Defund the Gun Industry to Stop Mass Shootings – Quote of the Day

Defund the gun companies to fight gun violence.

courtesy goodbyegunstocks.com

“Every time there is a mass shooting in the United States, an executive at a gun company gets a bonus. With each tragedy, sales go up, stocks go up, the gun sellers get richer. So how to get at them? Stop buying guns seems to make sense, except those of us who oppose guns already aren’t buying guns in the first place.

“It turns out though, I’m buying gun stock which isn’t really much better. It takes some digging, and even then it is mysterious in a lot of ways, but many of the funds that 401Ks invest include in their portfolio stock in gun companies.

“Finding out where your money is going, and yes it is YOUR money, is a pain in the ass. Investment firms don’t like transparency. They’d much rather operate in the dark, like mold. Yes, you or me taking our $1,000 out of the Black Rocket Fund won’t cause much of a ripple, but if 100 of us do it, or a 1,000 things might start to change.” – Kevin Kaufmann in Time to Get Creative On Guns [via chicagonow.com]

comments

  1. avatar Cliff H says:

    Anti-gun fascists might give a damn about this.

    If he is preaching to the gun muggles and expecting them to care about what stocks are in their 401k, so long as they are making a profit, good luck with that. (Not really.)

  2. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I sure hope they are investing in gun stocks if they show to be a good value and return. That’s what I expect them to do. Especially if they are also investing in companies like Disney.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I have a diverse portfolio of gun stocks. Fixed, collapsing, side folding…

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        *rimshot* 😀

  3. avatar Mike says:

    I did not know that my fund could buy gun stocks. I’ll see if I can start doing that.

    1. avatar ORCON says:

      You can literally buy stocks in anything that is publicly traded. Hell, Enron had options for weather futures and derivatives.

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        Knew a guy who made a killing in bull sperm futures. No lie.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Knew a guy who made a killing in bull sperm futures.”

          Who do they get to ‘milk’ the bulls?

          I *really* hope there are tools for that job…

  4. avatar jwm says:

    Most people, regardless of their beliefs, are not going to kick a financial winner out of their portfolio just for political reasons.

    Anti gunners are, basically, liars at heart. They can just as easily lie about their investments as anything else. “Gun stocks, no I divested myself from them” is no bigger a lie than “guns cause crime”.

    1. avatar ORCON says:

      Gun stocks? Nah, lost ’em all in a terrible market crash.

      1. avatar Desert Dave says:

        Went down with the boat stocks …

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Not transparent? Good grief. I get at least two mailers a month from Edward jones with detailed pamphlets on where and how my investments are doing. If I bothered to read them, I would know exactly where my investments are.
    I really don’t care where, I just like their performance.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      I just go over the YTD, 1 yr, 5yr, and since-inception annual returns, and the fund’s overall strategy, across all of our investments. Same as you, I’m not terribly interested in the details of each individual company; whether pro gum or anti, for that matter.

      Really, as long as this year’s annualized rerurms in the upper teen percentages keep rolling in, my money could ne invested in sweat shops in Outer Iraqistan, for all I care.

    2. avatar ORCON says:

      Edward Jones loves mail, that is for sure. I get one for my account, she gets one for her account, we BOTH get one for the joint account.

      1. avatar Icabod says:

        Same here. Both of us get mail not only from Edward Jones, but from the mutual funds and the companies we hold stock in. If an anti-gun person was serious they’d just read their mail. As for the opening paragraph:
        “Every time there is a mass shooting in the United States, calls to “do something,” and “pass more laws” are heard. With each demand to “do something” and “pass more laws,” gun sales go up, stocks go up, the gun sellers get richer. So how to get at them? Stop demanding more laws and stop demanding gun bans, seems to make sense.”
        Fixed it for you.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        You can do that on the internet, you know — no reason to get paper copies in the mail.

        Unless you need fiber to feed the fireplace, I suppose.

    3. avatar Scoutino says:

      Tom, are you implying that gun grabbers LIE? This is my shocked face.

