Yeti cuts ties with NRA

[Gman]

That’s my whole point.

What, that people are telling you to blow up your YETI?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

What, that people are telling you to blow up your YETI?

That people blowing up their YETIs are hurting YETI.
They're not, they're hurting themselves only. I think it is stupid personally, but if they feel so strongly to need to destroy, I certainly don't object.


My YETI is in no danger of me using tannerite on it.
Nor is my life membership to the NRA.

[Gman]

That people blowing up their YETIs are hurting YETI.
They're not, they're hurting themselves only. I think it is stupid personally, but if they feel so strongly to need to destroy, I certainly don't object.

Then I'm not sure why you seem to care so much about what the commenters on WaPo think about those destroying their own property.

I don't understand how some folks will put so much money into a Jeep or truck and then take it rock crawling and trash the hell out of it.

...but it's not my money, they're not hurting anyone, and I don't care what the readership of the Washington Post thinks about it.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

It isn't that I care so much, as some mild surprise that I agree with the WaPo commentors in this case, and that virtually never happens.
I think the folks doing it look absolutely terrible and I think it reflects poorly on us as a group.

This was shared by an extremely liberal friend of mine, with whom I almost never agree with on this kind of thing.

In this case, I don't agree with the top, but I do agree with the bottom.

[Gman]

I don't take ownership for what others do and don't give a damn about what some people perceive as "groups". If some nut shoots up innocent people with an AR-15, I don't feel any guilt as an AR-15 owner. That nut doesn't represent me. The same goes if some kook happens to run down people in the same make/model vehicle that I drive.

I think if someone buys targets and then puts holes in them, what's the big deal if it's paper or a YETI product? To ascribe someone's mental state based on their inanimate target selection is really 'messed up' in my opinion.

Those commenters at WaPo wouldn't come over to the 2A supporting side of the aisle if 'rednecks' weren't shooting their coolers. If you think they would, you're kidding yourself.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I don't take ownership for what others do and don't give a damn about what some people perceive as "groups".

That's cool. PACs do just that thing dividing us into groups and playing identity politics. Conservatives / libertarians / republicans tend to play right in and divide ourselves further, which only erodes our freedoms further.
You don't have to give a damn. I care, though.

To ascribe someone's mental state based on their inanimate target selection is really 'messed up' in my opinion.

Taken to an extreme, you get this: http://www.guns.com/2016/11/07/she-m...llary-targets/ which is really 'messed up' in mine.
Would you ascribe anything to this gentleman's mental state?

[Great-Kazoo]

That's cool. PACs do just that thing dividing us into groups and playing identity politics. Conservatives / libertarians / republicans tend to play right in and divide ourselves further, which only erodes our freedoms further.
You don't have to give a damn. I care, though.



Taken to an extreme, you get this: http://www.guns.com/2016/11/07/she-m...llary-targets/ which is really 'messed up' in mine.
Would you ascribe anything to this gentleman's mental state?

That's Darwin, not ones mental state. You or anyone else here NEVER done something you look back on and go. #$%^&* i could have been killed doing that.

Who cares what the wapo thinks or their comments section feels. As mentioned that rag wouldn't endorse ones Constitutional right unless they have something to gain from it. Which to date is mmmmm. Oh yeah the 1st. To them everything else is "open to interpretation"

[MrAK]

That's Darwin, not ones mental state. You or anyone else here NEVER done something you look back on and go. #$%^&* i could have been killed doing that.

Who cares what the wapo thinks or their comments section feels. As mentioned that rag wouldn't endorse ones Constitutional right unless they have something to gain from it. Which to date is mmmmm. Oh yeah the 1st. To them everything else is "open to interpretation"

I prefer dangerous (and sometimes idiotically excersized) freedom to peaceful slavery ( “safety” )

[Irving]

I think there is a spectrum of attention whoring. I don't think someone has a mental disorder because they do something and put it online. Of course, this is coming from the guy who starts countless DIY threads of total amateur projects. (Chicken coop coming soon. Hit subscribe and like this post!)

[Irving]

Some people just couldn't ever make their dad proud.