Jump to content

NRA "Enabler of Death" Video


CdnWingShooter

Recommended Posts

And a glimpse of the debate from the other side of the arguement.

  I was raised being told that there are 2 sides to every story and that the fair and wise thing to do is listen to both sides before making a decision. I'm in my 60's now and that's worked out pretty well for me this far.

link; http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

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

Fox is the most biased piece of propaganda out there trying to appear to be news.  They make up stories and repeat them enough that people believe them.

If someone thinks Fox is unbiased, then they need to back away from the kool-aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox is the most biased piece of propaganda out there trying to appear to be news.  They make up stories and repeat them enough that people believe them.

If someone thinks Fox is unbiased, then they need to back away from the kool-aid.

There is no kool-aid to be had;.....the left done drank it all.

Fox....biased....Bush sure took some lumps from them and O'Rielly or Hannity will call anyone out from either side. If you haven't seen it, it's because you don't watch it.

The reason the liberal Combs left Fox was because of all the flak he was getting from his fellow libs for being on THAT evil Fox network. You can be sure the libs don't want any libs on Fox.  It's not too hard to figure out why.

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.

Sorry, right winger was a poor choice of words. I meant to say people who lean to the right politically. Fox was designed to do one thing and one thing only, validate the views of people who consider themselves conservatives, people like yourself, who, prior to Fox perceived that they had no voice in the media. That's not a political statement, but an accurate description of their business model. That segment of the population makes up about 50% of the American people and Fox has a virtual lock on them. Not a damn thing wrong with that. It's called business. Rush did much the same thing on radio starting way back in 1988. He gave people a media voice when they thought everybody else gave their views no respect. Another brilliant marketer and the overall best radio guy I've ever met.  

I see Fox on a lot around here too, but we're a conservative area. Seeing them on a lot is just anecdotal evidence anyhow and doesn't count for much.

This is all pretty much off topic anyhow so that's all I'll have to say on the  news outlet matter. It ain't all that important anyhow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this man offers another stellar example of a letter , that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.

Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

NOTE:

this has been attributed to various authors and I dont know who the real one is but I agree with every word he wrote, it makes perfect sense to me

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites
PartridgeCartridge
this man offers another stellar example of a letter , that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.

Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

NOTE:

this has been attributed to various authors and I dont know who the real one is but I agree with every word he wrote, it makes perfect sense to me

Bob

That makes perfect sense to me as well but it just goes to show how politically messy the whole gun control issue really is and why no one wants to touch it except for those liberally inclined.

And here is where they dig their own grave in terms of support on a constitutional level:

They are completely intent on infringing on our right for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. But any mention of infringing on the right of a cold blooded killer, like the nutjob Holmes in Colorado, to due process and a fair trial would send them into fits of rage.

This whole "lets takes some rights away and keep others intact" does not sit well at the Supreme Court level.

The anti's don't scare me until they somehow develop a constitutionally valid argument for the restriction of certain rights for law abiding citizens.  

And I don't see that happening.

JMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont want to swerve into politics as Brad doesn't want it on here....however I could list many unconstitutional activities the Feds are currently involved in... so thats not really "in and of itself" a solid protection for our gun rights.

I might add....

Just last year the whole issue hung on the decision of one supreme court justice in a 5-4 decision that SCOTUS makeup will change at some point

Link to post
Share on other sites
braque du upstate
7  % of Americans hunt, less than 1% in California. Like it or not, my  side has lost. The constitution or humpty dumpy isn't going to fix it.   :(
Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone thinks Fox is unbiased, then they need to back away from the kool-aid.

There is no kool-aid to be had;.....the left done drank it all.

Good one Patriot. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

..........Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some........

Most reasonable people would rather interact with other people using persuasion and reason. Actually, after reading that, I'd have to question the morality of any anti-gun stance. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Ever question why everyone isn't allowed to go armed at military bases. Why aren't all prison guards armed at all times.

   I've seen Bobman's posting of justification for a citizen going armed. I too have seen this letter before. I've seen it garner positive responce before too.                                Do you think philosophy like this could also serve to reenforce the thought patterns and perhaps actions of one afflicted by a high and dangerous degree of N.P.D. (Narcissistic Personalitiy Disorder) or AsPD.(anitisocial personality disorder).

Some very qualified people (mental health experts, sociologists among them) may not be big fans on this letter or some of the expressed responces it gets, perhaps for good reason. Do a little bit of objective independent study and ask yourself just how easy and unencumbered should access and cc be made? How do you do this witout further 'enabling" the wrong people.

 Sorry if there's typo's I might not have caught. You get old you don't see all that well and when you first get up from sleep you really don't see well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spin, the two questions you posed are  not even relevent.  I served in the U.S. Army in the 50s  both stateside and in Korea.  Upon my return from Korea I was assigned to the U.S. Displinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth, Ks. which held Army and Air Force prisoners sentenced from one year up to death.  Figure out why the firearms are kept by tower guards and guards escourting prisoners outside the walls.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps because they are in the role of law enforcement and as such are armed to not only prevent escape and control prizoners as well as protect other military personel and civilians.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally don't think any sociologists and psychologists are qualified to comment on anything as regards my second amendment rights.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fishnfowler
I personally don't think any sociologists and psychologists are qualified to comment on anything as regards my second amendment rights.

What if they are pro 2nd amendment?  Sociology is a science, there are good ones and bad ones.  Some have agendas, some don't.  Tossing the baby out with the bath water is silly.  I find it refreshing to listen to opposing views and consider their arguments.

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...