  6. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    The author continues this silly trope about Indiana supplying all the guns used in Chicago’s murder epidemic. Yet, he fails to address this one simple question…..why doesn’t Indiana have murder rates similar to Chicago’s, if it’s really just about availability and not about the people using them? And why is it that almost every single murder involving a firearm in Chicago occurs in minority neighborhoods? Extrapolated further, why can similar results be found in every major inner city throughout the country? How is it that black males between the ages of 15-35 make up only 3% of our nation’s total population, and yet, are responsible for 51% of all our country’s murders? The ONLY possible explanation is that there’s a genetic predisposition to criminality, in conjunction with genetically severe low IQ.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      While run since the mid 19th century as a plantation by a parade of crooked demtard pols (but I repeat myself).

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      You were on to something until you took a sharp detour into racist loony land. There is no genetic disposition to criminality. Racism created ethnic ghettos, but they didn’t used to be cesspools of crime. There is a terrible “urban” culture that has developed in the last half of the 20th Century where single motherhood and the celebration of the criminal dominate, and education and a hard work are distained. Part of it is a sense of entitlement and unfair treatment that justifies whatever it takes to remedy the situation in some minds. Part of it is gangs that serve as surrogate male role models and prey upon youngsters that don’t see a better way. Part of it is “Great Society” programs that encourage poor choices and remove the immediate consequences. A guess at a solution is vice legalization (drugs, prostitution, and gambling) to take most of the profits from the gangs, but that’s only part of the solution. Someone from the community needs to become a leader who says “enough” and encourage the kids to raise themselves up, instead of kids counting on the improbable goal of being a music or sports star, or rising to gang leadership. It won’t be a quick fix. It took decades to get into this mire, and it won’t change overnight.

      1. avatar We Got Lucky & Out says:

        “Part of it is “Great Society” programs that encourage poor choices and remove the immediate consequences.”
        You hit a very big nail on the head. When all the big “Projects” were designed and implemented, their public purpose was to provide housing for the “Poor” (read “Negros”. We weren’t Black, yet.). The actual purpose, as shown by multiple FOI documents, was to corral Negros into the smallest space possible, without violating building codes. This screwed up scheme missed it’s mark by multiple country miles.
        First, it prohibited adult males (husbands, boyfriends, whatever) from living with their families, ostensibly to make the Projects safe (from gangs and abusive fathers) for women and children. What it did, of course, was to create a system of “Absentee Fathers”. These are the same fathers who are now getting the blame for their children growing up without a “Man in the house”. The children of those fathers are now parents and grandparents, generations living in the same projects, still without any permanence of male guidance
        Second, the very minor drug culture became embedded within the projects, and grew until it became an epidemic, spreading throughout the projects and spilling into virtually all ares of the city. “When there is no hope, there’s always dope”.
        Third, The gangs that were supposed to be suppressed by the “No adult male” policy took over entire buildings, then entire neighborhoods. Inter-gang warfare became the model de jure . LEO’s would pit one gang against another, which created the proverbial “Never Ending Story”.
        Forth, de facto racial segregation in public schools became unimaginably worse, due to the concentration of Negros in neighborhoods (that already had marginal schools). That of course, produces neighborhood schools that are predominantly minority, even though not by law ( See Plessy v. Ferguson, 1892, which allowed ‘separate but equal,’ AKA segregation, to become law in the United States by law ( de jure segregation). This continues even now, despite Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
        “http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka”

        So now we have poorly educated children with no father figure, of children with no father figure, forced to exist at the pleasure of a racist environment, with very little hope for a piece of the “American Dream”.
        (With easy access to guns).
        The results were predicted to be the disaster that it became, but the Powers That Be just passed it along to the next batch of Powers That Be.
        AND THE STUPID POWERS THAT BE PUT US IN HIGH-RISES!
        WITH GUNS! WITH A CLEAR SHOT BELOW TO THEIR CAPTORS!
        WITH NO ELEVATORS WORKING!
        lessee, captives VS captors: Easy to get down, Impossible to get up. High ground VS low ground.
        Wouldn’t want to be a Cop! Or a fireman. Or …

        …Dead

    3. avatar Jomo says:

      If that were the cas, it would be ALL blacks, not just the 15-35 set. The real problem is lack of fathers and the welfare state. White liberal guilt allowed the democraps to smother black America with endless handouts in the name of equality. Black mothers married the Federal Government. The Fed makes a pretty shitty dad for a young man full of hormones and anger. It doesn’t help when your primary parent is also a ball of hormones and emotions. Young black men are taught from an early age to address their problems with rage and violence. I lucked out. I was one of the last generation to have a dad. You want to end black crime, end welfare and stop paying these bimbos to crank out babies that they can’t take care of.

