up guys!
I want bear arms
I want to arm bears.
Robert Getty Well, you DO have the right to bear arms, so... Nothing stopping you! :D
Then you'll need to get into genetics very deeply. You might want to start with Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.
Painted Dead BUT(!) he'd still have his *arms*, wouldn't he? ;-)
You don't.
You should do an episode about MAAD next! They started with a goal to get a certain BAC declared 'drunk driving', then after they succeeded in that, the founder wanted to disband the organization... but because people were making salaries in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the org they forced her out and continue fighting pointless political battles they don't even have any real interest in winning. They've turned freaking out over drunk driving into a niche industry they've got a monopoly on and they're not going to let anything like the truth get in the way of their paychecks. The original founder of MAAD is now an anti-MAAD activist.
Holy crap...the ratchet effect at its best
That's actually not the acronym - the organization is called MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It was founded after a mom lost her kid to drunk driving, not surprisingly.
It's MADD not MAAD ... that's something else entirely
Hey, that's really interesting. Thanks for that.
The proper acronym is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), but everything else Dustin said in his comment is true. Although, it's one of those things that's hard to speak out against, because then you are somehow labeled as pro drunk driving.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
Only with drilling and submission to discipline does an Armed Rabble,
Dangerous to Liberty,
become a Well-ordered Militia,
Protective of Liberty.
--- George Washington, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1789
You can't believe everything you read on the internet
-abraham Lincoln
I want to Arm Bears
I want the right to own bear arms.
Andy Dang
Than we would have to deal with a bear insurrection which would lead to a civil war we would most certainly lose.
I want to ride armored bears
Slimy Weasles I want to ride armored bears bearing arms.
VIKINGS!!!
Didn't Jefferson also write that people have the right to overthrow their government when it becomes a burden?
"Didn't Jefferson also write that people have the right to overthrow their government when it becomes a burden?"
He did say things to that effect a few times. The problem is that "becomes a burden" is a pretty subjective standard.
it's a basic premise of social contract theory
Leonis Ignis Actually it doesnt say "state militia" at all.
Kitten Katt i agree but actions do speak louder than words. But we shouldn’t idolize people from the past we should idolize individual traits and actions.
Kitten Katt he also called his campaign opponent a Hermaphrodite.
And the bottom line is....
Money.
Surprise, surprise.
"From my cold dead hands!" He sounds like an old western villain.
Unfortunately that's the point.
lol...love how there is a NRA commercial before this video
Me too
Cheshire Kat Well bolt action rifles were originally built specifically for soldiers in war. But we found a excellent use for those firearms in civilian ownership. These "assault weapons" are actually great tools for defense against home invasions because of greater inherent accuracy due to the ergonomics of the rifles and lower risk of catastrophic over penetration because the projectiles slow faster after hitting walls.
Andy Neeley and they are awesome for mowing down school children by the class-load too. Truly a necessity for every home.
+Andy Neeley Accuracy goes down for each consecutive bullet fired. Semi-automatic weapons, like pistols, avoid this by allowing you to fire at your own pace. Assault weapons, like AK-47s and AR-15s, have a full-auto and often burst setting, but even the burst setting can cause bullets to be fired somewhere other than your intended target. "Slow faster" can mean very little for the speed of a bullet fired in front of a window in a rural neighborhood.
Hang It, Fire! what did it consist of?
"if you follow the money"
This line should always cue a laugh track.
Everyone claiming all leftists are anti-gun and this is a super left wing video, guy admits to owning gun in said video
Have you heard of the term fudd ?
@@blakedavis2447 Dude's a major fudd alright. I'll also wager my life's savings he believes an "ar 15 is a weapon of war" lol
Fine then, I'll just own a gun without the NRA
ZXTMA Smith yes, that is indeed kind of the point he is making here. The NRA is untrustworthy, even if you agree with what they achieve.
If someone does you a favour while having reputation for being a backstabber, you can thank him for the favour done, but you don't have to trust him afterwards.
Ima still own a gun
I’m a combat vet, Carry daily open on concealed and will never be a member of the nra.
Yep that’s what the majority of us do
That’s exactly what he said...
I don't understand people's issue with regulating guns. I don't want to ban them, but we have to acknowledge that they are deadly. A car can be deadly and it's not even designed to be. So what do we do with those? We make you learn how to use one safely and then you get a license to operate it. And that license can be taken away if you're proven to be a hazard to others
I agree. the counter arguments I always get are that it'll just increase bureaucracy or that the government will Have a list of gun owners so they'll know who to come for when they do take away guns.
In the perspective of some, any form regulation is a prelude to a forced disarmament. The fact America is armed and capable of a measurable quantity force (even if the military is capable far greater force) acts as a preservative measure against military backed police states, coups, and tyranny. In a diverse and disparate culture like the United states, armament also behaves as a form of equality, preventing an armed ruling class from oppressing an unarmed sub culture through threat of violence.
AgentOracle although realistically pistols and AR-15'S are nothing to tanks and drones.
While you might want to ban them, there are certainly people that would. Those people often take regulations that were written for a specific reason and twist the wording to allow regulations that were never intended. Take the National Firearms Act for example. It's intended goal was to limit access to fully-automatic weapons and sawed shotguns. The ATF we have now has used it to or attempted to use it to restrict suppressors, short-barreled rifles, pistols, ammunition, attachments for certain firearms, etc.
That is the problem with Federal Gun regulations. The states have much more leeway(legally), or at least used to, to regulate firearms. The reason for that was because the state governments were closer to the people and better reflected the consent of the governed.
Hope that helped.
TheKiltedGerman That's not enough of a reason to resist enacting potentially life-saving legislation that requires people to be educated before they can use or buy something that is designed to kill
Cracked Explains is quickly becoming one of my favorite series on here. Keep doing it.
controversial comment
Angry reply to controversial comment!
Hawbitten Angry reply to angry reply of the controversial comment.
Angrier comment responding to the angry comment that is responding to the controversial comment.
www.criticallayouts.com/component/option,com_rsgallery2/Itemid,384/catid,1017/ Link that I only read the title of to illustrate and prove my point against the original angry reply.
Unrelated argument to angry reply to controversial comment!
I never felt the need to join a club and pay dues because I own a thing.
