Author Guns  (Read 94179 times)

2 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2012, 07:14:57 AM »
Zero fatalities in both attacks in China... misrepresenting facts does not serve your argument.
You know it; I know it.   But experience in here tells me to expect no retraction--instead, most likely a doubling-down and repeating it-- from the poster I queried about that.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2012, 07:23:35 AM »
Yes, it is ironic. 
 
The Left has been using our freedom against us for decades, trying to take away our Liberty and install themselves as our rulers.  Of course when someone offers an opinion they don't like, they smear, ridicule, shout down, name call, sue, on and on.  And lie - they specialize in that. 



Ironic indeed.....

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2012, 07:41:48 AM »
I wonder if there's a Piers Morgan Sucks forum out there? There shouldn't be: he doesn't deserve the attention.


Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2012, 07:54:52 AM »
And speaking of ol' paranoid, repressed Larry Pratt:  I hope that any of you here who would defend or advocate for him against that mean, overbearing, fact-based Limey Morgan just hadn't seen Pratt in other venues, like when he was on "Hardball" a few days prior to going on with Morgan.   Unfortunately, I know some of you will think he was "right on" --
Chris Matthews tried to elicit from Pratt why he thought gun ownership was so critical; Pratt kept answering that guns "protect us from the government."   Matthews went to the heart of it, and posited (and this is near verbatim)--
    ...but it's not a coup d' etat you're worried about though, right?  It's a popularly elected government, like we have now, right?  If an election doesn't go your way, you go for the "second amendment remedy," like Sharon Angle said.
Pratt nodded and gave a deer-in-the-headlights "Yes."

Pratt and guys like him ought to be in prison for advocating the violent overthrow of the government.   The bastards want to be called "patriots" -- yeah, "patriotic" when they like the President and can feel (falsely) confident that their tax money is being spent only for what it's supposed to be spent on: killing people.   Otherwise, they see themselves as living under an "occupation government" that's deserving of being overthrown by a couple of dozen fat and/or mentally disturbed fools with Mini-14s.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2012, 08:37:39 AM »
Zero fatalities in both attacks in China. Piers Morgan is a tit but misrepresenting facts does not serve your argument.

Wait - I thought people kill, not guns. Starting to suspect it may be easier with a rifle and bulk ammunition but who knows.

Serious question to those here that feel the need to own multiple or high powered weapons and stock up on ammo: is it for fun, or what exactly are you preparing for? Are you anticipating a situation where you need vast firepower to protect your family? And if so, who's the enemy?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2012, 09:10:50 AM »
...Serious question to those here that feel the need to own multiple or high powered weapons and stock up on ammo: is it for fun, or what exactly are you preparing for? Are you anticipating a situation where you need vast firepower to protect your family? And if so, who's the enemy?
Two basic answers, that overlap for some people.

1) Larry Pratt admitted and I cited above:  the "occupation government" that in it's most general definition is the one whose Executive you didn't vote for; the specific characteristics of that person or people --political or personal--  that you find to be disqualifying are the general characteristics of who that "occupation government" is supposedly serving.
2) The Great Unspeakable: hordes of people who are ethno-socio-culturally Different Than You, who are coming to git ya and take the stuff that you think currently makes you superior to them.  If those things are material, they will rob them.   If those are your family's moral virtues --like female sexual chastity-- they will despoil them.   If those lie in your very being --like your racial identity-- they will negate them by killing you.   Supposedly.

To the extent that the "occupation government" is perceived to be serving the interests of these Hordes, or that people identified with such Hordes occupy positions of power and prestige within the "occupation government" (which in turn may be a reason you would not vote for a particular Executive), reasons (1) and (2) overlap because such action is by definition a threat to your superiority, and thus, as far as you are concerned, to your existence, period.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #36 on: December 26, 2012, 09:40:19 AM »
Not to go all ad hominem, but just to offer an observation by way of explanation for the Yorkshire pud:

In writing to Paper*Boy, understand that his use of "right / left" in a political sense is totally subjectively value-laden.   Like I was saying before, for him, "left" = "anything he doesn't like."  "Right" = "what he likes."   Thus, since he has more than amply documented that he hates the ground Obama walks on, no amount of evidence will ever prove to him that "Obama is a rightist," because that would be to admit that "Obama might not be Satan Incarnate."   As long as P*B or any similar right-winger hold the firm belief that they "hate Obama," then no matter what Obama objectively does and how 95% of the rest of humanity categorizes it, he will remain to those right-wingers a "leftist," because anything they do not like is a priori "leftist."
Very insightful.  I also find it very interesting that he loves to accuse others of lying (he has probably posted the same comment about Noory lying about reading Chariots of the Gods as a child dozens of times), yet has very little acquaintance with the truth himself.  Hates liars, lies himself.  Hates sweeping genreralisations, repeatedly generalizes.  Hates leftists, lives in San Francisco.  Hates foreigners, claims to travel a lot.  The dude is a hot mess.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #37 on: December 26, 2012, 11:30:54 AM »

Serious question to those here that feel the need to own multiple or high powered weapons and stock up on ammo: is it for fun, or what exactly are you preparing for? Are you anticipating a situation where you need vast firepower to protect your family? And if so, who's the enemy?
    I'm also endlessly amused by their concept of "the government turns into a tyranny"...as if said guv'mint would somehow allow itself to be dragged into door to door fighting with insurrectionists. Uh, if the guv'mint became this malevolent tyrannical entity, wouldn't they just use say...missiles,bombs,gases etc to level the areas where the uprisings are occurring? Those Bushmasters would be pretty futile against  battalions of tanks. In Philadelphia, May 13, 1985, MOVE had weapons(small arms) and got a bomb down their chimney(with a resultant fire that took out a city block) and of course, April 19, 1993 in Waco, that standoff ended in flames. The First Blood/Red Dawn fantasies are just that.
       

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #38 on: December 26, 2012, 02:08:53 PM »
    I'm also endlessly amused by their concept of "the government turns into a tyranny"...as if said guv'mint would somehow allow itself to be dragged into door to door fighting with insurrectionists...
Philadelphia, May 13, 1985, MOVE had weapons(small arms) and got a bomb down their chimney... April 19, 1993 in Waco, that standoff ended in flames...
The self-delusion on the Right is never ending.   They force this stuff to be feasible by convincing themselves that the guv'mint is pure evil BUT ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY totally incompetent, thus subject to defeat by a ragtag group of chickenhawks like them.
Very ironic that the one thing they think the Federal government SHOULD DO and does well is wage war-- yet they expect it will be incompetent when it comes after them.   If they are convinced that victory is possible because American troops won't really fire on them -- then what the hell are they scared of and stockpiling against??

