Page 1 of 4
Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:07 pm
by Rooster
So the news media was all over these children protesting our natural rights to self defense yesterday. The numbers were off the charts, they gushed, but finally CBS coughed up the reality:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/25/repor ... count-low/
It was supposed to be the largest rally
evah with 600,000, but it ended up being well below expected attendance numbers at 200,000. Cue the sad trombones. I guess when you pick one of the most annoying spokeman in recent memory to be the face of your “revolution” it stands to reason that you’ll turn off most of your target audience.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:30 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
I wonder if these "radicals" will march on the palaces of the billionaires that peddle psychotropic drugs and opiates that are dissolving the essence of American youth...
Probably not.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:35 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
You don't need guns. You need sodomy...some dank herb...and Netflix.
you are getting sleepy
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:31 pm
by Mikey
About 10x more than Trump’s inauguration though.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:08 am
by Dinsdale
TDS rears its ugly head again.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:39 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Dinsdale wrote:TDS rears its ugly head again.
Together,
we can find a cure.
:(
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:32 pm
by Mikey
Dinsdale wrote:TDS rears its ugly head again.
The Daily Show?
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:13 am
by LTS TRN 2
Let's set aside the lunacy of allowing a bunch of kids to lecture the world about guns without once mentioning the factor of criminals. As for the suddenly Woke student leaders, they seemed possessed of a self-absorption that would glaze the eyes of Narcissus. But what really rankled me about the March (and who paid for that, by the way?), how the fuck can bald chick wear these pants?
It's like something a beggar would wear--but only in desperate times.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:40 pm
by Rooster
Nice Cuban flag on that jacket too. Fidel much, Emma?
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:51 pm
by Goober McTuber
Rooster wrote:Nice Cuban flag on that jacket too. Fidel much, Emma?
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/emma- ... h-10208255
Of course, anyone who's ever walked through Little Havana even once understands that simply waving a Cuban flag does not make one a communist: If anything, the opposite seems to be true in America. Cuban right-wingers love the Cuban flag — to them, it represents the hope that the nation will one day be liberated from the Castro family. The Bay of Pigs Veterans Association, the ultraconservative group of counterrevolutionaries the CIA paid to attack Castro in 1961, currently sells T-shirts, hats, mugs, and key chains emblazoned with the Cuban flag. The Bay of Pigs Veterans Association endorsed Donald Trump in 2016.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:24 pm
by Mikey
Goober McTuber wrote:Rooster wrote:Nice Cuban flag on that jacket too. Fidel much, Emma?
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/emma- ... h-10208255
Of course, anyone who's ever walked through Little Havana even once understands that simply waving a Cuban flag does not make one a communist: If anything, the opposite seems to be true in America. Cuban right-wingers love the Cuban flag — to them, it represents the hope that the nation will one day be liberated from the Castro family. The Bay of Pigs Veterans Association, the ultraconservative group of counterrevolutionaries the CIA paid to attack Castro in 1961, currently sells T-shirts, hats, mugs, and key chains emblazoned with the Cuban flag. The Bay of Pigs Veterans Association endorsed Donald Trump in 2016.
But...but...but...Obaaaaaaaammmmmmaaaaaa!
Whatever the numbers were (who cares besides Trump and his legions of fellatistas), and I'm sure if you add up DC, LA, Seattle, Denver, NYC, Boston, etc. they were pretty substantial, the fact that so many dickwad morons are out there trying to run them down, and demonizing the organizers with any lame-ass bullshit they can come up with, shows that the whole thing was pretty much a complete success.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:19 pm
by L45B
Mikey wrote:...shows that the whole thing was pretty much a complete success.
We agree.
/s/
NRA New Membership Services Dept.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:26 pm
by Goober McTuber
L45B wrote:Mikey wrote:...shows that the whole thing was pretty much a complete success.
We agree.
/s/
NRA New Membership Services Dept.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 55c94ca5dc
Given its high profile, it's easy to assume that the NRA represents the voice of American gun owners. But in fact, the organization's membership numbers and survey data point a different picture. Only a small fraction of the nation's gun owners are NRA members. Even among NRA members, there is widespread dissent from some key points of the organization's orthodoxy. And on many gun control issues, the majority of gun owners who aren't affiliated with the NRA hold opinions closer to those of non-gun owners than to those of NRA members.
