zlacker

>>Kapura+(OP)
Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents sure sounds like something everyone should be opposed to, no matter their political camp.

If someone thinks that's a healthy part of a democracy, I'd be real curious about your reasoning.

>>Pfhrea+7u
I'd rather they be counterbalanced with a well-armed citizenry, such as the "cosplaying" the article insultingly describes.

>>madeng+xw
The cosplayers and the unmarked paramilitaries are on the same side.

When the NRA and their allies advocate for an armed citizenry, they emphatically don’t mean “our political enemies”

>>kthxby+Ok1
That’s absolutely untrue.

Any law abiding citizen should have whatever arms they want. I don’t care what their politics is.

>>jki275+xK2
You may feel that way but the NRA has a history of caring who has the arms. See, for example, 1967's Black Panthers

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-...

>>evanb+Q87
Claiming that a 1967 position accurately reflects my opinions about something (I wasn't even born then) is pretty silly.

Claiming that something that happened in 1967 is the current position of an organization on record opposing that sort of thing for at least the last 40 years that I'm aware of is also pretty silly.

Claiming that a political organization that is mostly concerned with how pretty Wayne's suits are and how nice his mistress' apartment in Fairfax is reflects modern gun owners' opinions is again -- pretty silly.

The NRA is a Fudd gunner's organization, they're an anachronism of the past, they're being abandoned in droves by anybody born since the 1960s, and quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think about anything -- and I especially don't care what they may have thought in 1967.