Dig the pretzel logic of the survivalist / "patriot" / "prepper" types:

We need our guns to keep the illegitimate Federal government at bay!
Why are you afraid of the Feds?  What will they do to you?
They'll come and take our guns!
Oh-- you need your guns to keep the evil Feds from taking your guns..?  Why would the Feds come after your guns?
Man, they always target people like us!  Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge?
Yeah..?
Those folks were targeted because they had guns!
Okay, so-- you need guns to keep the Feds from coming and taking your guns, and they would want to do this because you have guns..?
EXACTLY!  Now you're catching on!
Okay, but what would happen if you just laid low and didn't stockpile guns?
Oh, man!!  Then they could just walk right over us and take the guns we did have without a fight!
What if you didn't have any guns for them to target or take?
Then we wouldn't be free!
Why wouldn't you be "free?"
'Cause the Feds could take our guns!
--or something--

Self-feeding, if not self-fulfilling, paranoia.   It's crazy.
And if they try to deny that they really plan to take on the "occupation government" --'cause, hey, we aren't stupid and/nor seditionists, right? -- the only other potential foe they are left with is the Hordes of Others.   And most of them are just hip enough to deny that because of it's wholesale racist ramifications.    Stockpiling guns and ammo but having just enough lucidity to feel the need to deny you actually plan to use them-- while also fervently telling yourself that these things you're stockpiling are somehow magically and solely keeping you safe from unacknowledged enemies.    It must suck to be in the grip of mass schizophrenia.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #39 on: December 26, 2012, 02:37:16 PM »
I've been out to a friend for a lot of today, and I see the topic has had some input. I'm grateful to Ben for explaining the raison d'Ítre of P*B, I haven't been here on this site long so wasn't immediately aware of the situation. I'd add to Eddie Coyles point by looking towards the middle east where in Syria the civil war being fought has the anti government militia using AK47's (arguably the finest machine gun ever made) and RPG's (and latterly support from the west) against Russian made armoured vehicles, helicopters and jet aircraft dropping ordinance. In the 'patriots' scenario, what exactly do they think they'll do? Die a hero? Woopeeedoo...Martyrs come and go.
I notice that P*B hasn't addressed many of the points and questions I asked; perhaps he's not sure?

Namely; When is the tipping point when too many schools are visited with a massacre? What pool of talent will these school armed guards be sourced from? Who will assess? And altough he was pedantic on the semi and fully automatic weaponry..Does it matter? Will a round from one hurt less than the other if it connects and tears your organs inside out?
Is he serious about teachers having weapons in school? I fear he is..

And can he please give a more specific definition as to what 'left' and 'right' are in a political sense..the reason I ask is because some of the examples he gave for 'left' were actually policies excercised by a certain Austrian, who rose from a  corporal in the German army and ended up being the reason why Britain declared war on Germany; after it's invasion of Poland. Chamberlain did that in 1939. Later the same year after the evacuation of Northern France by the army, we had the famous Battle of Britain..

   When the new Prime Minister declared with profound understatement after a visit to 11 group war room he emerged and said to Major General Hastings Ismay "Donít speak to me, I have never been so moved"  After several minutes of silence he said "Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few." The Prime Minister of course was Winston Churchill.  It was said in recognition of the few very brave, and very young (average age about 22) pilots who were literally the difference between certain invasion by the Germans in France, and survival...
     So P*B, when you talk of 'liberals', what is it you mean? The liberals like those young pilots who willingly flew several sorties a day against overwhelming odds; exhausted, they did it the next day, and the next, until they either got shot down or carried on. They were liberal; they were against fascism, the rule by fear. And yes, many millions of Americans and many other countries' soldiers, sailors and airmen and women were killed too..Not because they were right of left wing, but because they were fighting for a just cause..And they were not just identified on who they voted for and consequently smeared, ridiculed or judged.


Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #40 on: December 26, 2012, 05:17:49 PM »
When is the tipping point when too many schools are visited with a massacre? What pool of talent will these school armed guards be sourced from?

I've been thinking of this 'tipping point' after the Sandy Hook massacre. Do we really want a gun culture to completely permeate society, to the point that armed guards become as common as traffic lights? Back to the wild west? I would find that a sad place to live.

And although he was pedantic on the semi and fully automatic weaponry..Does it matter? Will a round from one hurt less than the other if it connects and tears your organs inside out?

Of course it doesn't. The fact that weapons were misclassified by media outlets makes no difference.

And can he please give a more specific definition as to what 'left' and 'right' are in a political sense..
when you talk of 'liberals', what is it you mean?

The liberals are often the first ones arrested or killed when a tyrant comes to power. You know, the big bad artists, professors, writers, and otherwise subversive types the right finds so dangerous to our republic.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #41 on: December 26, 2012, 05:28:32 PM »
You give us a lot to work with, Yorkshire pud.   I can't do justice to every line, so here I hit the points that jumped out to me.

When is the tipping point when too many schools are visited with a massacre? What pool of talent will these school armed guards be sourced from? Who will assess? ...Is he serious about teachers having weapons in school? I fear he is..
The tipping point will come when Republican legislators stop being afraid of the gun manufacturers' lobby.   Exactly how that will come about, I don't know.   I do know that it will probably require some overhaul of electoral politics.
The structure and process of modern American national-level politics (read: wholesale Republican-organized gerrymandering) mean that Republican members of the House of Representatives are essentially immune to general election challenge, and have to worry mainly about Primary-election challenges from the ever-farther-Right of their party.   For the increasingly old, increasingly rural "base" voters of that party -- the ones most likely to vote in Primaries-- "gun control" has for 40 years been a reliable Pavlovian bell to ring to get the partisan juices flowing.
These voters are convinced that civil rights for same-sex couples, or allowing women to decide with their physicians about personal health issues, or any restriction on these voters' potential to unleash lethal force at will via firearm are all insidious steps toward robbing them, the Republican "base," of some tangible form of social status.

For people like that, most forms of social change --and particularly those forms involving power relations (including power relations resulting from gun-holding) -- must be absolutely opposed as a matter of principle on the theory of the "slippery slope."   And people like that carry disproportionate weight in Republican Primary elections.   A few hundred or few thousand hard-core reactionaries per state can make Representative candidates run scared.   If those relative few are passionate about absolute gun rights, it's very likely that so will be the Republican ultimately elected-- regardless of the general sentiment among a state or district's total population.
Knowing this, gun manufacturers vociferously (if indirectly) publicize candidates' stated positions in regard to gun rights and laws, just as other interested parties make known candidates' positions on other hot-button issues-- and play the passionate and dead-earnest Primary voters like cheap fiddles.

Where will school guards come from?   Better to ask: who will pay for them?   "Conservative" voters and politicians are already trying to de-professionalize teachers, with an aim of drastically lowering their pay.   Will those same people now fund guards?   At any salary sufficient to hire true professional types?    Hell no.   Look who staffs the Transportation Safety Administration; that Bush-Era creation sold to the American populace on the basis that it was the only way to address a mortal, existential national threat.   Minimum-skill labor.   I cannot see "conservative" legislators or voters possibly doing any better for babysitting centers --excuse me, public schools.   You, YP, have already envisioned what will happen the first time one of these minimum-wage Warders gets into a firefight.

About directly arming teachers: in the days since the shooting in Connecticut, I've heard right-wing politicians and mouthpieces exhorting lawmakers to "let teachers carry guns."   I would be very fascinated to see exactly what percentage of serving teachers have been clamoring to be "let" to carry guns to school.   I'd be even more fascinated to see the right-wingers' reactions to the (I'm sure) rock-bottom percentage.
 
