• SeanRenaud said on Jul 07, 2008....

  Because PETA is infinitely more annoying.  The entire Right is protesting Disney, NRA prolly felt left out.  I'm amazed that big business isn't boycotting Disney just to fit in.

• bloc said on Jul 07, 2008....

  PETA is annoying, the NRA is demanding that Disney World allow thousands of guns! Seriously, why does PETA have a worse reputation?

• silverwhisper said on Jul 08, 2008....

  bloc: b/c PETA actually has engaged in criminal acts in the furtherance of their goals. the NRA, however ridiculous some of their positions are, has not to the best of my knowledge done that...yet.
  
  having said that, i disagree that PETA's got a worse rep.
  
  maybe conservative groups just like protesting disney--not that it's ever had any meaningful impact. the southern baptist convention called theirs off either last year or the year before, insisting it was a success.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 08, 2008....

  most people have no idea that peta has broken a law, and had a bad impression of them long before that ever happened. 
  
  
  I'm assuming your talking about peta putting animals to death in VA. 
  
  
  I think people hate peta because they don't want to know the truth behind the food they eat. 
  
  
  
  

  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 08, 2008....

  I would consider throwing paint on ladies wearing fur to be a crime.  Even if it never actually happened there is still the belief it did.  I've never once seen an NRA billboard.  The NRA doesn't try to make me watch slaughterhouse footage.  The NRA for the most part doesn't want to take anything from me (nor are they perceived as such.)
   
  The popular perception of PETA is they want to end medical testing on animals, they want everybody to be at least vegetarian if not Vegan. 
   
  The popular perception of the NRA is a bunch of rednecks who don't want to lose the 2nd amendment.
   
  I'd be willing ot say that the overwhelming majority of the Right supports NRA and I'd say a good portion of the left supports their ideals. 
   
  I doubt PETA enjoys majority support amongst any party.  Most people like cheeseburgers.

• bloc said on Jul 08, 2008....

  "Most people like cheeseburgers."
  
  
  exactly, AND they don't want to think about where they come from. I'd say a good portion of people support peta's ideals, but don't want the emotional pain of having to think about their daily choices.
  
  
  Like I said, which is really worse, demanding that people to stop eating cheeseburgers or demanding that guns be allowed at disney world?

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 08, 2008....

  True, but how many of the people who don't want to think about it are merely products of their highly sanitized life style.  It's not like people didn't eat meat say a hundred, or two hundred years back when people were much more involved with how they got that rack of ribs.  I kinda chalk this up to the fact that what we buy in the supermarket bears only a vague resemblence to an animal in most cases.  I mean a chicken leg and thigh don't really look like you chicken.  We're all aware that it's a chicken but there is a clear divide between that pink thing wrapped in plastic and styrofoam and a feathered animal walking around.  Hell even an entire chicken or turkey doesn't actually look "real" at least not to me. 
   
  It's not a matter of which one is worse here.  Its kinda debatable which is worse.  If they allow guns someplace I can go someplace else but if cheese burgers vanish well they're just gone. 
   
  Like I said PETA is more in your face, the NRA you can ignore.
   
  It's like asking which is worse Paris Hilton getting a DUI or Jamil Shaw being gunned down.  (I mostly remember that case cus my little brother's name is Jamil btw) .  Obviously mor epeople hate Paris Hilton than are even aware of those gang members.

• starchini said on Jul 08, 2008....

  I think all people who are an asset to society should be able to carry a gun on them at all times.  People should be able to take their guns into disney land...whats wrong with that?  If u can carry a gun into a mall why not the happiest place on earth?  Just because people have a gun doesnt mean they are gonna use it.  People who legally own guns should be able to take them wherever they choose to...If u can tell, im a member of the NRA.  Im also a PETA supporter, but not a member.  I believe Peta has great intentions but go about things the wrong way.  Anything to do with the ethical treatment of animals though, i stand behind them.  I also stand behind the right to protect urself wherever u are.

• SocialPenguin said on Jul 08, 2008....

