Katie get your gun control (Part II)

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/bloomberg-demanded-lott-interview-cut-couric-gun-control-film

In addition to Katie Couric knowingly including misleading footage to make gun owners appear like boobs with nothing to say in response to a question about background check policies, now AmmoLand.com has uncovered the fact that Couric acceded to Billionaire Michael Bloomberg's demand that gun policy scholar John Lott's interview also be cut from Couric Gun Control Film.

See more at http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...ontrol-move-bloombergs-request/#ixzz4IHmWHul4

I doubt that Bloomberg had to twist her arm.....likely just scratched her hand w/greenbacks.

I'd like to know specifically how Lotts research has been "discredited." There is a difference between that and just overlooked/ignored.

Hey, let's not get facts involved in this gun debate. We just want no one but cops and criminals to have guns.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

Hey, let's not get facts involved in this gun debate. We just want no one but cops and criminals to have guns...

Click to expand...

And we increasingly can kill two birds with one uniform.

MAC702 said:

And we increasingly can kill two birds with one uniform.

Click to expand...

+1

1. The present administration, and their adherents, want a citizenry completely dependent upon the government. Witness the reaction to the "Cajun Navy" by certain lawmakers.
2. The media, most of whom share the same political philosophy as those presently in power, cannot tell the whole, unvarnished truth. If they did, they would be undermining their "masters" and would probably suffer repercussions.
3. Last, but not least, this all ties together with the lust for absolute power. Both parties have it to greater or lesser extent, but both have it. You cannot have absolute power over a citizenry that retains the means to resist tyranny.

The only difference I see is that one party is open in its desire to disarm free men and women under the guise of making them "safer". The other party does not to admit to such a scheme, but, make no mistake, given sufficient provocation, they would be just as swift to attempt that disarmament.

Am I am pessimist? I don't think so; I see myself as more of a realist.