Jump to content

NRA "Enabler of Death" Video


CdnWingShooter

Recommended Posts

Cooter Brown

Updating the Constitution periodically was promoted by both Jefferson and Franklin. They had the wisdom to forsee and understand that times change and the nations needs with it and so should the constition, the blueprint for the nation, with it.

  As to the right to bear arms against a repressive government? Well embroiled in a revolution and relying on

a volunteer army Do you think they are going to press gun control? I'll cite Shay's rebellion as an example of how much the founders really wanted the people to rise in armed rebellion and remind you that many of the founders like Madison and Washington were proponents of hanging rebels. This isn't political theory open to interpretation it'd recorded fact and the history of thier real physical actions. Expanding the nations territories that happended to be populated by a  hostile indigenous people do you think they'ed push hard on gun control? With little or no organized law enforcement existing might they have figured a real need for a self armed populace? As civilization and order became established restrictions and controls were emposed as needed and were accepted.  Do you really believe the founders would support zero constraints or restrictions on firearms. Even in those early times few local restrictions were impossed  but every so often when deemed nesessary for the safety of the common populace there were - and they not only stood they were generally applauded by the common population. Bear in mind that the atrocities we see today and it seems some of you seem willing to accept from reasons varying from "it's my Constitutional right" to I want to practice the old and steeped in American traditionon of modern black gun compititions. (hey if those black guns are really no different, the same I guess there's no real need for the AR's)

even tho it's well established some controls and restrictions are quite legal. (a nice short easily read paper on Heller and legal standing and rights afterward  link: http://students.washington.edu/wulr....05).pdf

Don't worry if you want to dismiss this paper there are pleanty of others. I chose it because it was short and to the point.) to individual responsibility for ownership and use, that fails to a pretty high percent that simply not very responsible about firearm ownership or use. I live in a very rural area and see a neighbor really ticked because his barn just had 3 .30 cal. holes added to one wall. A gun club board member and gun safety course instructor take pot shots at a neighboring farmers Lab (no particular reason, just felt like killing something) idiots shooting blindly into the air. and so on and so forth. Granted you can't control or regulate

a lot of the callous abuses but some? I think so.

   Weigh limiting the lethal firing capability against the incovience of loading more magazines? A three month old infant was hit in Aurora, a very young girl in Arizona killed. I don't think the Founders would have said "well guess that's the price of convience. I'm inclinded to think at the least they'd have acted twords restriction, legal penalty, and controls. These things didn't happen at that time but had they, and repeatedly yet I'm certain they would not have said

This government will act. This will stop. My point. Many people given this power and the capability to use it will not act responsibly.

   Totalitarian Governments? Like Canada, Great Britian, Switzerland, Japan, Austrilia, And on and on. C'mon I mentioned before if you can't feel safe without being constantly armed with a gun you aren't free at all.

I didn't read all of this post.  I couldn't.  Please make a paragraph even if it's only at random.  I got cross eyed trying to read that post.  And I'm sober.

You made a post about Fareed Zakaria and his contentions about "gun control, violence and the US. A few brief facts pointed out and cralified."  That's a copy/paste from your post.  OK.

I answered that post (I have to admit I was baffled as to what 'cralified' means) with actual numbers from the FBI crime database which at best make a sloppy journalist and at worst a liar out of Mr. Zakaria.

You have not responded to that.  Please do.  Tell me what these "facts" you talk about are.  Educate me if I am ignorant of these facts and if FBI and CDC are lying to me.

Sh!t or git off the fuckin pot, Spin.  Whatever else my failings might be, and they are many, I am always willing to learn.  Have at it.

Edit to say--I apologize for my language in this post, but the broadcasting of bovine effluent should be limited to the propagation of foodstuffs.  Its use otherwise pops the top of my head off and makes me lose all sense of propriety and humor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • gundogpa

    17

  • john mcg

    17

  • Spin

    15

  • bobman

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Geez..I'm not trying to be some impressive commentator just was searching around the internet picking out various positions  of Zacharias' history on issues for some context of who he is

I'll footnote stuff for you in the future if it will make you happy

Bobman,

Next time just say: "Bite me dwarf."

Less effort... :<img src=:'>

Link to post
Share on other sites

"qualified" good enough? Now that that's out of the way I'll move on. Refer back to my post. I brought up Zakaria' program and said it was interesting and laid out a few highlights and highly suggested the members of the board watched it. It was germaine to this thread. It presented an opposing position. It presented graffs and numbers supporting that position. If you watched the show you would have seen that at least a few of these showed the source of that perticular information on screen. A believe Mr. Zakaria mentioned one or two sources verbally and that  one study  was conducted by the Pew Foundation. Mr Zakaria presented these as fact. You claimed you preffered your sources. OK fine. You don't like the position that was presented. You don't believe Mr. Zakaria is qualified, just a guy with a TV show.

