HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Can anyone reccomend a go...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

Can anyone reccomend a good and effective gun advocacy group other than the NRA?

In light of the misguided attempts by the fearmongers amongst us to call for tighter but all too ineffective gun restrictions after this latest tragedy, can anyone recommend a good (as in effective) gun rights advocacy group that is not pushing a right wing agenda?

I have wanted to join the NRA for years. I admire their unflagging advocacy for gun rights and the individual's right to keep and bear arms for both hunting and especially self defense, but the fact that the NRA also pushes and supports a hate filled anti-choice, anti-government, anti-minority, anti liberal right wing agenda makes me sick. Wayne LaPierre creeps me out, as does Ted Nugent and all of the thinly veiled misogyny and race baiting at the national meetings.

So who is a progressive democrat who supports gun rights going to support? I am not interested in giving money or other support to any organization that is going to advocate for new laws restricting legal ownership and use of guns, both in and out of the home, except for things that actually keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed and those convicted violent crimes. At this point I am interested in the nics system being open to private sellers, and promoting greater communication between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies regarding mental health and criminal issues so that there is a firm database of people who have been deemed not fit to legally own guns. Other things that limit ownership such as waiting periods and limiting the number of guns one person can buy per month are ridiculous and inneffwctive methods of stopping crime, so I don't want to support anyone who advocates for this kind of tripe. I am probably out there in wishing that the GCA of 1968 along with parts of the NFA of 1934 were also overturned, but they just create needless bureaucracy and enforcement just wastes taxpayer $$$$ stoping imaginary crimes that aren't happening, or won't be stopped by banning guns anyway.

Is there anyone out there for me?

40 replies, 3560 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can anyone reccomend a good and effective gun advocacy group other than the NRA? (Original post)
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 OP
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #1
permatex Jul 2012 #18
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #33
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #2
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #6
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #8
spin Jul 2012 #23
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #28
Fredjust Jul 2012 #3
gejohnston Jul 2012 #7
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #9
Daemonaquila Jul 2012 #26
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #10
permatex Jul 2012 #19
PavePusher Jul 2012 #40
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #5
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #11
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #12
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #16
spin Jul 2012 #21
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #22
spin Jul 2012 #24
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #25
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #13
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #14
gejohnston Jul 2012 #15
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #17
permatex Jul 2012 #20
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #29
demosincebirth Jul 2012 #27
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #30
demosincebirth Jul 2012 #31
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #32
demosincebirth Jul 2012 #34
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #35
demosincebirth Jul 2012 #36
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #39
CokeMachine Jul 2012 #37
CokeMachine Jul 2012 #38

Response to alabama_for_obama (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:54 PM

1. Or am I going to have to suck it up

And write a check to the NRA? Is GOA any better regarding their support for the rest of the RW agenda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:27 PM

18. I donate to the Second Amendment Foundation

 

IMHO, They are much more effective and aren't as radical as the NRA.
Here is the link to their website
http://www.saf.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:05 AM

33. So I was asking also for a friend…

He informed me that he is going to bite the bullet and join the NRA finally because they ARE the most effective at convincing dc and state lawmakers to not do dumb shit regarding guns. He is going to make up for it by donating an extra $35 to Obama to help counter the RW bullshit. I'm going to do the same thing I think. Any amongst us who already are NRA members should maybe try to work on the NRA to stick to guns and leave the hate speech to the anti-abortionists, the anti-gay lobby, and the various racism lobbies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:09 PM

2. You forget the insurance angle

NRA is one of the primary providers of range insurance and instructor certification. Many ranges require membership for that reason and that reason only.

There is the SAF, GOA, and all the state associations, but they are not markedly different than the NRA. As an organization, the NRA is not universally loved by shooters...far from it. What they are good at it broadly spreading their message and concerns so that even shooter/gun owners who dislike them align in common cause.

What you can do is if you have to join the NRA for the above reasons DO NOT SUPPORT the NRA-ILA which is the political and lobbying arm. It is what gives the money, not the NRA itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:55 PM

4. But someone like the NRA-ILA

Is exactly who I want to be giving my time and money to. I just don't want to support the right wing hate that comes with it.

As I said, I am probably a little off the spectrum for most people when it comes to gun rights. I think that a large portion of the NFA and pretty much all of the GCA + the Hughes amendment should be overturned, and want to support advocacy groups that will lobby congress on my behalf to keep new stupid and ineffective gun laws from being passed.

