Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Off vs ceasefire or tomorrow (sunday) 9am

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Off vs ceasefire or tomorrow (sunday) 9am

    This ought to be an interesting interview.


    -----------------------
    Oregon Firearms Federation
    PO Box 556
    Canby, OR 97013

    Voice: (503) 263-5830

    http://www.oregonfirearms.org
    OFF ALERT 07.28.12

    GUN CONTROL DEBATE REVEALS THE LIES OF THE GUN GRABBERS

    A MESSAGE FROM KEVIN STARRETT

    Early this week, KATU TV in Portland invited me to debate Penny Okamoto of Ceasefire Oregon. I accepted. Soon thereafter they called back to tell me that if I came I would be required to leave my firearm unsecured in my car.

    I declined their invitation. A few hours later, in a display of breathless ignorance, they called our Foundation seeking someone who would comply with this ridiculous and ignorant demand. Imagine their surprise when I answered the phone.

    The following day they called again to ask if they could send a satellite truck to my home to tape the show remotely. I agreed. They opened the show, which will air tomorrow morning at 9 AM, with a somewhat lengthy explanation for why I was not in their studio.

    Shortly into the debate Okamoto refers to the “guns Kevin has to kill people with...”
    It’s interesting to note that this is the same idiot who says ""We need to stop selling these machine guns that are basically built just to kill humans”. Her website demands a ban on “assault weapon ammunition.” Despite Okamoto’s utter and staggering ignorance of the most basic facts, she was the best KATU could get.

    In a press release posted on their website, KATU said: "According to Tamerlano, an employee pointed out that the company had a no-gun policy when Starrett wanted to bring his gun with him to the taping. The station then decided to strictly enforce the policy.”
    To set the record straight, the only time a firearm came up was when KATU called back to inform me that I would have to agree to be disarmed, I never brought up carrying a gun when I initially agreed to participate. One has to wonder what they mean by "The station THEN decided to strictly enforce the policy.”

    In the body of the press release, KATU includes this gem: "KATU's SVP and general manager, John Tamerlano, said Fisher Communications, which owns KATU, has had a no-gun policy since 9/11 that prohibits anyone from bringing a weapon onto its property. The only exception is given to law enforcement officers such as police officers or FBI agents.”

    Why their paranoia about firearms does not extend to police is curious, but what is weirder is that they developed this policy as a result of 9/11. Would it not have made more sense to implement a company policy that prohibited anyone from crashing airliners into their studio?

    The website release ends with this incomprehensible statement "This version corrects process in which the station decided to enforce the no-gun policy."

    If you are in the KATU viewing area you can watch the entire sideshow tomorrow at 9 AM, but for the misleading press release and a short snip of the “debate” you can click on either of the following links:

    http://www.katu.com/news/local/Gun-r...?m=y&smobile=y

    http://tinyurl.com/comand9

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    53

    Just watched the interview.

    So I had watched the preview which you posted, and today I watched the full show. I get where Kevin is coming from but thinking about how he appeals to the other side he should have been there at the station. Yes I don't agree with with disarming but for the sake of the argument he should have been there. (I'm not trying to bash on him in anyway.) I think Kevin is a person with a lot of knowledge and wisdom. The other thing was that he needed to let Penny talk her way into her own traps she gave plenty of opportunity for proving her thoughts false, he just needed to let it happen instead of talking over. I totally agree with his opinions about what she had stated on her thoughts. Now on to Penny, she had no argument to begin with. Just her thoughts, which Kevin did a good job of proving that guns nor ammo kill people. She had also stated that she did not want to ban rifles or handguns, however she wanted to ban "AR-15's" (assualt Rifle) and high capacity magazines as well as semi automatic weapons. Most people that carry carry a semi auto because of reliability, but she says she doesn't want to effect the right to defense. She also got all of her statements from media, media is never as accurate as it should be; there is always an agenda either way you lean. She closed the show with her thoughts on poverty, domestic violence, gang violence, and mental health issues. What did you plan on arguing Penny? She was reaching as far as she could for any sympathy votes from the left side, especially with the sorrows to Aurora. Everyone feels bad not just the anti-gun lobby. You came into debate legal people buying legal guns, now your reaching into mental health problems which most gun owners do not have a problem with. Figure out your argument because your argument is headed in too many directions and it will only apply to the weakest of the weak minded people. anyone with a brain could have dissected your defense. On to Katu's show "your voice your opinion." Your polls are very weak in the fact that they lean into the anti-gun lobby's agenda. There is no other side to your poll. The other problem I had is that you picked somebody from the anti-gun lobby that is so contradicting of herself it wasn't even a fair fight, she had no plan to state facts it was all opinions. Pick somebody that knows what they are talking about.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by BadMoon Risin68 View Post
    I get where Kevin is coming from but thinking about how he appeals to the other side he should have been there at the station. Yes I don't agree with with disarming but for the sake of the argument he should have been there.
    OFF is "Oregon's only no compromise gun lobby". Should the head of the no compromise lobby compromise? I think not. If you want compromises and deals to be hammered out, there are plenty of gun lobbies that are willing to serve that purpose. If you want somebody to say no to every attempt to lessen the right to keep and bear arms, then there's OFF and Gun Owners of America (and that's about it?).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    OFF is "Oregon's only no compromise gun lobby". Should the head of the no compromise lobby compromise? I think not. If you want compromises and deals to be hammered out, there are plenty of gun lobbies that are willing to serve that purpose. If you want somebody to say no to every attempt to lessen the right to keep and bear arms, then there's OFF and Gun Owners of America (and that's about it?).
    Don't get me wrong I totally understand, but looking at other people who have not decided or have decided the other way it kind of makes it look like we are not civilized that we won't come out from hiding to vote. Now you and I know that's not the case but it looks differently to other people. Either way I thought Kevin had some great statements.

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by BadMoon Risin68 View Post
    Don't get me wrong I totally understand, but looking at other people who have not decided or have decided the other way it kind of makes it look like we are not civilized that we won't come out from hiding to vote. Now you and I know that's not the case but it looks differently to other people. Either way I thought Kevin had some great statements.
    I'm not civilized...I have no use for a "civilization" such as is developing today.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    130
    So was he pissed because she insinuated that he had intent or desire to shoot people? Because the whole reason i have guns is that they are good for killing people. I don't wanna defend myself with a butter knife.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •