Snapchat Wanted $150K To Not Run NRA Ads On Gun Control Group Videos (thenextweb.com)
New submitter bababoris writes: It appears that Snapchat's Rob Saliterman attempted to "encourage" Everytown for Gun Safety to advertise with Snapchat or risk having National Rifle Association (NRA) ads run during their Live Story promoting gun safety. The Next Web reports: "Everytown for Gun Safety is an advocacy group that focuses on gun safety and violence issues. According to Mic, it reached out to Snapchat in 2016 to inquire about an advertising campaign for its #WearOrange event, held on National Gun Violence Awareness Day. A Snapchat representative, Rob Saliterman, responded to Everytown with a quote of $150,000. This would allow Snapchat users to engage with the event using custom filters and lenses created specifically for it. Realizing that another department within Snapchat had undercut him, he fired off an email suggesting that Everytown pay up, lest National Rifle Association (NRA) adverts appear on their videos."
There is a flaw in the above statement. The NRA keeps it's member lists secret therefore one can not reliably poll the majority of the NRA members other than the NRA. The polls used to support this claim are usually biased towards getting results that support gun control measures and interestingly enough recent political polls have proven that polling on a political issue can generate false results (the recent presidential election being one example). The poll cited by this article used a sample of one hundred sixty nine NRA members out of over four million members the NRA had in 2013. Consider the sample of 169 from 4,000,000 represents less than .005% of the NRA membership and the four million number is under-representing the NRA's membership claim.
but if someone walks up and shoots you Chicago style
Yeah, that's why I always use MLA style.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Happens quite a lot, even thou you don't want to believe it does:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Shot-in-the-Chest-Inside-West-Philly-Barbershop-297176271.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/26/official-suspect-in-deadly-hospital-shooting-had-lengthy-history-gun-arrests/
http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-homicide-suspect-shot-by-patron-1.1370815
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17251517/churchgoers-subdue-gunman-at-spartanburg-church
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2054129059072688443
http://www.lvrj.com/news/19257519.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us/12brfs-GUNMANKILLED_BRF.html?fta=y&pagewanted=print&_r=0
http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-26/news/25765866_1_andrew-wurst-john-gillette-science-teacher
And that is what I could find in a 2-sec google search.
And before you start on the 2nd amendment, I will remind you that at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon. Not fully automatic machine pistols with 120 round drum magazines that are accurate up to 100 yards or more. (But I'd SO like to fire one off just once.)
This is a shit argument because it is disingenuous, and you are being a hypocritical asshole because you know it is disingenuous. First, the breech-loading rifle existed at the time. They didn't ban it, even though it was essentially the assault rifle of its day. Second, it was the practice for private citizens to own cannon. The entire point of the second amendment was to avoid the need for a standing militia. That meant that all the military weapons were meant to be in the hands of the people, and specifically as a hedge against tyranny. The authors and proponents of the 2a also believed in the right to self defense (a basic tenet of common law) and made that point very clear in their writings on the subject.
TL;DR: the second amendment was specifically intended to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"