TexasCHLforum.com

At least one journalist is honest about her opinion: "... get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... dment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I know we collectively disagree with her in every way, shape, and form, we should continue to encourage this kind of "outing" where we can. Securing these kind of public statements from people that aggressively pursue or support gun control issues lets us keep the discussion properly framed. I would MUCH rather them talk about removing the second amendment than talk about passing "sensible gun laws" (oh, that euphemism again).

P.S. - She's with MSNBC, so I use the term "journalist" VERY loosely.

Lets see how she changes her tune if/when she has a life threatening experience and waits for the cops to arrive to clean up the mess and write the reports.

Nothing more than discrimination. How can a person want the ability of their children, parents, neighbors and friends to protect themselves denied. Only affording criminals the opportunity to secure firearms is blatant discrimination.

stroguy wrote:Nothing more than discrimination. How can a person want the ability of their children, parents, neighbors and friends to protect themselves denied. Only affording criminals the opportunity to secure firearms is blatant discrimination.

She is typical of the type for whom the government has a solution to all problems. It doesn't matter the subject. I'd be willing to bet if you got her talking, she'd advocate government control of what foods can be eaten, what Internet sites can be visited, etc.

That 2nd gets in the way of getting rid of the 3rd, 1st and ...

chasfm11 wrote:

stroguy wrote:Nothing more than discrimination. How can a person want the ability of their children, parents, neighbors and friends to protect themselves denied. Only affording criminals the opportunity to secure firearms is blatant discrimination.

She is typical of the type for whom the government has a solution to all problems. It doesn't matter the subject. I'd be willing to bet if you got her talking, she'd advocate government control of what foods can be eaten, what Internet sites can be visited, etc.

I was really just displaying my new liberal form of thinking to fight liberal ways of thinking. You can't just say "it's in the Constitution". You have to instill the unfairness to the minority of what a measure does. I could also say it is racist and sexist to do away with the 2nd. These are the key terms used by liberals to get your heart strings a strummin.

Neat tactic!

AEA wrote:Neat tactic!

Thanks.

I think a great one on one interview with this ignorant blow hard would contain these tidbit statements. "How could you be so heartless to deny a young adult that is taking care of their bed stricken terminally ill parents the right to defend them against a predator that intrudes on their private domicile with the intent to kill them?" "How heartless can you be?" "Taking away the 2nd amendment would be murdering these helpless people." "Akin to taking away their social security." "Do you want to be the person responsible for their murders?" "Well you would be if you take away the 2nd amendment."

stroguy wrote:

AEA wrote:Neat tactic!

Thanks.

I think a great one on one interview with this ignorant blow hard would contain these tidbit statements. "How could you be so heartless to deny a young adult that is taking care of their bed stricken terminally ill parents the right to defend them against a predator that intrudes on their private domicile with the intent to kill them?" "How heartless can you be?" "Taking away the 2nd amendment would be murdering these helpless people." "Akin to taking away their social security." "Do you want to be the person responsible for their murders?" "Well you would be if you take away the 2nd amendment."

A nice idea, but it won't work with these kinds of people. They will simply parrot back to you all the Brady talking points, particularly the canard about how you are X times more likely to be shot by your own gun than use it in self-defense, or some other such unmitigated crap.

There are none so blind as those who are willfully so. The best wish we can have—sadly—for people of this mentality is that they be personally thrust into a situation so brutal that they arrive on their own at the conclusion that they need a gun, and should have had one. If they—hopefully—survive the situation, then maybe they will preach a different gospel. If they don't, then that is one less fool to muddy the waters.

I have actually asked this question on several occasions: "If you came home, found your front door forced open, and upon entering found a criminal beating/raping/stabbing/whatever your wife/husband/parent/child, and you had a gun in your hand, would you shoot the attacker to stop the attack?"

If they answer "yes," then my next question is, "then why do you want to deny me the right to being able to do that for my loved ones?" That then leads to a discussion that a gun is a tool, and like any other tool which can be used to take a life, like a screwdriver or a hammer, the issue isn't the tool, but rather the heart of the person wielding it, and there is no way you can legislate what the human heart will do or not do.

If they answer "no," then I simply state "then your wife/husband/parent/child deserves better than you, and you do not deserve them." End of story, and I don't care if they are offended. Hopefully they are offended enough to try and defend the indefensible, and when backed into a logical corner they have to capitulate and confess that their position is based on their own irrational fears and that they can't possibly expect the rest of the world to conform to their fears. They have to man up and deal with their fears and confront their own shortcomings, and get over them.

Either path forces the other person to confront the fundamental immorality of their anti-gun position. I am not out to deliberately create enemies, but I am also past caring about people who are deliberately stupid, even in the face of perfect logic. Those people cannot be changed by anything I say, and so I'm not going to waste much time on them, and I don't care if my logic offends them.

The people that are worth talking to are the ones who are willing to enter into a rational discussion of the issues, and who are willing to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong, and just haven't yet heard a clearly worded and respectfully delivered counter-argument to show them that.

These kind of people function on pacifist/Superman emotions, and have no intention of ever functioning as citizens of the country they live in. After all, abolishing the 2nd amendment also means, "I have no desire to protect my family, my community, my state, or my country."

To be fair though, discussions about changing the constitution are an excellent example of how our country works, and I welcome her opening her mouth to say this at every opportunity. I'm looking forward to all the other brain-cell-free sycophants that jump on her bandwagon. I'm all for calling a constitutional convention on this topic!

My take is that we need to concentrate on the vast majority of folks who "kinda" believe people like her, but are still somewhat undecided. For them, the tactic might work. For the hard-core Brady-types, nothing will work. Besides, we need to understand that the history of civilian disarmament laws is that such measures are actually passed in order to help an elite gain/maintain control over a much larger peasantry, that will then be ruthlessly exploited for the fun and profit of the elite. Forget all of the anti-crime rhetoric. If crime were really the concern, then they would not be calling for gun control since crime rates have dropped since more states have gone to shall-issue concealed carry and as gun ownership has expanded. The fact that the anti-Second Amendment people pointedly ignore the falling crime rates reported by the FBI strongly indicates that the anti's don't really care about reducing crime. Something else is afoot, regardless of their propaganda rhetoric. That may be why they keep harping on Mexico and US guns--the US crime rate's fall has taken the wind out of the anti-crime argument domestically, so they have to go international to keep it up.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I have actually asked this question on several occasions: "If you came home, found your front door forced open, and upon entering found a criminal beating/raping/stabbing/whatever your wife/husband/parent/child, and you had a gun in your hand, would you shoot the attacker to stop the attack?"

If they answer "yes," then my next question is, "then why do you want to deny me the right to being able to do that for my loved ones?" That then leads to a discussion that a gun is a tool, and like any other tool which can be used to take a life, like a screwdriver or a hammer, the issue isn't the tool, but rather the heart of the person wielding it, and there is no way you can legislate what the human heart will do or not do.

If they answer "no," then I simply state "then your wife/husband/parent/child deserves better than you, and you do not deserve them." End of story, and I don't care if they are offended. Hopefully they are offended enough to try and defend the indefensible, and when backed into a logical corner they have to capitulate and confess that their position is based on their own irrational fears and that they can't possibly expect the rest of the world to conform to their fears. They have to man up and deal with their fears and confront their own shortcomings, and get over them.

Brilliant! I hope you don't mind if I use this too

Something seemingly missed was how the others reacted to this. It seemed that everyone else on the panel, except Issa, tried to make a joke of it. In some cases it may have been that they were left speechless but from their remarks I have a hard time believing that. It was also pointed that if we think having guns protects us from tyranny there was no way out guns would help, after all the government has nukes.

It is a nightmarish thought that many of the sheeple look up to these for information and help making decisions.

As to making changes to the U.S. Constitution, how much does it have to be changed to make the United States no longer the United States. I'd be willing to guess that if you could transport a person from the 1800's to present day they ask what the hell we were thinking.

The one thing, at least in my opinion, that should never be changed is our Bill of Rights. To do so will make the U.S. a total different country.

I have problem when she states that the 2nd Ammendment gives people the right to kill. Where did she go to school to have learned that?