    4. avatar ironicatbest says:

      Being Black isn’t easy. It’s not the Race it’s the environment. As this society’s infrastructure breaks down, more Whites will be thrown into a similar environment and those ” white trash” ( not by choice) will act accordingly.

      1. avatar We Got Lucky & Out says:

        It takes an enormously strong person, mentally and emotionally, to not become that which they are treated like. Most people either cave in, or become like their oppressor. My mother did neither, she just got us out! (Being a Black WAC in WWII was a great training ground for her).

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          This reminds me of a huge factor which lowers functional IQ that I didn’t list (see below): hopelessness — it’s even been shown to change the functional IQ of adults. When kids grow up and see no future ahead of them, they’re stifled for life.

    5. avatar Roymond says:

      ” How is it that black males between the ages of 15-35 make up only 3% of our nation’s total population, and yet, are responsible for 51% of all our country’s murders? The ONLY possible explanation is that there’s a genetic predisposition to criminality, in conjunction with genetically severe low IQ.”

      Genetically? There’s no evidence for that.

      OTOH, it’s been established that having only a mother in your household and no father figure reduces effective IQ by several points; that uncertainty over who your father is reduces it several points; that having substandard schools (i.e. in obvious need of maintenance and repair) reduces it a couple of points; that living with violence in your school and/or neighborhood reduces it more… I could go on, but living in the inner city subjects kids to an array of detriments to functional IQ they effectively have a dozen or so points less than those who grow up in quiet suburbs.

      It’s pretty damning of liberal politicians that this information is out there yet they continue to pursue policies which feed the problem — Chicago being perhaps the prime example.

  7. avatar DC says:

    R u kidding me it sounds like a brainwashed 1st grader made that comment, to even think that is true that they get a bonus when there is a mass shooting is absolutely sick, twisted and stupid!!

  8. avatar Conservatarian says:

    Cause: shooting rampage happens and lots of people die.

    1st Effect: politicians start talking gun control

    2nd Effect: People are threatened with the possibility that they may not be able to get the firearms they need/want to get much longer, so more people go out and buy firearms and ammo NOW rather than later, and in greater quantities. So they can be ready and have a better chance at protecting themselves and others from tragedy.

    3rd effect: Gun companies’ grow.

    4th effect: liberals who don’t understand cause-and-effect start complaining that gun companies are cruel and are accomplices to the tragic events.

    Did I miss anything in there? Please feel free to add/edit to it everyone. Hehe.

    1. avatar DC says:

      No sir u didn’t miss a single thing that I can think of

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      #2 did not happen after Vegas or Texas. Cycle has been broken.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        Republican control of legislative and executive branches dampens the panic buying effect. Vegas was mainly blamed on bump fire stocks, which are a tiny part of the market, although it was enough of a threat that Slide Fire stopped taking orders because they couldn’t keep up with demand. If Feinstein’s AWB gains any traction or gets replicated in states, there might be buying in other companies.

      2. avatar Jomo says:

        Only because there is a belief that the R’s will protect us. If Hillary was in, it would be different. Threat doesn’t feel as immediate now.

    3. avatar Scoutino says:

      You got it right. What the grabber sees is:
      1. Mass murder happens
      2. ???
      3. Profit! (For gun companies)
      They don’t understand that # 2. is their own doing.

      1. avatar Brown water rafter says:

        I sincerely hope that #2 is their own doing. I hate it when someone tries to make me do their #2. They’re so ignorant (probably willfully, AKA “stupid”) that even their #1 pisses me off.

  9. avatar The Rookie says:

    I’m gonna buy another gun, just to spite this guy.

    What shall it be? Beretta Cheetah? Walther PPK? Sig 229?

    (Checks bank balance)

    Okay, a Hi-Point it is!

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      The Beretta Cheetahs (85 single stack or 84 double stack) are simply the finest, most elegant .380’s ever manufactured. Period.

      1. avatar The Rookie says:

        Amen to that. Outstanding weapon(s).

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      Remington is selling pistols for $150 after rebate

  10. avatar burley says:

    Where my IRA dollars go is much easier to know than where my tax dollars go.

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Every time there is a mass shooting in the United States, an executive at a gun company gets a bonus. With each tragedy, sales go up, stocks go up, the gun sellers get richer.

    That’s a mighty fine ex hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy you’ve got yourself, there.

  12. avatar Felix says:

    Go ahead, hoplophbes, divest yourselves of profitable stocks to buy less profitable stocks. That leaves more profitable opportunities for gunnies and those who aren’t so interested in making political points at the expense of their own welfare.

    Just like racists running stores, who lose customers, suppliers, and profits for the sake of showing their racist bona fides. Go ahead and lose money, it leaves more for others.

  13. Will they also do something about stopping the NRA and other pro-gun groups who have been happily selling guns to criminal and terrorist organizations?

    When Australia outlawed assault rifles in the 90’s, mass shootings dropped by 95%. They still have means to protect themselves like handguns, shotguns, and non-assault rifles. Can we have a real educated discussion about Australia’s example? Please don’t provide comments like “go live in Australia then”, because I’m not going anywhere.

    Just keep on praying redneck morons, Because in a few weeks some whacked NRA-nut is gonna go off his nut and then take out a bunch of people. And we will be at the same place AGAIN!

    I like how the GOP and conservatives are the “party of life” when it comes to fetus, but after that nope you be one your own, and as we unfortunately one of the victims of this last massacre was pregnant! Think that would stir the “party of life” for common sense regulations. Nope sorry forgot now is not the time, oh well maybe the discussion can happen after the next one? No then how about after the NEXT one?, Or Maybe the next dozen more? No?

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Actually- it took an NRA member to stop the Texas killer, who like the Vegas killer, were not NRA members. In fact, there’s never been a mass killer who was a member of the NRA. And, finally, as you know, but continue to misrepresent- the NRA and other groups do not sell weapons. Only Federally licensed gun dealers can do that. They are strictly a civil rights group.

    2. avatar ORCON says:

      Aww, c’mon. Which criminal and which terroist org, specifically, did the NRA sell guns to? When did the NRA start selling guns anyway?

      Name some names, I’ll wait.

    3. avatar Felix says:

      If your 95% is typical of your reasoning and facts, you are a sad representative of anti-gunners. You can only get that 95% drop in mass shootings if you have a very short timeline; the gun confiscation was a direct response to one mass shooting.

      Look! A tornado! Whhooooboy, that passed, I’ll pass legislation banning tornadoes, and LOOK, a 100% drop in tornadoes in the 5 minutes since the bill became law!

      There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    4. avatar strych9 says:

      Sometimes I think you mix up the NRA and the IRA of yesteryear.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Heh.

        Actually it’s conspiracy theory thinking, the essence of which is a desire to not have to really think about things and so to find someone to blame and stick with that despite any evidence, preferably someone easy to hate (because if you hate them, they must be guilty of SOMETHING, right?).

    5. avatar ACP_arms says:

      “…Will they also do something about stopping the NRA and other pro-gun groups who have been happily selling guns to criminal and terrorist organizations?…”

      concernedamerican,
      Until you name the groups that you alleged the NRA gave guns to with a link to a story about it, cut this crap of making stuff up.

      Okay, so Australia outlawed “assault rifles” in the 90’s, mass shootings dropped by 95%. So what? looking at Wikipedia after Port Arthur there was two cases of shootings, one in 2002 and 2004.

      But Australia has had two stabbings, one in June of 1997 a father cut the throat of his four daughters well they slept and then he killed himself. Then in December 2014 a woman stabbed and killed seven of her own kids and her niece.

