NBC Illustration Shows DC Shooter Using an M4 Carbine

The problem is the misinterpretation of the word "conversation." We are given demands, not invitations to anything resembling a conversation.

In a conversation, there's give and take, and perhaps a chance to meet in the middle. There is no middle ground for us. We are simply expected to accept punishment for things we didn't do and give up things without getting anything in return.
Click to expand...

Very True!

When a conversation begins with "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.." its never ends well for the "negotiable" side.

They are offering something to us in return, though. Its just something we know is a lie, and don't believe. Empty promises of safety from some bureaucrat or politician, even the Vice President, don't mean much, when seconds count and the police are just minutes away.

One thing I have never been able to understand, is why there is such a radical, violent hatred of the NRA. NEVER has the NRA advocated anyone breaking any law. Never heard of the NRA saying anti gunners should be killed, or tortured, torn limb from limb or anything even remotely violent. Ever.

As to that one professor, how is it a Journalism professor thinks a verbal assault on a group is a good way to start a "debate"? Its a good way to start something all right, but a reasoned debate on an issue? No.
 
That is what bugs me the most when the Anti-Gun crowd talks about a compremise on gun control....

What are they offering? All it ever really means when someone says "compremise" is that the didn't simply ban all guns. It is a "compremise" to them because they aren't getting their end goal of making all firearms illegal. So to them it feels like a compremise.

Now for us gun owners it is simply take.... They may take less but they are still taking away something without us getting everything.

Every time a anti talks about "compremise" I turn the tables on them and ask. "What are you giving me?" "What are gun owners getting in return for giving up our scary guns and normal capacity magazine's?"

And the sad truth is that there is only two responses.
The first is a pathetic silence as they realise that they are the ones who are unable to "compremise".
The second is when they actually have to guts to say what they feel and the response is "Well nobody is trying to take your hunting rifle/what do you need a gun like that for anyway? Are you paranoid?"
 
What are they offering?
Click to expand...
Generally, the empty promise that worse restrictions won't follow.

...which is really more of a veiled threat, but that's the gist of it.

Even if we gave them, say, a ban on "assault weapons," it wouldn't be enough. Crime wouldn't drop, there would be more mass shootings, and then they'd tell us we need to compromise again and accept more restrictions.

And the cycle would continue until we had a total ban.
 
Glenn wrote:

NPR today clearly said that there is no push for gun control after the incident. The focus is more on the mental health issues AND that misidentification of the firearm took the winds out the sails of the AWB rants. Plus, that that gun was legally bought.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Then why is AP reporting this?


Days after mass shootings in both of his hometowns, President Barack Obama urged his most ardent supporters Saturday "to get back up and go back at it" and help push stalled legislation out of Congress so dangerous people won't get their hands on guns.

"We can't rest until all of our children can go to school or walk down the street free from the fear that they will be struck down by a stray bullet," Obama said in a keynote speech to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual awards dinner.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cs+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text)#ixzz2fclykUFu
 
Journalism schools, and most public schools, and universities do indoctrinate to be anti gun. It is a fact. Most of the people working in the media are products of this system. It is NOT a conspiracy theory.

While some of the misinformation are from mistakes, I have seen the mainstream media either purposely change facts to advance their agenda or just not report facts. When they do this it becomes disinformation, and they are great at it. Report a lie on page one, then retract it on page 28 when it is found to be false.
 
I don't understand why some people are saying this is the perfect scenario to prove anti gun advocates wrong. I wasn't under the impression that many people here thought that gun and magazine restrictions were truly the only thing that would happen if the antis got their way. If anything, I think this hurts us far more than if he had used an AR. I could easily see this becoming fuel to simply make an attempt at even tougher restrictions than the ones that were originally proposed. Rest assured that they will get whatever they can, and even after they realize it isn't helping, they'll stick to it because at least they're "trying".
 
Pilot - that was because the NPR report was before the Obama speech.

But the analysis stands, given the current uproar on some other issues - no gun bill is going to get past the Congress.

The same old clichés and PR posing will be done.

It would take a major swing in the elected composition of the Congress to get a law passed or a stampede caused by some horror.
 
I don't understand why some people are saying this is the perfect scenario to prove anti gun advocates wrong
Click to expand...

I think it works both ways. I believe it can be useful to prove our points, but at the same time they can use it to say that we must ban all guns because nothings works. Ya know, like the SWAT team didn't work, and base security didn't work, and on and on.

The thing is that they yell louder and twist things more than we do. I do think we try to put a spin on things, but we don't outright lie or make things up. We also know what we're talking about; they don't.
 
One thought that just occurred to me:

Here's the setting.
Although gun control advocates label every proposal as "common sense", the one thing they have said that does seem to actually be that is a better background check system. That seems reasonable. Do a better job of keeping the guns from the obvious crazies.

Here was the thought.
The security background check the DC shooter went through to get his "Secret" clearance and get the job he got on that base was more thorough than anything anyone would ever consider or even be practical on such a large scale as nationwide gun sales. It didn't do any good.
 
The problem with the whole "check for mental health problems" is that psychiatrists prediction of problems in patients approaches random selection. You can't go locking up every person that has a mental crisis, because most of them would never cause a problem. Also, as had been said before, a lot of gun people would forego getting help if it meant their guns would be taken away. It's not like any of us trust the police to give them back. In NY, where the SAFE Act says that such people must be reported, they already took guns away from someone in Amherst (near Buffalo and as far away from NY City as you can get in the state) only to have to give them back because they made a mistake.

And you know that it would just have to be someone else in your family for you to lose your guns, since they would have access to them.

Sometimes, there just are no solutions that work. No one wants to admit that. Even when there are multiple safeguards in place, like the Naval yard, they fail because people get complacent.
 
Deja Vu

This time it's ABC's morning show instead of NBC's. Other than that, another shooting, another reenactment video showing the shooter carrying an M16 selective-fire assault rifle and m-203 40mm grenade launcher (the shooter actually used a Smith & Wesson M&P15).

I have a hard time believing this is any type of coordinated effort between rival newsrooms. Probably more of a gun control echo chamber effect than anything else (i.e. all guns are scary, let's find the scariest looking one for our reenactment video).

ABC’s Good Morning America “re-creation” equips LAX shooter with military assault rifle complete with 40mm grenade launcher
 
Probably a cut and past 3D graphic used by someone who doesn't know the nuances. Or a grant conspiracy. Equip your EBR with Occam's razor - they fit on the bayonet lug.
 
Back in the old days, maybe still, programs like Microsoft Word came equipped with large caches of "ClipArt".

These news cartoon drawers have access to some similar repository of Clip Art. In all likelihood, the person who put together the artwork did a search for "gun" or "firearms" and looked until they saw one that looked cool. Highly unlikely that they even know what the doo-dad hanging under the gun is supposed to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top