It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Media - Stop Embarrassing Yourselves, Again

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
The problem is those solutions do little to confront most shootings. So why even bring them up?

Where did I say it would fix mass shootings?


If people really want to challenge the problem of folks dying by the gun, it's how to get all the illegal black market guns out of the hands of gangs. But that is never brought up. Dozens upon dozens of inner city people will be shot and/or killed today across America at the hands of gangs and illegal guns and politicians won't mutter a peep. They offer zero solutions for that problem.

End the war on drugs. I bet that would go a LONG way to ending gang violence. It helped with gang violence during Prohibition.


That makes the whole debate insincere.

Yet some teen, probably screwed up on meds, will break into his dad's gun cabinet, steal some guns and then shoot up a school. Then suddenly every politician from coast to coast will scream about gun control. That is not the real problem. It is a problem but it's not the one countless communities suffer from and deal with every single day.

When I go to the skeet range or target range, making it tougher for those people who mainly enjoy a hobby, should not be the focus. There's no fear at a local range. The focus should be why I wouldn't want to walk down the street in East Oakland at midnight. That's where the true gun problem would come into play.

I agree. The gun debate is rather insincere, but it is insincere on both sides of the aisle. It is also why I don't like this discussion.




posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Sorry this is so long...I don't blame you if you skim past it without reading

a reply to: projectvxn

Jimminy Cricket...where to start? (this will all be in direct response to excerpts from the opinion piece in the OP)

Okay, there's this gem of logic:

Instead, we’re supposed to respect the judgment of the state whence they came. People, do you have this kind of confidence?

Well, I mean, there's the fact that it works for driver's licenses, amongst a few other things that are not things enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States. I mean, what's more dangerous, someone who has a carry permit issued in Kentucky carrying legally in Nevada (something I've done a few times visiting family not too far from your Reno area) and encountering nothing meaningfully different, or someone from Key West, Florida driving up to the icy roads of Minnesota in February, no knowing how to handle the change in conditions?

Yeah, it's the driver, but we still see no major issue with that, so why get all ascared over making Illinois recognize my ability to carry in Kentucky?


We are having this conversation two weeks after Wisconsin eliminated the age limit for hunting licenses. So far there are 1,800 happy Wisconsinites under the age of 10 with the right to put their little fingers on the trigger, several less than a year old.

No, this is an over-simplification stated to elicit emotional reactions from readers. In reality, these kids can only hunt if accompanied by an adult with a hunting license as well, meaning that they are supervised at all times. Ms. Collins wants ignorant people to believe that 6-month-olds are out there alone hunting deer on the weekend.

Whatta douche.


The bill’s opponents, all Democrats, lost every argument, but you had to give them credit for spunk. They dragged the fight on for more than six hours, dividing their time between pointing out that the gun murder rate in America is 297 times higher than in Japan, and offering amendments that attempted to make it clear how crazy the whole bill is.

Right, because "spunk" and illogical arguments that cite countries without the freedoms guaranteed American citizens is a great way to argue against the ability of the government to force states to allow said freedoms.

Maybe the spunk and illogical arguments make clear how crazy the Democrats--"all Democrats"--are, and not the bill.

I wonder how many Democrats cited statistics that are in favor of how responsible and safe and law-abiding the average lawful gun owner and CCDW permit holder is. I'm guessing none.


You have Missouri, where you can just buy a gun and put it in your pocket.

Well, you know, after having a federal background check run on you before you can legally purchase the weapon...there is that. Oh, and there's also the fact that, while Missouri law IMPLIES that they have permitless concealed carry, it's not expressly stated in any law. Couple that with the fact that they still offer CCDW permits, and one should come to the conclusion that you still need a CCDW permit in Missouri, even if the odds are that you will not get cited for unlawful use of a weapon if you don't.

So far, nothing is as black-and-white as Ms. Collins wants the reader to believe.


You have places like California, where people are carefully screened, trained and tested before they can get a gun and permit.

And California is known to trample on gun owners, trying to be like Japan and make it so cumbersome to buy a firearm, let alone obtain a CCDW permit, that it is an active attempt to dissuade firearm ownership and carry directly in the face of a constitutional right to do so.

County sheriffs can even deny CCDW permits for subjective or arbitrary reasons. California is ridiculous with its gun laws, to the point of protecting the criminal over the law-abiding citizen (since such laws reduce the ability to defend one's self against the criminals who use laws as kindling).

If one's argument is that California should be the national model, they should not be viewed as an authority on the subject matter.


The Republicans argued that people need to be able to carry guns — even in states where it’s against the law — because it just makes you safer. There’s an extremely popular vision of the average citizen drawing his concealed weapon and shooting a crazed gunman.

Well, it's not every Republican, nor is every Democrat opposed to such a national law. And don't forget that other parties and independents have opinions, too, and many dislike state laws like what California has accumulated over time.

But, honestly, there's no "extremely popular vision of the average citizen drawing his concealed weapon and shooting a crazed gunman." In my experience talking to and shooting with people from all political ideologies who own and shoot guns, they never, ever want to have to use that firearm against another human being. Most of us subscribe to the idea that it's better to have it and never need it than to need it and not have it.