  Equally ridiculous in my eyes.  These are both organizations that began with very respectable aspirations and turned into parodies of themselves.  Why does PETA have a worse reputation?  Because they use the most repulsive, in-your-face, off-the-wall tactics they can think of to convey their points, and they don't care who they offend or hurt in the process.  The NRA is just a bunch of people with a creepy fixation on guns who try to make sure nobody takes them away. 
   
  And please don't tell me I'm just anti-animal rights, because I've been a vegetarian for 12 years.

• TheNakedProfessor said on Jul 08, 2008....

   

  Frankly, I want to be armed and ready if Goofy or Pluto go rabid, or if a giant rat with clothes on approaches my child. Besides, I've heard there are pirates...

  PS--- I prefer to protect myself by strapping a miniature nuclear weapon to my chest as a deterent should anyone cause my heart to stop beating. I mean, why limit self defense to mere guns?

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 08, 2008....

  The pirates all have Aztec gold that renders them immortal.  Silly professor.

• bloc said on Jul 08, 2008....

  @sean
  "  It's not like people didn't eat meat say a hundred, or two hundred years back"
  
  
  They didn't do factory farming. I'm unsure why this comparison is made so frequently. 
  
  
  @social
  You say that PETA is "repulsive, in-your-face" while the NRA merely wants to "make sure nobody takes [their guns] away." Demanding that guns be allowed at disney world is far more than not wanting their guns taken away! Do you think I'm wrong here? And what is more in my face than demanding that guns be present at a childs theme park?

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 08, 2008....

  On my point I highly doubt that the average American has the stomach to kill for food today period.  I may be wrong but I think that the separation of the factory would be comforting to the majority of them, that they put it on a machine push a button and a few nasuating minus later they have food.  Instead of the alternative where they are upto their elbows in entrails. 
   
  The only animal that I think your average American is capable of killing (for food) is fish.  And that's because lets be honest fish look fake.
   
  On Socials point it seems like I'm always hearing about PETA, granted its usually women dressed up in letuce or painted as tigers but PETA is much more present.  If they got equal press the NRA would probably have a worse reputation but they don't.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 09, 2008....

  bloc: while most people don't know that about PETA, they do know that PETA uses a host of methods that are shocking. that alone prejudices a lot of people against them & how they go about achieving their objectives. this has the effect of telling people right up front that they're a bunch of extremists.
  
  you have to pay attention to see just how extremist the NRA bunch are; PETA shows you right from the word "go". but they're IMHO both equally extremist.
  
  ed

• starchini said on Jul 09, 2008....

  Bloc, i dont get why the disney world part is what upsets u...The NRA's point is that if u legally own a firearm and can legally carry it government shouldnt be allowed to dictate when or where.  Keeping a hand gun in ur back pocket while strolling through disney land doesnt harm or hurt anyone.  I dont see a difference between being in disney land with a hand gun or being on the street with a handgun.  The government prefers unarmed peasants.  When we have the right to protect ourselves, even in disneyland.  I realize that it "unnecesary" to take a gun to disneyland.  But its the principal.  Criminals carry illegal firearms everywhere.  And if i run into a criminal with a gun ur damn right im gonna be pissed off when its in my face and my legally licensed and registered firearm is at the front desk bc i wasnt allowed to bring it in.   

• bloc said on Jul 09, 2008....

  because allowing guns increases the chance of gun violence and when you insist upon that at a childrens park it's offensive. Hell, why now allow everyone to carry guns into schools. 
  
  
  There was a good example in the news recently. Some guy took a gun to work, in his car. He usually carried it so it wasn't anything unusual. During work something set him off, and in a fit of rage he went to the car, got his gun, and shot up the place killing a few people. 
  
  
  Now imagine this at disneyland. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 09, 2008....

  Double strike!  Star, Disneyland=private property, they get to set the rules there within reason.  If they don't want guns the second amendment don't mean shit, just like if they don't want to host the Warner Brothers hall of fame reception the first amendment doesn't sweep in and force them. 
   
  As far as that guy, people go nuts.  He could have sat in his car and ran everybody over at lunch break.  It suddenly occurs to me that I've only been frisked once at Disneyland, so there really isn't anything stopping people with CCW's from carrying their guns at Disneyland now.

