Previous Post
Next Post

 Smith & Wesson M&P Sport (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

The RI GOP is RIP. If Rhode Island Republicans held a baby-eating contest to raise money, it would barely ding their election chances. That said, the baby-eating thing would be far more acceptable to the New York Times editorial board than the current fundraiser: an AR-15 rifle raffle. “The Republican Party of Rhode Island is attracting well-deserved scorn for its plan to raise money Sunday by raffling an AR-15-style assault rifle — the same sort of modified military weapon used last December in the Newtown school massacre in neighboring Connecticut.” That’s a whole lot of fail in one paragraph, no? Suffice it to say, the rest of the editorial is similarly misleading and tone-deaf (to gun rights). I especially like (i.e. despise) the conclusion . . .

Party leaders are trying to take cover by righteously noting the raffle winner must submit to a background check. Background checks, of course, remain one of the more porous parts of gun safety law. Grotesque gun raffles are more proof of the gap between the anguish of the citizenry at repeated shooting sprees and the complacency of the politicians who do so little to address them.

Taking cover righteously. My guys! Well, they were until I left RI for TX, where I can exercise my gun rights in relative freedom—save in schools and when I want to open carry. Anyway, I think it’s funny that the Times calls background checks “one of the more porous parts of gun safety law.”

First, because of the unintentional irony; the paper constantly calling for universal background checks is saying that background checks don’t work. Second, the Gray Lady’s using the term “gun safety” instead of “gun control.” That is so not a winner for the antis. Lastly because it’s not complacency that stops pols from grabbing guns. It’s fear. And thank God for that.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “An AR15 “style” assault rifle”? What does that mean? Either it’s an AR15 semi-automatic or not. Let’s stick with the AR15 shotgun which, as we all know, is just as prolific.

  2. “Modified Military Weapon read:any scary black rifle will do” That’s a frakkin M&P bone stock it looks like. It does however seem to be a very odd PR stunt knowing that you’ll draw a bunch of bad publicity but who knows. Maybe just getting the mention is what they want, kind of a big FOAD statement.

  3. Getting more than a little tired and annoyed with the constant belittling and downright insulting of “Fudds”. It shows a lack of respect and a lot of arrogance on the part of the commenters here. Are Fudds the new n—–ers now? Rant off

  4. Seriously?? Still goin with the old AR15 is an assault rifle??? I’m amazed that they can so bold facedly lie.

      • Sadly Ralph you’re correct and I know my correction (shown below) will probably get me called an inbred redneck hillbilly retard in a future Times article but hey gotta try it may change some minds.

  5. Just sent this to the Times I know they won’t gain anything from it but maybe if we email bomb them enough they’ll eventually start to pay attention and learn.

    Dear sir or madam,

    In reading your publication it has been made abundently clear that your reporters and editors do zero research such as calling the AR15 semi automatic rifle an assault rifle or assault weapon which it is not as it is semi automatic only meaning it fires one and only on round per press of the trigger and an assault rifle is a shoulder fired gas operated select fire rifle of intermediate caliber capable of engaging threats out to and beyond 300 meters. Now select fire means having more than one mode of fire e.g. semi and burst or semi and full auto. Yes they look exactly like what our troops carry but they lack multiple modes of fire, to simplify just because the Jeep Wrangler still kinda looks like the old Army Jeeps don’t mean they are.

    A pissed off veteran

  6. “Modified Military Weapon” makes it sound even scarier if technically correct. Look it’s
    “Modified” because we all know the connotation of that word is that it has been somehow improved, in this case to be even DEADLIER than the military variant. “Semi-automatic non-military look alike” just doesn’t fit the agenda.

  7. Now a full auto version,well,That’s an assault rifle,an AR is just a rifle and since the Anti’s are so stupid about guns anyway there is no use in explaining what a selector switch is.Or should we?

  8. Really? A Rhode Island Republican Rifle Raffle not respected by that Irascible Rag? I’m ready to regurgitate.

  9. They would have been just as ticked off if it was a double-barrel shotgun that was being raffled off. What they really can’t handle is the symbolism of guns, any guns, being a normal part of life.

  10. Gun raffles are fantastic ways to raise money.

    Here in North Texas I’ve seen raffles for rifles and pistol generate tens of thousands of dollars for charity.

  11. Interesting that they use the term “Gun Safety.” Do they realize that you have to have guns in order to practice gun safety?

  12. I wish RF was still here to debate our local douche bag piece of $hit talk show host, who has beaten this raffle to death on his silly show. The fool loves to stir the $hit to up his tiny ratings and he hates gun owners. He said that anyone who brings up the Constitution or the 2nd A are stupid, and that they all live in a fantasy world because normal people don’t discuss the Constitution or 2nd A. They also sold all 3000 tickets in record time, and the sponsor called the show and thanked him for all the free air time.

  13. Side bar – NYT is to “lady” as is Madame Michelle Antoinette to the same.

    Marxist rag would be the correct term of endearment for the NYT

  14. This is the kind of thing that really highlights the cultural divide surrounding guns. I think most urban gun-control advocates would be dumbfounded to learn that “gun raffles” are one of the most common means to fund services like fire departments in suburban and rural areas.

Comments are closed.