Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 83

Thread: NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... that's got a gun

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    It's the first part of the show/transcript. Audio included.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112098087

    Mr. IFTIKHAR: Well, you know, in shorthand terminology, the concept of open carry is understood to be openly carrying a firearm in public. And the United States is essentially broken down into four categories of open-carry states. So we have permissive open-carry states, licensed open-carry states, anomalous open-carry states and non-permissive open-carry states.
    Hmm...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... that's got a gun.

    Have the people of NPR ever tried to have a civil conversation with anyone carrying a gun? Have they ever tried to have a civil conversation with anyone? Might such a person have been concealed carrying? How would they know? What a bunch of bigots! This is why I call political correctness the "unwritten dress code for the mind."

    When I was young, which was a long time ago, the buzzword was "prejudice" and used most often in discussing race relations. I tend to look a words in their larger meanings. Hence, to prejudge an issue is to make a judgement before learning what one should. See "Alice in Wonderland" the Queen of Hearts, who said "Verdict first; evidence second." Kinda fits here with NPR and their view of open carriers, doesn't it?

    MD

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Permissive open carry states?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... that's got a gun.

    Have the people of NPR ever tried to have a civil conversation with anyone carrying a gun? Have they ever tried to have a civil conversation with anyone? Might such a person have been concealed carrying? How would they know? What a bunch of bigots! This is why I call political correctness the "unwritten dress code for the mind."

    When I was young, which was a long time ago, the buzzword was "prejudice" and used most often in discussing race relations. I tend to look a words in their larger meanings. Hence, to prejudge an issue is to make a judgement before learning what one should. See "Alice in Wonderland" the Queen of Hearts, who said "Verdict first; evidence second." Kinda fits here with NPR and their view of open carriers, doesn't it?

    MD
    NPR: I don't think... enough said.

    If anyone at NPR was thinking they wouldn't be tools of the"progressive" agenda, unless of course they're complicit with the enslavement of the masses to a soviet styled state.

    Either way, NPR and the rest of the leftist elite media establishment is nothing more than a propaganda ministry that Goebbels started. Switch Jews for Christians and it's word for word.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    They are so right. Out of all those police and soldiers I've talked to none of them were civil.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    SNIP NPR: I don't think... enough said.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    They are so right. Out of all those police and soldiers I've talked to none of them were civil.
    Not really sure what to take out of this, but most soldiers I know are indeed civil. Most of the cops I've ever talked to were civil, regardless of why I was talking to them. Perhaps that's because I WAS CIVIL to begin with. That helps a lot. Elitist leftwingers rarely begin with civility, I try not to act like them.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    They are so right. Out of all those police and soldiers I've talked to none of them were civil.
    Not really sure what to take out of this, but most soldiers I know are indeed civil. Most of the cops I've ever talked to were civil, regardless of why I was talking to them. Perhaps that's because I WAS CIVIL to begin with. That helps a lot. Elitist leftwingers rarely begin with civility, I try not to act like them.
    It is a bit ambiguous, sorry for that. It was sarcasm.

    Most of the time the gun grabbers will qualify their "no one should have guns" idea with an exemption for police and soldiers. I'm pointing out that police and soldiers are armed and they are civil (usually), an obvious contradiction to their idea that no one can be civil while armed.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    PrayingForWar wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    They are so right. Out of all those police and soldiers I've talked to none of them were civil.
    Not really sure what to take out of this, but most soldiers I know are indeed civil. Most of the cops I've ever talked to were civil, regardless of why I was talking to them. Perhaps that's because I WAS CIVIL to begin with. That helps a lot. Elitist leftwingers rarely begin with civility, I try not to act like them.
    It is a bit ambiguous, sorry for that. It was sarcasm.

    Most of the time the gun grabbers will qualify their "no one should have guns" idea with an exemption for police and soldiers. I'm pointing out that police and soldiers are armed and they are civil (usually), an obvious contradiction to their idea that no one can be civil while armed.
    Roger, sarcasm is easier to identify with ears than eyes.You are exactly right about their contradiction, and I'm convinced (as I'm sure we all are) that's they're intentionally deceptive in that regard.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  11. #11
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    "NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... who's anti-second ammendment."

    There, I fixed it.

    And, of course, they threw race into it.

    "Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Ruben, help me out here. Even more than that, you know, of course, you know, it's an intimidation tactic, of course. But more than that, it also feeds into this fear that a lot of people, especially people of color, had early on that Obama, if elected, would not be safe in this country. You know, that…"

    Ifthose loserswanna see bigots all they need to do is look in a mirror.




