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

imported post

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=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.

Click to expand...

Hmm...

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

imported post

Permissive open carry states?

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

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

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

Click to expand...

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.

Click to expand...

+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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.

Click to expand...

+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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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