84 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
I watched that excellent speech
Made a lot of sense. Not quite the way you reported it, but anyone can look it up online shortly.
It's not always the speech but often the speaker
The same words that would be accepted from a trusted mouth would be rejected if from an untrusted one.
It was as brilliant as Swift-Boating, and just as truthful.
How about re-instating the Assault Weapons ban? How about a tight nationwide background check system and a two week, or two month waiting period. If you want a gun for normal usage, rather than killing someone or yourself right then, you can wait, it's no hardship, unless you're a kid on Christmas morning.
I reported what I heard, distorted nothing, but it was clear that there was NO substantive content. Nothing that would help avert or diminish the next Aurora, or Columbine or Virginia Tech, and it was clear that the Vice President who presented the statement was shaking in his boots, knowing that this was the big danger they'd been fearing. It also seemed to me that he was deeply angry at having to do anything at all, because the NRA's previous tactic was to do nothing except organize gun shows a few weeks afterwards in the area where the tragedy occurred.
I did forget to mention the other culprit he attacked in his
speech: The Media. The Media, journalists misrepresent gun violence by reporting on it. What???
The man is an extremely well paid lobbyist for the firearms and ammunition industry. He has no authority conferred by his "members" because they have no role in either appionting him, or contributing to the agenda of the NRA.
I just watched part of a PBS program on Newtoen, in which the President of the Gun Owners of America repeated everything that LaPierre said this morning. Obviously they are working from the same set of notes.
I haven't brought this up with my friend in Virginia, because I know it will just upset her, but a friend in South Carolina, and another in Texas were both devastated. The friend in South Carolina can't watch the news so she TiVo's it, so she can skip the parts about Connecticut. She taught Grade School for most of her life.
Are you serious?
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." -- is NOT the solution. I believe the Swiss got it right when it comes to guns - that awareness, education and respect are the key. You can look it up online.
I'm not sure just how finding the perfect scapegoat can help. The issue is not the guns; but the culture, on how people use it. Please stop blaming it on something else. Like, I've seen this argument on eQuibbly a few days back where it talks about mental health and gun violence, as if there's concrete evidence that these two are correlated.
Don't you know that the NRA doesn't represent it's members,
it represents the gun manufacturers?
Any large organization represents it's money supply, peroid
Here's part of the problem
at about 4 1/2 minutes in, the first of the protesters raises a sign. You can watch the cameras as they turn away from the speaker and onto the the disruptor. This is what the American people get from our media in the way of news coverage. They are part of the problem and none of the solution.
The guy stopped talking also...which I saw
They could have taken video of the floor, instead some took video of the cameraperson taking video of the people with the signs.
Lots of video...
This is what the American people get from our media in the way of news coverage.
Was it doctored/edited?
It's not about the video posted by this news site
but what will end up being offered by those who gave the protester their attention.
I watched it live...there were lots of cameras/news sites
but what will end up being offered by those who gave the protester their attention.
THEY put it out there...YOU disseminate....Then impose your views on others?
I watched it in full too
Parts I thought were realistic and parts not so much but I thought the presentation was done well and worthy of a listen without prejudice. What I'm suggesting is that the news media won't present it without adding their own prejudice. Already, the majority of sites I see show the protests and commentary by others about what was said. Those who didn't watch live or bother to look for the whole presentation will see a completely different picture from that which be on TV news or newspaper headlines. That's life, I guess, and why I don't rely on media reporting for a truthful account of events.
Notice when Obama has hecklers
the cameras stay on him, they don't all leave him to give attention to his hecklers, because that's not what the media wants the audience to get from Obama's speech time. If it's someone the media doesn't favor, then they immediately give as much air time to the hecklers as they can.
re as much time to the hecklers
you mean Fox?
With the size of Fox and Fox news now, even if outnumbered by networks, I'm not sure the balence if you call it that is so off.
After all, Fox supporters have pointed out vocally over the last 5 years how popular Fox is now. It has to be considered part of the mix. According to it's fans, it's more important and bigger than any one of the others, so it's influence should be quite sufficient.