    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Guns make for a civil society, without them there is really no fear put into people to behave themselves. If they allowed people to shoot robbers, rapist, child molesters on site, after they are found guilty. They would be amazed how much crime will drop.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    Guns make for a civil society, without them there is really no fear put into people to behave themselves. If they allowed people to shoot robbers, rapist, child molesters on site, after they are found guilty. They would be amazed how much crime will drop.
    The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Guns make for a civil society, without them there is really no fear put into people to behave themselves. If they allowed people to shoot robbers, rapist, child molesters on site, after they are found guilty. They would be amazed how much crime will drop.
    The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.
    +1,Grapeshot.



    Zack,

    Please understand that your position undermines liberty. Hidden in the ideaabove is the supposition that peopleonly behave themselves because they feardisastrous consequences.The underlying premise being that all men are beasts that need restraint. If all men are bad, why give them liberty?

    Liberty must be premised on the idea that men are basically good and will use their freedom for good. If men were bad, there would be no point in giving them liberty.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Guns make for a civil society, without them there is really no fear put into people to behave themselves. If they allowed people to shoot robbers, rapist, child molesters on site, after they are found guilty. They would be amazed how much crime will drop.
    The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.

    Yata hey
    Personally I truly think we allow criminals way to much time to try an appeal a death penalty. I think we need to take a more Texas stance on re-moving the nasty scum bags. There is way to many slap on the wrist sentences for people and many are let out 5 or 6 times before they get the sentence they should have gotten the first time or they screw with the wrong person and end up dead.

    If our country actually had tough punishments and not the joke of a buddy system we have now, we would not have over flowing prison system to begin with. People would really think hard about committing a crime of any type if for the very simple crime you will be going to hard labor prisons for minimum of 6 years, no early release PERIOD. Our prisons are way to much like resorts and not prisons. They really needs to be made into labor work style prisons where you have to work off the sentence and not spend the entire day, eating,sleep, crapping.

    There are those who are not on death row but still could not work off their time because they can't play well with others. Those who are to violet to work off their time do not deserve to return to society and need to be put on death row with the rest of the scum.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    We have a system of law for a reason, though I agree that the process has become mired in legal muck.

    Science may eventually supply a more perfect way of gathering evidence and man may be able to improve on the means/method of trying and punishing the guilty.

    Meanwhile, we have persons incarcerated (some on death row) that are completely innocent. DNA evidence has exonerated a few.

    Until the perfect system is in place, I do not see a zero tolerance policy having the necessary elements of what I hope the American justice system will become.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Guns make for a civil society, without them there is really no fear put into people to behave themselves. If they allowed people to shoot robbers, rapist, child molesters on site, after they are found guilty. They would be amazed how much crime will drop.
    The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.
    +1,Grapeshot.



    Zack,

    Please understand that your position undermines liberty. Hidden in the ideaabove is the supposition that peopleonly behave themselves because they feardisastrous consequences.The underlying premise being that all men are beasts that need restraint. If all men are bad, why give them liberty?

    Liberty must be premised on the idea that men are basically good and will use their freedom for good. If men were bad, there would be no point in giving them liberty.
    A good read for all to read. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5556

    "Armed people take a greater interest in avoiding confrontation, they understand that the argument created when someone cuts them off in traffic doesn’t seem as important when the escalation of the fight would lead to the use of deadly force. The same is true when a person cuts in front of you in line at the bank, or even when they talk too loud in the theatre during a movie. Keeping the peace while armed is actually much easier than when unarmed because the everyday minutiae of life pales in comparison to the thought of taking another’s life.

    In this case, the pro-gun community has two easily identified, distinct and insurmountable advantages.First, an honest trust of our fellow citizens and unwavering desire to allow them to go armed if they so choose. Second, the self-control to handle situations while armed that don’t require the use of deadly without devolving into mass chaos.
    The same reasons explain the basic and truthful statement that an armed society is a polite society.


    The thought that the American left fights for individual rights is patently false. If they did honestly believe the rights of all Americans should be protected they wouldn’t support confiscatory tax policies, quotas for hiring or the ultimate disarming of law abiding citizens. What the anti-gun left can’t help is projecting their morals on the American people. When the left does try imparting their own values onto honest law-abiding people it leaves them with more questions than answers.
    They can’t understand how an armed citizen can walk away from a fight in order to keep from having it escalate out of control. Anti-gun schemers also don’t understand the self-reliant and self-assured know they are capable of acting properly if forced to defend their own life, or to stand down when it isn’t necessary.
    "


    Humans in general are a very violet species and those who have no intention of hurting the innocent and choose not be be armed befit from the fear from a criminal of being killed by a armed person. If there was no fear in the criminals minds you would see a almost third world gang style violence across the country. Due to the justice system not put the fear in any criminal and they only think they fear is a armed society. The fear of one being shot or worse not by the justice system but my its honest citizens keep many criminals thinking of who they choose to go after.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    I am fully cognizant of the psychology of criminal thinking and values. Changing, restricting or terminating those is not the active goal amongst the posters here.

