The Worst of the Worst

[Huey Long]

I listened to NPR in the past just to hear their slant on things, but never contributed. KInd of a know your enemy thing.

lol. I don't listen to NPR, I monitor it; kind of the same way I monitor Radio Havana Cuba.

 

[James K]

NPR is not only leftist, they are anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, and pro-Islamic terrorism.

I understand they are Obama's favorite station.

Jim

 

[Mark Milton]

>>>>It is generally hard hitting, fair, objective and a real credit to the journalism profession, IMO.>>>

Uh, that really isn't saying much of an industry that employed both Dan Rather and Michael Moore.......


LOL...

I remember that goofy "Ring of Fire' special too....

There are inexpensive guns and there are cheap guns. Many inexpensive guns are well made from steel and function properly.
Just because a gun is an economy model doesn't make it a Zinc filled saturday night special.

 

[gb_in_ga]

Simple extrapolation
cheap, inexpensive handguns=evil

to

inexpensive handguns=evil

to

handguns=evil

A valid demonstration of the slippery slope principle.

Another way to look at it is from the standpoint of it being essentially elitist. The implication of their assertion, that cheap, inexpensive guns = evil, necessarily leads to the conclusion that since the poor don't have the means to buy expensive, "name brand" weapons to defend their homesteads, and that it is inherently evil to produce inexpensive handguns that the poor can afford, that the poor are to be deprived of the ability to protect their homesteads or otherwise participate in the keeping and bearing of arms as provided by the 2nd Amendment.

What sort of slippery slope does that imply? If it is acceptable to deprive the poor of their rights to keep and bear arms, it is not also acceptable to deprive the rest of the population (at large) of those rights as well?

Of course not.

Just because a gun is cheap and poor quality is no reason to forbid the manufacture and sale of such. Caveat Emptor should be the rule. And let's let law enforcement deal with the bad guys without penalizing those who just want to defend themselves and their loved ones or otherwise exercise their rights as a free people.

What few people mentioned, but not even PBS who often champions the poor and disenfranchised, was that these cheap guns were often all the poor could afford for personal protection in very bad neighborhoods.

Which is exactly what I'm getting at. By banning the low end arms, what happens is that the poor are not able to defend themselves. Is this not elitist? I say that a SNS is better than nothing when the BG comes beating down your door, especially if that is all that you can afford. What happens when you get SNS bans is that the poor are disenfranchised and only the "elite" (middle class and above) will have the financial means to defend their households. Oh, but aren't the political left all about looking out for the best interests of the poor? It appears not, in practice. Then again, when you look at it from the standpoint of this just being an initial, premeditated, step down the slippery slope that leads to outright banishment of all privately owned arms it all makes perfect sense.

 

[Huey Long]

Just because a gun is cheap and poor quality is no reason to forbid the manufacture and sale of such.

I agree, but guns which kill or injure people when used as intended should still be grounds for a civil suit, same as any other consumer product.

Before people start jumping on me for this, let me state unequivocally that committing crime is clearly not a use which is intended by any gun manufacturer. Thus, the current gun lawsuits are completely bogus.

 

[rellik74]

Make me feal proude to own a jennings j22 and a raven 25auto, both fine weapons and new they were 125 or so for the pair

 

[gb_in_ga]

I agree, but guns which kill or injure people when used as intended should still be grounds for a civil suit, same as any other consumer product.

Ok, I can go along with that. That isn't an outright banning of the product just because of what the product is. It is allowing the existing civil courts system to go after those who knowingly make defective products. Not that I'm any fan of unrestricted torts, but properly restrained tort law does have its place.

 

[Firepower!]

When I was in US I used to listen to NPR all the time while driving.

PBS programs are very well made.

I am sure about the firearm policy they have but then I never attention to this subject while i was in the US.

 

[1-UP]

I listen to NPR quite a bit - much more than I watch TV. It leans definitely leans left (They should really just hold a roast for GWB and get it over with) but it's got some of the best reporting out there, especially if you're looking for something not attached to a dead body.

I'm sorta amused that mentioning NPR/PBS causes so much love for Jennings and Co to surface given the vitriol and venom levelled at them in the other portions of the board.

 

[Jmcdowel]

NPR/MSNBC/DEMS IN GENERAL have tried to push the whole "guns are bad" idea in our faces for so many years that is sad. They dont stand behind the constitution, then stand in front of it. Just like they are trying to take away freedom of speech with the whole "Fairness Doctrine" that they are trying to get passed. They are going to take away everything that this country was built own and make it into a bigger socialist nation then FDR could have hoped for. THIS IS CHANGE THAT YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!!

 

[gglass]

That is just liberal leftist garbage, and that even gives garbage a bad name.