I guess we could always join the NRA, then get active and try to get rid of from within the rank partisanship and right wing hate values that they also push.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:10 PM

6. Then don't

NRA dues cannot go to the NRA-ILA.

If you have to, join up and you will get a pretty magazine and a lot of fire starter in terms of mailings. You also get to vote for the board, go to the general meeting etc. Note that I have never done the latter. They are not my kind of people either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:37 PM

8. I don't have to join.

But I want to give money and support to political organization tha supported RKBA without compromising and allowing crazy shit worse than Hughes amendment to get passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:32 PM

23. ProgressiveProfessor is giving you some good advice ...

The NRA does a lot of good for those who enjoy shooting sports. They provide excellent safety training instruction for civilians and law enforcement and offer many other worthwhile programs for those whose hobby is shooting.

The organization is supposedly a "one issue" group and it does actually support pro-gun Democrats and give such politicians a high rating. Unfortunately the political wing known as the NRA-ILA does have a nasty tendency to demonize many liberals unfairly. Obama is one example as he has actually been pro-gun during his first term and has even received an 'F' rating from the Brady Campaign. Therefore I refuse to donate to the NRA-ILA and throw their propaganda unopened into the trash can.


Gun control group gives Obama an ‘F’

By Michael O’Brien - 01/19/10 07:00 AM ET

President Barack Obama on Monday received a failing grade from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for running away from gun control.

The group, which endorsed Obama in 2008, gave him an “F” on every issue it scored, including background checks, gun trafficking, guns in public, the federal assault weapons ban, standing up to the gun lobby and leadership.

“It’s been a very disappointing year for us, especially considering what he campaigned on,” the group’s president, Paul Helmke, said during an appearance on MSNBC.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f


There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation but only 4.3 million belong to the NRA. I feel that the reason for this is that the NRA-ILA is largely unpopular with most gun owners. I've talked to many NRA members who dropped their membership as they grew tired of the constant donation requests in their mail. It's a common misconception that gun owners are stupid rednecks who looked like they stepped out of the 1972 movie Deliverance. Many, if not most, are well educated and professional individuals who just happen to enjoy the shooting sports or just own firearms for self defense or occasional hunting.

I also wish that there was actually a truly liberal organization that supported gun rights and the Second Amendment. So far I haven't found one but I will admit that I gave up on the effort years ago.

If the NRA does actually endorse Romney I plan to cancel my membership. I came damn close when it endorsed McCain.


NRA endorses McCain
By

The Washington Times Thursday, October 9, 2008


WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is endorsing Republican presidential nominee John McCain despite differences with the Arizona senator on gun-show rules and campaign finance restrictions.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and the chairman of the NRA’s political action committee planned stops Thursday in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada to talk about the move.

***snip***

The NRA doesn’t always endorse presidential candidates. It has backed President Bush but declined to endorse Bob Dole in the 1996 race or President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/nra-endorses-mccain/


I should add that I don't consider the Hughes amendment to be "crazy."

Firearm Owners Protection Act

***snip***

Machine Gun Ban: The Hughes Amendment

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act


I will agree that limiting the ownership of fully automatic firearms to those produced prior to May 19, 1968 has caused the cost of buying such weapons to skyrocket as the supply is drying up. Such weapons are a lot of fun to shoot and I have enjoyed the experience when offered the opportunity. I really see little use for a fully automatic firearm with the exception of the amusement experienced by shooting one. I can shoot far more accurately with a semi-auto firearm and still achieve a rapid rate of fire. Fully automatic weapons might be somewhat useful in warfare but serve little purpose for hunting, target shooting or self defense unless we have a zombie apocalypse which is highly unlikely.

Perhaps we could allow a limited number of such weapons made after 1968 to enter the market. That might cause the price to fall to a more reasonable level but to be honest I fail to see much value in doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #23)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:51 PM

28. My main issue...

Is why ban them if they aren't being used in crimes? At least legally owned machine guns have not seen much if any use in criminal activity. The fact that they were made illegal has not stopped people from getting them and using them for criminal acts has it?

I'm all for less laws and simpler laws when that is possible. This hughes amendment was just yet another solution looking for a problem IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:50 PM

3. There isn't one for a reason...

 

Asking about a pro-gun progressive organization is like asking whether there are any good anti-choice progressive organizations.

Gun ownership and the Second Amendment is a distinctly Rethuglican idea, much like anti-women's choice. If you are looking to send money to those death-spewer toting loons, I question your Progressive credentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Fredjust (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:41 PM

9. Let's not forget who invented "gun control" in the first place.

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't progressive liberal types. My understanding of the NFA of 1934 was that the Pinkertons were worried about being outgunned by striking workers, so they made an attempt to make procurement of certain types of guns very expensive for the average person.

Most gun control is very much a right wing authoritarian type concept. Please take your "concern" elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:02 PM

26. Thank you for making this sorely needed point.

My hat's off to you sir, for speaking the unpopular truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fredjust (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:45 PM

10. The progressive community is much broader than you make it out to be

And the majority of the populace, including Democratic party members and voters support the RKBA.

There are organizations like the Liberal Gun Club, The Pink Pistols, and a feminist firearms group whose name I cannot recall at the moment.

Some of us even maintain that private firearms ownership is a progressive value.

And in answer to your first canard, what about the Quakers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fredjust (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:30 PM

19. And of course, your wrong again

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fredjust (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 07:43 PM

40. There's really no reason to come here just to be a dick.

 

You can do that back in Freeperville.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:46 PM

11. Thanks.

I have heard of them, but if I recall, they are not particularly interested in preventing another version of the ridiculous 1994 assault weapons ban from passing. It's hard to want to give money to someone who is not actually out there advocating for rollback of pointless and ineffective laws and preventing new pointless and restrictive laws from being passed.

Does anyone have opinions and experience with this group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:50 PM

12. are you sure you belong here? You may have missed a turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:24 PM

16. Yes, I belong here...

I just happen to have very strong views about gun rights. I am as left as you can get on most issues, and like the professor noted, some of us think gun rights are a progressive value.

The whole anti gun thing is very unhelpful to all of the rest of the progressive agenda. It turns people off of government solutions to anything because of their often justifiable fears about government over reach regarding guns. So we have a large group of the population that doesn't then want to see government solutions to anything. And then we have instead of government leadership, corporate controll. We also then have a hard time getting reasonable healthcare reform passed and other such things where govt plays a natural role in providing justice and equal access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:21 PM

21. Do you seriously believe that the AWB was effective ...

or served any real purpose?

It was basically a "feel good" law. "Assault weapons" were never banned and high capacity magazines were still available as long as they were manufactured before a cut off date.

The result was that this law actually made relatively unpopular rifles such as the AR-15 cool to own and consequently some shooters acquired this type of firearm and discovered that there are indeed advantages these weapons offer over more conventional rifles. Today "assault rifles" are very popular with shooters and even hunters.

The AWB also led to the development of a new class of handguns. The ten round limit on the size of newly manufactured magazines led to the advent of a generation of smaller, lighter and more compact pistols that are far easier to carry. These pistols have proved to be top sellers and may have caused many individuals to actually obtain a carry permit.

Voter dislike of the ban also caused many Democrats to lose close elections and strengthened the Republican party. Even today another push by Democrats to reinstate the AWB could cause our party to a loss of seats in Congress and might lead to Obama being a one term President as this will be a close election. Allowing Romney to gain the office of President and increasing the number of Republicans in Congress would be a disaster to the future of our nation.

If I were a very liberal Democrat who strongly supported gun control I would see that the AWB was poorly conceived and was largely a failure. I happen to be a liberal Democrat who supports the Second Amendment and RKBA.

It may be as hard for you to understand my position as it is for me to understand yours. To me the Bill of Rights is one of the most liberal and progressive documents ever written in history. In that document the first two Amendments are the most liberal and progressive statements in their order.

The poster is looking for advice on where to find an effective organization that supports RKBA and is not as conservative as the NRA. He is actually in exactly the right place to ask that question. Unfortunately such a group may not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:33 PM

22. I agree that it was ineffective, stupid knee-jerk emotional law. However, I despise the system of

Lobbyists, period! Hate it. Despise it. ymmv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:46 PM

24. I also dislike lobbyists ...

and the influence that the rich and the large corporations exert on our political system. It is my view that this is one of the most important issues that creates many of the problems our nation faces today.

But it is true that experts on issues can provide insight for members of Congress that might be valuable. Perhaps this link summarizes my view.

Is lobbying good or bad or both?

Lobbying
Lobbying has its advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it is designed to help special-interest groups (which may be a group of a certain religion, belief, industry, etc) get their voices heard by members of the law-making body. On the other hand, lobby groups with large amounts of money are able to support campaigns and sway opinions, and therefore limit the mobility of politicians by creating the sense they are owed.

Money contributions under any guise nullifies the original intent of lobbying . Instead
bribery is now the main effect of the efforts on the part of the lobbying organization. No one donates money or gifts funds without the promise of a return, swaying votes or in effect buying congressand thereby making the general electorate voiceless.

In general, Lobbying would be considered a bad thing by the middle class private sector due to their comparative lack of influence. In this day and age, Lobbying has become a way for corporations, religions, and other private and special interest groups to submit their influence over the legislature and essentially circumvent the standard law-making procedure. While all political parties and groups involved with politics have lobbyists, many Americans feel lobbying has gotten out of hand and should be outlawed, but this comes at a double standard because you have to lobby the outlawing of lobbying for it to take any effect. However the practice of lobbying is currently protected by the model of government we have and since corporations and other special interests are legally considered a singular entity, they are represented as such in Congress.

I advise you to do you own research on the practise of lobbying and how it affects us before you decide whether it is good to have around, should be reformed, or outlawed altogether.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_lobbying_good_or_bad_or_both

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #24)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:56 PM

25. I go with outlaw them. I think they are gross and disgusting

On 60 Minutes Overtime, Lesley explains her reaction and how stomach-turning it was to hear the nuts and bolts of how a lobbyist corrupts our political leaders. Abramoff described how he lavished congressmen and senators with gifts, access to private jets, and junkets to the world's great golf destinations like St. Andrews in Scotland. He treated them to free meals at his own upscale Washington restaurant and the best tickets to all the area's sporting events, including sky boxes at Washington Redskins games.

"I think the public's going to be furious watching this," she said of her Abramoff report. "The story just shows you that our system really, really is in trouble."

Abramoff served more than three years in prison for his crimes, and when he was released, 60 Minutes producer Ira Rosen was eager to get him on camera to explain his secrets of the lobbying game and how he worked to undermine our democracy.

"This is a guy who was a player in Washington and can describe how politics in Washington works," Ira told Overtime, "and what the interfacing is between a lobbyist and a politician and how they work together-- not necessarily for the public good."

more at link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57319068-10391709/jack-abramoff-inside-capitol-corruption/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:05 PM

13. They state on their website that they are not much of a lobbying/activist group.

I am looking to support a pro gun rights lobbying/activist group that is not otherwise involved in promoting scary right wing ideologies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:12 PM

14. I don't support Lobbyists, period. Sorry. imo, they are ONE of the biggest things wrong with our

system. ymmv. I donate my time, efforts and monies to humanitarian causes. I am not worried about 2A. Obama will take full advantage of this tragedy by advocating his Medicare for ALL, as this will include mental health care. I hope he springboards on this. Something good should come from this disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:17 PM

15. SAF

AFAIK, they don't have crazy people on their board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:26 PM

17. Thanks, I'll look into them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:33 PM

20. I'd recommend staying away from the NRA

 

their board of directors are all RW batshit crazy assholes.
Donate to the SAF, they are much more effective and not so flashy IMHO.
BTW, a hearty welcome to the DU Gungeon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:58 PM

29. Thanks, been lurking for many years now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:33 PM

27. Try the nearest gang of gang-bangers. They are pro gun and they don't have anything to do

with any organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 10:00 PM

30. Try to say something relevant or please don't bother.

I think I am not supposed to call you a troll, so I won't. But your comment is definitely out of line and seeking to provoke a nasty response from people. Please do that somewhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:39 AM

31. are the only one on this thread that I have to use the sarcasm dingy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:00 AM

32. Try a little harder

Your joke is not funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 04:30 PM

34. I see you're new here and people with thin skin either change or don't last long here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:17 PM

35. I'm new to posting but not to reading

I just don't find unfunny attempts at jokes about people in the ghetto to be funny. You'll get over it hopefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:05 AM

36. Your're the one with the thin skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #36)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 07:21 PM

39. you're the one who can't get over the fact that your "joke" was not funny.

jokes about "gang bangers" in the ghetto just tend not to be funny. They usually come across to me as thinly veiled racism. I'm not thin skinned, I was just letting you know that your joke wasn't amusing. It's not the end of the world, everyone fucks up from time to time. But please, get over yourself already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #27)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:15 AM

37. Am I missing something?

 

What are you trying to say? The sarcasm thingy doesn't clear it up for me either. Just curious -- inquiring minds (I've got a least a couple or is that personalities -- TOO MANY VOICES -- ouch) want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #27)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:16 AM

38. Sorry, I didn't realize this was a day old. I'll try to keep current. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread