Occupy NRA Reads TTAG

Trevor (courtesy Occupy the NRA on facebook.com)

Clever. Only the mask totally ruins the effect. Thankfully. [via occupythenra at Facebook]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

112 Responses to Occupy NRA Reads TTAG

  1. avatarCameron S. says:

    “I support government intervening unconstitutionally in all private sales and transfers of legally owned property because I’m a Statist. I’m one of the ignorant masses.”

    Fixed that for ya!

  2. avatargloomhound says:

    Why are you afraid to show your face? Is there a legal reason perhaps? Are you just really ugly? Or are you just a coward? Be a man show your face and your guns.

    • avatark4R-15 says:

      Smells like an Anti in Pro clothing to me

      • avatarensitu says:

        Like I posted a few days ago
        A Liberal with a gun will use it to oppress a Conservetive with a gun+their famly, just like their Stazzi mentors
        But really this is just Agi-prop, if that kid owns any handguns he’s violating federal law

    • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

      Perhaps he’s just afraid of “responsible” gun owners tracking him down and threatening to kill him, as happened to staff of the NYT. I mean just look at how rabid and hateful you are about somebody who SUPPORTS gun ownership, but wants to have a sanity check to prevent psychos from owning them – or would a ban on psychos prevent you from buying guns? Is that your problem with this guy?

      Anyway, isn’t anonymous free speech a cornerstone of the constitution of this country? Why do you hate America so much?

      • avatarSilver says:

        “Anyway, isn’t the Second Amendment a cornerstone of the constitution of this country? Why do you hate America so much?”

        There ya go, hmmm.

        By the way, as we’ve seen from this recent debacle, antis display FAR more willingness to incite violence, endanger people, and kill those with varying opinions. Nice try though, projectionist.

      • avatarGreg Camp says:

        I don’t care about his mask, although the character represented was against state control, not in favor of it. What’s wrong there is his lack of logic and facts. Banning private sales will only stop those people who are willing to follow the law.

      • avatarAzman says:

        Rabid and hateful isn’t how I would describe it considering how loaded both of those words are. I personally don’t foam at the mouth, thank you.
        Note that he defined specifically why he owns firearms “for hunting”–not, apparently, for anything else. Also note that HE did not define why he wants background checks, you put those words in his mouth. And though it is interesting to be labeled a psycho, as it’s never happened before, I know for a fact that because of my moral and political views many people would consider me a psycho, just as religious fundamentalists would consider to be eternally damned because I see no supreme being–my owning guns and buying them without background checks does not cause YOU danger though I have no intent of harming anyone who doesn’t intend to harm me.

        And how, if you will permit me, will anyone ever successfully ban “psychos” by passing a law? Are you going to regulate how people’s minds function?

      • avatarBrock says:

        Who said anything about restricting his speech? Not agreeing with someone does not have to mean you want to limit his rights.

      • avatarSilver says:

        Also, he doesn’t support gun ownership, he supports hunting gun ownership…which has nothing to do with the 2A. He also supports state intervention in a Constitutionally protected right, which is a slippery slop to inevitable corruption and de facto bans. I bet you wouldn’t like background checks to make sure you’re well enough to practice your 1A rights (hint: you’re not).

        God, gain some comprehension before you come on here and spout your idiocy.

      • avatargloomhound says:

        I never said he did not have the right of free speech, I just said he was a chicken shit for hiding behind a mask. Cowards have the same rights a brave men and women.

        Say how do we not know that “Trevor” here is not a “rabid and hateful” psychopath or a convicted felon bared from owning guns? Perhaps it’s more then being a craven coward that keeps him from showing his face?

        Anyway why don’t you want to keep guns out of the hands of those that ought not have them?

      • avatarBeninMA says:

        It doesn’t seem like anyone here wants to deny him his right to anonymity. But people are going to take statements like this less seriously when there isn’t a name or face attached.

        There’s also bad associations with people wearing masks, even from occupy itself. Occupy Boston’s “security” wore masks because it’s easier to strong-arm and intimidate people when no one knows who you are. That’s obviously not this guy’s intention, but wearing a mask calls to mind some unfortunate associations.

      • avatarMister Fleas says:

        “Perhaps he’s just afraid of “responsible” gun owners tracking him down and threatening to kill him, as happened to staff of the NYT.”
        We only have the NYT’s word for that. Notice how none of the staff of the NYT were hunted down and killed, hmmmm?