    We position ourselves as wishing to protect ourselves and loved ones from serious harm, not as enforcers of a particular set of standards. To do otherwise is to reach into the arena of vigilantism or anarchy.

    In fact, I abhor submissions that we should substitute ourselves for any part of that process. We are not the law, nor are we above it.

    Yata hey


    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member SlowDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Redford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    I have been reading a series of books put out in the early 90's. The author's name is William W. Johnstone....makes for some interesting ready. The US has been nuked cuzz our <Liberal>leaders disabled our defense systems. <Sound Familiar?>
    In the book there is a new Society where everyone works and everyone is armed. No crime hardly at all because there are few rules.When rebuilding they got rid of all the people who demanded a hand out instead of working for what they wanted. But to live in the New Society the rules must be adhered to. Don't like it leave. Violate them and well.....usually ends up in death sentence to be carried out NOW!
    Breaks into a persons house and they shoot you...no trial...just a burial. I am not saying it is Utopia but as long as the persons follow the few laws on the books and provide for themselves....life is GRAND......just saying
    Only two have offered their lives for you. A Soldier and Jesus....

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    SlowDog wrote:
    I have been reading a series of books put out in the early 90's. The author's name is William W. Johnstone....makes for some interesting ready. The US has been nuked cuzz our <Liberal>leaders disabled our defense systems. <Sound Familiar?>
    In the book there is a new Society where everyone works and everyone is armed. No crime hardly at all because there are few rules.When rebuilding they got rid of all the people who demanded a hand out instead of working for what they wanted. But to live in the New Society the rules must be adhered to. Don't like it leave. Violate them and well.....usually ends up in death sentence to be carried out NOW!
    Breaks into a persons house and they shoot you...no trial...just a burial. I am not saying it is Utopia but as long as the persons follow the few laws on the books and provide for themselves....life is GRAND......just saying
    Its called anarchy and that is criminal itself. Even our forefathers embraced dissent and different opinions. Under the fictional imposed rules, one man's interpertation of the rules becomes another's violation. Which one is deemed to be right for dispatching the other?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    We have created too much law and no 'nuff justice. The 'law' has become an obstacle to the justice it is supposed to elicit. In essence... it's simply'clutter' and deliberate obfuscation. The name of the game is 'Crine and Punishment'... not criminal rights... not crime and talk about it... not crime and rehabilitation. PUNISHMENT! Real punishment. The type of punishment where you will see no more sneering mugshots of the captives... but real 'Ohhshit fear' in those face of what is about to transpire for their transgressions against civil decency and humanity. This... for the Bernie Madhoff's to the Roman Polanski's to the ghetto thug and all else in between. Whatever happened to 'Let the Punishment Fit The Crime'? We've become a nation of wimps... inthe prosecution of justice and war. Ohhh... the 'sanctity' of human life... irregardless of the habitual predatory nature of that life.

    Corporal punishment... Capital Punishment should both be made public. None of this 'unusual' crap... None of this handwringing over the perp. Society deserves it's pound of flesh. Society deserves retribution. Society deserves to see justice meted out harshly where deserved. I'm talkin' public floggings and hangings... swiftly.

    To the criminal element... you do this... expect this. Here's your visual. No three hots 'n a flop with TV and an execise room. Here's makin' little one's outta big ones on the chain gang 12 hours a day. Here's the whipping post... the stocks... or the hangmans noose or firing squad. If you cannot conduct yourself in a responsible and civil manner... If you predate upon honest people for your living... if you commit rape and molestation... if you assault people for no reason... you will be taken out of society and punished or executed. Period! These are the demands of civilization. This is justice. Anything less is a load of crap.

