DCUM's running NRA GUN ADVERTISING Appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP Here.
I am not perceived by those who know me, report to me, or are my superiors as a TWIT. Nor am I a NERD, who is familiar with Google marketing techniques. So much for solphmoric, infantile Label's
I still perceive, be it Google, or DCUM's failure to filter out this advertising, at this moment in time, as a monument to poor taste.

So, you are bragging about you lack of intelligence? Google marketing is very commonly understood - even my 7 year old understands it. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

As for filtering out ads, I assume you are in your late 70s from Iowa - for you to be this ignorant and in favor of censorship. Did I guess right?

[Anonymous]

If more lawfull civilians had guns there would be less crime

[Anonymous]

Op here
- Thank you pp. I stated in two posts. A MONUMENT TO POOR TASTE
Too bad The more infantle posters lack spelling and reading skills. No comment relating to freedom of speech, our second amendment rights etc. was made. Not that it's relevant to anyone here, I lost a nephew in this insane madness. My point was/ is out of respect for those innocents killed and wounded the gun lobby could have dialed down the volume for just a moment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here
- Thank you pp. I stated in two posts. A MONUMENT TO POOR TASTE
Too bad The more infantle posters lack spelling and reading skills. No comment relating to freedom of speech, our second amendment rights etc. was made. Not that it's relevant to anyone here, I lost a nephew in this insane madness. My point was/ is out of respect for those innocents killed and wounded the gun lobby could have dialed down the volume for just a moment

Wouldn't their (NRA) point be that if more people had guns someone could have taken the shooter out quickly and protect innocent people? They probably would say they do not support criminal acts but the right for people to protect themselves and others from someone like that shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If more lawfull civilians had guns there would be less crime

Lots more kids killed by accidental discharge. And a lot more homicides. After all half of gun deaths are by friends/spouses of the victim. If you multiply the number of guns in homes, you multiply the number of those shootings.

[Anonymous]

13:51. . I don't indulge in argumentum ad hominem on websites such as this one, it's pointless. I will reply to your question however.
You're not even close, I have homes in G-town, Palm Beach and Manhattan. Closest to mid west i've lived is Pa, where i received my MBA from The Wharton School. I received my BA from Princeton.
My age? I retired well before normal age of 62/5 A self made, I sold a software program I concieved of and had others write to the largest on line job recruitment site in 1998, and then proceeded to make real estate investments and sales prior to the crash. I am now a proud, non complaining, Buffet fan, tax paying member of the 1% with no off shore accounts, I have a NYC and Fl concealed carry permits, no NRA membership, 2 daughters ivy league educated no ex wives.
I wish you and your 7 year old much success in life.
As you can see your intuitive skills need a little work

[Anonymous]

op, very sorry that you lost your nephew. i totally here you. after the shootings, my cousin actually posted very pro-gun sentiments on his site. it was totally inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

14:02. in another thread both military and police experts agree an armed public response with adrenalin flowing in "the fog of war" would have resulted in numerous unintentional casualties. one post pointed out how well
police officers may act in training scenarios and fail miserably in a real life terror filled situation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If more lawfull civilians had guns there would be less crime

+1, guns don't kill people do. Cars kill more kids , the solution? Lock your car and keep the keys out of reach, same with guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here
- Thank you pp. I stated in two posts. A MONUMENT TO POOR TASTE
Too bad The more infantle posters lack spelling and reading skills. No comment relating to freedom of speech, our second amendment rights etc. was made. Not that it's relevant to anyone here, I lost a nephew in this insane madness. My point was/ is out of respect for those innocents killed and wounded the gun lobby could have dialed down the volume for just a moment

That is not how ads work on the internet. "The gun lobby" just buys eyeballs via a third party. The third party is responsible for when/where the ads are placed. You should be mad a google. Sorry about your nephew.

[Anonymous]

All ads on here are through ads by google, and ad choice. Everyone give it up for DCUM and making money through google capitalism! Im guessing .02 per page view.

[Anonymous]

Download ad blocker - then you wont see any ads. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If more lawfull civilians had guns there would be less crime

+1, guns don't kill people do.

Except of course you want to attack the Democrats and the ATF. Because in that case, and only that case, a gun killed a border guard. Not the criminal who got it.

Total hypocrites.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Download ad blocker - then you wont see any ads. Problem solved.

Yes, and eventually you won't see any DCUM either. This site doesn't run on air, you know.

To those of you who don't like NRA ads, as others have pointed out, the ads are not in our control. Even if they were, I don't think I would be comfortable filtering out a particular viewpoint (especially one with which I disagree). But, I think there is a win-win solution. If you want to punish the NRA, click on their ads and make them pay.

[Anonymous]

Op represents Typical liberal hypocrisy. She's only "open" to things that she supports. Ban everything else.