      • avatarpat says:

        Dear Hummmmmmer (as in slang oral sex act): Anybody who mentions hunting while discussing this topic, DOES NOT support the 2nd amendment. Hunting and sports are brought up to divide and conquer while establishing a false allegiance.
        Clever, evil libtards.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      TRYING to be a CLEVER TREVOR. And failing miserably.

      Whoever you are, UP YOURS.

  3. avatarTUCO says:

    I do hate the Guy Hawkes masks, as he was a true scumbag.

    • avatarAzman says:

      Guy Fawke’s public perception in many ways changed since V for Vendetta became a movie-especially I think in America where few even know much about him.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Guy FAWKES. Alias Guido Fawkes.

      You guys are down on him, because he wanted to restore Vatican clergy to the British throne? JESUS.

      Just kidding.

      • avatarFyrewerx says:

        Odd that Guy Fawkes should be mentioned TODAY.
        On this day (January 27th), in 1606, the trial of Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators began. They were executed on January 31.

    • avatarRay says:

      At the time Parliament was having fun having Catholics tortured to death for being Catholic and killing civilians by the tens of thousands in Ireland, so I’d hesitate to call him a “true scumbag.”

  4. avatarborekfk says:

    He’s probably afraid someone will recognize him, and know that he doesn’t actually own any guns.

    • avatarAl in OK says:

      +1

      I smell a hoax. The fact that he’s not showing his face makes me doubt he’s a legit gun owner. Everyone else doing those pictures is showing their face. I think its because someone would find out who he is and call him out as a phony. He could have easily done a google search for hunting firearms to spin propaganda. Or its MikeyB#s. Either way ignore the troll.

  5. avatarSilver says:

    Too bad 91 percent of a constitutional republic don’t get to rewrite Constitutionally-protected rights. Rights aren’t up to popular vote. Sorry, buddy, the government was set up this way to prevent a majority of idiots from turning America into a thugocracy.

    Am I the only one who doesn’t understand the Guy Fawkes mask being used as a symbol to FURTHER oppression and curtail rights? Uh, think you have that backwards, pal. It’s ok, without idiots on display, how would we know who the smart ones are?

    Have fun selling out true American gun owners, Trev, and falling head over heels into the government’s divide and conquer tactics. I’m sure the gov’t will never come for yours.

    • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

      “Too bad 91 percent of a constitutional republic don’t get to rewrite Constitutionally-protected rights”

      LOL – you really have exactly zero clue what you are talking about! Try opening any book about the constitution and see how wrong you are slick, if you can actually read.

      • avatarSilver says:

        Wow, can you be that ignorant? You have absolutely no clue what a constitutional republic is as opposed to an unhindered democracy.

        Sad. Shows the unbridled idiocy at work amongst antis, as if we needed more proof.

        Let me break it down…I’ll use small words.

        No law can be made in opposition to the grounding principles of the Constitution. NONE. Unless formally amended, which is NOT up to popular vote.

        Catch all that? Ok, go have your juice box.

        • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

          So you think if 91% of the population supported an amendment then their representatives would not vote for it? I have no words for how stupid you sound.

        • avatarSilver says:

          …that’s still the representatives voting, NOT the popular vote. Since when do reps vote according to what the people want rather than their own agendas anyway? Are you kidding me? Could you POSSIBLY be this mind-numbingly stupid?

          I think you know you’re wrong and just can’t admit it.

        • avatarBeninMA says:

          “So you think if 91% of the population supported an amendment then their representatives would not vote for it?”

          Regarding the second amendment, the Constitution hasn’t changed. Until it does, the government is bound to follow it, regardless of what the people want. That’s how our system works.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “Could you POSSIBLY be this mind-numbingly stupid?”

          somebody grab a body bag.

          Silver just made a mess out of Hmmmmm. LMAO!!!

          couldnt have responded better silver, bravo!

        • avatarSkeptical_Realist says:

          Small, but very important point.

          Even if 91% of the public supported it, AND 91% of reps voted for it, and ammendment to the Constitution that revokes ANY of the Bill of Rights (1-10) does NOT remove that right. Those rights are inherent, unalienable, natural rights. My right to defend my self exists, with or without the Constitution.

          An ammendment that revokes the 2nd simply confirms that we have a Tyrannical gov’t, and all bets are off.

        • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

          An new amendment requires two thirds of the state legislatures to ratify same. That ratification requires a two thirds majority vote. Since all but a few states also have RTKBA amendments in their state constitutions, this is unlikely. It appears that the current administration is also trying to avoid another nulification crisis. Hmmmm you should look up the definition of jury nulification too, if you want to see where this argument is going.

      • avatarAzman says:

        Dude, he’s right. That’s kind of the point of the constitution.

      • avatarMister Fleas says:

        The Bill of Rights is a written articulation and guarantee of human rights that inherent in every human being, provided that person can and will govern himself. You or your supposed “91 percent” have no right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what Constitution amendments you repeal or pass.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “You or your supposed “91 percent” have no right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what Constitution amendments you repeal or pass.”

          poetically spoken and absolutely true.

          that particular point has been very amusing to me in regards to obama and the anti-gun movement in this country: i dont care if your calls for gun control are popular and majority (which is a incorrect assertion in my opinion). my rights are not dictated by the majority.

          the very idea of “majority rules” is among the most anti-american concepts that exists.

  6. avatarMatt in FL says:

    What is “the 91%?”

    • avatarSilver says:

      Fools who think being in a majority means they’re right. Because quantity always means quality, right? Just looks at how many people read/see Twilight.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Does that name, “the 91%,” have any particular meaning? I Googled it, but all that came up was something about a tax rate in the ’50′s.

        On an unrelated note, I saw someone opine recently that given the number of copies sold, at least some of which will survive long after we’re gone, and the fact that most of the criticism of it exists only online, and those electrons will not survive long after we’re gone, it’s entirely possible that some distant future archaeologists will form the opinion that Twilight was the Beowulf of our time.

        • avatarDerek says:

          Which begs the question: When Beowulf was penned, did people think it was the dumbest, most far-fetched, fairy tale crap ever put on paper?

        • avatarSilver says:

          I’m going to guess the 91 percent is those who support universal background checks. As if that somehow makes it right.

          I wonder that percentage of people supported slavery 200 years ago.

        • avatarGreg Camp says:

          On the question of Beowulf, the answer is no. It was probably written by a poet employed by nobility. It’s style fits in well with the rules of Old English poetry–rules that are complex, requiring skill to write.

          Twilight? Not so much.

      • avatarCGinChicago says:

        “Quantity has a quality all its own” – Joseph Stalin

    • avatarMike in NC says:

      Some poll recently pegged “universal background check” support at 91%.

      • avatarensitu says:

        Hitler had much higher numbers, I guess that should make genocide, slavery, terror, a particularly appealing state policy

        • avatarHal says:

          I challenge the truthfullness of any claim that 91% of American citizens support universal background checks. Sounds like bullsh1t to me.

  7. avatarJeremy Brown says:

    Well…good luck with your hunt. If you are ever in a self defense situation…will you tell the perp that he is free to rape your wife because you only have hunting firearms?

  8. avatarCarl says:

    Trevor chooses not to show his face, so his message should not be here with honorable Americans.

  9. avatarkevhead says:

    I guess I have to repeat it. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

  10. avatarimaginaryguns says:

    WTF is a .30/.30 Winchester? Is it a .30 rifle that can only handle 1/100 of a regular .30-30?

    Or is the / a division sign? perhaps it is a 1″ caliber gun.

    Combined with the mask, I smell someone who is pretending to own a gun.

  11. avatarJohn in AK says:

    This one bears watching: He’s clearly implying that he’s willing to sell out anyone who does not possess guns for ‘hunting.’

    This is the Face of the Enemy Within–the gun-owner who will happily stand by when They come for those EBRs and semi-auto pistols, as HE is a hunter and owns only ‘sporting guns’ and thus just KNOWS that he will be left alone.

    This time.

    The mask is simply silly. And an act of cowardice. This is the man who’d secretly turn in his EBR-owning neighbour to the Government, rest assured.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Indeed. Those like him represent the unfortunate truth that the greatest threat to America today is her own “citizens” (I use that term loosely for these types). Like I keep saying, owning a gun does make one a gun rights advocate. Sometimes they’re as much a traitor as a Brady, as in the case of this guy.