And can he please give a more specific definition as to what 'left' and 'right' are in a political sense..the reason I ask is because some of the examples he gave for 'left' were actually policies excercised by a certain Austrian, who rose from a  corporal in the German army and ended up being the reason why Britain declared war on Germany... 
Like I said earlier, Yorkshire pud, and you are really just reinforcing my point: P*B and others use "left" simply as a catch-all pejorative for anything socio-politically "problematic" or "offensive."  I give P*B credit for at least identifying some Nazi or Fascist factions/concepts as "bad" (if that's what you were referring to, YP) but notice how he identifies totally unrelated, dissimilar groups from history as "leftist."  He is so brainwashed on the meaning (or lack thereof) of the "directional political spectrum" that anything associated with excess, or "evil," or general negativity is automatically and necessarily --only-- "Leftist."   It's at least a mark of totally successful "negative branding" on the part of whatever right-wing media gurus he and others listen to or watch.

Off topic, but I dig your WW2 allusions/ references.   Not 1 person in 500 in the U.S. today could accurately explain why RAF Fighter Command --just fighter planes, no bombers; without destroying much or anything in the way of German naval or ground forces-- was in fact almost single-handedly responsible for preventing the potential massive German invasion (and inevitable rapid conquest) of England; and thus by extension, was responsible for --if not "winning the War in Europe"-- the War not dragging on until the Soviets alone could defeat the Germans on the ground (as they surely eventually would have).
--You folks remember it:  that 1941-45 German-Russian campaign; that possibly-most-brutal war ever fought, between those nations' political systems that --according to our pal Paper*Boy-- were identical "leftists!"

I notice that P*B hasn't addressed many of the points and questions I asked; perhaps he's not sure?   
Or taking time to get the talking points together and memorized.
One could be forgiven for imagining that P*B is an extrinsically-motivated actor in here.   He is on record as commenting to at least 2 specific posters that he is (essentially) not here to convince people who come at him with facts.   One could infer then from that that he is here to try to sway those without facts.   He is notably immune to repeated and multi-sourced fact barrages; holding out and repeating demonstrably false "talking points;" the die-hard flogging of the  Fox-"News"-created "you didn't build that" Obama non-scandal being a memorable example.
But lest I be thought picking on the guy: there are several notable Righties in here, YP, whose "socio-political personas" are as distinct and often as predictable as if they really were actors playing stereotyped roles.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #42 on: December 26, 2012, 05:38:58 PM »
Do we really want a gun culture to completely point that armed guards become as common as traffic lights? Back to the wild west? I would find that a sad place to live.
It would be so much easier and gratifying for the rest of us to just round up the "more guns = safer society" proponents and deport them to where they'd no doubt be so much happier:  Somalia.   They could live out their anarchic wet dreams until they freedomed themselves to death, or someone with more guns freedomed them first.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #43 on: December 26, 2012, 06:04:50 PM »
I don't profess to be wise and proficient in regards to several key political issues. Suffice to say that this particular issue re gun rights advocates and the immense fallout from the Sandy Hook tragedy has me riled up to to end. I shake my head at those who are out to crucify Piers Morgan and his high octane rant for implenting swift and severe gun control laws. How ironic, and utterly pathetic that the "uprising" against this man and the petition to deport him from US soil is the genesis of those who reside in a supposed democracy where free speech is supposedly the order of the day.

I as well would be most interested in learning why it is many Americans feel the need to stockpile weaponry and ammunition? Why? For what logical purpose is this a necessity for so many? Well, pardon me for my vulgarity, but in my humble opinion, these Billy the Kids and Annie Oakleys have bats in their bloody belfry.

I will not elaborate on several of my views, for Yorkshire Pud, Ben Shockley, and Pragmier have voiced them wonderfully. I will say that the whole gun worshipping mindset in America is one I find frightenly disturbing on many levels. The very fact that there is a call for teachers to be armed has me feeling that sense and sensibility has flown out the proverbial window. Teachers are educators, not trained militia. This "call to arms" for teachers is the cliff's figurative ledge of a very slippery slope. There is no rationale, no logic, no foresight present with this dangerous mindset.

I too am rather sick and tired of this tiresome "left versus right" pendulum. It is not about liberal versus conservative, left versus right. It is about the RIGHT and just and logical decisions which need to be made re gun control. That said, with all the guns already out there, this whole fiery debate is sadly akin to closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

Like him or not, respect him or not, Piers Morgan has every right to express his views, and I for one concur with them. I am reminded of the fire storm which erupted years back, when the Dixie Chicks voiced their negative opinion of George W. Bush whilst in London at their concert. The anger, outcry, and attack on these women from fellow Americans for simply expressing their opinion of the man made me sick and angered me to no end. Free speech is allowed, as long as you adhere to the mindset of the crowd?

To those who attack Morgan and wish for his deportation to the Tower of London, I have but one pearl of wisdom to impart. If he, like the Dixie Chicks and countless others who dare to speak up lost their civil rights (never mind Morgan is not a US citizen, but he is in America on a work permit)...if they lost their civil rights, then so has every other American. To reiterate - a slippery slope made more acutely lethal with applied soap and oil.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #44 on: December 26, 2012, 07:03:34 PM »


Like him or not, respect him or not, Piers Morgan has every right to express his views..

^this

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #45 on: December 26, 2012, 08:10:42 PM »
Very insightful.  I also find it very interesting that he loves to accuse others of lying (he has probably posted the same comment about Noory lying about reading Chariots of the Gods as a child dozens of times), yet has very little acquaintance with the truth himself.  Hates liars, lies himself.  Hates sweeping genreralisations, repeatedly generalizes.  Hates leftists, lives in San Francisco.  Hates foreigners, claims to travel a lot.  The dude is a hot mess.

Check out the responses, nothing like someone thinking they should be able to own a gun or to claim Liberal policies have a poor track record to get people riled up.
 
Anyway, good to see you back RCD, I know how much you enjoy reading some of my posts.  It's sort of funny how shocked you are that someone out there doesn't agree with you and how agitated you get.  I'd offer you the scroll down on the right to just pass mine by again, but you seem obsessed.
 
Anyway, to address your concerns.  I love that story about Noory 'devouring "Chariots of the Gods" as a young boy'.  It's just so Noory, a person that doesn't seem much interested in the show topics or who even seems to read at all claiming to have read that book years before it was published.
 
Yes I have lived in the SF Bay area my whole, post-college, adult life - I've had a front row seat watching and interacting with these peaceful, tolerent, enlightened, special people.  I see how tolerant of ideas they don't agree with they truly are and how they deal with people that dare disagree them.   Alinsky tactics the whole way.  And I've learned to do the same when attacked.  Me, I'm here for the weather, the open space, the beauty of the place, and yes the food and culture.   And there are some pretty great folks that live here too.  But I've also seen the place nearly completely wrecked by this one-party fascist group to the point it's now in serious decline.  The whole state is.  It's as sad as it was predictable yet avoidable.
 
Foreigners and traveling.  Traveling is great - lots of interesting people and places out there.  And the food.  One thing that always jumps out at me is how they just don't put up with the lazy bums sponging off everyone else to the extent we do here.  I'm also always surprised at the red tape and lack of freedom I encounter compared to here.  Now I've only been to Europe (and just Paris) a couple of times, and those were business trips, so I can't really speak much of traveling there.  I prefer Asia and Latin America anyway.  The people are great, whether they are here or back home.  Hard working, mostly peaceful, honest, friendly, doing their best - I'd love to swap our lazy violent dependent class for more of them.  I just don't like it much when a few come here and think they are supposed to be offended when we celebrate our holidays and such. 
 
Bye for now RCD, please write back.
 
 
There have been tons of other comments, some mentioning me..
 
Zero fatalities in both attacks in China...