      And then Australia has had four cases of arson that has killed thirty eight since 1996.

      You know what I think, I think your so paranoid about guns that you cant see the other ways that people are killed at a much higher rate then with guns.

      1. avatar ACP_arms says:

        Edit; “I think you’re”

    6. avatar Eli2016 says:

      Go live in Europe. Lol. And take your meds and Colon Kapernick with you.

    7. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      “…When Australia outlawed assault rifles in the 90’s, mass shootings dropped by 95%…”

      And exactly how many mass shootings like Port Authur did they have before?

      Ones similar in numbers.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

        Time is not exactly a Conservative publication.

        “..But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were “all over the place,” says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer “is there in black and white,” she says. “The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.”

    8. avatar Icabod says:

      Australia is held up by gun control as some sort of success. It isn’t.First the guns seized eh, bought back, only reduced the number of gun in private hands by 20-%
      How mass shootings are counted in Australia differes greatly from how gun control activists count such shootings in the US. In Australia, five people must be killed to count it as a mass shooting. This doesn’t count the shooter. In the US, the Gun Violence Archive, defines a mass shooting as when “four or more shot or killed, excepting the shooter.” By this measure, Australia has had mass shootings.
      Here’s an interesting comparison. New Zealand has the same population origin, same laws and same culture. When Australia passed its draconian gun control laws, New Zealand did not. According to the gun control arguement Australia’s gun control laws stopped mass shootings. (As can be seen, they didn’t). It follows then, as New Zealand didn’t change their laws, they should have had mass shootings. A study found this wasn’t true.
      “Between 1980 and 1996 both counties had mass shootings and the rate was not significantly different between the two. Since 1996 and 1997 neither country has had a mass shooting.”
      What has changed is higher employment, better economy, and economic growth. The cluster of mass shootings in both countries occurred during an eclipse notice downturn.
      It’s noted tha New Zealand’s murder rate has continued to drop even with more people, more guns, and more shooters.
      Australia continues to have problems with illegal guns. Last month “Australians turned in 51,000 illegal firearms, ranging from 19th-century weapons to a rocket launcher, during a three-month amnesty that ended on Friday, ”

      Yes, gun deaths in Australia dropped since the gun laws were enacted. However this is not a direct cause and effect action. Numerous other factors have contributed to this.

      https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
      http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
      https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/
      http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology
      http://www.ic-wish.org/Mass%20shootings%20in%20Australia%20and%20New%20Zealand%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
      https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/new-zealands-true-rate-of-firearm-homicide/
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns/australians-give-up-51000-illegal-guns-as-govt-stands-by-tough-laws-idUSKBN1CB06I

    9. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Let me correct you on a few points about firearms ownership in Australia.

      1) With the few highly restricted exceptions, ALL self-loading rifles and shotguns were banned, even .22 rimfires, and pump-action shotguns. Note the word ALL. Handguns have always been tightly regulated and were subject to strict limits on calibers, size, and magazine capacity. The limits were designed to ban as many handguns as possible. M1911? Banned. Anything over .38? Banned. Lever-action shotguns only survived because the law makers were not aware of them. These are now limited to 5-rounds and more restricted license classes. There have been many proposals to further restrict ir ban lever-action rifles for their alleged rapid fire capability.

      2) The use of a firearm for self-defense in Australia is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. A farmer displayed an unloaded rimfire rifle to scare off a criminal and lost his license and firearms as a result. It is that bad. It took senior political intervention for his license to be restored and firearms returned.

      3) None of this stopped a wannabe jihadi from acquiring a shortened pump-action shotgun and taking hostages in the middle of the CBD. Or another wannabe jihadi from shooting an accountant dead as he left the police administration building in Parramatta.

      4) Recently private firearms ownership has exceeded the numbers pre Port Arthur.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I can’t say I’m that surprised. I liked Australia when I was there but ya’ll have some CRAZY laws.

        I mean, don’t you guys have serious restrictions on motorcycles where you have to have a heavily restricted “learner bike” for a number of years before you can get a higher level license to buy even a mid-sized engine bike? LAMS or some shit?