      • avatarSilver says:

        Er, meant to say “does not”

        • avatarTUCO says:

          Tried to your reply above but the system would not let me. It’s funny to read ” gunshow loophole” when it’s in fact the banning of private gun sales. I can’t run a background check on a buyer as unlike a FFL dealer ( I state dealer as there are other FFL types ) I don’t have the authority or access to NCIS. The only reason the term gunshow loophole was used was to confuse the public into thinking this was all about gunshows. Just another lie

  12. avatarNazgul says:

    The politically correct gun owners have no idea that they are going to be the next targets of the gun control movement. There are already animal rights activists and environmentalist that do not approve of hunting. The lowly shotgun will become the next assault weapon, and revolvers will just be handguns designed to kill humans. Many of these Hunting types do not realize that the gun control movement looks down upon all firearms with disdain. As an example, take a look at the British Commonwealth. The few common citizens that owns hunting rifles and shotguns are not very popular in their own country, which used to have a hunting tradition.

  13. avatarNathan says:

    Hey genius, go re-watch V for Vendetta. V would have burned your 91% to the ground.

  14. avatarshawmutt says:

    I do not think that mask means what he thinks it means.

  15. avatarChris says:

    Oh this is precious, someone wearing a mask now used by anarchists of a guy who wanted a theocracy to condemn individual freedoms.

  16. avatarJacob Kerns says:

    Piers Morgan is that you?

  17. avatarMike S says:

    Yeah I guess these guys can’t envision a day where the anti-hunting crowd teams up with the Brady.org types to turn those of us who still have our manually operated firearms into monsters for killing Bambi and Babe.
    Get f***ed, “Mr Fawkes”

    • avatarTUCO says:

      They already have. I can not recall the woman’s name but she helped lead the gun bans in Australia – she has stated any rifle that fires over 100 yards should be classified a sniper rifle

  18. avatarNine says:

    FLAME DELETED

    That’s so much simpler.

  19. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    What this man doesn’t realize is that if all the MSRs are banned, lever and bolt guns will be next on the list. It doesn’t matter if it’s tomorrow, next year, or a hundred years from now. If one class of firearm is banned, there WILL be attempts to ban another at some point. Incrementalism is not in this man’s vocabulary.

  20. avatarSilver says:

    At least he doesn’t claim to support the 2A. Sort of refreshing to see the enemies of freedom for once be honest.

  21. avatarSubZ says:

    Universal background checks will require registration to work. Yet you wear a mask…

  22. avatarGerard says:

    I presume he is wearing a mask because he knows people will vilify him on this forum.

  23. avatarAccur81 says:

    That mask is flippin creepy.

  24. avatarAnonymous says:

    I am a cadet at an undisclosed military college (I’d prefer to remain anonymous to avoid any repercussions on my military career) and hope to earn a commission in the United States Navy.
    My webcam doesn’t work and my handwriting is illegible, so I will not use my own picture (also for anonymity reasons).

    I think of the Democratic Party as too right-wing.
    I oppose capital punishment.
    I support labor unions.
    I support public education.
    I support universal healthcare.

    I believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other purposes. This includes sidearms, lever-action rifles, bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, short-barreled longarms, sound reducers, and automatic weapons.
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but they do not outweigh the rights of the one.

    • avatarensitu says:

      Thanks for letting us know that you are ripe for recruitment into a seditious cabal and if you think your numerous posts on the net have not been tagged and flaged for use in your up comming security check by the very Liberals you fawn over think again

    • avatarBeninMA says:

      “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but they do not outweigh the rights of the one.”

      That’s a good summary of True Liberalism. There are probably a lot more true liberals than people think, but they just aren’t well represented by Democratic leadership.

    • avatarMerits says:

      With that mishmash of political thought, some of it is not going to survive. Big government and the rewarding and encouragement of a lack of individual responsibility are not hallmarks that dovetail with firearm rights.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        This. I’m always surprised (though I shouldn’t be) at the people who think we can have an all powerful government and yet not have the government disarm the people.

    • avatarSkeptical_Realist says:

      As a 12 year military officer (O-4), here’s a homework assignment.

      Read “The 5,000 year leap” by W. Cleon Skousen. You will learn why it’s important to define your framework when you say “left-wing” or “right-wing”. Most people who use those terms don’t know what they mean, and people who claim to be one or the other are using very different definitions. Current D and R are both left-of-center from where we started.

      Unfortunately, as noted by Merits and Totenglock, your professed views on personal freedoms are incompatible at a fundamental level with the policies/programs you claim to support.

  25. avatarRalph says:

    He didn’t mean to write “91%.” He meant to write “91 IQ.” Hey, it’s an honest mistake.

  26. avatarThe smiling swordsman says:

    Wait unti they try to ban his “sniper rifles”.