It was supposed to be a press conference
Typically a press conference involves the asking and answering of questions. He took none. The whole thing, especially after the pre-announcement that the NRA had "something to offer," was shameful.
Watch how quickly the supporters of federal money for armed guards would do a 180 if someone proposed taking that same money and using it to buy textbooks and restore programs that have been cut.
One tv news commentator reported it would take
one out of every seven policemen currently employed to put one in all schools without hiring new ones.
One out of 7 is a little over 14%. So we need to hire 14% more police to cover the schools or pay the equilvalent overtime, that is often regarded as saving the benefit cost nowadays. But do you want a policeman finishing an overnight shift working over 8 hours as your school guard? Terrible reaction time, danagerous for the police to work over too much for the same reason.
So we need to increase our local spending on police by more than 14%. Ok, how?
What I heard from the video is that he
was suggesting an auxiliary type of force made up of volunteers who would get NRA training. This included parents of students. He mentioned that professional police are also NRA trained. While I think it's not the worst idea, I see it difficult to implement on a national scale.
and I have misgivings about armed parents, no trained as professional law enforcement officer guarding the school their child is attending.
I'd be a bit worried about their maintaining calm in evaluating the danger or lack of in something unusual occurring.
Police may go through a NRA training, but I doubt that is all. And isn't a normal practice for new hires to spend at least some time as a partner with an experienced LEO? at least in the larger police department.
Retired LEO's and career military might be better in such roles, although without meaning any disrepect, I'd be concerned with some such retirees having a problem dealing with school age kids. They might expect just too a bit too much discipline and rigidity for school kids to satisfy them.
I'd have to mention again but I think he
was referring to volunteers who were ex-military (could be parents) or who did or had worked in public safety.
Another problem is volunteers, no matter how
well intended or sincere always end up with scheduling problems and people that eventually decide they can't anymore.
But it may work at least in some communities if they support the volunteers.
CodePink are an AIDS centred activist group who are
broadening the issues they "cover" to the detriment of those issues.
In San Francisco, where they originated, they are viewed as an unescapable nuisance at TV conferences there, and a perpetual irritant. Apparently they are spreading to other locales and other issues. I see them as counter-productive and an irritating distraction from serious issues.
Their appearance is invariably alienating to a more general audience who would otherwise make up their minds based on their real assessment of the "facts", if any, of the issue (none in this case), but who are driven into the arms of the NRA, in this case, by the protesters and their appearance. I find it all very childish.
CodePink are brilliant at defeating themselves on the issues which they support because of their actions. What I don't understand is how they get in to venues like the NRA press conference.
The criticism of the NRA
from the left wanting gun control............so hypocritical when you have this happening with the full approval of the left administration.......How can they demand gun control when they add to the problem and can't control THEMSELVES?
If your statement were true then surveys of NRA members
wouldn't show 70% of them supporting better and more limiting legislation. More extremist smoke screening of an entirely different issue.
And what does your ATF red herring have to do with anything. It sounds like an ill advised operation, beauracratic bungling at its best, but it has nothing at all to do with this issue. I think you should be ashamed for your shameless use of a tragedy to argue for an extremist minority issue (i.e. Assault Weapons), meaning the extreme availability of non-hunting weapons designed solely to kill people. There is no reason to have them in a civil society, that's what armies are for, and why armies keep tight control on those weapons.
The extremists like you, Toni, appear to fear that the American Government is their enemy, and is likely to morph into a dictatorship unless resisted by its armed citizens. The truth is that the only successful coups d'etats are carried out by the military or by externally supported paramilitaries in weak Third World countries. The fears encouraged by the NRA and its puppets are a cynical manipulation of vulnerable not terribly rational people, for the interests of a small wealthy group of corporations.
Not a gun enthusisatic myself, know quite a few
but reports by the so call main stream media recently were actually pointing out how nicely built a rifle the ar15 is, accurate with a good basic sight system.
The look of the gun doesn't necessarily reflect it's potential.
There is an adapter made for some shotguns that use clips that allows the attachment of a drum magazine to hold over 30 rounds I'm told.
Tell me, what do you think would have been the difference if it had been shotgun blast instead of rifle bullets? if any difference at all at the close range it occured the carnage would have been worse.
A smaller clip wouldn't make much difference, since you can change a clip in less than a minute anyway if you have a spare in your pocket. So all the talk against the large clips have little to do with massacres anyway. It's just an easy argument to influence people.
I mean really, trying to convince people you don't need 30 round clips is a lot easier first step than convincing them to outlaw guns.
I seriously doubt
your 70% figure is anywhere near the truth (you didn't provide a link to prove your statement.....something you accuse me of doing over and over, so please back up what you say so you can be credible).
My ATF 'red herring' is something you may not like, but the fact is, our current administration deliberately allowed guns to be walked across the border, and never kept track of them, and those guns are showing up frequently now, including a PERSONAL gun that belonged to an ATF agent. If they can't keep track of their OWN weaponry, what makes you think they are responsible enough to take control over a banning of certain guns and ammo? I care less about your 'shame of me'........I find it highly amusing that your main debate in this is that it involves 'a small wealthy group of corporations'. It always comes down to money with you and how you absolutely hate that some people have more than you, including your former wife.
Besides, the bill that Feinstein has introduced specifically allows people to KEEP WHAT THEY OWN currently and only bans FUTURE SALES. Why do you think there has been a run on the guns that will be possibly banned soon? How will those guns be controlled with a ban now that everybody and their brother is out there buying up every one of them right now?
RE: It always comes down to money with you
It always comes down to money with you and how you absolutely hate that some people have more than you, including your former wife.
AND it always comes down to money with you and how you absolutely hate that some people get entitlements, even people you don't know.
I seriously doubt your 70% figure is anywhere near the truth (you didn't provide a link to prove your statement.....something you accuse me of doing over and over, so please back up what you say so you can be credible).
Again, 80% of respondents, with around 70% NRA member respondents, all favored restrictions, controls, and limited access.
Nearly every link in that article
is to a liberal think tank or organization. And it downright lied in the article.....
>>>>>There is no need to explore the actual data over shootings in the United States, although it is not surprising to see that states with the highest per capita gun crimes are mostly states with more lax gun laws.>>>>
Chicago and Wash DC have the strictest gun laws in the country and yet the crimes with guns rate is through the roof for both of them. Of course the statement would be that 'there is no need to explore the actual data'.....why would they even WANT to?
The other stats in the article are also misleading in that the writer is trying to tie in statistics on 'pollution' and 'healthy foods' with stats that have nothing to do with gun control. I don't believe for a minute that 80% of 80% are in favor of actual banning........although I DO believe that most citizens are in favor of longer wait periods and more stringent background checks. Even Adam was turned down three days before his killing spree when he tried to purchase another weapon......so he just killed his mother and took hers instead. IF people really were for banning the weapons, do you think sales for them would be going through the roof right now?
I think it was really nice of you to do Rob's homework for him. It must be nice to post something stupid as hell and have somebody else cover your butt for you. Too bad the stats are out of whack because that's what liberals do on a regular basis and don't show the reality like they should.
RE: It must be nice
You asked for a link...I gave you one.
Most of your links are conservative think tanks
I heard the figure quoted as a Gallup Poll figure, though
in your world that too may be viewed as a liberal-conspiracy group. I heard it on a number of different news programs. You doubted my figure, JP gave you the evidence. Whatever else was on the site is immaterial, the figure has been widely quoted everywhere. It is distinctly possible it has been avoided by FoxNews since they cherry-pick their coverage on everything, but I don't know because I don't get, let alone watch FoxNoise. As I understand it, you don't watch Fox either, so you must have been exposed to the figure since it was so widely reported.
And thank you very much JP, most appreciated.
My assumption, Toni, was that you'd open a newspaper, or see a news program, or look up the information on Google yourself. You're the computer genius, not me. You can't use Google?? Though I recognize that you couldn't have complained about the figure if you'd bothered to looked it up and had found it was real.
Back to Speakeasy Forum
(Page 1 of 3)