For the dramatic majority of people willing to take on the responsibility and burden of carrying concealed firearms (which includes a willingness to use them as, hopefully, a last resort), we hold no fantasies about killing anyone, for any reason. We do, however, hold dear the idea that we will be better able to protect ourselves and those around us in the highly unlikely event that we would ever need access to a firearm.


And Giffords responded by starting a national campaign for stricter gun regulation. Some people fix problems. Some just impose them on everybody else.

Mrs. Giffords and her husbands crusade against firearms and our right to keep and bear them is...how do I put this nicely?...misguided fear-mongering that jettisons both a basic right protected in the Constitution and most logic in lieu of ideology.

To cite this, like Ms. Collins did California's gun laws, is to immediately negate any validity her op-ed piece could have had.

I'm for mandatory minimal training in order to carry a concealed weapon--to me, that is common sense because there are some who want to do so out of inflated fear instead of calm rationale. Scared, untrained people are not who should have guns strapped to their hips.

But, mandatory wait periods, at-will issuance of carry permits, firearm registration, intrusive firearm storage mandates, magazine-capacity limitations, banning scary-looking guns arbitrarily, and all similar approaches to "gun control" are pointless, IMO, and therefore don't pass the smell test as far as laws that should be passed. And most are either (a) the government trying to be your parent and telling what you should and shouldn't have based on their opinion at the time, or (b) simply a way for the state to get more money out of you.

Ms. Collins, you are an absolute idiot when it comes to firearms, and your irrational fear that drives you to have such a misguided opinion is reflected in most who think just like you. We need logic and reason in these conversations, not emotional drivel.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Regnor
Oh I didn't realize Gail Collins represents all liberal media.


She may not represent it, but she sure reflects the liberal media in her choices of topics.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


If one's argument is that California should be the national model, they should not be viewed as an authority on the subject matter.


I honestly don't know how anybody can, with any degree of seriousness, use California as a model for basically anything.

At all.

Ever.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

That took what, a whole 2 minutes to find?



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: abago71
a reply to: projectvxn

That took what, a whole 2 minutes to find?


Got that one on speed dial.

But she isn't the only one. Just my favorite.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

A model of what not to do, maybe. Nothing else.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have no intention of talking to you further. You want me to shutup? Fine. I'll shutup. Like I said, I hate this topic of conversation because my opinion is never welcome and ALWAYS misinterpreted. Cya. Enjoy being "right".


NOTHING WRONG with having an opinion. But without dealing with bias and preconception, followed by an honest effort to gather salient facts... opinions are mostly just bloviation. That's true for all of us... not just you... although we are talking about the Original Post here... which is well supported by the evidence... even in studies of bias on the topic.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey


If one's argument is that California should be the national model, they should not be viewed as an authority on the subject matter.


I honestly don't know how anybody can, with any degree of seriousness, use California as a model for basically anything.

At all.

Ever.


Getting a state tax abatement for opening up a private club for sexual predators? They could get some support for that!



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This may seem like a minor point....but he said "most shootings" not "mass shootings"



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz




Their feelings say guns are bad because tens of thousands of innocent rabbits, deer, and gophers keep getting slaughtered in mass shootings.
There I fixed that for you



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh yeah. I didn't notice. My bad on that.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

FWIW, me neither. Until i re-read it again after getting interrupted by someone IRL.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Djarums

It's very insulting and uncalled for.


Yeah? Well so was that moderator's behavior towards me. Furthermore, if I did something wrong how about U2Uing me instead or infracting me? But hey let's make it a public spectacle instead.


You make yourself a public spectacle, other people simply point it out. The OP attempted to reason with you by presenting facts and well thought out arguments.
You were having none of it. Hence the self-implosion on your behalf.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Well to be fair, you've cherry picked a single response to a single question in a single survey and declared it "demonstrable fact."

The specific question was:

"Question: What do you think is more important – to protect the right of Americans to own guns, OR to control gun ownership?"

You've taken that as "support for the second amendment among liberals hovers at around 20%" which is not really accurate. The question is about the balance of gun rights vs need to control gun ownership. It's a poorly conceived question to begin with and you've taken drastic liberties with your interpretation.

There are those that feel that there should be no limitations on gun ownership and that anyone who supports even modest regulation doesn't support the 2nd Amendment. Others will argue that you can both support the 2nd Amendment and also be in favor of things like prohibiting certain individuals from legally owning firearms. More common is the argument over prohibition of some firearms/accessories.

I support the 2nd Amendment but I don't think crazy people should be able to legally purchase something like a "smart rifle."



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

a right that is licensed isn't a right.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think the question illustrates exactly what I said.

The right to own a firearm is the second amendment.

The opposite is to turn a right into a privilege.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

a right that is licensed isn't a right.


Cool platitude?

We have a right to free speech but that right has certain limitations, no? I have a right to petition the government for a redress of my grievances but I can't simply walk into the Oval Office and rattle of my litany of grievances to POTUS do I?

I can go on.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn Darn you libs holding your flowers and trying to take my guns..... I take it you are the guy that just learned how to fast load a double and now think anyone that doesn't wants to take yours away. Well as a liberal I can promise you that is not going to happen. We like guns too buddy



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Not enough of you do, unfortunately.



new topics




 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join