  Fareed Zakaria bio. links:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria

http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=381

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fareed_Zakaria

  There's 3 links to read. There's contact info in them too

Myself I think he's pleanty qualified and apparently so do a hell of a lot of other people, newspapers, broadcast networks, universities, etc. I think you'd have a tough time finding someone more or better qualified.

If you're that hot to get the sources or you want to pick a fight over them or thier presentation or just vent your anger over them take it up with ABC, CNN, or Zakaria himself or a designated spokesperson. It was thier show, thier claims. They could give you the best answer. I'm inclined to think you would not accept what ever you would be told

  Cooter you saw the show right, that's what you said I believe. I saw the show. Could it be that you're trying to push things into unacceptable hostility so as to kill the thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Zakaria is a hack, and CNN has no objectivity or even pretends to anymore, hence there ratings free fall.

Spin maybe you should look at someone who really looks at the numbers, and how they can be manipulated, not just the rhetoric.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=4618

Obama's real intentions, the fact he doesn't have the balls to admit his beliefs or real intentions to get re-elected isn't surprising.

http://www.examiner.com/article....e-radar

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cooter Brown

I'm not angry nor hostile toward you, Spin.  It ain't worth it. I have too much to do and my hair is already grey.  And I suspect we'd have a pretty good time in a grouse camp.

I NEVER implied that your post was not germane to the discussion, I simply pointed out that the "facts" therein (which you got from Zakaria) were not accurate according to FBI and CDC.

I apologized for my language. I thought about it, but did not edit it out because I thought for the purposes of the discussion it helped to make my point.

This is the point and why I used the rough language:

What raises my hackles and angers me is not the position you or Mr. Zakaria or anybody else takes in the debate but the misrepresentation of facts.  I was trained as a journalist. I cannot abide and take EXTREME exception to sloppy reporting and the outright fudging of facts to make a point.  I won't abide it and by god I'll poke that monster in the eye when I see it, as any citizen should.

It happens on both sides of the debate but you, like everybody else, don't like to be called out on it. That weakens your argument.

Take whatever side you want--that's what makes for a healthy republic--but don't play fast and loose with facts.

Facts, as they say, can be very inconvenient things.

What I linked to was the actual numbers as they are presented by the FBI.  Take those for what they are worth, but CDC shows the same numbers.

If you have other sources for relevant numbers, please cite them.  You have yet to do that.  That is all I asked of you in my post.  Pew don't cut it compared to FBI and CDC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Redtop. Right off the getgo I read the "About Us section of the site you linked to and was singularly unimpressed. Pretty fringe IMO. I'm not the guy to try and sell on Obama's Wants to sieze all your guns, Turn the US into a Communist/ Fascist nation, he's conspiring with Muslim Extremists, wants to destroy free enterprize, sell our women, eat our babies, etc.

   Right out of the box Switzerland is brought out. I've been hearing that since I was a kid. Again Broad terms and statistics are presented but very far from complete information. I've read about some of the restrictions and requirements from Swiss Citizens and what they have said pretty much checks out with published information like this.

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Give it a read. It's interesting. As to Sowell being in the same league as Dr. Zakaria Cmon now. IMO Sowell is in about the same class as Beck. I don't take them too seriously.

                                        Take Care

                                                Spin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooter we're fine, Here's the best I can do for you on sources

1 stats 2007 International small arms survey, homicide stats.

2. graff -homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population

   Source UN survey

3. graff-US states, number of injury by firearm per 100,000

   pop., source Atlantic Magazine 2007

4. graff- perceptions of trends in crime problem nationally

   years 1989 thru 2011 source Gallup

5. graff- homicide gun deaths comparisons year 2001 and 2010

    increase of ,02 not a decrease   source CDC

6. graff- serious but not fatal shooting incidences period 2001

   thru 2010  increase of 20%   source CDC

Cooter there's no derth of studies that go counter to NRA policies and goals. Do you consider the ATF credible. Heres an up to date report with info on some aspects of gun policy and control and Fast and furious and related info.

link;  http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2012/04/042612-atf-atf-releases-government-of-mexico-firearms-trace-data.html

                                         I'm hittin the sack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Darn, scary I'm agreeing with Cooter again, maybe it's just a thing with us grey hairs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cooter Brown

I still don't know where those numbers are coming from.

According to CDC, in 2000, all firearms deaths (including suicides, justified shooting, police) were 10.4 per 100,000.  In 2009, the latest year I can find, the same number is 10.2 per 100,000.