As for Clinton, Clinton did want to pursue more gun control measures. She did. She mentioned this passionately multiple times. Heck she even criticized poor old Bernie Sanders of VT for being too lenient on gun companies (because we all know VT is a hotbed of gun crime and Sanders is a gun lobby shill). If you think the regulations in place are sufficient and someone comes along saying they're not and they need to be expanded to a degree you see as dramatic, that can be argued as someone coming for your rights. If someone told you they didn't want to ban the first amendment but wanted to make all online publication subject to government censure you'd probably have some issues with that. Is saying, "they're coming for our guns", a bit of hyperbole? Sure, but this is politics and all sides and candidates engage in hyperbole to an extent.
Well said.
Murphy82nd no he wasn't, the NRA still gave him an f- and he still wasn't crazy like the NRA, he just owned guns and was more relaxed. Also, I don't want crazy people or possible terrorists to be able to buy guns, or convicted felons for that matter isn't "taking your guns away" it's keeping them out of the hands of crazy people and proven felons/suspected terrorists. Making buying a deadly weapon, especially one designed only to kill, a little harder to buy that candy isn't unreasonable. If you need a gun in 10 minutes it better be the zombie Armageddon. Otherwise you are a severely unprepared or mentally unstable individual. I plan my dentist visits 10 days in advance, and some doctors visits a month in advance. Grow up.
Kate Given Buying a gun is actually a bit harder than buying candy there's federally mandated paperwork and a background check which has been legally required for more than a two decades
You're not wrong, but I think his point was that the NRA will say anything against the Democrats simply because they're Democrats, where it doesn't matter what was actually said, done, or attempted.
There are already measures in place to stop convicted felons from buying guns, that's what background checks are for (not that background checks stop straw purchasing, which is illegal, or theft, which is also illegal). The vast majority of purchases do go through background checks. The ATF performs tens of millions of them a year. Yes private transactions are allowed in some states, but there is no evidence to point to those being a major source of firearms used in either mass shootings or other crimes.
www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
While we're at it, many of the mass shooters have gone through background checks. Background checks aren't a magic cure all. Unless you decide to throw away HIPAA there is a lot that they cannot contain and its overwhelmingly based on past illegal activity.
www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-shootings/
www.cbsnews.com/news/colo-shooter-purchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/
www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-shop-owner-orlando-nightclub-shooter-omar-mateen-passed-background-check/
nation.time.com/2013/09/17/navy-yard-shooters-gun-purchase-was-probably-legal-any-way-you-cut-it/
As for the "no fly no buy" list, the terrorist watch list was already argued as unconstitutional before a federal judge and even the left leaning ACLU doesn't want to see it used as a benchmark for firearm ownership because of how flawed that watch list is.
www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
time.com/4146025/guns-no-fly-list-constitution/
It is harder to buy a gun than candy, saying otherwise is just hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole. As for growing up, come back to me with the actual facts of the situation instead of dramatization. Until then realize that ad hominems make your argument appear weak.
Why no mention of the federalist papers? You know, where they specifically explain in detail what they meant when they wrote the second amendment?
To prevent a federal standing army? Good thing we avoided that!
spyderxtra777 because the video was specifically anti-nra not anti-gun
To be fair, thats what the federalists said. Less than half of the signers of the constitution became federalists so you can't really argue legislative intent when less than half the legislators aren't represented
Kilo101 right, but in the first bit of the video he was specifically going on about how the 2nd amendment has been mis-interpreted over the years, but it's all clearly laid out in the federalist papers, the Supreme Court referenced them in their 2008 ruling
MonJoe20 no, to prevent the federal standing army from having the ability to overcome the state and local militia and impose martial law.... at least that was the idea
This never really went into how the NRA negatively effects me.
Salvador Villagomez They prevent research and common sense regulation that most gun owners support, so you are more likely to be hit by someone who was just stupid and negligent with handling their gun, and they do it for the money from the manufacturers. Fuck the NRA, gun owners are better off without them
affects*
Any organization that's out to protect only the rights of an Organization (in this case, gun manufacturers) is going to hurt the consumer.
He didn't say this, but all of the rhetoric of the NRA (especially the "Democrats want to take away our rights so they can become a dictatorship" BS) is made to increase the price of guns using supply and demand. If they convince Americans that you only have a few months to get a gun, demand goes up, and so does the price. They are making up reasons to make our guns more expensive. Also, the lobby allows gun manufacturers to have a monopoly by being part of the NRA, further increasing the price. The NRA also fights against regulations that keep guns in the hands of the responsible (for instance, Obama's suggested regulations that remove the 3 day rule that allowed the Orlando shooter to get a gun, even though he was on 2 FBI terrorist watch-lists) Also, they target democrats specifically, which hurts democracy, all because the republican party pays them in a corrupt bargain to keep them both in power.
This "most gun owners" is a monolithic term used by the other side of the argument to justify their side. Lumping millions of people into one mindset without justifying your evidence is just as misleading as the NRA. I support the NRA-ILA solely to stonewall any legislative action, because I know there will never be compromise from anti-gun groups on the issue. I do not like the NRA but they are the largest organization that will protect my rights for their own interests.
That's my big issue with gun control. It's like, gun control isn't bad. Universal background checks arent bad. But they are bad for gun manufacturers who want to sell as many guns to as many people as possible with no regard on who buys them. It's all about dat dolla dolla Bill ya'll
Lie to yourself all you want sport. Out here in reality every thing you wrote was proven wrong decades ago.
Can you elaborate? I don't necessarily agree with the guy but I'm curios to why you think universal background checks are bad and gun manufactures don't want to sell guns to people with no regard? I'm not trying to be condescending I'm genuily curios.
David Grover Yeah, go ahead and regurgitate some NRA diatribe on why anything I said is wrong in your "reality"
For starters, there is no single definition of universal background check standards, who would have to do it, will every state agree to same standards, will every doctor have to report every health condition, who will control that data, etc. Second, the NRA and most gun rights advocates are asking that the government start using the current system or fix what is already there before adding new laws. How can Obama ask for more gun laws if he's pardoned over 100 criminals serving time for multiple felonies that include gun laws?
Doctors are already required to report mental illness issues where they deem an individual a danger to himself or others. Those individuals are supposed to be banned from owning guns.
The fact that you might have had a bladder infection ten years ago doesn't matter.
I want to get one thing straight in this video, when gun sales spike after a mass shooting it's not because people are "fantasizing". It's because they are worried about gun bans like the NY SAFE act being enacted and they want to get their firearms grandfathered in before they become illegal to purchase.
I always thought they were just scared and wanted to have a gun in case they needed to defend themselves. But yours makes sense, too.
Henrik Larsen I've sold guns for a living. whenever there was a rush after something happened or before an election the majority of people wanted to get one before they get banned. It was almost universal when talking with them to find the right gun for them.
magurgle
Huh.... That's an interesting angle on it. So they weren't really afraid they would need them, they were just/mainly afraid they wouldn't be able to get them if they ever DID need them?
Henrik Larsen yup, or they have their grandfather's .38 and maybe a .22 or a shotgun. They want to get an AR-15 or an AK.
the biggest seller constantly, without the panic buying, is small handguns for conceal carry, then large handguns for home defense. A small number are people that are afraid and want something for defense, but not because of anything political, their house was robbed, or they were mugged, or maybe a family member was robbed.
That only takes into account the people who weren't active shooters and gun owners who were just expanding their collection
being mugged/robbed is a stupid reason to kill someone. your shit isn't worth more than someone's life
You missed Taurus, which buys you an NRA membership if you buy one of their guns, and Ruger, which has pledged to donate $2 to NRA for every gun sold. Then there's also the gun club recruitment program, in which NRA pays local gun clubs if the club recruits new NRA members, which is why a great many gun clubs require their members to join NRA.
The very last sentence: Wait... Why do we have politics? Perfect.
Kinda confused by all the people in the comments complaining about the video.
Are you saying that spreading lies, hate, and fear is a good thing?
Oh, right. I'm on UA-cam...
_NRA is in title_
Oh boy, there goes the comment section.
They needed the views. It is what click whores do.
Yeah! FUCK CRACKED FOR DOING VIDEOS ON SHIT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT! WHAT A BUNCH OF CUNTS!
Lexis Kitten you should heed your own advice.
guns don't kill people
blood loss and organ failure do
blood loss and organ failure don't kill people. Brain death does.
brain death doesnt kill people, lack of intake of oxygen due to failure of the lungs and lack of blood due to heart failure do...
so i guess blood loss and organ faliure really do kill people
guns dont kill people, life does
jhone simpon cigarettes dont kill you, lung cancer does
Actually lots of things kill people, including guns.
As a gun owner, I've never let the NRA represent me. I represent myself, as all Americans should, on my individual rights.
Miron Gaines Ideally, we wouldn't need lobbyist groups for anything. These groups can't help themselves but be corrupted by their own desire for profit.
As someone who does lobbying in connection with my work, and with a mother who literally does it for a living and at a reasonably high level, I can most definitely tell you this:
Were it not for the NRA, American gun owners would undoubtedly still have representation. These are the reasons off the top of my head:
1) It's a hot button issue
2) It is, as an issue, part of the current political machine, meaning it *has* to be there for many political movements to have any kind of relevance
3) There are millions of gun owners in the US, so there are bound to be associations
4) It is a *_HUGE_* economic interest, both domestically and internationally
5) There's really no reason you wouldn't
6) Even in a world without the NRA, there would still be a lobbying gap, meaning that even if we disregard the millions of Americans that feel strongly either for or against the NRA, there would still be a viable career for quite a few lobbyist, just waiting for them
Thinking that the NRA is the only viable option for gun owner representation is like thinking PETA is the only animal rights group in the entire world.
MalleusSemperVictor lobbying is the backbone of democracy. That is why it is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Still, it can be abused.
The best lobbies represent large constituencies of voters. The power of the NRA isn't money, it is turning out passionate voters to call their representatives or decide elections.
The worst lobbies rely on money over voters. That is why big investment banks and media companies spend hundreds of millions on lobbying and campaigns.
You don't have to agree with the NRA to recognize its voter driven political influence is a model for democratic political action. Better funded groups rightly envy what the NRA has accomplished for its constituency.
Thomas R. Jackson I'm sure LaPierre's nearly one million dollar salary isn't a driving force at all.
MalleusSemperVictor Of course I never said that there was no industry influence within the NRA. Whether that is reflected in Pierre's salary, which is not out of line with many major advocacy and charitable institutions (sad to say), I leave to others. _My_ point is that the _political influence_ of the NRA is voter driven. I.e. no voters, no influence. This doesn't mean that industry can't influence content of advocacy, but it still has to be accepted by its politically engaged membership to have any political impact.
A great example of this was the 1986 automatic weapon civilian registration ban. The NRA readily agreed to this provision as an insignificant throw away in negotiations over a gun bill. This caused a revolt among members over principles, and leadership got the message. They have taken a harder line to any further similar concessions since.
I am not arguing the merits of this position. I am just pointing out that when it comes to political influence, the NRA's biggest asset is politically engaged members, not its industry funding. Ask Bloomberg how influential outspending the NRA is in terms if political results. You can hate the NRA and disagree with all of its positions, and still admire the political will of its constituency. It is a model more advocacy groups would do well to follow.
Wait, did someone from Cracked just admit to being a gun owner?
Hell, some of us liberals do happen to like guns and gun history. Just don't think no one should be able to have enough guns to re-create the scene where Neo is tooling up. Unless you're Hickok45-cause, his videos are pretty good.
I appreciate the humor in your comment, Jon, but I think it demonstrates the slippery slope that gun control may present. I'm a fan of Hickok myself (his pumpkin rolling, shotgun blasting, giggle-inducing video earned my sub), but who's to say who can and can't own as many as they want?
I have a safe full of handguns and two AR 15s I built myself. You don't know me from Adam, so why would you trust me with an arsenal? You shouldn't, but I'm know I'm mentally stable and won't harm anyone.
I guess all that to say "slippery slope." That's all.
Fair enough. I just think the only place anyone should drool/fetishize/worship guns is when you get a cool new one in a video game. Otherwise, IRL, unless you're target shooting, using a gun should be the last thing on the planet you'll ever want to do IMHO. I just don't like seeing people who love/worship guns so much that you get the horrible feeling that if they ever blew away someone for real they'd have a orgasm.
I doubt he's a gun owner. If he is, he's the most self-hating one ever.
How else is he supposed to protect his family from trump nazi goons. ;-)
That was a fantastic piece of genuine journalism - well done Cracked!
Gotta love that Cracked essays are more well researched than Fox News.
This is good. Like, John Oliver good.
Thanks, Cracked. No matter what side of the debate you fall on, this was fascinating and enlightening.
This is actually a pleasing, comforting video to me. It shows that the majority of gun people aren't in line with some disturbingly alarmist organization. Could you do similar videos for a bunch of other scary organizations?? I don't know which, but then again, I'm not on your payroll ;-)
The fact so many people are mad about this video goes to show how effective the NRA's marketing has been.
Solomon Bundy the only reason they have any power is because liberals cannot stop talking about how bad they are. Nobody actually likes or finds the NRA necessary until someone tries to claim how stupid all gun owners are for buying into their rhetoric.
Connor Cook tell the blacks the NRA armed to fight against the Democrat KKK that nobody appreciates the NRA.
ShepherdsWrench. "democrat KKK" funny you say that, although true but today those democrats would be today's republicans due to a shift in party allegiences. see: Dixiecrat.
Connor Cook that's not even a legit quote. it's a secondhand source of LBJ from someone else.
not really
Want to stop gun violence without banning guns? Help the poor. Easiest way. Give criminals a way to support themselves and their families. Make education cheap if not free. Give people help when they need it. Then gun laws wouldn't be necessary.
Also eliminate prison sentences for non-violent offenses. It puts an immense burden on offenders families when they can't contribute monetarily nor parentally because they're behind bars.
And end the drug war.
and where is this money going to come from to do this in a country already $20 trillion in debt, and rapidly growing?
also, school already is "free" up until 12th grade. how many of the crack dealers and gang members and people committing these shootings/murders in Chicago for example (or anywhere else) do you think are the "college type", or even graduated from high school?
I'm all for improving education as our education standards in the u.s. are pathetic especially in math and science(not to mention the seeming lack of hard work, and growing sense of entitlement with each passing generation)but I don't see how free college is even remotely possible.
Mockturtlesoup1 Listen studies show strong correlation between better education and welfare to limit violent crime. Taxes are the natural answer. Of course just eliminating a lot of the tax breaks for the wealthy might also work. Ensure that the rich pays what they're supposed to might actually be enough. In other countries you get a net positive on taxes even though they are higher and more progressive with less loopholes. But if you are talking about entitlement I'm guessing you're not a fan of taxes to increase spending. This is why I don't think gun violence will be reduced. Because you can either limit guns or limit the factors causing gun violence. You can also do both. But doing neither ensures gun violence. Keep your guns and pay more taxes or get rid of them and pay less. Those are the only options empirically valid.
Olaf Your comment is too high-brow for the cave-men this video attracted (I suppose that includes me). The entire concept of poverty > leading to violence > leading to the need for more self defence, is a cycle that intelligent "members of the elite" have been shouting from the sidelines for decades. It is completely agains the conservative's spirit to acknowledge this, since in their mind -- all you need is a lil' hard work to become a millionaire. Anyone in America can do it if they pull their own bootstraps up. Every man for himself. No help from the Government (until they themselves actually need help and then change their tune).
Go figure I'd see a comment like Mocktutlesoup1's .. I absolutely agree that figuring out how to pay for all that is a *major issue* ... in fact it should be *the* major issue, if we can all agree that it's something that needs to be done. Unfortunately the debate has been hijacked by all of the whacky shit that Trump and Republicans steer the conversation to. Religious nut jobs, 'war on white people', etc.
If anyone had listened to Bernie Sanders they'd have seen how - oh so close we came to this being the main conversation. How do we eliminate income inequality and ensure every kid can go to college? But people were too busy yelling and screaming about "socialism" as if that means Soviet era Stalinism. Instead of moving forward we're moving wayyyyyy backwards. Shutting ourselves off from the world, and beginning the descent into the fall of the American Empire.
We're fucked when the most ignorant in society are the ones who control the dialogue.
"the NRA doesn't represent gun owners, they actually represent gun manufacturers" uh... DUH
Burger wasn't nominated to SCOTUS by Reagan, it was Nixon.
bigcat56308 WARNING Journalist who can't even use Google is going to lecture us.
+bigcat56308 I genuinely have no idea how they could have made that mistake on accident.
bigcat56308 I'm glad you've focused on the important detail here.
David Diez When you misinform people it's hard to trust the next "facts" they present.
Sooner Admirer - Agree any fact eff up isn't great, but would be preferable if you debunked anything except the most mundane fact and instead hit some of the relevant details in the video.
The ninth and tenth amendments have never been argued to defend anything; the courts have always disputed their relevance when the issue comes up.
Yeah, that was a weird point.
i was genuinely impressed with this video! thank you for all of your hard work.
i would enjoy watching a Cracked explanation on retirement.
Best video I've seen you do in a while Cracked. Kudos.
Two things: First, it kinda saddens me to know that this was solid reporting on the NRA and I'm 99% sure it will be devalued because it came from Cracked, a mostly comedic source. Second, you guys should have also taken another minute to address the most common and ridiculous claim about gun control: "well if they take our guns away only criminals will have them!" Which takes all of 5 minutes to prove invalid. I won't use European statistics because they have their own issues so let's use a more recent on with Australia. They cracked down hard in 2014 on gun ownership, instituted a buyback program and went after illegal arms dealers. A basic semi-automatic pistol on the black market went from barely $1000 to over $15,000. To quote Jim Jeffries an Aussie comic "If you have $15,000 you probably don't need a gun to commit crime. You have 15,000 dollars!"
I object to the statement that Europe "has their own issues" in this context. The very real issues Europe is facing right now is the exact same populist bullshit that the NRA is spouting, only with democrats switched with refugees, and guns switched with white, christian rights.
That being said, Australia is the perfect example of peaceful, constructive disarming, and Europe is the perfect example of a disarmed populace that thrives because of it. If the US would only disarm the nutjobs, and maybe spend their police budget on training instead of military grade equipment, the whole country could be safer, and more trusting.
OgreSamanosuke this isn't a good article. he ignores that the 2nd amendment argument wasn't made by the nra. it was made by Malcolm x and the nra later adopted it.
but ya know, that wouldn't follow the narrative he was trying to paint.
OgreSamanosuke, taking away guns might decrease gun violence but now the populous can't defend themselves and other crimes actually increase.
and violent crime went up in Australia! huge success! and of course they dealt with that pesky southern border over which many guns/criminals come over perfectly! no matter which side you're on, Australia is a terrible example.
OgreSamanosuke the whole point is they would need to go door to door and search ever single citizen's home to collect the firearms which I doubt they would do. if they just start collections at police departments people who have guns illegally and don't follow these laws in the first place will not turn them in and if every law abiding citizen did turn there's in criminals that have no intention of following the law would still have guns
Reminder law is for the most part reactionary not preventive and only works if you enforce it
what's wrong with the map in the background? there is no rivet there in Africa... oh wait, it's cracked, I get it
mystuff isn't that the nile
Alejandra Rodriguez are you kidding me...
Alejandra Rodriguez What's wrong with you?!?
That's obviously the Mississippi river -_-
that has to be bait, there's no way it's real
That's a world map with cracks...random cracks.
finally a video with a person speaking.