• starchini said on Jul 09, 2008....

  well ok, disneyland is private property and they get to set the rules...but i still think they should let people carry their guns.  Im just saying that i understand why the NRA is pissed about it.  Even though they dont really have a leg to stand on.  I was never frisked at disneyland...lol...I didnt have a gun with me and i cant remember for sure but i almos always carry a butterfly knife in my purse so odds were good i took my knife into the happiest place on earth.  And i didnt kill anyone with it.  Atleast none that i remember : )  It was a long time ago...  hehe

• bloc said on Jul 09, 2008....

  i've never understand this idea that if everyone totted guns around the world would be a better place. A lot of violence happens in the heat of the moment, and adding a bunch of guns to the situation only makes it worse. 
  
  
  I have a bright idea, why don't we let people carry guns to english soccer games. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 09, 2008....

  Guns and soccer?!  Are you trying to start WWIII?

• bloc said on Jul 09, 2008....

  you mean guns wouldn't make the soccer game safer? ;)

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 09, 2008....

  I mean guns plus soccer =WWIII.  Somethings just can't be allowed to happen,ever.
   
  Course maybe they wouldn't be so froggy if they knew there might be a gun around someplace. 

• cotterall&elaineadams said on Jul 10, 2008....

  Fur and testing cosmetics on animals I can understand but if they don't test AIDs drugs and vaccines on them they will test them on us.  Take your pick.  I like my chicken subs with swiss cheese...NRA can go where the sun don't shine, like Middle Earth..

• silverwhisper said on Jul 10, 2008....

  bloc: what precisely is your stance re: gun ownership/gun control?
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 10, 2008....

  @sw
  Honestly, I'm not sure. There are a couple of different issues. I think we need to follow the Constitution or amend it, but I have no idea what the 2nd amendment is supposed to mean.
  
  
  I think guns should be regulated and I think that different parts of the country should do what is fitting for their situation. I grew up in the south and I now live in Los Angeles. I believe that what makes sense for LA would not make much since for VA and vice versa. 

• silverwhisper said on Jul 11, 2008....

  i concur that rural/suburban/urban have distinct needs making a "one-size-fits-all" approach intrinsically flawed from the get-go.
  
  what in your view fits for VA vs LA?
  
  ed

• starchini said on Jul 11, 2008....

  Bloc, There will always be psychos out there.  My point is that gun laws dont do anything but hurt the law abiding citizens.  The criminals will always have guns bc they disregard the law.  So if we lose our right to have guns, the hooligans will all still have them and the citizens who need them to protect themselves wont have them at all.  Yea, the work thing u described is horrible, but shit happens everywhere.  People are gonna kill people, period.  But people who think like u do about guns scare the hell out of me.  Guns are not the problem.  Period.  People are the problem.  Soon congress is gonna vote guns off and then it will be illegal to own a firearm.  So i wont have a gun...but the killer in the alley will....Is that fair?  Ull prolly shit ur pants if i told u kids still take guns to my  high school every damn day....Kids have sawed off shotguns hanging in the back window of their pickup...they have bb guns in their lockers to shoot birds with over lunch break.  Kids carry pocket knives to the school i went too.  The instructors all knew about it.  But small towns know that weapons arnt to blame, its the type of person that owns the weapon.  Anyways my point is that most everyone in nebraska is armed and i dont know for sure but id be willing to bet good money we have one of the lowest crime rates nationwide. 

• starchini said on Jul 11, 2008....

  How bout people stop worrying so much about gun laws and start working on our societies sanity.  Becuase the guns have never changed.  Same guns been around for centuries, they all shoot bullets but the people holding them and pulling the trigger are the ones that have changed and that is the bigger problem not the guns. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2008....

  Thing is Star, if there aren't guns available the criminals won't have them.  IT's illegal to have a gun in the UK.  You knwo what they are whining about right now?  A rash of fatal stabbings.  So yeah you can pretty much say taht if guns are illegal and thus harder to obtain considerably less criminals will have them.

• starchini said on Jul 11, 2008....

  Naw, i dont believe that, criminals will always have access to guns...the laws only remove them from the ones who own them legally.  All the guns that are stolen and "underground" arnt going to be touched because they dont "exist"......Criminals are gonna have just as many guns as they do now, no matter the law.  But citizens will be the only ones that lose theirs

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2008....

