Watch out, the NRA will spy on you

Quote :

"A gun-control activist who championed the cause for more than a decade and served on the boards of two anti-violence groups is suspected of working as a paid spy for the National Rifle Association, and now those organizations are expelling her and sweeping their offices for bugs. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_re_us/nra_mole

8/5/2008 10:09:28 PM

It's not corroborated, but gg to the NRA if it's true. The anti-gun lobby uses misinformation to appeal to peoples emotions because that's the only way people will buy their skewed statistics and other crap. The NRA always gets demonized in the media, so it would be smart to have a plant to get good information about what's going on. I just wonder if it will turn out to be true.

8/5/2008 10:25:51 PM

GG? Its espionage and deceit.

If you read the article, one of the people who leads the group felt betrayed because his brother was an FBI Agent who was killed by a gun. Does he not have a legitimate gripe against the proliferation of guns?

We have a special interest group basically attempting to disrupt legal citizen groups and the democratic process using methods that are usually reserved for the government. I find it abhorrent and alarming.

8/5/2008 10:35:10 PM

Quote :

"GG? Its espionage and deceit. "

the anti-gun crowd relies pretty heavily on deceit.

i don't see what the problem is in planting someone in their enemy's camp.

Quote :

"Does he not have a legitimate gripe against the proliferation of guns? "

No, he has a legitimate gripe against the asshole who shot his brother.

Quote :

"We have a special interest group basically attempting to disrupt legal citizen groups and the democratic process using methods that are usually reserved for the government. I find it abhorrent and alarming. "

Wait, so an anti-gun group lives on hallowed ground, and when a pro-gun group combats them, it's abhorrent and alarming? I don't see why the two sides are subject to different rules, in your mind (I mean, I do...I'm just surprised that you're coming right out and saying it.)

8/5/2008 10:41:50 PM

I wonder what Scuba Steve's opinion would be about somebody from Sarah Brady's group infiltrating the NRA?

8/5/2008 10:48:33 PM

A noble lie, of course. For the Greater Good.

8/5/2008 11:13:26 PM

You people are typical Republicans. Willing to tolerate unethical behavior and the subversion of democracy as long as it perpetuates your own political agenda.

8/5/2008 11:24:36 PM

so out of curiosity what makes the NRA a "special interst group" but the pro gun control groups like the Brady campaign mere legal citizens groups? Is it because they align with your ideology and the NRA does not?

8/5/2008 11:27:34 PM

The Brady Campaign is as much a special interest group as the NRA is. Both are politically oriented and represent citizen interests. But sending spies and wiretapping and bugging people? What gives them the right? If their position is so flimsy that they have to revert to illegal activities to counter organizations who are victims of gun violence, I guess they really have a lot to be worried about.

8/5/2008 11:34:41 PM

Quote :

"Willing to tolerate unethical behavior and the subversion of democracy as long as it perpetuates your own political agenda."

sure its unethical but hardly a subversion of democracy

they are both private lobbying organizations

8/5/2008 11:56:55 PM

Well, perhaps you wouldn't mind if I send one of my employees to a job interview at your business and while they are in your boardroom, they leave a bug. Perhaps they might even swipe some documents off your desk when you go to the bathroom. No harm, no foul eh?

8/6/2008 12:19:59 AM

Theft of documents would be theft, a crime, call the police.
Leaving a bug in your office to record conversations I did not attend is illegal in most states, even a felony in some. However, recording meetings and conversations that I am attending is perfectly legal in most states.
You can argue the behavior constitutes fraud as they entered the premises on false pretences, but I doubt you would get very far.

So, as always, call a lawyer and determine if any laws have been broken. But sometimes unethical behavior cannot be punished and that is the price we pay for living in a free society.

8/6/2008 12:33:46 AM

Quote :

"If you read the article, one of the people who leads the group felt betrayed because his brother was an FBI Agent who was killed by a gun."

wtf?
If I busted your mom's skull open with a claw hammer then would you consider her killed by a hammer?


As far as the NRA spying, I don't think it's ethical.
I also don't give a shit.
I've been desensitized to that behavior by PETA and all those other crazy organizations.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ]

8/6/2008 2:14:24 AM

F*** GUN CONTROL.

(NO BAD WORDS IN TSB y0)



^ WATCH OUT, I WILL START LOBBYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HAMMERS!

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 5:21 AM. Reason : ]

8/6/2008 5:20:25 AM

Quote :

"Willing to tolerate unethical behavior [...] as long as it perpetuates your own political agenda"

Really.

8/6/2008 8:32:07 AM

It's funny how the pro-gun crowd think doing something as shady as planting a spy is completely OK. You guys really are nuts, aren't you?

8/6/2008 8:46:57 AM

Quote :

"It's funny how the pro-gun crowd think doing something as shady as planting a spy is completely OK. You guys really are nuts, aren't you?"

Did you read any of the damn posts in this thread?

3/6 of the pro gun crowd thinks it's completely okay.

What proportion of the gun control crowd would think it's ok to stick a spy in the NRA?

8/6/2008 8:57:49 AM

0?

And where the fuck do you get that 3/6 number? Three people are fine with it, no one else voiced an opinion and we don't know if they are pro or anti gun.



[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 9:02 AM. Reason : a]

8/6/2008 9:00:30 AM

I'm pretty moderate on the gun issue, and I'm going to have to say this is okay, even if in bad taste. These are advocacy groups, not some conglomerate hiding valuable secrets. Oh look at me, I can crash your secret club meeting!

8/6/2008 9:03:10 AM

Quote :

"Three people are fine with it, no one else voiced an opinion and we don't know if they are pro or anti gun."

Apparently you can't read.

Completely ok:
bcsawyer
duke
DrSteve (assuming he's serious)

Not completely ok but still pro gun (we know these people are pro gun):
aficionado
1337 b4k4
fumbler

Knowing 3 people's opinions really gives you the right to make blanket statements about the pro gun crowd, doesn't it?

8/6/2008 9:17:00 AM

Not completely ok but still pro gun (we know these people are pro gun):
aficionado
1337 b4k4
fumbler
Hurley

edit: I'm a gun toting sonofabitch, just so you know. And goddamn proud of it

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 9:30 AM. Reason : =]

8/6/2008 9:29:34 AM

Not completely ok but still pro gun (we know these people are pro gun):
aficionado
1337 b4k4
fumbler
Hurley
se7entythree


[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 9:32 AM. Reason : holy crap..passed 9800]

8/6/2008 9:31:59 AM

Quote :

"Apparently you can't read. Completely ok: bcsawyer duke DrSteve (assuming he's serious) Not completely ok but still pro gun (we know these people are pro gun): aficionado 1337 b4k4 fumbler Knowing 3 people's opinions really gives you the right to make blanket statements about the pro gun crowd, doesn't it?"

Are you obtuse or purposefully disingenuous?

Aficionado - I don't remember from other threads if he was pro gun or not. You certainly can't tell it in this thread.
1337 b4k4 - I know he is pro gun from other threads, but how in the fuck do you get any sort of gauge on his stance from this comment

Quote :

"so out of curiosity what makes the NRA a "special interst group" but the pro gun control groups like the Brady campaign mere legal citizens groups? Is it because they align with your ideology and the NRA does not?"

You can't.

And your own statements, you claim you don't think it's ethical, but we can tell by the rest of your comments that you are certainly completely ok with it.

So fuck off.

Quote :

"Knowing 3 people's opinions really gives you the right to make blanket statements about the pro gun crowd, doesn't it?"

Knowing 3 people's opinions gives me the right to make a statement about those three peoples opinions.

8/6/2008 9:37:17 AM

Quote :

"Aficionado - I don't remember from other threads if he was pro gun or not. You certainly can't tell it in this thread. 1337 b4k4 - I know he is pro gun from other threads, but how in the fuck do you get any sort of gauge on his stance from this comment"

True enough.

Quote :

"Knowing 3 people's opinions gives me the right to make a statement about those three peoples opinions."

Let me explain...
If you are certain about 3 out of 6 people's opinions then you cannot make a statement about the 6 people (the "crowd').

You can't win.

8/6/2008 9:51:28 AM

Quote :

"Well, perhaps you wouldn't mind if I send one of my employees to a job interview at your business and while they are in your boardroom, they leave a bug. Perhaps they might even swipe some documents off your desk when you go to the bathroom. No harm, no foul eh?"

very unethical, not a subversion of democracy (i still dont understand why you thought this)

Quote :

"Aficionado - I don't remember from other threads if he was pro gun or not. You certainly can't tell it in this thread."

im all for the 2nd amendment, ideally with limited restrictions for law abiding citizens (may issue CCP is a good example, not a necessarily difficult test if you are reasonable and it acts as the trump card if you want to purchase a gun after you receive it) as your own personal safety is your own responsibility and because of the sense in which i think that it was written: the people need to have the ability to change the government if it no longer works by whatever means necessary

i dont think that the NRA should spy on the Brady group and i also think that they shouldnt be slaughtered in the media all the fucking time

8/6/2008 9:51:34 AM

^ add me to that list

8/6/2008 9:57:55 AM

Quote :

"If you are certain about 3 out of 6 people's opinions then you cannot make a statement about the 6 people (the "crowd')."

Umm, no shit? Literally, no fucking shit. Are you kidding? How old are we now...

Quote :

"You can't win."

Oh, I see how old we are.

8/6/2008 9:59:27 AM

Actually, I'm somewhat pro-gun. You should add me to the list.

I love it when we take votes

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 10:03 AM. Reason : 2nd amendment FTW]

Not completely ok but still pro gun (we know these people are pro gun):
aficionado
1337 b4k4
fumbler
Hurley
se7entythree
mrfrog

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 10:05 AM. Reason : list]

8/6/2008 10:03:05 AM

not to contribute to any sort of pissing match, but

Quote :

"im all for the 2nd amendment, ideally with limited restrictions for law abiding citizens (may issue CCP is a good example, not a necessarily difficult test if you are reasonable and it acts as the trump card if you want to purchase a gun after you receive it) as your own personal safety is your own responsibility and because of the sense in which i think that it was written: the people need to have the ability to change the government if it no longer works by whatever means necessary i dont think that the NRA should spy on the Brady group and i also think that they shouldnt be slaughtered in the media all the fucking time"

well said, sir, well said.

8/6/2008 10:17:22 AM

Quote :

"Completely ok: bcsawyer duke DrSteve (assuming he's serious)"

No, I was making a sarcastic response to how ScubaSteve would react to this situation were the shoe on the other foot. That is, somehow I think we'd be entreated to how it was all for the greater good.

Perhaps I should have made that point clearer - I thought immediately following a post asking that question made that obvious.

So, make that "(possibly) knowing 2 peoples' opinions." Or, in other words, talking out of one's ass.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2008 10:48:28 AM

Quote :

"In the battle of ideas with the gun lobby, we're at a constant disadvantage because we're honest"

I lol'd

8/6/2008 10:49:34 AM

i think that often they're not being dishonest...they're not lying, because they simply have no idea what they're talking about. sometimes they are deliberately disengenuous, but many times they feel the way they do because of misinformation.

8/6/2008 10:54:57 AM

What do you mean by

Quote :

"may issue CCP is a good example, not a necessarily difficult test if you are reasonable and it acts as the trump card if you want to purchase a gun after you receive it"

You trump something after you receive the license. How would one purchase the gun without the license in the first place? This sentence is gillbiteygoop.

8/6/2008 10:55:34 AM

CCP (Carry Concealed Permit) =/= purchase permit.

in NC a pistol permit is $5 from your county's sheriff's dept and a background check. you can get up to 5 a year, and they are good for 5 years (iirc). 1 permit allows you to buy 1 pistol.


a CCP requires a course, shooting a few rounds, registration and check with the FBI and much finger-printing (sheriff's dept does this). One with a CCP does not have to obtain a pistol 'purchase' permit to buy a pistol.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : the Trump is that a CCP allows you to purchase a pistol without having to get a purchase permit]

8/6/2008 11:34:53 AM

So are we just as upset when PETA activists get jobs with their enemies in order to secretly gather video?

And we're also OK when members of the activist group "Environmental Investigation Agency" infiltrates the logging industry?

Let's not get too selective with our outrage.

8/6/2008 11:46:38 AM

Gun control means keeping the bitch steady when you're cappin' targets.

8/6/2008 12:03:24 PM

I see, but it does seem a little bit like both of those forms of licenses defeat the purpose. How does gun ownership help protect against your government if the government keeps a database of everyone in the nation who owns a gun with detailed background information?

If I'm a neocon who's trying to turn the nation into a dictatorship and declare martial law, I might just consider taking away all the guns from the citizens. Might help a little there. Furthermore, under normal circumstances, couldn't the issuer exercise undue controls on who can get a gun by means of refusing licenses? Maybe a rejection has to be justified by some result of the background check, but who are these people answering to? Maybe I just look a little crazy, so no gun for me.

