Fox Host Tells Supermodel To Shut Up About Gun Control – ‘You Have A Nice Bottom…Stick To That

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I just looked at your thread history, seems you have some serious issues with "conservatives" and Fox

You say that like it's a bad thing.

a reply to: neo96

In order for the Chicago gun ban or whatever it is to have worked..all cities ands states would have to be in on it.

Otherwise it was a useless ban/whatever, If you can't get a gun Chicago..just go the next city or state and get one...then return with said gun or guns if you plan to illegally sell them to other criminals.

I don't understand as to what was so hard about that to understand.

Let's make it simple..there are three sandboxes...two sand boxes are allowed to have pails..one isn't allowed..teacher looks away..kid grabs pail from other sandbox...see why it didn't work..because all sandboxes weren't in on the ban.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

Actually yeah those laws..because you see it is rare that stuff happens here.

Ah, but it still happens. Rare or not, it happens.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

Actually our guns laws make mass shootings a rarity. So your "good guys" stop mass shootings and crime..oh wait now they don't...yeah sounds like your current laws are working great..

Seems that a good guy with a gun stopped your most recent shooting.

And unless you can show where your anti-gun laws have physically stopped such things, you are merely presenting BS as justification for a Govt to assert control over its citizens.

But, it is Canada. And I could give 2 F%*ks about Canada, Canada's laws or Canada's people. Not my problem.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Canadian..

Guess what we don't live in constant fear the boogyman is around very corner out to get us.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

So, criminals will find ways to subvert the laws. That is the basis of your retort.

And everyone else should willingly give up rights, so people like you "feel better".


Hmmm, guess the laws in Canada can't stop criminals from committing crime either.

Thanks for proving the point.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

Actually yeah those laws..because you see it is rare that stuff happens here.

Ah, but it still happens. Rare or not, it happens.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

Actually our guns laws make mass shootings a rarity. So your "good guys" stop mass shootings and crime..oh wait now they don't...yeah sounds like your current laws are working great..

Seems that a good guy with a gun stopped your most recent shooting.

And unless you can show where your anti-gun laws have physically stopped such things, you are merely presenting BS as justification for a Govt to assert control over its citizens.

But, it is Canada. And I could give 2 F%*ks about Canada, Canada's laws or Canada's people. Not my problem.

Actually our stats speak for themselves...school shooting, mall shootings or theater shootings...how many have we had...

a reply to: Onslaught2996

In order for the Chicago gun ban or whatever it is to have worked..all cities ands states would have to be in on it.

So gun control advocates have no concept of 'free market', or what the world 'liberal' means. or state rights.

Menchken said it best almost 100 years ago.

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

en.wikiquote.org...

a reply to: macman

Seems that a good guy with a gun stopped your most recent shooting.

Oh yeah!

What a cognitive dissonant lot the gun control crowd is.

They hate guns so much there go to response to bad guys with guns is to call the good guys with guns, and hide underneath desks.

originally posted by: macman


Hmmm, guess the laws in Canada can't stop criminals from committing crime either.

Just like gun owners stop crime in America...wait a minute..there's a shooting, another one..holy crap more....where are these good guys with guns you keep talking about..

Your current laws don't do crap...so why not try to change them.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

You still have had them.

Laws don't work unless is "stops" the crime you are looking towards.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: NavyDoc

I for one would like to see these stats.

As far as I have seen..they have slightly dropped ..but has had no big increase in violent crime.

Victims of violent crime (rate per 100,000)

Tough case to crack: the mystery of Britain's falling crime rate

Canada's crime rate continued downward trend in 2013

The Crime Severity Index (CSI) fell by nine per cent in 2013, a drop the report attributes to a similar decline in breaking and entering, and robbery.

Although this is disturbing..

Reports of some offences did go up last year, however, including extortion, child pornography, aggravated sexual assault, sexual violations against children and identity fraud.

Quite simple. Compare the violent crime rate (lets just look at murder) in the UK from before real gun control, say 1930 (0.75/100K) and today 9.8/100k from a peak of 15/100K around the year 2000. www.citizensreportuk.org...[/ur l] [url=http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html]fixed link

Murders from a gun (from the chart last posted) run about 1/10 of all murders, so the gun murder rate in the UK is still about .98 per 100k which is still higher than in 1930 before gun control and your overall murder rate of 9.8 per 100K is still much higher as well. Given that the 1930 murder rate did not differentiate between murder by gun or murder by other means, if it was still the same ratio, 1/10, then the murder rate from a gun in 1930 would have been about .075/100k which is still a fraction of what it is today at .98 per 100K.

Gun control did not make you safer one whit.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Yeah, actually gun owners do stop crimes.

Like the guy stopped the gunman last week in your country. While your PM hid under his desk.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: macman

Seems that a good guy with a gun stopped your most recent shooting.

Oh yeah!

What a cognitive dissonant lot the gun control crowd is.

They hate guns so much there go to response to bad guys with guns is to call the good guys with guns, and hide underneath desks.

I never called no guy with a gun nor hid under any desk....so how does this represent the anti gun crowd?

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: NavyDoc

Canadian..

Guess what we don't live in constant fear the boogyman is around very corner out to get us.

Neither do we, even so, we have the ability to do something about it. Also consider that firearms are almost just as available up in Canada as they are in the US and your registrations system was an abysmal failure because Canadians refused to register their guns.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Yeah, actually gun owners do stop crimes.

Like the guy stopped the gunman last week in your country. While your PM hid under his desk.

Yep guns take ..what is it, thirty a day in America...but the one time it stopped anything..let's harp on the one time a gun owner actually did something good..

A single gun owner stopped a single crime that day...whoopee

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yet we aren't going crazy up here with gun violence...why is that?

Good day to all.work beckons..

Gotta say, I feel for the model, because she was degraded for saying an opinion. I would be willing to bet that if it were a male model, there would have been more respect. Because you know... Women can't be pretty AND SMART, or at least try to be... No friggin way.


The professional should have stayed professional. That's all that's left to say.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

You forget, the First Amendment only applies to liberal opinions now.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I never called no guy with a gun nor hid under any desk....so how does this represent the anti gun crowd?

Rather easily.

First instinct of people today is to dial 911, and wait for the police to come save them.

That is if they are not too busy pulling people for not wearing their seat belt.

Not eating at the local fast food places.

Or sitting at a Dunkin donuts.

But I digress all those asinine laws was suppose to make those place 'gun free'.

Which isn't working.

So the solution is to demonize a thing for the act that is already illegal.

Then come to ATS, and make threads demagoguing a news site because for some odd reason they don't run with the mob.

Then back to demonizing a thing.

They say the very definition of insantity is keep doing the same thing over, and over again, and expecting a different result.

Well we have had over 100 years of gun control.

Gun free zones, banning guns based on nothing but by it's looks.

And rinse, and repeating.

Insanity fits.