  Then why aren't there shooting in England or Europe very often?  Reality simply disagrees with what you believe?

• starchini said on Jul 11, 2008....

  No sean, europeans are simply less violent...scotland yard?  the police dont have guns...guns wernt ever a big deal in europe...the criminals didnt use many guns in the first place so there wernt any to take away....but in america almost every criminal has an unregistered gun somewhere, tell me, how in the hell are those going to get confinscated?  They arnt...

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 11, 2008....

  No they aren't it would take decades to see a change, but we would see a change.  Europeans are less violent?  Have you ever watched a soccer game?  Euros are the most blood thirsty people anywhere.  It's utterly amazing they've managed to go the last sixty years without going to war.
   
  The fact is that the gun violence we have is the price we pay for not being in fear of our government and it's a fair price.  Just like having to listen to racists and having to deal with porn (if you're anti porn like my new favorite retard LENNY)  is an acceptable price for freedom of speech and being able to protest the government.

• starchini said on Jul 11, 2008....

  idk, i never pictured euros as violent...i always pictured them kinda fruity...

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2008....

  @star
  "The criminals will always have guns bc they disregard the law.  So if we lose our right to have guns, the hooligans will all still have them and the citizens who need them to protect themselves wont have them at all.  "
  
  
  I've lived in countries with varying gun laws and this wasn't true in the ones with strict gun laws. 

• TinSoldier said on Jul 13, 2008....

  Because PETA wants to abolish all use or exploitation of animals for human gain, even as food. Factory farms are irrelevant -- that's just their issue du jour.
  
  Hell, PETA couldn't even agree with itself when scientists discovered a way to make "fake meat". One faction was against it because it perpetuated the idea that eating meat, even that which did not come from animals, was okay. The other faction thought that it would decrease the exploitation of animals.
  
  The NRA protects the Second Amendment, our second most precious freedom after freedom of conscience (the First Amendment), from unreasonable restrictions from governments. I think that is a very noble cause, and while I'm no longer a member, I still consider them to be a civil rights organization.
  
  Now, the conflict is whether the Second Amendment applies to private entities such as corporations. Well, much like the First Amendment, it does not. Still, that doesn't prevent people from saying that Disney and other corporations are wrong in instituting such restrictions, or from boycotting them, or whatever.
  

• bloc said on Jul 13, 2008....

  I believe PETA as an organization came out in favor of the fake meat stuff. I agree with you about them being against animal use, but I see that as no more extreme than the idea that the 2nd amendment demands that disney land allow guns at the park.
  
  
  "that doesn't prevent people from saying that Disney and other corporations are wrong in instituting such restrictions"
  
  
  But that isn't what the NRA said. They said that disneyland MUST permit guns. I see this as equally extreme to the idea that we MUST never use animals. 

• bloc said on Jul 13, 2008....

  I'm not sure I've explained myself well so let me give it one more stab.
  
  
  PETA is a group that we can all agree with about some things. We all agree that the way our society treats animals is bad, and that it shouldn't be this way (i.e. factory farming, animal testing for vanity products, etc). However, PETA then takes it to an extreme, no one should ever use animals for anything. None of us agree with that. 
  
  
  The NRA is exactly the same. They take something we all agree with, americans should have the right to own guns. Then they take it to an extreme, a al we should force disneyworld to allow guns, we should legalize automatic 50 cals (i'm making this one up, but I can look up some of their other extreme positions if you want, and it wouldn't surprise me if they believe this one), etc, etc, etc

• bloc said on Jul 13, 2008....

  @ed
  
  
  I never answered your question. Honestly this isn't an issue I feel strongly about so it's hard for me to give a firm answer. I can understand a place like D.C. feeling that handguns are harmful to their city. I can see how a more rural community would want far less restriction.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 14, 2008....

  fair enough, bloc. i'm perhaps shockingly neutral re: gun control myself.
  
  ed

Comment on "Why doesn't the NRA have a worse reputation than PETA?"

Currently tagged	politics NRA PETA pirates Guns The 5th rats (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment