Bill Richardson on Meet the Press 5/27

B

Blondie

New member
Bill Richardson stood his ground against Tim Russert's questions on "banning uzis and street sweepers". He said the ban did not work, but said he would accept the NRA's endorsement and said we needed better background checks and a look at mental disabilities, but would not support an "assault" weapons fan. He also said he was for strong punishment against those who commit crimes.

I hate Russert's assumption that uzis and street sweepers should be banned because hunters don't need those weapons (and doesn't he realize that fully automatic "assault" weapons have been banned since the 1930s"). I do not believe Russert understands the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment.

I am not a strict democrat or republican, but I have to say I am happy with Richardson's stance as a politician who happens to be a gun owner.

Blondie
"you see in this world, there's two kinds of people my friend..."
 
I also have to say that I do not like Russert's attemped bash at Richardson for accepting the endorsement of the NRA in New Mexico. Russert showed a picture of Richardson standing at a podium with the NRA logo. I am dissapointed that the media is always trying to portray the NRA as a crazy radical group. I remember in last month's GQ magazine they had a mock presidential survey for Stephen Colbert which asked if he was associated with any "questionable groups" and had check boxes for the NRA and the ku klux klan. This just made me sick, that the author included the NRA, a group trying to protect the rights our founding fathers fought and died for, in the same group as the KKK.

Blondie
 
Tim Russert is a blithering idiot

Questioning Bill Richardson on Meet the Press today (paraphrasing):

"You voted to repeal the ban on 'assault weapons' - Uzis and street-sweepers and such...." :rolleyes:

"You don't need an assault weapon to hunt, do you?"

When oh when in then name of all that is holy will the idiotic media journalists figure out that

The second amendment ain't about hunting!

It's got zero, zilch, zip, nada to do with hunting! Get that through your thick skulls, media, fergawdsakes. It's about preventing tyranny in government, first and foremost (i.e. overthrowing/revolting against a tyrant/despotic regime), and to a (much) lesser extent, self-defense. There are hundreds upon hundreds of historical and scholarly articles that clearly explain this fact in great detail - what kind of so-called 'journalist' could reach such a high position on a TV news show without at least a rudimentary knowledge of history and the Constitution?!?

:mad::mad::mad:


Please, if you have the time, send NBC/Meet the Press a quick note to tell them how you feel about this misrepresentation here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
 
I hear ya, but the fact is they don't care that it's not about hunting. If they can make the public *believe* it's about hunting, their job of banning all guns becomes that much easier. Also, let's not forget there are a lot of Zumbos out there.

Tim
 
OK, TimRB, you're right, but you're sort of implying that it's a knowing coverup/misrepresentation by NBC and Russert himself. Not mere ignorance and/or stupidity. Quite possibly, you are correct. But which do you think it REALLY is on Russert's part:

-Sheer colossal ignorance (as I suspect)
-A true intentional misleading of the issue (red herring) to demogogue the issue and lead the public towards his own political viewpoint

?? It has to be one or the other.

The second one means he is violating his journalistic ethics, in which case he should not be a journalist AT ALL.

The first one means that he is a plenary nincompoop, which means he should not be a journalist AT THAT LEVEL (but writing for a local newspaper for a town of 1,000 people, in a leftist cesspool, would make more sense)

Either way, he does not belong on Meet the Press. But it WOULD be interesting to know the answer to the question (though we likely never WILL know the answer).
 
and doesn't he realize that fully automatic "assault" weapons have been banned since the 1930s
Click to expand...
Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated but not banned. New manufacture is currently prohibited but previously registered automatic weapons are still legally bought and sold by those who can afford them.
 
Bill Richardson might be ok on the gun issue, but he's dead wrong on other issues. Tim Russert tore him apart concerning his record as energy secretary, and when other controversial statements that he made, or actions he undertook, he sounded like a bumbling idiot, IMO. Tim Russert ate him for lunch. He's dead wrong on Iraq, immediate withdrawl of troops, talk with terrorist's, throw up the white flag and look like pussies to the rest of the world. Yeah right, what a jackass. This is the last thing we should do. While I don't agree with the Iraq war at this point, WE HAVE TO FINISH THIS FIGHT, no retreat, no surrender.