  27. avatarAnmut says:

    Trevor – show your face if you believe in something. Sally.

  28. avatarGreg Camp says:

    Remember, remember, the sixth of November, the electoral treason and plot. I deplore the bad reasoning and the fancy deceivings that led some to vote for that snot.

  29. avatarDisThunder says:

    I was just fine with this dude and his V-disguised opinions up until the last line.
    You like the lever guns, the wheel guns, and the bolt actions- for hunting. That’s fine by me. I wouldn’t hunt anything bigger than a home invader with a .44 personally, but that’s just me. No shotguns, though?
    If you support universal background checks, that’s fine, just be prepared to explain how that particular piece of feel good restriction will actually help this situation.
    But when we get to this little 91% part, then I’m less interested, or convinced. And maybe a little pissed off. That’s a little too buzz-wordy for me to take as a valid opinion. I’m sure there’s some NRA members that have similar opinions, but I’m thinking they’re more than likely the 9% of that particular sum, and that’s being extremely generous.

    Now, if he’d worn a Nixon mask, on the other hand…..

  30. avatarRalph says:

    Uh, I don’t think he’s actually wearing a mask.

  31. avatarPete says:

    What he meant to say was “i support government tracking of guns through background checks on all private sales since we need more government control”….right?

  32. avatarIn Memphis says:

    I am the stereotype hunter who dosnt give a $#!4 about gun control cuz my sniper rifle is safe (so sayeth the grabbers).

    Thts what you relly meant right?

  33. avatarschizuki says:

    I’m still trying to figure out why killing animals with a .30-30 is morally A-OK, but punching holes in paper with an AR-15 makes a person a monster.

  34. avatarSCS says:

    Show your face, puss.

  35. avatarRay says:

    Wow. Really SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER. STICKING IT TO “THE MAN.”

  36. avatarJoe says:

    The guy wears a band on his right ring finger… and his name is Trevor. This should tell you something about him.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Yes it does — he found the ring in the last park he “occupied.”

      I always thought that “Occupied” had something to do with airplane toilets.

  37. avatarKeithF says:

    Amazing how everyone else regardless of other political opinions show their faces in support of the CONSTITUTIONAL right.

    Not afraid, 2A & 1A

  38. avatarthe last Marine out says:

    I am old enough to remember when you could order any gun you wanted and ammo , rifles, pistols,shotguns, was even adds in magazines, I got a 22 pistol when i turned 21 as all you had to do was write a statement that you were 21 and not breaking any local laws…. and best yet the only CRIME was in the movies i saw ,, sure we had hot cars, girls, but no drugs that’s how America was just like in Rockwell drawing! Got my first rifle at SEARS a 1917 US Enfield for $ under 50 bucks… the 22 pistol was $18 bucks>>>>>>>WOW

  39. avatarWLCE says:

    another ironic hypocrite wearing a guy fawkes mask.

    occupiers and anarchists dont know much about guy fawks, but i find it hilarious that they wear his face and think he represents freedom from oppression.

    For one, the mask is licensed by time warner. Each purchase of a guy fawkes mask has accumulated into billions for time warner.

    second, fawkes was trying to establish a theocracy…which is the opposite of a democracy and what the wearer’s of the mask claim to represent.

    Hilarious.

    Ill support universal background checks when they become a magical, mythological entity that can appear everywhere there is a transaction for a firearm.

    Here’s a idea: Can we leave constitutional rights alone and focus on our 16 trillion dollars worth of debt?

  40. avatarRupert Pupkin says:

    Don’t bother posting anything on their stupid Facebook page. I posted a comment in opposition to greater gun control and it took them less than five minutes to block me from posting anything else.

  41. avatarJumbie says:

    Dear Trevor,

    You do realize that V himself would have been against background checks for buying guns, right?

    The man wore a mask for a reason: He understood that being anonymous helped stymie the power of the overbearing state. background checks put an end to anonymity.

    • avatarJoe says:

      Trevor has no idea what you are talking about. He just thought the mask made him look cool. Not much thought going on with these people.

  42. avatarKvjavs says:

    He’s the 91%? You mean, the 91% of people who never heard of Guy Fawkes before V for Vendetta?

    Sounds right.

  43. avatarLolinski says:

    Kind of defeating the purpose of the mask by saying your name in the first sentence?

  44. Not to advance is to go back.

  45. avatarJean Paul says:

    So I guess he would do a background check if he wanted to sell his firearm to his brother?

    What a moron.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.