  22. #22
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Dunno.....sounds like pretty much what was intended on a free society. Simple rules: don't murder, don't steal.....other than that, as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of another, you should be left the hell alone. Sounds like my kind of utopia.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Dunno.....sounds like pretty much what was intended on a free society. Simple rules: don't murder, don't steal.....other than that, as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of another, you should be left the hell alone. Sounds like my kind of utopia.
    Non no, you have to tell people how to have sex and what to smoke and drink and make them go to church, didn't you know that's what "free" means to conservatives? [/sarcasm]

    BTW, love your avatar. KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    Dunno.....sounds like pretty much what was intended on a free society. Simple rules: don't murder, don't steal.....other than that, as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of another, you should be left the hell alone. Sounds like my kind of utopia.
    Non no, you have to tell people how to have sex and what to smoke and drink and make them go to church, didn't you know that's what "free" means to conservatives? [/sarcasm]

    BTW, love your avatar. KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!
    Not this conservative. I don't care if you snort cyanide after screwing a cat. Break into my house and you've surrendered your rights.

    Real conservative principles have been skewed by religious zealots, and lumped into a narrow catagory by the fascists who make it a crime to defend yourself.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  25. #25
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post



    Then you have licensed ones, where some states allow you to open carry, but just, you need a license. Some are anomalous, where the state legislature right now and the current state law are currently at odds, and so it's kind of hazy in terms of that. And then there are the non-permissive states, which say that you may not openly carry a firearm.

    And so, you know, this gets back to the whole gun debate in terms of, you know, you're seeing people carrying AR-15s to public rallies. You know, are you going to see, you know, a guy with a rocket-launcher at a Chuck E. Cheese, you know, next Wednesday? Or, you know, with an Uzi at an IKEA. Or, you know, imagine a Glock 9 at a parent-teacher conference.

    Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Ruben, help me out here. Even more than that, you know, of course, you know, it's an intimidation tactic, of course. But more than that, it also feeds into this fear that a lot of people, especially people of color, had early on that Obama, if elected, would not be safe in this country. You know, that…

    MARTIN: Can I just - I just want to add - I'm sorry, forgive me, Jimi. I just want to add one thing, though, that I totally see your point. I want to hear what Ruben has to say. But there was one image that was widely played earlier this week of an African-American man named Chris -didn't give his last name to the reporter - with an AR-15 who was outside of President Obama's town hall meeting in Phoenix on Monday. And, you know, I'm not saying he's representative of anybody but himself, but I do think it's fair to hear what he has to say. So if you don't mind, I'd like to play a short clip.

    CHRIS: A lot of people think we live in a democracy so that we can just - we can vote how the minority is going to live. And if we want health care, as long as we get enough people, we'll just take money from you, and we'll buy whatever we want, pay for whatever we want. And I just think that in America, people have the ability to fight back and to resist, and that's, you know, that's another reason why I'm here.

    MARTIN: The only reason I'm mentioning the race piece is that, you know, you will note that some of the conservative blogs kept saying, well, what about this guy? What about this guy? So, okay, what about this guy, and you hear what he has to say. What this has to do with health care, I'm not really sure, and why people feel the need to openly display weapons, that's - I'm interested in what you all have to say about it.

    Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Michel, you know, CNN reported that a lot of these meatball - I mean, gun owners - were sent to these town hall meetings by supporters of Ron Paul. So I don't even know how many of these gun owners are even legit, you know.

    MARTIN: Well, if you're registered, they're legit, but - go ahead, Ruben.

    Mr. NAVARRETTE: Jimi, this is Ruben. A couple things here. I'm glad that the African-American guy with the AR-15 had a say because this is progress. This is about, you know, like the move with feminism. You have the freedom to think, the freedom to choose different sides of a debate. You wouldn't have had this conversation 20, 30 years ago. So that's a good thing. The other thing…

    MARTIN: Yeah, because of all the racist laws keeping guns out of the hands of black people. So I'll just point that out. (unintelligible)

    Mr. NAVARRETTE: He's not a caricature. He's not sort of like this racist white guy that wants to kill Obama.

    MARTIN: But that doesn't mean that the former doesn't exist because the latter also exists. I mean, I think those two realities can exist in the same world, is my point.

    Mr. NAVARRETTE: It just means that complexity is important, nuance is important. Sometimes, the media misses the nuance. But beyond that, this whole discussion about carrying guns is a distraction. The reason the president's in incredible difficulty with health care is not because of gun-toting opponents at town hall meetings. It's because he cannot corral his own Democratic Party.
    Bolded crap is of most interest.

    Jeezuspeezuz, these idiots need to attend an actual OC lunch or dinner, just show up incognito, and observe and listen, and pretend to be normal regular people and ask nondescript questions. They don't need to carry, just find an event that is sceduled, and show up. Find out who "these people" are, ask what all "these people" do for a living, etc. No debating, arguing, or insulting behaviors.

    But I suppose they all hide out in NYC and DC or something, and are too scared to venture into those gun owning, gun carrying, parts of the US.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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