Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: neo96
First off the ACTION of harming, or going around shooting another person has been illegal since forever it seems like.

I totally agree. It's kind of like how predators harming others in public bathrooms has been illegal since forever.

Nice political troll there.

Get back to me after 80 years.

I might listen then.

At least they don't have to get a background check to use the rest room.

Anything I could say would pale in comparison. So :

a reply to: neo96

Yeah well the only RIGHT as far as 'liberals' and felons go is their right to vote. NOTHING else matters to them. Hell would freeze over before their other constitutional RIGHT would be restored. Remember ATF from 4473 ? REMEMBER THAT ?

Blah blah blah. How are you any different than the people you are talking about? You're intractable, unreasonable, consistently belligerent and only concerned with rights when it suits your argument.

Consider this gem from your OP:

Where a gun free zone shouldn't even exist.

So you don't believe that I have a right to declare my own property a "gun free zone" if I want? Yeah that's not illiberal thinking at all.

I actually support gun ownership just like I support ownership of a hammer, knife, car, plane, cinder block, or anything else that isn't causing anyone harm when not used in commission of a crime. I also believe that once a felon has served his time, he shouldn't be released into society with less rights than other people. Then again, I strive for logical consistency.

As for the 11b of ATF 4473, I actually do see the point you were making. I'm mulling it over. There are other rights that can be temporarily suppressed while under indictment, up to and including being imprisoned without bail. Even if not imprisoned pending trial, a person typically has restrictions on travel. If you want to have an actual discussion, what are your thoughts on that?

a reply to: theantediluvian

So you don't believe that I have a right to declare my own property a "gun free zone" if I want? Yeah that's not illiberal thinking at all.

If we were talking about CONSISTENCY.

That means someone else gets to make their own property GAY FREE,MUSLIM FREE, TG FREE zones.

I am gonna go sit over here while you spin that one, and take some more pot shots.

a reply to: neo96

There's no need for me to spin anything.

You can declare your property any sort of free zone you want as long as it's not the location of a public accommodation, in which case you couldn't discriminate against a person for being who they are. People have a right to free association and it is an important right but people also have a right to equal access to public accommodations which may (or may not) be privately owned but are always the fruits of society.

The individual's right to free association is extremely important but when it conflicts with another person's fundamental right to be an equal member of their own society, which violation causes the greater harm?

Segregation is segregation. Do we really need to rehash why segregation is wrong for each and every minority group? Give it up already.

Maybe you're thinking that barring entry to public accommodations for people carrying firearms is somehow discrimination? I've certainly heard that before too. Guns are objects, possession that a person owns. They are not intrinsic traits of a person and even if you attempt to consider gun ownership a part of what a person is, a person doesn't stop being a gun owner when he locks his gun in his vehicle or leaves it at home so there's really NO COMPARISON.

I know you think you're being clever and scoring points with the people who will star your posts but your lack of argument and reliance on one liners more appropriate for a grade school playground only reveal a distinct lack of critical thought on the subject.

Typical Slippery Liberal Media. The story had its intended effect on its target audience. Nothing can be done to correct that damage. People's opinions were shaped.

I'm sorry. I don't care much for laws. But, this is one that is begging to be written.

I believe in Free Speech. I also believe there should be consequences. She used her pretty face ... take it away. She used her reputation ... put her in solitary confinement until she's forgotten.

I wonder if Trump will take me on as his VP. -chuckle

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I find it incredibly ironic how the NRA portrays itself as an organization that is fighting for the preservation of the Second Amendment yet nobody seems to remember that it was barely 45 years ago when the NRA was promoting increased gun control and restrictions on ownership because they were scared out of their wits about the Black Panthers utilizing the Second to legally arm themselves. Hypocrisy knows no bounds in the NRA.

Yeah well hypocrisy indeed knows no bounds.

Since gun control was born from the LEFT wing, and their racist attitude towards 'blacks'.

Same thing was done to the native Americans.

The greatest atrocities that have been done in this country have been done to those who couldn't shoot back.

I'm certainly not arguing that in the last 25 years, the Democrats haven't been the loudest voice for more and stricter regulations regarding firearms. But to say it was born of the left wing isn't quite accurate. Unless you're claiming that the patron Saint of the Right, Ronald Reagan, was secretly a left leaning democrat? Because I'm 1967, as California's Governer, Reagan signed into law the Mulford Act. This act effectively restricted citizens from carrying guns in public and created one of the countries most strict gun control regulations. This was a direct reaction to the Black Panther Movement’s rise in California and in the 1960s, the NRA would not yet have been a hard-line advocate for gun ownership rights. They didn't become the pro 2A lobbying powerhouse we know them as today until 1977.

In the 1980s Reagan publicly changed his opinion on the subject in order to pander to southern Republicans. He would begin to actively encourage 2nd amendment rights to keep citizens safe from the despotism that could be enacted by government, just what African Americans had been hoping to achieve in the 1960’s when he had instead endorsed the Mulford Act. The post 1977 NRA endorsed their first presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, after both had switched to a more strict 2nd amendment rights defense.

And then Saint Ronnie flopped back to his 60's view in '91 when he publicly stumped for the Brady Bill and then again in '94 when he wrote to congress urging them to enact the assault weapons ban.

It goes both ways. They're all traitors, on both sides of the aisle, to the Bill of Rights.

Awwwwww

the poor thing !!

Katie Couric Unhappy with Criticism over Documentary Edit

just vouching for Katie...I think she's great. When we worked together she was always so friendly, always smiling, hi and how are you every time she passes, very busy yet never acts anything but engaged in speaking with whomever, the janitor if they sat next to each other in the cafeteria, and so little youre afraid if you don't see her a while that someone may have stepped on her. Devoted to her kids and sincerely devastated from losing husband at one point and all in all very human. I know this thread is giving it to her good because of political issues but I wanted to chime in on behalf of her character, nothing more. She's the only celeb I have crossed paths with who has no superiority complex and you'd never guess if you had to point out the rich famous person in the room that it was Katie. Brokaw on the other hand...good grief. The universe either bends for him or he gets tantrum-y.