Looking again, that is true.  Shouldn't have made the assumption.  But a determined person with a knife or car instead of a gun can still do a lot of damage.  We need to do a better job of reaching those people.
 
    I'm also endlessly amused by their concept of "the government turns into a tyranny"...as if said guv'mint would somehow allow itself to be dragged into door to door fighting with insurrectionists. Uh, if the guv'mint became this malevolent tyrannical entity, wouldn't they just use say...missiles,bombs,gases etc to level the areas where the uprisings are occurring?...       

The thing about guns is the deterrent.  An armed population makes the tyrant as well as the criminal think twice.  As one scenario, let's say some president decided he wasn't going to leave after he was termed out or lost an election, and also that the media and majorities of his party controlling the Congress sided with him.  Everyone in all branches of the military would likely not go along, they wouldn't have the ability to level the entire country the way they did those few blocks in Philadelphia or Waco, and an armed population would be instrumental in ending the coup.  To the point the plan probably wouldn't even go into effect.
 
But I'm really more about the right to self defense than some futuristic need to vanquish a rogue govt.
 
Take a look at the world around us though.  Just this year how many tyrants in the Mid-East were toppled by people, some with guns.  Someone else made light of the freedom fighters in Syria, but they will oust Assad, and sooner rather than later.  With guns.  I don't like the governements that have taken root in the aftermath of this, but that isn't the point.  Some time, these new tyrants will also get the boot from an armed citizenry.
 
 
The self-delusion on the Right is never ending.   They force this stuff to be feasible by convincing themselves that the guv'mint is pure evil BUT ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY totally incompetent, thus subject to defeat by a ragtag group of chickenhawks like them...
... Dig the pretzel logic of the survivalist / "patriot" / "prepper" types...


I'm not sure anyone is saying any of that.  But you are as stident as usual
 
 
... I notice that P*B hasn't addressed many of the points and questions I asked; perhaps he's not sure?


Namely; When is the tipping point when too many schools are visited with a massacre? What pool of talent will these school armed guards be sourced from? Who will assess? And altough he was pedantic on the semi and fully automatic weaponry..Does it matter? Will a round from one hurt less than the other if it connects and tears your organs inside out?

Is he serious about teachers having weapons in school? I fear he is.


And can he please give a more specific definition as to what 'left' and 'right' are in a political sense...
 
... So P*B, when you talk of 'liberals', what is it you mean?...

Oh, sorry.  I thought I'd been clear on this.
 
The idea a gun may be there is enough of a deterrent in nearly all cases.  No one has attacked the school Obama's kids go to for example.  Yes, teachers and principals that want to go through a course and carry should be able to.  If they shouldn't be trusted to handle firearms, they probably shouldn't be in the school anyway.
 
Does fully vs semi-automatic matter?  Really?  You don't think there is a difference between one sqeeze per bullet vs an unending burst of bullets as long as the trigger is pulled makes a difference?  Sheesh.  If it doesn't matter and a bullet is a bullet, why the proposed ban on just certain guns instead of all guns?
 
Left vs right:  again, the bigger the government one favors the more to the left they are.  An all powerfull govt dictating everything with no freedom is furthest Left.  Technically, anarchists - no govt at all - are furthest right.  But we do need govt for some things, a small minimalist govt is preferred.  Just like the one described in our US Constitution.
 
Liberals?  They people are not The Left, in that they mean well.  They mostly form political opinions based on emotions and want to make everything 'fair' - not understanding everyone has a different amount of ambition, talent, perseverence, etc.  They also don't look at history and realize their utopia is impossible and trying to get there by force won't work.  They never look back to see the havoc their policie have caused.  They are misguided and easily led by The Left, who do NOT mean well.  Liberals in politics are easy to spot - first off, other than a few running in 'safe seats', few Libs actually run as Libs, they claim to be 'moderates', or 'fiscal' Conservatives, they claim to want to 'reach across the aisle' and 'compromise'.  Once elected they aren't interested in any of these things.
 
 
...Like him or not, respect him or not, Piers Morgan has every right to express his views... I am reminded of the fire storm which erupted years back, when the Dixie Chicks voiced their negative opinion of George W. Bush whilst in London at their concert. The anger, outcry, and attack on these women from fellow Americans for simply expressing their opinion ...

Yes they are entitled to that.  And the rest of us are fully within our rights to ask CNN to get rid of this guy, and to critize the Dixie Chicks, not buy their records and not go to their shows.  Freedom to express an opinion, or react to one, works both ways. 
 
It's just that the Conservatives typically don't rise up as a group and demonstrate or denounce someone for something they said so it seems strange when they do - but the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, whatever you want to call them, do it all the time.  So the Conservatives don't like the Dixie Chicks or this Piers person.  I can name any amount of people the Libs have attacked over the years - sometimes they even bring whistles to campus lectures so the person that was invited to speak, but that they disagree with, can't even speak.  When to the Conservatives act like this?
 
Or how about the reaction to the Tea Party.  It was simply offensive to the Dems, Libs, and Leftists that the other side dared gather and rally and protest, yet, again, they do it all the time - they simply claim this solely for themselves.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #46 on: December 26, 2012, 08:27:17 PM »
the NRA is just as whacked as PETA. All activist organizations keep the donations coming in by pandering to their base. It is just the NRA is much better at pandering. We are all more afraid of some ethereal rapist coming in to steal our virtues than we are from cutting the beak off of caged chickens.

The cynical side of me thinks the NRA paid Piers to say that so the members of the NRA could be led once again to rally for gun rights.


Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #47 on: December 27, 2012, 12:01:00 AM »
I prefer that people to be trained to use guns or with any other types of firearms. I perfer that mental ill people not to have access and own firearms. That is the problem the shooter at the school had mental problems and the "batman movie" also had problems. The high school shooting back in 1999 the shooters also had problems too. so my idea is not to ban guns or rifles but mental ill people from getting any types of weapons systems.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2012, 03:55:41 AM »
This will be interesting I thiink...I'll respond to most points made...and Precis the ones that have no bearing.


 Yes I have lived in the SF Bay area my whole, post-college, adult life...

All happened before I joined the site, so cannot add, nor relevant to the following;


Quote
Foreigners and traveling.  Traveling is great - lots of interesting people and places out there.  And the food.  One thing that always jumps out at me is how they just don't put up with the lazy bums sponging off everyone else to the extent we do here.  I'm also always surprised at the red tape and lack of freedom I encounter compared to here.  Now I've only been to Europe (and just Paris) a couple of times, and those were business trips, so I can't really speak much of traveling there.

Okay, you're at a disadvantage for a start. Without going into a comprehensive and lengthy diatribe about French administration I'll keep it short and simple.

France is treated with barely disguised contempt by many in Britain and Germany. As a country they are a bureaucratic nightmare; like you'd never believe. Even the French don't get why it is so! Yes they are a seen as a lazy bunch of freeloaders by both Britain and Germany..As you're probably aware the (as was, common market, now European Union) was set up after the second world war..many believe that De Gualle liked the idea because it put France at a distinct advantage over the original member countries (UK didn't join until the 70's). France's prinicple industry is agriculture, they have a little engineering, but not a lot. Certainly nowhere near as much as Germany or the UK (even though the UK's engineering core is far less than it used to be).

France's red tape is ludicrous to biblical proportions. For example if I wanted to take a photo of the Eifel tower, that famous Paris landmark, and place it in a French owned magazine. I couldn't.. Unless I paid royalties to the local department that it's jurisdiction falls under; the electricity engineers who maintain the lights on it; anyone who was identified ; anyone who had any commercial interest in the tower. The paperwork woould never end..and the rewards so low it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

France isn't Europe though..Paris isn't representitive of France, although it's the capital. And as you've probably only seen it on business trips from the inside of a taxi, hotel room, departure lounge and the clients offices, it isn't exactly 'travel' is it?
I haven't been to many countries really, and mainly holidays..Kenya, three times, USA, once, Maldives, once, France Germany, Netherlands, Italy, UEA, Cuba. In no particular order.
Quote
Looking again, that is true.  Shouldn't have made the assumption.  But a determined person with a knife or car instead of a gun can still do a lot of damage.  We need to do a better job of reaching those people.

Shoot them?
 
Quote
The thing about guns is the deterrent.  An armed population makes the tyrant as well as the criminal think twice.
Can you cite examples where that is so?

Quote
As one scenario, let's say some president decided he wasn't going to leave after he was termed out or lost an election, and also that the media and majorities of his party controlling the Congress sided with him.  Everyone in all branches of the military would likely not go along, they wouldn't have the ability to level the entire country the way they did those few blocks in Philadelphia or Waco, and an armed population would be instrumental in ending the coup.  To the point the plan probably wouldn't even go into effect.

I'm struggling with this; what evidence do you have historically or currently whereby a sitting president of the USA has failed to move out when he's lost the election or at the end of his two year term?
 
Quote
But I'm really more about the right to self defense than some futuristic need to vanquish a rogue govt.
 
A futeristic need with a presumably futeristic set of toys to play with....And self defence against another person who is armed to the teeth because they're defending themselves.....oh yeah...
Quote
Take a look at the world around us though.  Just this year how many tyrants in the Mid-East were toppled by people, some with guns. 

In round figures? None. Libya, Egypt, Tunisa, and currently Syria have had massive input from the west but mainly other arab states concious of their own vulnerbility. The people may have all got loud and revolutionary (Incidentally, that is a 'left' kind of thing,,revolution, the people rising against the incumbant dictator or monarch-see also Russia, France, Spain, certain African countries, and what do you know...The USA!), but the underlying muscle, intelligence and strategy was imported.


Quote
Someone else made light of the freedom fighters in Syria, but they will oust Assad, and sooner rather than later.  With guns.  I don't like the governements that have taken root in the aftermath of this, but that isn't the point.  Some time, these new tyrants will also get the boot from an armed citizenry.


A couple of points: I didn't 'make light' of any thing...It's a dreadful thing happening over there..and it's interesting you call them freedom fighters; are the Taleban in Afghanistan freedom fighters also? Repelling an invading force? And what do you think (back to Syria) will happen when the armed citizens do eventually take over from Assan? Show us your deep understanding of the outside world and furnish us with your wisdom...I'm seriously keen to find out this one. Then I'll give my opinion of what I think will happen.
 
 
Quote

The idea a gun may be there is enough of a deterrent in nearly all cases.  No one has attacked the school Obama's kids go to for example. 

Nearly all? You're sure of that? Columbine...had an armed guard..VA Tech had it's own police force, also armed! Yoou keep bringing up Obama's kids..and myself and others have tried to explain why and also their probable qualifications and professionalism. Is it just Obama you have a beef about, or do you have a thing of any Presidents kids school having protection?
Quote
Yes, teachers and principals that want to go through a course and carry should be able to.  If they shouldn't be trusted to handle firearms, they probably shouldn't be in the school anyway.

I thought this was a sick joke; but you're serious aren't you?
You're right; a teacher not able to handle a weapon shouldn't be teaching. They're clearly not intelligent enough...Hey, so why not give the weapon to a rayban and cammo wearing 'survivor' who feasts, talks and thinks on shit? Well, he would, but his vocabulary doesn't stretch that far...Oh wait, that might mean he's not intelligent enough to use a weapon...No!! Oh boy I resent this logic...it's soooo inconvenient.


As you're clearly one of the hard of thinking, and frighteningly actually believe what little thinking you do, I'll try to explain in simple terms.

Professional soldiers train hard, regularly..(You did read my synopsis of the SF soldiers/Body guard training didn't you?)
When is a teacher who is supposed to be the school rambo fit the intense training into teaching and teaching preperation..Quite apart from (I know Ben, I know..It shouldn't need saying but I'll make an exception for P*B) the prospect of a teacher facing their own student; Now yoou're going too say "well u hu, they'll go into protect mode and shoot the MF"...Probably not. They'll face a kid who they've known many years, may even go to the kids parents for dinner, or as in the case of the Newtown shooting, work with his mother. You don't really think things through much do you P*B? Please don't go into a meeting where all possibilities are discussed, you'll look silly.

Quote
Does fully vs semi-automatic matter?  Really?  You don't think there is a difference between one sqeeze per bullet vs an unending burst of bullets as long as the trigger is pulled makes a difference?  Sheesh.  If it doesn't matter and a bullet is a bullet, why the proposed ban on just certain guns instead of all guns?

I agree for once. I'd ban all guns. I'm glad we're on common ground.
 
Quote
Left vs right:  again, the bigger the government one favors the more to the left they are.  An all powerfull govt dictating everything with no freedom is furthest Left.  Technically, anarchists - no govt at all - are furthest right.  But we do need govt for some things, a small minimalist govt is preferred.  Just like the one described in our US Constitution.


See comments passim...
 
Quote
Liberals?  They people are not The Left, in that they mean well.  They mostly form political opinions based on emotions and want to make everything 'fair' - not understanding everyone has a different amount of ambition, talent, perseverence, etc.  They also don't look at history and realize their utopia is impossible and trying to get there by force won't work.
There are truly heroic people, who you're not fit to tie the boot laces of, who were liberal. The lads who gave their lives in WW2 were 'liberal'..wanting a decent world to live in. They wanted a fair world, is that too much to ask? Are you suggesting they were deluded idiots?

Quote
   
Yes they are entitled to that.  And the rest of us are fully within our rights to ask CNN to get rid of this guy, and to critize the Dixie Chicks, not buy their records and not go to their shows.  Freedom to express an opinion, or react to one, works both ways. 
 
Re: Dixie Chicks, Hmmm, but it had the opposite effect didn't it? Galvanised, they concentrated their anger and frustration and made a hit recoord! In many ways, it put them on the map in the UK. All because they expressed an opinion contrary to what the fascists had. Sure, ask CNN to get rid of Piers Morgan; then you can slap the other fat headed rambos on the back and look for someone else to persecute...Jeeze, that has to get at least a small hard on, doesn't it?

Quote
It's just that the Conservatives typically don't rise up as a group and demonstrate or denounce someone for something they said so it seems strange when they do - but the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, whatever you want to call them, do it all the time.  So the Conservatives don't like the Dixie Chicks or this Piers person.  I can name any amount of people the Libs have attacked over the years - sometimes they even bring whistles to campus lectures so the person that was invited to speak, but that they disagree with, can't even speak.  When to the Conservatives act like this?

Oh, when they mobilise the military to invade countries (In any other case it would be an act of war) ; destroy it's economy, install it's own patsy leader, rape the resources, install a military base and sit back to watch the ensuing genocide...I agree, it isn't close to the desruption placades and a few choice chants can generate, but hey, you use the rescources you have to hand.
 
Quote
Or how about the reaction to the Tea Party.  It was simply offensive to the Dems, Libs, and Leftists that the other side dared gather and rally and protest, yet, again, they do it all the time - they simply claim this solely for themselves.

Oh, and the fact the Tea party is almost wholly financed by the Koch brothers; the very capitalist 'NWO' bogey men the Tea party was, erm, demonstrating against... I know, you can't make it up can you?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #49 on: December 27, 2012, 10:59:51 PM »
A couple of points: I didn't 'make light' of any thing...It's a dreadful thing happening over there..and it's interesting you call them freedom fighters; are the Taleban in Afghanistan freedom fighters also? Repelling an invading force? And what do you think (back to Syria) will happen when the armed citizens do eventually take over from Assan? Show us your deep understanding of the outside world and furnish us with your wisdom...I'm seriously keen to find out this one. Then I'll give my opinion of what I think will happen...

Yes, the Taliban are Freedom Fighters in that they are trying to oust an invading force.  That their government was horrible and that the US is well meaning (yet clumsy) doesn't change that.  George W Bush and his friends blundered badly (or were willfully stupid, if not criminal) by invading in the first place.  And by setting up a new corrupt dictator, and all the rest.  The Talibs were just about ready to hand bin-Laden over, but the Neo-Cons wanted war.  Invading Iraq was a massive irresponsible mistake as well.
 
The Talibs were one of many fighting forces that comprised the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets.  They were the ones that emerged as the strongest and grabbed power after the Soviets left.  As of 9/11 they hadn't completely taken all of Afgaistan and were still fighting a group called the Northern Alliance (interestingly, they assassinated their leader just a few days before 9/11).  They were also hosting fellow radicals al-Qaeda, who had been kicked out of The Sudan, but were not really all that involved with them.  I'd guess 9/11 caught the Taliban offguard.
 
The Syrians will oust Assad.  And then have a worse govt than before, just like Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt.  Their are only 2 types of groups in the Arab Mid-East capable of holding power - military dictators/kings, and jihadists.  The educated middle class and business classes are trapped with no power.
 
 
 
... I thought this was a sick joke; but you're serious aren't you?

You're right; a teacher not able to handle a weapon shouldn't be teaching. They're clearly not intelligent enough...Hey, so why not give the weapon to a rayban and cammo wearing 'survivor' who feasts, talks and thinks on shit? Well, he would, but his vocabulary doesn't stretch that far...Oh wait, that might mean he's not intelligent enough to use a weapon...No!! Oh boy I resent this logic...it's soooo inconvenient.


.

Professional soldiers train hard, regularly..(You did read my synopsis of the SF soldiers/Body guard training didn't you?)

When is a teacher who is supposed to be the school rambo fit the intense training into teaching and teaching preperation..Quite apart from (I know Ben, I know..It shouldn't need saying but I'll make an exception for P*B) the prospect of a teacher facing their own student; Now yoou're going too say "well u hu, they'll go into protect mode and shoot the MF"...Probably not. They'll face a kid who they've known many years, may even go to the kids parents for dinner, or as in the case of the Newtown shooting, work with his mother. You don't really think things through much do you P*B? Please don't go into a meeting where all possibilities are discussed, you'll look silly.

 
People that own guns practice regularly as well.  They make decisions ahead of time whether they will shoot or not shoot under certain circumstances, so they don't 'freeze' at the wrong time (i.e., will I shoot a home intruder?  what if it's a teenager?, etc). 
 

You make it sound like I think teachers should be made to carry weapons etc.  No, I think it should be a choice available to them.  Big difference.
 
I've proposed that just the idea that some people in schools may have access to guns and the training to use them will provide a deterrent that will cause nearly all these school shooter cowards to reconsider and not make plans and go shoot up a school in the first place.  I don't know what you don't understand about guns being a deterrence, but you just go right back to your original comments. 
 
'Deterrence' may be one of those words you don't have in common with American English, so I won't trouble you with it again.
 
 
... There are truly heroic people, who you're not fit to tie the boot laces of, who were liberal. The lads who gave their lives in WW2 were 'liberal'..wanting a decent world to live in. They wanted a fair world, is that too much to ask? Are you suggesting they were deluded idiots?

Re: Dixie Chicks, Hmmm, but it had the opposite effect didn't it? Galvanised, they concentrated their anger and frustration and made a hit recoord! In many ways, it put them on the map in the UK. All because they expressed an opinion contrary to what the fascists had. Sure, ask CNN to get rid of Piers Morgan; then you can slap the other fat headed rambos on the back and look for someone else to persecute...Jeeze, that has to get at least a small hard on, doesn't it?...

The term 'Liberal' today does not have the same meaning as it did in 1776, or 1942, or 1960.   The people using it the past few decades have so discredited the term with their failed policies that they've dumped the it and now use 'Progressive'.  These people were a tiny minority in the decades before the 1970s, and are now basically a new group on the scene who have taken over the Democratic Party.  Their policies are not those of the Liberals of the past, although they give lip service to those older policies.
 
JFK was a leading Liberal of his day.  If he were around today, he'd have more in common with Conservatives than with modern day Liberals/Progressives.
 
I'd never heard of the Dixie Chicks before their comments, and don't know their music.  I think it's in bad form to go outside our country and criticize the President.  What likely happened was they heard other bands routinely badmouth Bush and the Republicans with no repercussions, and thought it would be fun to do the same.  They were too stupid to realize that wasn't going to be too popular with their fans.  Country music fans are not the same as rock fans, and they got burned because of it.  I don't care about the DC's either way, just responded to what another poster commented on.
 
 
 
... Oh, when they mobilise the military to invade countries (In any other case it would be an act of war) ; destroy it's economy, install it's own patsy leader, rape the resources, install a military base and sit back to watch the ensuing genocide...I agree, it isn't close to the desruption placades and a few choice chants can generate, but hey, you use the rescources you have to hand...

I'm not in favor of that either.  Bush was a terrible President.  Our system with a separate executive branch is different from your Parlimentary system, obviously.  The way the President is elected caused us to have basically a 2 party winner take all system instead of a multi-party system with coalitions that the Parlimentary systems encourage.  So many differing ideas are found in each of the 2 parties here.  The Democrats as of today are mostly'Progressives', but not all are.  The Republicans are mostly split maybe 60-40 between the Establishment types and the Conservative Tea Party types.  As of now the Establishment R's run the party, and have for decades.  So please consider that when a Bush or a Romney come along we Conservatives are stuck supporting them, but have major disagreements.  Or when the Rs put other policies through, realize not all Rs agree with them, The Ds are better about all agreeing with each other.  Unfortunately, the Conservatives also have our share of yokels as well.  Still, better than the highly destructive D's.
 
 
 
... Oh, and the fact the Tea party is almost wholly financed by the Koch brothers; the very capitalist 'NWO' bogey men the Tea party was, erm, demonstrating against... I know, you can't make it up can you?

Well, I'm not so sure they are being 'financed' by the Koch Brothers - that sounds like a bit of Leftist propaganda to me, although I'd imagine the Koch Brothers are involved as they are Conservatives.  But I'll take them any day over former Nazi collaberator and Wall Street currency manipulator George Soros, who really is financing much of the Left.
 
It's funny how there are so many Leftist groups routinely putting on demonstrations, tearing things up, burning and looting, but when the Conservatives finally gather to express themselves - and DON'T loot, burn, tear things up, or attack police - the Media and the Democrats just get absolutely hysterical.  How dare someone else use their Alinsky tactics.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #50 on: December 27, 2012, 11:02:05 PM »
the NRA is just as whacked as PETA. All activist organizations keep the donations coming in by pandering to their base. It is just the NRA is much better at pandering. We are all more afraid of some ethereal rapist coming in to steal our virtues than we are from cutting the beak off of caged chickens.

The cynical side of me thinks the NRA paid Piers to say that so the members of the NRA could be led once again to rally for gun rights.

I'd say a better comparison is the NRA and the ACLU. 

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #51 on: December 28, 2012, 04:10:22 AM »

 
The Syrians will oust Assad.  And then have a worse govt than before, just like Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt.  Their are only 2 types of groups in the Arab Mid-East capable of holding power - military dictators/kings, and jihadists.  The educated middle class and business classes are trapped with no power.


Oh it's worse than that Jim; it will go tribal. Once there's no longer a common enemy, they'll have a real civil war with several factions. All of them armed along similar lines..It's the reason the UK and the US haven't declared an official alliance, and have instead repeatedly pleaded and tried to cajoule Assan to go...As they're all armed though, it will be a safer place...
 
 
Quote
People that own guns practice regularly as well.  They make decisions ahead of time whether they will shoot or not shoot under certain circumstances, so they don't 'freeze' at the wrong time (i.e., will I shoot a home intruder?  what if it's a teenager?, etc). 
 

How often is regularly? How many undergo CQB training? How many train with real training protocols as used by SF troops? You haven't a clue what you're talking about. 'Freeze' at the wrong time will be fatal, because whilst they're deciding in the half second whether to drop the teenager pointing a weapon at them, they're already the first casualty.

Quote
You make it sound like I think teachers should be made to carry weapons etc.  No, I think it should be a choice available to them.  Big difference.
 

And when do these 'volunteers' fit in teaching preparation, teaching, and weapon training, trauma management training, and the rest of their lives into 24 hours? I for one would not want my child attending a school which had teachers with weapons.

Quote
I've proposed that just the idea that some people in schools may have access to guns and the training to use them will provide a deterrent that will cause nearly all these school shooter cowards to reconsider and not make plans and go shoot up a school in the first place.  I don't know what you don't understand about guns being a deterrence, but you just go right back to your original comments. 

But it's proven time and time again, that it isn't a deterrent. I go back to it, because I'm backing my comments up with evidence that armed guards don't deter gunmen..I've posted examples (Columbine, VA Tech), that you haven't yet refuted.
 
Quote
'Deterrence' may be one of those words you don't have in common with American English, so I won't trouble you with it again.


No need to patronise my understanding of English, considering we exported it: It's just that you seem to struggle with it's definition. Deter= Put off, shy away from....No evidence at US school shootings that armed guards deterred the ensuing massacre.
 
Quote
The term 'Liberal' today does not have the same meaning as it did in 1776, or 1942, or 1960.

Really? Odd that, I know what it means, and probably the same as those who used it from the above dates too.

Quote
  The people using it the past few decades have so discredited the term with their failed policies that they've dumped the it and now use 'Progressive'.  These people were a tiny minority in the decades before the 1970s, and are now basically a new group on the scene who have taken over the Democratic Party.  Their policies are not those of the Liberals of the past, although they give lip service to those older policies.
 
JFK was a leading Liberal of his day.  If he were around today, he'd have more in common with Conservatives than with modern day Liberals/Progressives.

Start a campaign then..'resurrect the true meaning of 'liberal'...Free that liberal seed, let it grow...Embrace liberalism!

Quote

I'd never heard of the Dixie Chicks before their comments, and don't know their music.  I think it's in bad form to go outside our country and criticize the President.
So you're not a big lover of free speech after all then? What difference dooes it make that they were in another country? They just happened to be in the UK when they responded (They were on a tour)..From Wiki:

During a London concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said, "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States [George W. Bush] is from Texas". The positive reaction to this statement from the British audience contrasted with the boycotts that ensued in the U.S., where "the band was assaulted by talk-show conservatives*", while their albums were discarded in public protest.

In other words they were excercising their opinion, that Bush being a fellow Texan was a disgrace to them.

Here's a quote from someone who was far more scathing and some might say offensive than the Dixie Chicks..

Quote
George W Bush and his friends blundered badly (or were willfully stupid, if not criminal) by invading in the first place.  And by setting up a new corrupt dictator, and all the rest.  The Talibs were just about ready to hand bin-Laden over, but the Neo-Cons wanted war.  Invading Iraq was a massive irresponsible mistake as well.

Oh, that would be you.... * Don't worry, I won't tell any talk show cons what you said...promise. I wouldn't want you to recieve the insane vitriol they did.

Quote
What likely happened was they heard other bands routinely badmouth Bush and the Republicans with no repercussions, and thought it would be fun to do the same. 

I see, so badmouthing Obama is all fine and dandy? The attempt to impeach Clinton by an ego driven lawyer bacuse Clinton had an affair wasn't vindictive? Ted Nugent making idle threats if/when Obama getting back into office was rational? 

Quote
They were too stupid to realize that wasn't going to be too popular with their fans.

Oh, I've heard several interviews with the Dixie Chicks, and stupid, they're not..They're articulate and are very aware of what goes on..They weren't that stupid to write a song later that had far more impact than ranting ever did.

This is what someone said in a letter to them, and it's in the lyric..
"wrote me a letter sayin that I better shut-up and sing or my LIFE will be over"

 Yep...don't you love free speech?

This is what they had to say..



Quote
Country music fans are not the same as rock fans, and they got burned because of it.  I don't care about the DC's either way, just responded to what another poster commented on.
 

Why do you have to pigeon hole people? They didn't 'get burned'..They went away in 2008 to raise familes..THREE years after this song.
 
Quote

Well, I'm not so sure they are being 'financed' by the Koch Brothers -

Yes they are...

Quote
that sounds like a bit of Leftist propaganda to me,
No it isn't...but I can understand why you'd default to 'leftist propaganda'.

Quote
although I'd imagine the Koch Brothers are involved as they are Conservatives.  But I'll take them any day over former Nazi collaberator and Wall Street currency manipulator George Soros, who really is financing much of the Left.
 
It's funny how there are so many Leftist groups routinely putting on demonstrations, tearing things up, burning and looting, but when the Conservatives finally gather to express themselves - and DON'T loot, burn, tear things up, or attack police - the Media and the Democrats just get absolutely hysterical.  How dare someone else use their Alinsky tactics.

As I said..your blinkered view 'forgets' the damage your beloved conservatives do engage in.. Such as asset stripping, both in yours, mine and other countries...engineering wars, resource raping...etc ... Interesting you mention the media backing up the Democrats: would that be the same media who between them, wound themselves into a collective fury when Obama was re-elected? Yes, I think it might be!

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #52 on: December 28, 2012, 04:12:29 AM »

I'd say a better comparison is the NRA and the ACLU.


But one as whacked as the other?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #53 on: December 28, 2012, 10:29:11 AM »

But one as whacked as the other?

I dunno. But I do find it instructive that even in the midst of a massive media offensive against it the NRA is a good deal more popular and trustworthy than the news media: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159578/nra-favorable-image.aspx

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #54 on: December 28, 2012, 11:02:48 AM »
      I've been involved in statistical analysis in the past; and to put it into context if you asked a 1000 pilots if they ranked the CAA (Civil aviation authority--UK version of FAA) you'd get a similar figure-with the same margain of error +/- 4%. The CAA is misnomered by some as the 'Campaign against aviation', but is there for the administration of airspace and enforcment of the ANO (Air Navigation Order), Sky equivalant of road traffic regulations. So you'd expect close to 100% of pilots favouring the CAA..nope!

In a country where owning a gun is as commonplace as it is (USA); in the current highly charged and emotive subject of a mass killing in a school (with previous equally dreadful events); fueled also by the Alex Jones's and similar, I'm surprised that it returned 54%; I'm surprised it isn't higher. I wonder what the result would be if they'd asked the parents of school kids who'd been murdered?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #55 on: December 28, 2012, 12:44:28 PM »
I dunno. But I do find it instructive that even in the midst of a massive media offensive against it the NRA is a good deal more popular and trustworthy than the news media: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159578/nra-favorable-image.aspx

It is easy to be popular when the position is weighted with euphemisms. Gun ownership is a very complicated issue. I spend a good deal of time on a few gun forums... trust me there isn't a wealth of insight there. As you well know Sardoni, most people don't do a great deal of deep thinking.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #56 on: December 28, 2012, 12:48:10 PM »
     

In a country where owning a gun is as commonplace as it is (USA); in the current highly charged and emotive subject of a mass killing in a school (with previous equally dreadful events); fueled also by the Alex Jones's and similar, I'm surprised that it returned 54%; I'm surprised it isn't higher. I wonder what the result would be if they'd asked the parents of school kids who'd been murdered?
          Given the odds of that likelihood increasing, seemingly by the week, you may not have to wonder all that long. What's pathetic is how the USA learned little from Dunblane. Our notable school massacres have taken place following the horror that occurred in Scotland in March,1996. Actually, our school mass murders seemed to increase in 1997.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #57 on: December 28, 2012, 01:37:59 PM »
          Given the odds of that likelihood increasing, seemingly by the week, you may not have to wonder all that long. What's pathetic is how the USA learned little from Dunblane. Our notable school massacres have taken place following the horror that occurred in Scotland in March,1996. Actually, our school mass murders seemed to increase in 1997.

As you're obviously familiar with that terrible event, you can imagine how it was pretty much the '"can you remember what you were doing/where you were when you heard about....?" for a long time later. Even now, I think back and my eyes sting, reminding me how I openly wept when the full impact of what happened then sank in..I was 33 years old, married with a 6 year old step daughter. Although I loath the man; Tony Blair said something in the Commons (he at the time was leader of the oppostion-John Major was PM)-I'm paraphrasing "Which parents amongst us, didn't hold our children just a little bit closer and tighter". We looked at our daughter, and it's at times like that you realise how very precious they are.

The sorrow and bewilderment I and others like me felt, wouldn't be close to the unimaginable devastation and emptiness suffered by the parents and familes of the victims. One of the doctors on duty at the local hospital receiving the casualties saw her own lifeless daughter come in on a stretcher.

This all made way for the anger; the questions that had to be asked. Why? What possessed some creature to do this? Why was it allowed to happen? Why was it this odious thing, that had several recommendations to not have his licence renewed was subsequently allowed to? The Chief constable overturned the recommendations. Why? Well, we'll never know, because a 100 year embargo on any background and information to the case was imposed.

After that the rest is history; although we had many gun owners/shooting clubs protest, legislation was passed for it to be illegal to be in possession of any handguns. More stringent controls also were imposed for rifles/shotguns and shooting clubs. Even the Olympic shooting teams have to train abroad with handguns. The civilian ownership and use of semi and fully automatic weapons is illegal. As I said in previous posts, we do have police armed response teams, and if they get it wrong there is hell to pay. Can you imagine if an armed teacher got it wrong? What would the NRA have to say then?

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2012, 02:43:11 PM »
 
      Yorkshire,for most of the public "over here", Dunblane and Port Arthur Massacre were blips on the radar in '96 , being covered largely on the day of said massacre, and then being pushed aside by the mainstream media, and only emerging afterwards when conspiracy theorists point to those events as being false flags for "gun-grabbing". We suffer from something much worse than an a "can't happen here" attitude, ours is "can't happen here...because I'll shoot the son of a bitch first". That's the stock answer, and why wouldn't it be in this Gunfighter Nation? Sadly, I can't see it changing. Our "gun-free zone" cities like DC or Chicago have sky high murder rates.

            If Dunblane occurred in the USA, "Mr Creepy's" pedophilic past would have become the primary issue more than his access to guns. That's what will occur here with Lanza. His mother's needless stockpiling of weapons will slowly pushed aside and other issues will become paramount. Medications will be blamed more than the assault rifle.

Re: Piers Morgan and gun control
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2012, 06:54:02 PM »
... The term 'Liberal' today does not have the same meaning as it did in 1776, or 1942, or 1960.   The people using it the past few decades have so discredited the term with their failed policies that they've dumped the it and now use 'Progressive'.  These people were a tiny minority in the decades before the 1970s, and are now basically a new group on the scene who have taken over the Democratic Party.  Their policies are not those of the Liberals of the past, although they give lip service to those older policies.
 
JFK was a leading Liberal of his day.  If he were around today, he'd have more in common with Conservatives than with modern day Liberals/Progressives...

... Really? Odd that, I know what it means, and probably the same as those who used it from the above dates too.

Start a campaign then..'resurrect the true meaning of 'liberal'...Free that liberal seed, let it grow...Embrace liberalism! ...

 
Do you seriously believe Liberals from Jefferson to JFK were the equivalent of the current crop of Liberals (now 'Progressives')?
 
Were Jefferson and JFK soft on crime to the point of being pro-criminal?  Were they constantly bashing 'the rich' (successful) people?  Always on the lookout to raise more taxes?   Always on the lookout for 'needs to fill'?
 
Were they in favor of runaway spending and massive deficits - currenty $1.5 Trillion a year (and that is just the Federal annual deficit)?  Were they frightened of the idea of honest citizens having guns? 
 
Were they proponents of policies that created a violent, dependent, uneducated, underclasss in the cities, then once that failure was evident to all, refuse every attempt to change direction because they needed those votes?  Did they take over school boards and teachers unions and put forward a series of policies which ruined the schools?
 
Did they loathe the people serving in the militiary?
 
I'm pretty sure Jefferson's Constitution and other writings were quite strong in their support of a small limited government.  Is that what modern day Libs are for?  JFK respected business instead of demonizing the 'top 1%', he cut taxes and predicted that would be good for the country and stimulate the economy producing more actual tax revene.  And he was right.  Just like Reagan was right when he said and did the same thing.  Where are the modern day Libs making that case?  Name even one.
 
 
By the way, I've seen several posts about Obama being a 'Centrist', a 'Moderate', even a 'Conservative'.  You yourself claimed him to be 'Right-wing'.  What is it exactly - other than your earlier response of financing his campaign the same way everyone does in the US - that makes him 'Right-wing', and does that mean he doesn't quite reach your lofty standards of a 'Liberal'?