Based on his stance on Iraq and other issues, he's not getting my vote. Right now, out of the current GOP crop, I like Mitt Romney.
 
FirstFreedom said:
The second amendment ain't about hunting!

It's got zero, zilch, zip, nada to do with hunting! Get that through your thick skulls, media, fergawdsakes. It's about preventing tyranny in government, first and foremost (i.e. overthrowing/revolting against a tyrant/despotic regime), and to a (much) lesser extent, self-defense. There are hundreds upon hundreds of historical and scholarly articles that clearly explain this fact in great detail - what kind of so-called 'journalist' could reach such a high position on a TV news show without at least a rudimentary knowledge of history and the Constitution?!?
Click to expand...
Amen, brother! But what's even more infuriating (and frightening) than journalists who think the Second Amendment is about hunting or target shooting are gun owners who think like that. There are plenty of them. They think of their "black rifles" as nothing more than range toys or, at most, something to be used against some crackhead breaking into their house. :barf:
 
How do we finish a fight in Iraq when there is no clear defined enemy that can be countered with conventional means or defeated in a conventional manner?

You have a multiparty civil war among folks who don't have the cultural background to become Jeffersonian lovers of democracy. Nor do they want to stop fighting each other in the reasonable near future.

Is the option of long term occupation and a couple of thousand deaths a year plust the wounded a reasonable cost? For how long?

This is not WWII with that kind of outcome.
 
What is the cost of surrender and retreat? Iraq, Iran, and Syria become an alliance of terrorism, who will eventually export that terrorism over to our shores. Would you rather fight them over there, or here? I'll admit Iraq is a disaster with no good options right now, but surrender and retreat is the wrong one. Either way, withdraw or fight, there will be a heavy price to pay. I'd rather see America stay and fight.

BTW, Bill Richardson's so called experts on Iraq are full of crap. There are dozens of active duty and retired generals that have refuted what he is saying. Bill Richardson acted like he was the better "expert" than Gen David Patreus, the current ground commander in Iraq.

Sorry to change the topic of this thread, but I had to respond to the above post.
 
Richardson got caught ina couple of lies and eaten for lunch.

He is a good politician, he stays bought.:D
Otyher than that he is just another Socialist on the path to DC.

Sam
 
talk with terrorists
Click to expand...
Tell me, which terrorists are we talking to? The Syrian and Iranian government? Those are terrorists only according to the bush administration and their neocon buddies.

Iraq, Iran, and Syria become an alliance of terrorism, who will eventually export that terrorism over to our shores.
Click to expand...
I can see that you watch television and also believe them. I can tell you right now that the TV lies a lot. I don't know too much about Syria but I can tell you a little about Iran.

Here are some pictures of Iran you won't see in the mainstream media.
http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

Now the media wouldn't want you know this but Iran is one of the most secular, free and democratic countries in the entire middle east. Their leader is kind of a lunatic but most of the people in Iran are not like him.

Iran is also mostly Shia Muslim. Iraq under Saddam was controlled by Sunni Muslims. Al Qaeda is also Sunni. The Sunni see Shia as heretics and don't get along with them very well, the civil war in Iraq is a result of this.
Al Qaeda won't team up with Iran because they hate each other, Iran almost got in a war with the taliban over this.

The way I see it, if Iraq and Iran teamed up against us, it would be directly because the US took Saddam out of power. We got rid of Iran's greatest enemy (Iraq under Saddam) and handed it over to the Shia Muslims who are friends of Iran.

Don't forget which country most of the 9/11 terrorists came from. They came from Saudi Arabia. We help keep Saudi Arabia under the rule of an absolute monarchy, a really oppressive one too. How can you bring democracy to Iraq when you support a brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? You can't because the people you are trying to "free" know that you don't really want to free them....

The war on terror is not about democracy or stopping terror, it's about natural resources, oil and natural gas. Neoconservatives believe that in order to keep the US the lone superpower, they need to get control of all the natural resources they can before they are grabbed up by other countries (China or Russia). They also believe that the most effective way to do this is through military intervention. Guess where the majority of oil in the world is located.
 
Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated but not banned. New manufacture is currently prohibited but previously registered automatic weapons are still legally bought and sold by those who can afford them.
Click to expand...

So if they are not banned anyone can get a full auto gun? Wow, I thought you could only rent one to use at a range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top