Headzup: N.R.A. S.p.y.

Back


Mary McFate, a well known gun control advocate is asked about her dual identity as Mary Lou Sapone, a spy for the National Rifle Association.

Read more about it here in Mother Jones Magazine--


Download daily Catch and Release Comedy™ political cartoons to your mobile phone or iPod at

Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: August 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Author: headzup

Length: 00:00:34
Rating: 4.37
Views: 2181

Tags: nra national rifle association mary mcfate sapone spy mother jones political cartoon satire cell mms messaging parody mobisode

Embed Code: Paste this code in your page


Video Comments:
thefloodof08 (September 16, 2008 at 1:30 pm)
Disgusting.

"They laugh at honor, and are shocked to find traitors in their midst."
testing88534 (August 24, 2008 at 11:11 am)
No, once more cheeseaura, the main point of the second Amendment was the formation of a militia in order to defend the country if there were ever another invasion by Britain. The U.S at that time didn't have a standing army. Now, the U.S has a standing army so militias are not needed in this time and era.
cheeseaura (August 24, 2008 at 3:43 pm)
1. False. If you've read the federalist and anti federalist papers, the reason for the second amendment is clear.

2. Militia's, whether you think we need them or not, is still an inalienable right, with the main factor being individuals who own firearms simply joining together as they see fit.

Your grasp on our Constitution is tawdry and undereducated.
testing88534 (August 24, 2008 at 5:35 pm)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". That is the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment. So the Amendment is stating that individuals don't have a right to bear arms unless they are part of a well organized militia. This is the final result of the Constitution after the debate between Federalist and Anti-Federalist. Most of the time, individuals arm in order to protect there self interest.
cheeseaura (August 24, 2008 at 8:23 pm)
And if the government should ever turn on the people it is that well regulated militia, with no bans on certain fire arms, that should over turn that government back to the way it should be.
testing88534 (August 25, 2008 at 7:26 am)
A few questions to that. One, when should a government be considered a threat to the people? Also, do you think a large group of people armed with guns have any advantage over the high tech U.S army? They have no air force or armor vechicle.
cheeseaura (August 26, 2008 at 5:37 am)
A government should be considered a threat when they aren't servants to the people.

As always, it's a small number of people who run things in bad times, but the possibility that those that run that weaponry for those people might simply say "no" when a corrupt oligarchy takes hold would be very fortunate, but history deems this unlikely as power corrupts.

Sadly, it might resort the way all conflicts in this vein go: with massive losses of life to free the people of tyranny.
testing88534 (August 26, 2008 at 5:01 pm)
Cheeseaura, the question now is whether or not this revolution would even be considered just. For example, let say a rebel leader wants to establish a Theocracy and other groups would want to set up there own government rather than maintain the democratic system. Would the revolution be a garanteed united front?
cheeseaura (August 27, 2008 at 4:30 am)
With The Constitution as the bedrock, that shouldn't be a question. While we might degenerate back into the classic left-right, our freedoms should be absolute, with the government restrained into a servant position as it was meant to be.

The only real question is "will we win." I want to believe that we will, but the general American consensus on the Russia-Georgia conflict is troubling.

We have quite a way to go reminding the people of what our good points used to be and very little timeleft
hughster41 (October 14, 2008 at 7:50 pm)
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". What part of this do you not understand. What other Amendment is about the goverments rights and not individual rights?