Slashdot Mirror


NRA Complaint Takes Down 38,000 Websites (vice.com)

Sarah Jeong, reporting for Motherboard:38,000 websites hosted by the automated publishing service Surge went down today, after the National Rifle Association sent a legal notice over a parody website created by the Yes Men. A few days ago, the Yes Men released the parody video, "Share the Safety" -- announcing a supposed NRA program to deliver firearms into the hands of those too impoverished to afford guns. The opening frame of the video says "Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." "Systemic poverty and dumb laws keep the urban poor unable to acquire life-saving firearms," says the video, which is available on YouTube. "That's why we at the NRA are teaming up with Smith & Wesson to share the safety.â The YouTube description includes a link to the "official" website, ShareTheSafety.org.

15 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Great work from the Yes Men by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dunno. The way the summary is written, it sounds a lot like impersonation.

  2. Surge should fire their admin by sbrown123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever killed 38,000 websites to get rid of the one the DMCA targeted is an idiot.

  3. A bit much for parody? by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am all for parody, but isn't claiming to be supported by the organization you are parodying a bit much?

    1. Re:A bit much for parody? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Holy shit, the video doesn't just claim to be supported by the organization; it contains zero hint that it's a parody, at all. It looks very authentic, and it's on Youtube with a very non-parody title. Seeing this video, examining it frame-by-frame, and studying the quality and the transcript, I would say it's authentic.

  4. Parody is Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By blatantly stating that the NRA is sponsoring it and supports it, is not fine

    There are rules. They exist for a reason.

    Try doing a parody site on abortion and state plainly that the Democratic National Committee is paying for it and that Planned Parenthood is also sponsoring it.

    I expect you will see the same thing.

    But I don't expect that you will understand because you don't like the NRA

  5. Re:what a wonderful program by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google 'Gun Owners of America'. The NRA is soft, but you should still support them too.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Re:what a wonderful program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the parody is full of unconscious racism

    What make you think it was "unconscious"? They used race baiting as part of their attack on the NRA.

  7. NRA Takedown by manifestdestinynow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reality behind this socialist produced "mocumentary" tells a much different story! In Detroit the Police Chief with massive government cutbacks advised local citizens to arm themselves! http://hotair.com/archives/201... It really bothers these Yes Men that the result of citizens arming themselves has been steep declines in Detroit crime! From the article: >>Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns. “Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed. “I can’t say what specific percentage is caused by this, but there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect,” Craig said. Compare Detroit's scenario to Chicago's: Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and the highest gun homicide rate! Murder citie's crime rates are off the charts, because citizens can't defend themselves, while the criminals have all the guns. These "Yes Men" are so far from reality, it makes their little joke video much funnier, as they have no idea what they are lampooning!

  8. 'Gun control' is hitting your target by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Among the other outright stupidities that humans in general, especially here in the U.S., where I was born, raised, and have spent my entire life: Thinking that putting more barriers up to discourage and outright prevent the acquisition of firearms by law-abiding citizens is going to in any way shape or form reduce the occurance of mass-shootings like we've been seeing; it won't. What it'll do is roughly equivalent to a car alarm, or a deadbolt lock on the front door of your house: It'll deter the most casual criminals, but the professionals and those truly dedicated to their course of action will find a way to get the tools they want to perform whatever mayhem they have in mind. If it's not guns, they'll obtain or make IEDs of some kind and blow people up (Boston Marathon bombers) or just get knives or even swords or other hand-to-hand weapons to attack people with, or for all we know something more exotic.

    Now, to all you SJWs and hysterical types who are now so triggered that you need to go take a Xanax so you can be calm enough to write your insults and death-threats against me: Don't even bother. I don't give a fuck what you think, because I think you and your gun-control rhetoric are utterly and completely wrong, and a snowball's chance in hell is still greater than you've got to try to even begin to change my mind. Oh, and by the way: I don't even own a single gun myself; but I support the Constitutional right every U.S. citizen has with regard to firearms, and if you don't then I think you're a bad citizen and should consider renouncing your citizenship and finding somewhere else to live.

    Oh, and also: I'm not voting for either Trump or Clinton, because I don't trust either one of them or think either one of them is in any way shape or form suited to being POTUS, so don't bother hanging that 'Republican' bullshit on me, either; save your bandwidth for someone who gives a fuck what you think.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:'Gun control' is hitting your target by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's according to numbers provided by a "GSS" (General Social Survey) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.

      If you knew one single true thing about NORC, you would feel stupid believing that they're working under a particular "confirmation bias" and "political agenda".

      Both the NRA and GOA (Gun Owners of America) have seen large upticks in new members

      There are 4.5 million members of the NRA. It's still just a tiny fraction of total gun owners. Total membership of extremist group "Gun Owners of America" is 1.5 million. If you add the membership of the two organizations, they still only represent maybe 10 percent of the total number of gun owners. I'm betting even someone as statistically challenged as yourself can see that it is possible for there to be both a reduction in the number of households with guns AND a "large uptick" in new NRA members. Hell, they could have a "large uptick" in new members every year for the next 30 and still only represent a fraction of gun owners. For every gun owner in the US, there are between six and seven non-gun owners. Only about 30 percent of US households have a gun in them, which is the lowest it has ever been. Get that? The lowest it has ever been. So all those guns y'all are buying aren't going to make a difference to liberty or safety, because you can only shoot at most 2 of those 8 guns that you own at the same time.

      particularly when the data used comes from a university (which are generally very liberal-leaning to begin with) in a city where the politics are strongly anti-gun.

      Do you really believe that the location of a university impacts the political agenda of the research done there? Ever heard of Rice University? University of Texas? University of North Carolina? How about Tulane?

      Come on man, don't get so desperate when the facts go against you. It's a bad look for a rough, tough patriot such as yourself to have to cower behind bogus right-wing talk radio tropes such as, "you can't believe that research because it was done in a liberal city!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Re:Nicely done video by habig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, people are starting to question the position of the NRA that *anybody* regardless of who they are should be able to procure guns

    Not their actual position, although waving blanket, false statements like that around is what passes for political discourse these days. Actual fact: the current background check system was actually strongly supported by the gun lobby: people who are convicted felons or legally declared mentally incompetent don't have second amendment rights. Or many other constitutional rights, say for example, voting. The current argument (causing the House to behave like the dysfunctional third world legislative clique it apparently actually is) is over the "sounds good!" legislation of "people on the terror watch list shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms". Hmm. So, a law in which denies something listed on the bill of rights to people on a secret government list, who can get on that list simply by someone voicing suspicion, with no procedure for getting off the list (or even knowing if/why they're on it)? Pick anything else that's a legal right (voting? free speech? Self-incrimination? Illegal search and seizure?) and swap that in for "gun ownership" in this scenario and watch everyone across the political spectrum freak out. We tried something like this in the 50's with McCarthy when the enemies were Commies instead of Radicals, and are universally ashamed of that fact in hindsight. Of course the NRA should be objecting to this. I'm shocked that the ACLU, for example, isn't too.

  10. Re:what a wonderful program by colin_faber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is total nonsense. The only people talking about racism and sexism are liberals and democrats trying to score SJW points with their idiot base.

  11. Re:what a wonderful program by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not good enough an excuse, Bubba. The spouse of this Clinton signed a bill that established mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes commonly committed by black folk - but didn't sign any similar bill for crimes more commonly committed by white people. As a result of those racist attitudes, millions of predominantly black young men have spent years, even decades, in prison.

    The Clintons are far more racist that Trump.

    BTW - "illegal alien" isn't a race. Get a clue, alright?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  12. Re:what a wonderful program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect most other people see it as how racist they perceive the NRA members to be.. because you know.. that's how satire works..

  13. Re:what a wonderful program by Jester998 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They crossed the line from "parody" to "misrepresentation and fraud" when they did this:

    "The opening frame of the video says "Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." "

    Parodies are a comedic exaggeration of *style*, and limited (though broad) leeway is allowed in matters of copyright. However, the use of trademarks in a way that could mislead is generally not protected.