And here are stats from the CDC for homicides in 2009 (Copy/paste from CDC site):

Number of deaths: 16,799

Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5

Cause of death rank: 15

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,493

Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry Redtop. Right off the getgo I read the "About Us section of the site you linked to and was singularly unimpressed. Pretty fringe IMO. I'm not the guy to try and sell on Obama's Wants to sieze all your guns, Turn the US into a Communist/ Fascist nation, he's conspiring with Muslim Extremists, wants to destroy free enterprize, sell our women, eat our babies, etc.

 

                                        Take Care

                                                Spin

Sorry that was the wrong link, I changed it above, and in the article it links some sources you should think legit, WoPo, Huffington, I can't say about the examiner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Right out of the box Switzerland is brought out. I've been hearing that since I was a kid. Again Broad terms and statistics are presented but very far from complete information. I've read about some of the restrictions and requirements from Swiss Citizens and what they have said pretty much checks out with published information like this.

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Give it a read. It's interesting. As to Sowell being in the same league as Dr. Zakaria Cmon now. IMO Sowell is in about the same class as Beck. I don't take them too seriously.

                                        Take Care

                                                Spin

Finland and New Zealand, if you use the ones with less use the others also, don't be selective.

Thomas Sowell same class as Beck WOW.

Poor fatherless black kid, high school drop out, Marine vet, worked his way into college,  Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude,  a Master of Arts from Columbia University the following year, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman, his mentor.

Sorry he doesn't fit in your liberal {box} but marginalizing him only shows your bias and ignorance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's pleanty qualified and apparently so do a hell of a lot of other people, newspapers, broadcast networks, universities, etc.

newspapers, broadcast networks and Universities think his ideas are great what a surprise.

{Conformation Bias}

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Zakaria is a hack, and CNN has no objectivity or even pretends to anymore, hence there ratings free fall.

I don't know much about Mr. Z, nor do I care, but I do know a bit about what drives media ratings and I'd argue that CNN's are in the toilet for reasons that are directly opposite from what you believe they are.

People today don't really want unbiased news. They want news that validates their already held beliefs. Hence the meteoric rise of Fox, which is the most biased of all the networks as far as I can see. They don't try to hide it either.

Ailes, who is a media genius in my opinion, just stated in an interview that it isn't Fox's job to report the facts, it's their job to get ratings and they sure as hell have! They play to their audience like no one else ever has.    

Fox has the right wing half of the nation nailed down and all the other networks fight each other for the other half, but trying to be objective or non-partisan ain't going to get you there, unfortunately. Those days are over.

CNN is also a failure because they have the absolute least compelling personalities. The entertainment value, which is super important these days, is about the same as watching paint dry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Zakaria is a hack, and CNN has no objectivity or even pretends to anymore, hence there ratings free fall.

I don't know much about Mr. Z, nor do I care, but I do know a bit about what drives media ratings and I'd argue that CNN's are in the toilet for reasons that are directly opposite from what you believe they are.

People today don't really want unbiased news. They want news that validates their already held beliefs. Hence the meteoric rise of Fox, which is the most biased of all the networks as far as I can see. They don't try to hide it either.

Ailes, who is a media genius in my opinion, just stated in an interview that it isn't Fox's job to report the facts, it's their job to get ratings and they sure as hell have! They play to their audience like no one else ever has.    

Fox has the right wing half of the nation nailed down and all the other networks fight each other for the other half, but trying to be objective or non-partisan ain't going to get you there, unfortunately. Those days are over.

CNN is also a failure because they have the absolute least compelling personalities. The entertainment value, which is super important these days, is about the same as watching paint dry.

I don't agree, I think people are just tired of being feed biased and selective news by MSM. MSM biased papers and TV Networks are declining and being replaced by the new media and I applaud it.

I rarely watch MSM but if I did it would be Fox only because I know I wouldn't know half of the news. What I mean is MSM will not report anything anti-Dem unless shamed.

I really think saying only right-wings watch Fox is demagoguery, I live in a very Democrat heavy state and I see Fox on all the time. gym, hospital, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The reality is the Federal Government, State and Local governements are directly to blame for any and all Gun related deaths.  These deaths are caused by gun laws, which not only violate ones absolute right to keep and bare arms, but have to lead to the false belief that Police are there to protect anyone.  Self preservation is in the hands of the individual, and the fact that so many were killed and injured by one lone gunman proves it.  Unconstitutional gun laws are killing innocent people, because if they knew and better understood the reality of daily life, that anything can, could and will happen, they would leave home better prepared.  There are more nut jobs now than ever in history, gun laws have not prevented one gun related crime, guns carried by individuals have saved lives.  the more who carry the more lives saved.  the more who carry the safer we all are as a deterrent.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...