Let's start with the membership numbers. In recent years the NRA has said it has 5 million dues-paying members. There's some reason to be skeptical of this figure, but let's assume 5 million is right. Those 5 million members only comprise somewhere between 6 and 7 percent of American gun owners. That would imply that the overwhelming majority of American gun owners -- over 90 percent of them -- do not belong to the NRA.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:21 pm
by BSmack
Let's not forget that many gun clubs mandate that their members be members in good standing in the NRA. They do this because the NRA throws some goodies, no doubt purchased with laundered Russian money, to the club.
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... 8320130203
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:19 pm
by Diego in Seattle
On top of that only 13 people ever used the NRA discount offered by Delta Airlines.
5 million, my ass.....
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:42 pm
by Bucmonkey
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm
by Left Seater
So the number of NRA members is at least 5 times the size of the best estimate of these silly marches.
But just because 83,000,000 gun owners aren't all members of the NRA, doesn't mean those gun owners don't support the 2nd Amendment.
Why do so many of you hate the Constitution?
As for Delta, they are just a hot mess. They pulled the NRA convention discount because they claimed they didn't want to take sides in a divisive discussion. What they really meant is no one was using it so we will put out some corporate communication BS saying we don't take sides. But at the same time they were happy to operate charter flights that filled their pockets from South Florida to DC for the supporters of the march. So they do want to take sides with those who spend money with them. See also their fight against the Middle East Airlines while claiming they get no government subsidies.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:49 pm
by Wolfman
The United States is not the UK, Canada, or any other nation. Thank God.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:29 pm
by Goober McTuber
Left Seater wrote:But just because 83,000,000 gun owners aren't all members of the NRA, doesn't mean those gun owners don't support the 2nd Amendment.
Well, duh. I'm willing to bet that at least 99.99% of the 83,000,000 support the 2nd Amendment (I am one of them). And about 94% aren't supporting the NRA. And none of us hate the Constitution, you silly twat.
And on many gun control issues, the majority of gun owners who aren't affiliated with the NRA hold opinions closer to those of non-gun owners than to those of NRA members.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:33 pm
by Rooster
Now the latest news is that the March for Life, which was supposedly a teenager event, was only marginally attended by young people. The average age of an attendee was just under 49 and whose attendance percentages were 90% of the protesters.
I guess the young people who were supposed to be there must have partied too late to get up in time to protest?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03 ... crowd.html
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:43 pm
by Mikey
Rooster wrote:Now the latest news is that the March for Life, which was supposedly a teenager event, was only marginally attended by young people. The average age of an attendee was just under 49 and whose attendance percentages were 90% of the protesters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03 ... crowd.html
So what?
That shows that it's not just teenagers who think it's an important issue. Was everybody else supposed to stay home?
You really do have your head up FAUX New's ass, don't you?
Mikey wrote:
Whatever the numbers were (who cares besides Trump and his legions of fellatistas), and I'm sure if you add up DC, LA, Seattle, Denver, NYC, Boston, etc. they were pretty substantial, the fact that so many dickwad morons are out there trying to run them down, and demonizing the organizers with any lame-ass bullshit they can come up with, shows that the whole thing was pretty much a complete success.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:10 pm
by Rooster
Oh, and one of the entertainers selected to piously rap his suppprt for the movement was arrested on gun charges in California a year ago. Hmmm.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/vic ... un-charge/
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:22 pm
by Rooster
Mikey wrote:Rooster wrote:Now the latest news is that the March for Life, which was supposedly a teenager event, was only marginally attended by young people. The average age of an attendee was just under 49 and whose attendance percentages were 90% of the protesters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03 ... crowd.html
So what?
That shows that it's not just teenagers who think it's an important issue. Was everybody else supposed to stay home?
You really do have your head up FAUX New's ass, don't you?
Mikey wrote:
Whatever the numbers were (who cares besides Trump and his legions of fellatistas), and I'm sure if you add up DC, LA, Seattle, Denver, NYC, Boston, etc. they were pretty substantial, the fact that so many dickwad morons are out there trying to run them down, and demonizing the organizers with any lame-ass bullshit they can come up with, shows that the whole thing was pretty much a complete success.