Not against "ownership"
Against "Irresponsible ownership"
Well I have to say, when I saw the title of the video I let out an audible sigh. I expected something that would likely annoy at least and infuriate at worst. Thankfully, that was not the case. You argument seems fair, well researched and mostly on point. Well done. I don't agree with all of this, but certainly found it even handed and nonjudgmental.
All the Kudos to you on this one.
I'm a Texan, so guns are everywhere here. And I admit, I am a fan and gun owner. All legal of course and I keep up with a personal training regimen to make sure they are always in working order, well kept, and that I'm proficient with them. I'm also an NRA member, tho I do not know how long I'll hold that status. They do like to hit you up for the donations and it gets old quick. Though there are benefits as well. I genuinely enjoy the periodicals they produce for their members among other things.
I do hope Trump lives up to his promise to limit lobbyists power in Washington though (part of his "5 point plan for ethics reform if you aren't aware- info can be found on his site). If he can manage any steps in that direction, I'll applaud him for it. Even if it means the gun lobby I'm a part of has less power, I think it would be better for the country overall (so long as it affects all lobbys).
"I do hope Trump lives up to his promise to limit lobbyists power in Washington"
You guys act so fucking tough, but seemingly fail to do any research. Listen, everyone Trump has put forward for office so far wanted MORE money in politics. That is the opposite of curving lobbies.
Yet people like you state stuff like you did above. Which basically means Trump can just say "He looked at it, made a few adjustments and now its fixed", while doing nothing, and people like you are gonna quote him on "fixing the issue". Why? Because you dont do any research and you think a person will curve money in politics by hiring all the pro MORE money in politics guys.
", well kept,"
I would find that hilariously funny if you do NOT own a gun safe.
I literally had an ad for the NRA FOR THIS VIDEO!!
C LD I saw a gun holster ad lol.
Kraig The King you're surprised that youtube does target marketing? What, are you new?!
the only reason I here!
I love the ending "Wait why do we have politics?"
America, we love you. Well... some of us do. I do. I genuinely want you guys to get your shit together. Other countries have a fuckton guns, thriving hunting/sports shooting communities, gun ranges, and gun enthusiasts. The only difference is those countries don't have a school massacre every other month.
I was an NRA member for about a year when I was 18, and they suck. They're working for the gun manufacturers, not gun owners.
You should never wear a suit coat. Or a dress shirt. Or a tie
Excellent piece. Well done and factual.
Garrett Moffitt, except for all the historically in correct parts.
You misspelled 'incorrect'
like what specifically?
you seem to be defensive about guns so before you embarrass yourself: Link to all your sources of historically incorrect parts, and legitimate news sources only please! Wallstreet Journal and somewhat Fox news if you're conservative.
Say one thing, people hear another.
If the 2nd Amendment was "rejected for centuries" as your graphic indicates, the why wasn't it overturned in ANY one of the years-decades-centuries that have came along since then?
Yeah, try again.
There haven't been decades-centuries since 2008. Yeah, try again. #mathsfail
He said the *2nd amendment*.. not the current "interpretation". Yeah, try again. #readingishard
+J. Siemion We know the interpretation that existed before 2008 lasted until around the Civil War. It's easy to see why *that* interpretation would have started around then. There is *plenty* of documentation to support the 2008 interpretation that exists directly from the founding fathers, who clearly outlined it as an individual right, not a "group" right. Just because the other interpretation lasted so long doesn't make it right.
Or, you know, perhaps Gay Marriage should be illegal because of millennia of it being illegal. #foodforthought
ScubaDaveGSXR Nice self serving interpretation youve got there fucktard.
Will Lastnameguy the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the founding fathers, who in documents from the revolutionary days laid it out plainly (in the federalist papers, amongst others) as an individual right is self serving? I guess you could be, from just the right angle, correct. I mean, your statement, and the facts, don't intrinsically present a dichotomy after all. It *can* factually be both self serving *and* be historical fact. Interesting direction to take with that.
Perhaps a real argument instead of infantile ad homenims? Come on, I believe in you. ;)
The fear the NRA instills causes the price of my ammo to go up. I also dropped my lifetime NRA membership because the begging and begging for money giving one unbelievable apocalyptic reason after another.
scott lund, would you like me to tell you how I know you were never an NRA member?
David Grover
I want to know, I'm curious.
David Grover lol, you will be wrong, but go ahead. Btw, one regret I have is not using the insurance included with my lifetime membership to replace the shattered stock on my Remington 7600 pump action 270. This was about 1994. When you are done, care to argue about the term clip vs magazine?
David, where are you...? your empty assertion has only convinced me more that NRA people are full of shit. If you don't deliver on your claim everyone who reads this is gonna know you are an assclown!
Jacques Lapeyre It's OK, give him time and then in perhaps a year he can also tell me how he knows I was not a commitee member for Duck Unlimited and sold the most merchandise ever before the banquet...
I feel like 90% of the negative comments here, didn't listen to what was being said.
Well, it was critical of the NRA. What else did you expect?
Oh I listened to that garbage in its entirety. Nothing I haven't heard before.
I want no gun control whatsoever.
lol
ALL I HAD TO DO IS READ THE HEAD LINE AND ONE LOOK AT THE UN-BATHE YOUNG KID AND I ALREADY KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THIS CRACK HEAD OR CRACKED PERSON OR I SHOULD SAY MAYBE A MAN OR A WOMAN, I DON'T WANT TO HURT HIS OR HER FEELINGS. BUT GROW UP AND TAKE A SHOWER AND SHAVE AND MAYBE I WOULD HAVE LISTED TO WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY. BUT NOPE I COULDN'T FINISH LISTENING TO THE GARBAGE YOUR YELLOW TEETH WHERE SPITTING OUT. AND YEAH YOU PROBABLY STILL AT MOMMAS HOUSE?
Kneon Knight: Thanks for watching!
Thank you for the video. It was very intriguing. I learned a great deal from it and will do some thoughtful research from it.
Say what you will about this video, but it has persuaded me to take a much harder look at the 9th Amendment... Which I will do while cleaning my Smith and Wesson.
Harvard Injury Control Research Center
1. The United States has a very high rate of firearm death
2. The risks of a gun in the home typically far outweigh the benefits
3. More guns, more violent death
4. Better mental health treatment may help but effective legislation is crucial to reduce gun violence
5. Per capita U.S. gun deaths vastly exceed all other high-income countries
Source: www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/overall/
Literally gets NRA ad before this video
Hey America. Rather than keeping up this charade about guns being necessary for personal safety (did you know that in most developed nations, citizens don't need to kill other citizens to stay safe?) why don't you just admit the truth? You guys want to be able to own guns because *guns are fucking bad-ass*.
'Developed nations' can be left to interpretation when it comes to Europe nowadays.
Seriously. As an American, I agree that the sentiment of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is fucking stupid. I think guns are cool as hell, and shooting one is easily one of the most gratifying feelings (which, to be fair, is a terrifying statement in of itself).
Sean To be terrified of a weapon is to show a lack in mental maturity.
Alucard Of Romania I didn't say I was. I meant that, for others that didn't grow up around or learning about guns like I did, the idea of everyone having access to a gun can be a terrifying thought. I know that, in responsible hands, guns are about as dangerous as a damp towel. But we also can't dismiss the fact that there are others that are uncomfortable with guns, regardless of who owns them.
fireaza You don't live here, you don't vote here, you will never pick up a rifle in defense of this country. With all do respect...go fuck yourself.
I used to think guns were cool, then i argued with some NRA members after they lied about Australia.
Here's my opinion: have as many guns as you want as long as you don't get emotionally attached to them. If your attachment to your guns is ever remotely Gollum-like, I don't think you should have kitchen knives.
1938, Jewish people were denied the right to own guns in Germany.
Luckily, they did not have a tyrannical government to fear....
Gamera there's a big difference between banning guns and banning guns just for one group of people based on their ethnicity. The second one is a violation of civil rights based on prejudice and scapegoating
There's nothing wrong with limiting gun ownership especially when it can save lives. You really think you're going to rise up against the government? Sorry to tell you, you're bringing a gun to a drone fight. Good luck
correlation does not imply causation.
That can applied to many things.
Personally, guns can be used for protection...and as a NRA member, I do agree that the NRA uses fear mongering as well.
But I honestly believe that guns can help keep people safe and a government more honest.
We should make meth and heroine illegal while we are at it to save lives.
That is the main issue. It something that is difficult to legislate/enforce.
Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens with laws does not take them out of the hands of "bad guys" who already have them.
Gamera the problem I have with the tyrannical government argument is that if the government somehow decided to fight the people and the military supported the government, we're not standing up to the military gun or no gun.
I must admit that the rhetoric coming from the NRA is beyond laughable and the worst part is that there are good people out here who actually fall for it. I believe in the 2nd Amendment as I do in all of them but there has to be come common sense with some items that are being sold. I believe that high capacity drums should have serial numbers and be registered at purchase just in case they are used in the commission of a crime. A modern assault rifle can make fast use of around 7 100 round drums before it fails making the potential and foreseeable liability very high if a person used them during the commission of a crime. I get that from watching people perform tests on AR and AK style rifles in rapid/auto fire to see how many rounds they can fire before malfunctioning or failing. I also believe that gun owners should be held accountable for not securing their firearms. Look at how many instances children are hurt because they had access to a weapon that didn't have a trigger lock or was not secured in a safe. Irresponsible gun owners make responsible owners look bad. Look at Sandy Hook, the kid got access to the rifle after he killed his mom. Was that rifle secured in a safe? Guns need to be locked up to prevent their illegal use!
WOW!! This was actually.. Mostly legitimate!
Could do without the dig at Video Games though.. Those were shown to reduce violence.
Yeah psychologically bottling up and ignoring violent tendencies lead to more violent outbursts, whereas video games act a safe outlet for violent urges.
To summarize what one psychologist said; the person more likely to have an outburst is the one who represses their desires in an unhealthy way until; like a dam, it bursts.
@@HovektheArtist
All too, true
I liked this video a lot, but I have an issue with the "people buy guns after mass shootings because the NRA tells them liberals are taking their guns away." Well I live in california, regardless to how much the NRA lies (and it seems like they do a lot) In california, they ARE taking our guns away, incrementally, yes, but it's getting pretty ridiculous, no over 10 round magazines, no ammo purchases without backround checks (Which really only bothers me because now I can't get hard to find ammo by going online, that includes .22's the squirrel and tin can hunting ammo), and now there's talk about how we can't have ANY semi automatic guns, only bolt actions, lever actions, ect. So for us Californians, the NRA's bullshit is somewhat of a reality. But the NRA hasn't been helping us out, so I say fuck em, too.
now YOU have an argument! I've been trying to find the one well researched and versed pro gun dude on here. haven't found them yet. but you have good points.
gotta ask. how bad is the background check thing? do you feel like most of these restrictions are just makeing it difficult for law abiding citizens? and what measures should be done to make for sure the citizens who wish to do harm to others from getting guns should be enacted?
AaronArcLOL Appreciate it, man.
I'm a pretty pro gun person. admittedly to a fault. The idea of background checks are actually fine by me when you're talking about guns, although If I remember correctly, nearly no one is rejected from them, whether that's because the checks are faulty, or the people who would fail them don't buy legally, I don't know. The issue I have with the new law forcing background checks for ammo sales really pisses me off, because in CA there's an ammo shortage for a lot of cheap rounds. And those rounds aren't even like the bullets in AK's or AR15's, it's like I said, .22's the squirrel and tin can hunting round. They're very cheap, and not too powerful, yet now I won't be able to buy them without driving to nevada or oregon, all because californians saw the words "background checks" and blindly voted yes. (i don't blame them, I voted for the really shitty weed legalisation law because I was ignorant, it happens.)
At the end of the day, California has basically abandoned gun owners, we have no one to speak up for us. They keep making regulation after regulation and yet the shootings haven't gone down in significant or correlative ways. And that's because our shootings don't happen because of the guns, they happen because of the gangs, and so far, with this many guns in circulation, we're not gonna take guns from gangs by screwing over legal gun owners. A perfect example would be the magazine capacity restrictions, and the bullet button. My family has plenty of magazines with more than 10 rounds, we're criminals because of that, we're not in any sort of black market, yet even WE can get ahold of extremely illegal AK's and clips, so how many of the gang members out there do you think do as well? It just doesn't help the problem, gangs don't walk into gun stores, they just don't.
Mark Smith well mark i've been telling people for years. there are shit loads of ilegal guns in circulation. i think some of the politicians are going off of what there constituents are saying without consulting with gun owners.
bro. right in our country more then ever. i think you need to talk to people, host debates, and start changing public perception in CF about guns. as long as enough people are against it. your state will be against it.. where i come from guns are not deterrents they are the random cause of death attributed to a few of my friends. both me and my brother were shot before. and it is a horrible experience.
despite that having friends from different walks of life i was able to move past what the politicians say on the matter and see the truth. i live In CT and i wanted to defend myself i would have a harder time getting a gun meanwhile a criminal would not due to the amount of illegal guns in circulation. i do not wish to own a gun but i do want to fix the problems that the people who use the illegal ones Cause.