        I seem to remember that Suzuki makes a special SV650… the SU maybe, that’s got a ton of engine/tranny/gear/electronic restrictions on it so that it fits into the “lower” licensing tier which allows them to actually sell a decent number of them in Auz.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          It is similar in some European countries. Young riders are restricted to low power motorcycles. If they want bigger bike they must have intake restrictor installed to drop the horse power to aproved level.

    10. avatar CC says:

      Australia proves gun control does NOTHING but make matters worse. it has had as many mass murders in the 25 years since gun confiscation as the 25 years before it.

      And bragging that Australia had a 48% decrease in murder since its 1990’s peak because of gun confiscation is funny considering the US had a 63% decrease since 1990’s peak as the US vastly increased guns, gun carry and ratio of semi auto guns.

      And if you are a law abiding citizen and not a criminal you are 28% SAFER from murder in the US than you are in Australia. 28% SAFER. Australia has a 28% higher per capita rate of non self precipitated homicide than the US(murder of people who are drug dealers, active gang members, etc)

      Are you a drug dealer or gang member? if not you are WAY safer in the US

  14. avatar DM says:

    His Indiana/Illinois discussion is funny. Same as the Virginia Maryland one we here where virignia is supposed exporting violence because guns are coming from there. What he fails to note is Illinois exports more rapists, knife killers, and gun killers into Indiana than Indiana exports guns into Illinois.

    We see the same thing with what comes into Washington DC: slightly more guns from Virginia do, but WAY WAY more felons from Maryland come into DC and commit murder and shootings than felons from Virginia come into DC to commit murder do.

    In fact of the murders committed in DC by residents of neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland, seven times as many come from Maryland. The gun is 70% more likely to come from Virginia — but he criminal is 700% more likley to come from Maryland

    Maryland on average sentences the same felony are 25% lower rates than Virginia. A person committing a first gun offense — the single largest correlation for subsequent gun murder, a 96% correlation, serves on average less than half the time in Maryland than Virginia.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    Oh there’s plenty of violence going on in Indiana. 7shot at a Jazz club a few days ago in GARY. Could it be the people are the problem?!? Oh and Gary,Indiana is a democrat stronghold…

  16. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    This twit does know that there are politically motivated funds already right? Anti-gun funds, environmentalist funds, and probably others. This isn’t a new issue.

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    DEFUND ALL “GUN RESEARCH” AND END THE HUUUUUUGE FING KICKBACKS TO THE FING POS (D).

    Somebody should do THAT FU<kING AUDIT ! ! ! FOLLOW THE FING $$$$

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      DEFUND ALL “PLANNED PARENTHOOD” AND

      STOP THE (satanists) KILLING (they like it too much and there needs to be an intervention)

      AND END THE HUUUUUUGE FING KICKBACKS TO THE FING POS (D).

      Somebody should do THAT FU<kING AUDIT ! ! ! FOLLOW THE FING $$$$

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Defund planned parenthood? Are you crazy? I was militantly pro life for the first 40 years of my life, until 11 years ago I learned that that 50 million black babies were aborted. Can you imagine what our country would look like, what the crime rates would be and the what the welfare spending would be had those abortions never happened. The NRA and planned parenthood are the 2 most important organizations known to man. Give every spare penny you have, to both.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Margaret Singer’s goals when she started Planned Parenthood were to limit the poor and minority births in time.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          NO.

          BAN PLANNED PARENTHOOD. If the safety net wasn’t there, fewer people would jump. Either way, when you obfuscate the causes of ruin you are forced to support the satanic ritual that planned parenthood demands for their master. They get GOBS of cash from us under “Title X” funding and Medicaid. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/18/40/1840b04b-55d3-4c00-959d-11817023ffc8/20170526_annualreport_p02_singles.pdf.

          IF THEY NEED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN TAXPAYER FUNDING, HOW CAN THEY AFFORD TO DONATE MILLIONS EVERY YEAR TO THE EVIL POS (D)NC ? ? ?