I thought this was supposed to be a child’s revolution where the young and wise were instructing the foolish and intransigent elderly how national movements are done
right. Instead, a mere one in ten shows up to protest the thing which— in theory at least —is killing them by the bushel basketful. I’d go so far as to make the unsubstantiated claim that there were a significant number of pussy hats in the audience and that if you could, you’d see the same old tired faces in all the marches covering those issues so near and dear to the Left’s oily black hearts. After all, armed protection for me, but not for thee, comrade. (You can hear the faint echo of that refrain coming from Socialismigrad, Vermont where Commisar Bernie Sanders rails against income disparity. “A dacha for me, but not for thee, comrade!”)
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:22 pm
by Goober McTuber
He had a concealed carry permit. It was just from a different state. He just might not even be affected by a number of gun control measures being debated. Yet another Rooster fail.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:28 pm
by Goober McTuber
Rooster wrote:Mikey wrote:Rooster wrote:Now the latest news is that the March for Life, which was supposedly a teenager event, was only marginally attended by young people. The average age of an attendee was just under 49 and whose attendance percentages were 90% of the protesters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03 ... crowd.html
So what?
That shows that it's not just teenagers who think it's an important issue. Was everybody else supposed to stay home?
You really do have your head up FAUX New's ass, don't you?
Mikey wrote:
Whatever the numbers were (who cares besides Trump and his legions of fellatistas), and I'm sure if you add up DC, LA, Seattle, Denver, NYC, Boston, etc. they were pretty substantial, the fact that so many dickwad morons are out there trying to run them down, and demonizing the organizers with any lame-ass bullshit they can come up with, shows that the whole thing was pretty much a complete success.
I thought this was supposed to be a child’s revolution where the young and wise were instructing the foolish and intransigent elderly how national movements are done
right. Instead, a mere one in ten shows up to protest the thing which— in theory at least —is killing them by the bushel basketful.
Her "random" sample size was 256 people in one location. How many tens of thousands marched nationally? The news coverage I've seen does not reflect her numbers.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:30 pm
by Rooster
Goober McTuber wrote:
He had a concealed carry permit. It was just from a different state. He just might not even be affected by a number of gun control measures being debated. Yet another Rooster fail.
But, but, but...
no one needs a gun— or a CCW permit to carry one!. After all, those are wicked devices that only those weird red staters like to masturbate to. We don’t need those in the great Republik of Kalifornia! Besides, those blue staters are supposed to be more intelligent than those dumb hillbillies in the flyover States, yet he didn’t bother to check reciprocity laws before he went there? I wonder if he owns a flintlock pistol or if the gun is a semiautomatic— you know, like one of those David Hogg wants to ban? After all, who
needs more than a smoothbore single shot hand cannon for self defense?
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:39 pm
by Mikey
Seems like they've got you pretty scared.
Need a safe space?
Go ahead...jump right in.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:00 pm
by Goober McTuber
Rooster wrote:Goober McTuber wrote:
He had a concealed carry permit. It was just from a different state. He just might not even be affected by a number of gun control measures being debated. Yet another Rooster fail.
But, but, but...
no one needs a gun— or a CCW permit to carry one!. After all, those are wicked devices that only those weird red staters like to masturbate to. We don’t need those in the great Republik of Kalifornia! Besides, those blue staters are supposed to be more intelligent than those dumb hillbillies in the flyover States, yet he didn’t bother to check reciprocity laws before he went there? I wonder if he owns a flintlock pistol or if the gun is a semiautomatic— you know, like one of those David Hogg wants to ban? After all, who
needs more than a smoothbore single shot hand cannon for self defense?
Listen up, you sky-is-falling, braindead, shrieking harpy. Sensible gun control legislation does not mandate that everyone should turn in their guns. Even Emma Gonzalez specifically stated that. And that was not a reciprocity issue. Some states recognize other states conceal carry permits. Some don't.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:10 pm
by Left Seater
What is sensible to you isn’t sensible to someone else.