My devils advocate criticisms of the gun ownership arguments consists that, and the basic fact that much of the logic that the 2nd amendment was created with is simply not applicable anymore. I would like to think guns keep the government's power in check, but it could only do so on the lowest level. I apparently missed my chance to serve in the NC militia after graduating high school, and otherwise am rather deprived of membership in organizations willing to band together and oust tyranny from the government (should it come to that). Also, while 'big brother' holds the technical power to bring the entire world to ashes in a nuclear holocaust, any radical change of leadership or purging of leadership of this country seems a little implausible. All though, the Soviet Union did seem to prove that big changes can happen without blowing up the world (but this was a bit devoid of direct citizen action).

Just sayin...

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ^^ right on]

8/6/2008 12:22:53 PM

Quote :

"couldn't the issues exercise undue controls on who can get a gun by means of refusing licenses? "

maybe its more like a double edged sword? it's a good thing when a permit isn't issued due to a negative result on a background check-

8/6/2008 12:35:29 PM

Quote :

"and sweeping their offices for bugs."

can't really sweep for a bug that isn't transmitting at the moment. if they are remotely activated, then you'll never find them and the batteries will last quite a long time. you'll just have to tear everything apart to get rid of them.

Quote :

"couldn't the issues exercise undue controls on who can get a gun by means of refusing licenses?"

lets take durham county for instance. they have so many rules on who can have a gun, yet their crime rate is disproportionate to the population. many people are denied permits (purchase and carry) at the whim of the sheriff. they make it so difficult for someone to purchase a pistol, much less carry one for self-protection, that it's not worth it. moving away is easier. they also want you to register your guns with them when you move into their jurisdiction. other counties could care less (wake for instance).

it's funny that the county with one of the highest crime rates wants it's citizens to be disarmed, yet they offer no alternatives and are not responsible for your safety.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : scuba steve, your argument is a bit off base.]

8/6/2008 12:51:30 PM

allow me to expand on my earlier post:

I don't know whether or not I'd call it unethical, as long as they didn't break any laws. It is certainly distasteful. It is not, however, anywhere NEAR as distasteful as what the pro-gun groups they were fighting push for.

8/6/2008 1:50:23 PM

Quote :

"So are we just as upset when PETA activists get jobs with their enemies in order to secretly gather video? And we're also OK when members of the activist group "Environmental Investigation Agency" infiltrates the logging industry? Let's not get too selective with our outrage."

yes, but this thread is titled "For Gun Control?"

not "when ridiculous organizations attack"

8/6/2008 2:46:18 PM

Quote :

"I see, but it does seem a little bit like both of those forms of licenses defeat the purpose. How does gun ownership help protect against your government if the government keeps a database of everyone in the nation who owns a gun with detailed background information?"

well we are a nation of compromise

i would agree with you that registration and records arent necessarily in the spirit of the 2nd amendment...i would agree that this whole fucking country is speeding away from the founders' intent

Quote :

"If I'm a neocon who's trying to turn the nation into a dictatorship and declare martial law, I might just consider taking away all the guns from the citizens. Might help a little there. Furthermore, under normal circumstances, couldn't the issuer exercise undue controls on who can get a gun by means of refusing licenses? Maybe a rejection has to be justified by some result of the background check, but who are these people answering to? Maybe I just look a little crazy, so no gun for me."

it is the sheriff in NC that has this power and they are elected officials...i agree it isnt perfect

8/6/2008 2:52:53 PM

Quote :

"It's not corroborated, but gg to the NRA if it's true. The anti-gun lobby uses misinformation to appeal to peoples emotions because that's the only way people will buy their skewed statistics and other crap. The NRA always gets demonized in the media, so it would be smart to have a plant to get good information about what's going on. I just wonder if it will turn out to be true."

8/6/2008 7:11:55 PM

You're rationalizing and making excuses for something you know is inherently wrong.

8/6/2008 7:14:29 PM

guns didnt spy on anyone.

8/7/2008 9:45:11 AM

8/7/2008 9:55:56 AM

well i was actually being serious about my statement

8/7/2008 10:01:43 AM

Quote :

"I don't know whether or not I'd call it unethical, as long as they didn't break any laws. It is certainly distasteful. It is not, however, anywhere NEAR as distasteful as what the pro-gun groups they were fighting push for. "

8/7/2008 10:03:38 AM