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          JoeR., Planned Parenthood can donate millions because thanks to the reasoning in the Citizens United case they can have their own super-PAC — so they do, and they raise millions for it.

          Corporations, including not-for-profits, shouldn’t be allowed to donate to politics; their business should be business.

        4. avatar Harpers Ferry, V2 says:

          “Can you imagine what our country would look like…”
          It would probably look very much like your logic, rational, reasoning, attitude, brain, and head: ie, loaded with massive black holes.
          Every once in a great while you write something almost reasonably intelligent. Then you follow up with this absolutely stupid drivel.
          Thank you for YOUR new picture in the dictionary, under “RACIST PIG”.
          Where was Margaret Sanger when your maternal parent needed her?
          I will have to remember this post the next time I think about giving you a compliment.

  18. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Defund the Gun Industry to Stop Mass Shootings – Quote of the Day”

    ROFLMFAO…Too many people get rich off of mutual funds that are invested in gun stocks, can’t do it, they won’t do it, and it’ll never happen…

  19. avatar Jack Moore says:

    If he wants to hurt gun company profits STOP TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS. Obama sold guns for 8 years and the gun companies and the NRA made piles of money from his efforts. If the DNC came out tomorrow and said (and meant it) “you guys are right the gov has absolutely no right to make any gun laws at all, we need to stop pretending controlling peoples gun rights affects crime and take the existing laws off the books”, they could starve GOA all the way out of existence and put a big hurt on NRA and the gun manufacturers.

  20. avatar DaveL says:

    Sounds like a “Pump-and-Dump” scheme in reverse (Is there a name for that?). Short a decent stock, blast out propaganda to get the gullible to sell, make a mint.

  21. avatar John says:

    If most of the guns used to commit crimes in Chicago come from Indiana, why are they trying to shut down gun shops in Chicago? Does anything they say or do make any sense at all?

  22. avatar Shire-man says:

    Any firm trying to invest for the feelz is just going to lose your money.

  23. avatar Noishkel says:

    You can’t ‘defund’ something you’ve built on a 3D printer and a mill in your home shop.

  24. avatar Patrick (No...the other one) says:

    Whenever I read drivel like this, I can’t help but wonder…where do they think the police and the military get their firearms, if not from the very same gun industry as us plebs? It’s pretty clear that they think that police officers, federal agents, military personnel, etc. are all specially trained, highly skilled, mistake free machines of government goodness, and OF COURSE they are not included in their crusade against those evil killing machines of deadly death, but do they also think that the guns those people carry are from some far off land where they are made by pure creatures of zen who fashion them as magic talismans against only evil? The level of “that’s different” associated with gun control enthusiasts never ceases to amaze me.

    Defund the gun industry until it folds. Go ahead. It will have an impact, alright…just not the one you think it will. Can’t wait until they start screaming bloody murder when they have to fork out Korth prices for Glocks for their local PD.

  25. avatar Anymouse says:

    Divestment only affects a handful of large, public companies or their holding companies. Bankrupt Colt, Ruger, Freedom Group (Remington/Marlin), American Outdoor Brands (Smith & Wesson), and Vista Outdoors (Savage), and there will still be hundreds of privately held companies that will gow to take their place.

  26. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Everytime a mass shooting, blah blah, well people wouldn’t run out and buy more weapons if every mass shooting didn’t carry gun bans. Christ Almighty

  27. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Those politically correct funds have a much lower rate of return
    Funds that invest in sin make a lot more profit

    1. avatar Bumpstock McSlide says:

      That is very true, but I still feel guilty about watching them go up and down.

  28. avatar Chuang Shyue Chou says:

    I don’t think that works. A lot of the gun companies are privately held and aren’t listed anyway.

  29. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    I wonder what the employer matching contribution is for the moms-basement dwelling antifa?

  30. avatar Blade says:

    Since these mass shooters tend to be Democrats why not just declare the Democrat Party a terrorist organization and ban Democrats from owning firearms?

    1. avatar No demolition without "Demo" says:

      “…ban Democrats from owning firearms”

      First they came for the Democrats…
      😉

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email