AaronArcLOL I'm telling you, mass shootings? Not as big of an issue as people pretend, they're pretty rare all things considered. The gun deaths in this country extend from gang violence, and the way you deal with that is to legalize drugs and fix our absolute garbage prison system.
+Mark Smith You poor thing :'(
That wasn't Ricardo's actual chest, and Frakes is a very skilled director, dude.
Yeah it's definitely not his chest, but it's hilarious.
Treakmaster Oh, without question.
Yes it was. Ricardo Montalban famously had an extreme fitness program, even in his sixties, and they designed his Khan costume around his physique. Montalban was just _awesome_.
And yes, due to the film quality it _looks_ fake, hence the rumors. But no, it's really him.
THANK YOU! He also directed First Contact, the best Next Gen movie.
I find it hard to listen to any argument from 'Christians' who think Jesus would have owned a gun rack. Thinking doesn't matter much to them.. and they got firearms, so.. Oh look.. is that Canada up there? **wanders north**
Oh look is that guy illegally crossing the border? **Shoots next to them**
Miron Gaines Good point, but worse is one who screams mouth foaming allegiance to one, then proves they haven't read a single sentence of his 'word'.
Oh, and Canada is FAR from the "gunless utopia" you think it is. After all, they have grizzlies, and hunt caribou, so...
Its gunless enough by comparison. I know multiple drug dealers who operate here without owning guns. How does that even work?
May I make a very random suggestion? Don't use the term "assault weapon". It clouds the issue, especially since there's no real definition for what an assault weapon is.
Personally, I'm still confused as to why we even have _semi_-automatic rifles. If it's for hunting, why do you need more than one shot? If it's for home/self defense, why do you need a rifle as opposed to smaller armament?
What does it say that comedy programs and channels have become better at journalism than many newspapers and news programs?
highdough it would say a lot if they were but they aren't. They are equally as bad at lying to make people believe something. Lies just blend in better with facts when there's a joke at the end.
Connor Cook If you'd like to counter any of the arguments made in this video, I'd be happy to read them. Otherwise, I stand by my original comment.
And also a trigger for angry Trump supporters.
highdough Like most of America, (including most gun owners) I find the NRA nonsensical. Nobody needs to be reminded of that but this video goes ahead and does that unnecessarily and then adds in a load of biased misinformation.
Warren Burger was appointed by Nixon but why not take a shot at "Republican Jesus" Reagan and associate him with this even though he has 0 association to this topic.
Two NRA presidents saying two different things over 50 years apart doesn't make them inconsistent it means they've changed at some point in over half a decade which is normally how the world works.
What the guy says about Neal Knox is completely inconsistent with what Knox actually says in the quote.
He doesn't bother to say that harlon carter was only 17 when he killed ramon but that makes carter look more like a bad guy so we'll just leave that out. And the kid attacked with a knife making it clear self defense. he also didn't cover it up after newspapers released it. he acknowledged it the same year it was uncovered in 1981.
the right to own a firearm was acknowledged as early as 1876
all of these lies are just from the first 5 minutes. Again I don't find the NRA necessary or support them in any way but the way this video presents itself lacks any credibility. this video is just as bad as anything from CNN, Fox News or NBC but since its funny and makes one side look stupid it seems credible on the surface to most people.
Another awesome clip... thanks guys :)
"Why the NRA is Even Terrible for gun control", YEAH okay good title
Flynn
I bet you didn't even watch the video lol
Flynn The Soy Boy Beta bitch thought he was unbiased in this video. LMAO
One thing is for certain in the USA. We have far too few guns, and almost no way to buy one. Obama took them all. He did it last Wednesday.
I'm throwing my weight behind him being sarcastic. It just feels like the thing to do :-)
Amazingly, this video didn't feel like just a bunch of SJW tripe. Thanks, Cracked!
I got an ad for a way to completely conceal a handgun on your person and access it in less than a second. Scary
The Courts have been interpreting the second amendment to recognize the individual's RKBA for at least a century. Need to do better research. The Justicar covers this pretty well.
I'm a gun owner who supports regulation because
A) they have yet to be any form of actual inconvenience and I live in NJ which has some of the toughest laws
B) some people should not be able to get a gun such as terrorists (suspected would-be terrorists), who have videos online discussing which states its easiest to get a gun in, and people who just want to go home and kill themselves with it. (waiting periods can stop suicide attempts or shift people to try less fatal methods)
C) The argument they spin is about the right to defend yourselves. Most people have no desire to carry a gun on them at all times and be in a state of constant hyper-vigilance. Some people like myself just want to target shoot or hunt. The narrative they spin of they have a gun so you need a gun to protect yourself is disconcerting and just as much a reason for regulation.
D) 90% of illegal guns come from 5% of stores. those people are protected rather than prosecuted so that argument C remains valid. This in turn brings scorn upon all guns and owners and feeds the us vs them argument rather than supporting safe and legal gun ownership for law abiding americans and the full weight of the law vs criminals.
Every time someone lumps every gun owner together I cringe a little because we all have different opinions
Ed Lippincott sort of like racism
Ed Lippincott oh wait no. exactly like it.
anyway i agree with you on all points. i don't own a gun yet, [need money will work for bullets] but i will one day...soon😈. nah thats ominous as shit, but i don't actually want to go bothering anyone that isn't bothering me. is it wrong to assume most people think this way? according to the media it is...maybe im the only sane person left on earth😓
Well said, Ed and completely in line with the second amendment since it called for regulation. Those of us who advocate for gun control do not want to take guns away but wish for regulations to be put in place. We want to be able to protect innoncent people from those who would abuse them. Thank you for advocating for regulation. I lost people due to gun violence so I appreciate your willingness to think about the victims in that sense.
The 90%/5% thing is wrong. I get to have guns because I want them and it’s that simple. I’m American and it’s the american way.
Just a quick point of order: the individual right to own firearms was recognized by the Supreme Court as early as 1854.
I’m glad you can stay “unbiased”
Very good points made in this video!
Unfortunately, the NRA is likely going to be one of our most powerful lobbying groups for a long time, and that status will not change. Why? Because they are a single-issue organization with only ONE goal: to prevent the passage of anymore gun laws/restrictions! That's it. That's all they have to do! That makes it easy for them to organize whenever something is going on with guns politically.
The Film Whisperer they are actually one of the most broke lobys out there (compared to other lobys)
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the safety and security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds like they're talking about a militia, but what do I know lol
since the USA has a standing professional army now does the militia even have any reliance anymore. I think that maybe its time the amendment's get written for a modern time. update them and correct them so then no one can mis understand them.
that is what they are designed to do... be amended
bedtimeat8 unfortunately you mention that to someone and they throw there shit and say you can't change the amendments.
Militia is armed people
Militia is armed people rallied for military service without being part of a standing army. Yes, they tend to be armed people, but not all armed people are by definition militia.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
@mmzen I dont think it is out of context. He specified its a draft just like the video did
Fantastic video. I really like the format.
earrings on guys really... REALLY dont go well with suits
Hunter Rodrigez Have you seen the Rock in a suit? Still looks badass, even if he's wearing an earring. ;P
Michael Berthelsen this dude isn't the rock
If the guy is attractive enough, it works...
21 RB Just pointing out that the original statement isn't always true. ;-)
lol the ad I saw for this vid was for the NRA XD
Besaid Knight they're good trolls
Cracked is coming to take all your guns away! D:
My dad had to join the NRA in order to use a gun range. It makes you wonder how many people actually choose to be members.
honestly you can have a minigun for all I care all I want is insurance that your not nutty in the head.
Facts are awesome :) if only more people believed in them...
This is like saying UA-cam is terrible for you tubers
Derp nation Because it is.
Ole Torheim UA-camrs.
Cloudsdale so not potatoes and yams? I'm disappointed... ;)
Because it is. And no it's not. Maybe cracked should do a video of all the logical fallacies next, since you seem to not learn much with your time on the internet. Turn this into a proper edu channel and get some more responsible voters in here.... the fuck is wrong with your viewer-base cracked?
it sometimes is...;to much clickbait
Standing there,, looking Down at Heston's Carcass,,, "I'll take that pew-pew now, Little Fellow" 😂😂😂
"Nobodies coming for your guns" ~California
Jon Othman Beto O’Rourke wants to say something.
Obviously I'm not the target demographic for this shit. Why didn't you cover any of the subsequent writings of the people who wrote and amended the fuckin Constitution about the 2nd amendment? It's pretty clear from those writings that it was intended as an individual right (also, it's inclusion in the Bill of rights might be a hint) to be exercised as a protection against our own government? I think I'll side with Jefferson. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.
The phrase "the people's right to bear arms", both within the second amendment and paraphrased in that quote, is very vague; "the people" in particular can be interpreted as either individuals OR the local militias established to serve, protect, and represent the people, i.e. police and the national guard. To be fair, the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject favors the former interpretation, so you're not wrong; I'm just pointing out that it's not as black and white as you seem to think.
Also, Jefferson didn't write the Constitution (he wasn't even at the convention), and courts generally ignore any argument that begins with "the Founders intended...", because "the Founders" were just as ideologically diverse and argumentative as modern politicians, and a lot of what's in the Constitution is actually a result of compromises and political maneuvering. If you want to interpret the Constitution a certain way, do it on the basis of what's actually in it, not on what the person who wrote it meant. That actually applies to just about any written work.
One more thing: the quote you used makes it sound like Jefferson is saying that the existence of popular sovereignty, i.e. rule by the people, is contingent on the people's right to bear arms. But upon looking up the letter in question, I found that those two things are contained in two separate clauses, and all Jefferson is saying is that both are fundamental rights.
Sean Murphy in what world do you live where "the people" could possibly refer to only a group of special citizens?
Aldreth or
In the world where we have a representative democracy in which we take it for granted that those in power are acting in the best interests of the people. The term "the people" can be used to mean the citezenry as a whole, rather than the individual citizens.
Remember, the 2nd Amendment was written during a time when carrying a gun for self-defense was completely impractical (because of the laughably slow loading process) and/or incredibly unsafe (because gunpowder is really volatile), so they probably didn't even consider that aspect of the 2nd Amendment. The point of the thing was to avoid the necessity for a standing army. Of course, times have changed; guns have improved, and a combination of economics and international politics have led to the creation of not only a standing army, but a full-blown military-industrial complex. The 2nd Amendment has evolved into something far beyond the scope that the Founders intended.
But again, the Founder's intention doesn't really mean much, and the current Supreme Court interpretation is that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect individuals' rights to own and carry a weapon, and when it comes to the Constitution, the Supreme Court always has the last word; they are much smarter than us. Like I said, I'm just trying to provide a different perspective.
"what is people?"
"interpret the Constitution"
"Jefferson didn't write the Constitution"
"the Founders were argumentative as modern politicians"
we are clearly speaking with a genius.
I find the transition of power within the 70s enlightening, but the video itself smells of dishonesty. Firstly the NRA started its legal action team called the institution for legislative action (ILA) afternoon the large expansion of gun control in 1968. up until then there wasn't much in the way of legal action called for because there wasn't much gun control. JFK was a member of the NRA as anecdotal evidence of the organizations lack of merely being a lobbying group pre-1968. Why would one of their members sign into law such a large expansion of gun control? because Before 1968 they were mainly concerned with gun safety and training because there was no evidence that they needed to be anything else. There was little association with lobbying or political activism before this time. also one only needs to look at the actions of the other former British colonies to see the progression and ultimate end goal of gun control. it isn't fear mongering if it's happened in other nations. Lastly saying that Hillary Clinton had no history of gun control is laughably false. she was a huge advocate of the Brady bill and said in the Democratic primary that the Australian "buy back" (a widespread gun confiscation program) was "worth looking at".
speaking as an avid gun enthusiast (Not an NRA member) this was an excellent video explaining why the NRA is not in the best interest of the majority of gun owners. well thought out and executed. great job
well maybe read some of the federalist papers then get back to me
Try taking about abortion.
Well this is biased as hell.
If you can disprove any of the information presented, do so. Otherwise your objection is literally worthless.
Saying a lie is infact a lie, thus pointing out a liar is not biased, it's jurnalism
MyNameIsJ3ff no, that's how the NRA is. He didn't even make a stance on guns, just the organization, which is a lobbying giant and does a lot of fucked up shit
Man, I love it when facts are biased.
In your defense, yes, it's biased against the actions of the NRA. But if you want something completely devoid of bias, you'll need to stare at a blank wall. Anything that talks about anything or anyone will be biased, so that statement is meaningless. The question is, did he lie? Did he omit anything (that is true) important to his argument?
I quit the NRA because I got tired of them calling me at home to ask for donations. If you charge me a membership fee, I don't want to hear from you again until it's time to renew my membership.