Here is my issue. If we are going to limit the size of clips then put the same limit on Police. You want to ban “assault” rifles, then keep the Police from having any as well. What is good for the citizens should be good for the government.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:28 pm
by Goober McTuber
Left Seater wrote:What is sensible to you isn’t sensible to someone else.
Here is my issue. If we are going to limit the size of clips then put the same limit on Police. You want to ban “assault” rifles, then keep the Police from having any as well. What is good for the citizens should be good for the government.
Now that's not sensible at all. It's the job of the police to protect us. It's not the job of some CCW wingnut. And please link us up to the last school mass shooting perpetrated by a police officer.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:45 pm
by Mikey
LS doesn't think the police should be able to outgun criminals. Wouldn't be a fair fight or anything.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:15 pm
by Joe in PB
Goober McTuber wrote:
Now that's not sensible at all. It's the job of the police to protect us.
That simply isn't true. The main job of police is to maintain order, and of course to help others when feasible. The reality is it's up to individuals to protect themselves.
After Katrina struck many NO police officers vacated the city, leaving residents to help themselves until the National Guard and Feebl...ah FEMA arrived days/weeks later.
The same thing happened after the Rodney King verdict was announced, police vacated the areas in LA where most of the violence was occurring.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:19 pm
by Dinsdale
Goober McTuber wrote:It's the job of the police to protect us.
Yeah, we should totally leave that to the government.
Sin,
Those Four Stiffs At Kent State
And please link us up to the last school mass shooting perpetrated by a police officer.
The last time one was a factor, he was too scared to shoot anyone, and cowered behind some bushes.
Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:33 pm
by Screw_Michigan
Rooster is clearly jealous of the size of David Hogg's penis.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:35 pm
by Screw_Michigan
Mikey wrote:
But...but...but...Obaaaaaaaammmmmmaaaaaa!
Whatever the numbers were (who cares besides Trump and his legions of fellatistas), and I'm sure if you add up DC, LA, Seattle, Denver, NYC, Boston, etc. they were pretty substantial, the fact that so many dickwad morons are out there trying to run them down, and demonizing the organizers with any lame-ass bullshit they can come up with, shows that the whole thing was pretty much a complete success.
Pretty much
Anyone who believes these Parkland kids deserve to be smeared with Hitler photos are sick fucking losers beyond help. Which is of course why they voted for Trump.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:42 pm
by Dinsdale
Screw_Michigan wrote:
Anyone who believes these Parkland kids are sick fucking losers beyond help.
FTFY
Their
feeeelings are more important to them than my constitutional rights.
Fuck them and all of their ilk.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:36 am
by Joe in PB
LTS TRN 2 wrote: ....and who paid for that, by the way?
The “March For Our Lives” rally wasn’t an organic movement of teens holding signs.
It was a coordinated effort by anti-gun activists who have a visceral hate for the Second Amendment, and other leftist groups like “Move On” who hate President Trump, and everything he stands for.
Even worse, Planned Parenthood, an organization who actively seeks to slaughter millions of innocent babies without a blink of an eye, is suddenly interested in protecting life?
In typical leftist fashion, liberals only support the policies they want, their “truth” is relative.
http://mommyunderground.com/heres-what- ... s-protest/
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:15 am
by Derron
Rooster wrote: After all, who needs more than a smoothbore single shot hand cannon for self defense?
You would have to understand that all these Constitution hating limp wristed liberal faggots are not capable of defending themselves against a fucking spider. They will just roll up in a fetal ball and beg for mercy while waiting for the police to get there 20 minutes later to write a report on how they were robbed, their wife was fucked in the ass, and how their daughter had to suck off three of those felony gangsters in those 20 minutes. Enjoy watching that show.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:19 am
by Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote:Rooster is clearly jealous of the size of David Hogg's penis.
At least he has a penis and not some bleeding gash flowing out menstrual bullshit like the stuff that comes out of your pie hole every post.
Re: Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:03 am
by LTS TRN 2
Mikey wrote:LS doesn't think the police should be able to outgun criminals. Wouldn't be a fair fight or anything.
"LS," if you haven't noticed, is a total fraud, a slimy slithering troll in every sense of the word.