TexasCHLforum.com

The prejudice is just overwhelming.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=mkbmLlzxqJs[/youtube]

I was neutral about David Gregory before, but he's just plummeted in my opinion. He didn't even pretend to try to start this off with any objectivity. Journalism is dead.

Same question just phrased differently, "will you give up your 2nd amendment right?"

Politicians and the media as a whole are 100% prejudiced.

That had to have been one of the most bias interviews I've seen. So...will you give up your rights? NO. Will you give up some of your rights? NO. Will you give up any of your rights? NO. So....your saying you will not give us anything??? YES. Well thank you for your time.

Journalism nowadays is a joke... it's not about the facts anymore, it's about what advances their views on politics, morals, believes, etc. The days where the journalist was looking to break the big story, finding all the facts, leaving no stone unturned are long gone... now it's all about them, antagonizing their guests -unless the guest is some kind of celebrity- and shoving down our throats their views 24/7.

Wayna LaPierre did a good job this morning... we can't give one inch of our gun ownership rights...

Wayne did great in that interview. The interviewer on other hand is a joke. The NRA is the only group to put out a solution to keep the children safe the rest just wanna punish americans who did nothing wrong.

The interviewer was trying to suck Wayne into the "If it saves just one life." trap.

And then he said Wayne said it anyway.

The other day I pointed out, in a debate elsewhere, that in Portland the shooter committed suicide when confronted by a CHL holder. At which point my opponent stated that this was then proof that the presence of a gun caused a suicide.

Idiocy.

I also think he did a great job. Far better than I would have. They would have hauled me off after telling the guy what a fool he and anyone else is if they think another ban will stop these type of things from happening.

I wish he would have pointed out that the VTech shooter used only ten round mags and just carried a bunch of extras with him.

Another thing that I constantly notice with liberals as that they say, "You have to admit" or "You have to ..." something. I conservative always asks if another person can admit to or agree on something. I think the next time some like that tells me I have to admit to something I will just flat stop them and tell them I don't have to admit to anything and point out what they are doing.

Skiprr wrote:I was neutral about David Gregory before, but he's just plummeted in my opinion. He didn't even pretend to try to start this off with any objectivity. Journalism is dead.

Journalism in the mainstream media has been dead for 10 years or more. This is why newmedia is so important.

jimlongley wrote:The other day I pointed out, in a debate elsewhere, that in Portland the shooter committed suicide when confronted by a CHL holder. At which point my opponent stated that this was then proof that the presence of a gun caused a suicide.

Idiocy.

Did you laugh at him and call him a boneheaded idiot, and suggest that for the sake of our species he ought not reproduce?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jimlongley wrote:The other day I pointed out, in a debate elsewhere, that in Portland the shooter committed suicide when confronted by a CHL holder. At which point my opponent stated that this was then proof that the presence of a gun caused a suicide.

Idiocy.

Did you laugh at him and call him a boneheaded idiot, and suggest that for the sake of our species he ought not reproduce?

Something similar to that. He was very insulted and the originator of the thread said I was being obtuse. I pointed out that the ultimate in obtuse was when a CHL holder stopped a rampage shooting, as has been suggested could happen by those of us in favor of universal carry, and the opposition instead of acknowledging that it happened, merely used it to bolster, in their tiny little minds, their contention that guns cause suicide. There has been no answering post.

jimlongley wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jimlongley wrote:The other day I pointed out, in a debate elsewhere, that in Portland the shooter committed suicide when confronted by a CHL holder. At which point my opponent stated that this was then proof that the presence of a gun caused a suicide.

Idiocy.

Did you laugh at him and call him a boneheaded idiot, and suggest that for the sake of our species he ought not reproduce?

Something similar to that. He was very insulted and the originator of the thread said I was being obtuse. I pointed out that the ultimate in obtuse was when a CHL holder stopped a rampage shooting, as has been suggested could happen by those of us in favor of universal carry, and the opposition instead of acknowledging that it happened, merely used it to bolster, in their tiny little minds, their contention that guns cause suicide. There has been no answering post.

So, the guy would have to admit to a logical conclusion that in that instance (and many others, as at Lubys in Killeen, and other instances where mass shooters turn a gun on themselves when confronted, instead of continuing in the shooting gallery of defenseless targets), "suicides save lives", therefore, the gun did good, not evil.

C-dub wrote:Another thing that I constantly notice with liberals as that they say, "You have to admit" or "You have to ..." something. I conservative always asks if another person can admit to or agree on something. I think the next time some like that tells me I have to admit to something I will just flat stop them and tell them I don't have to admit to anything and point out what they are doing.

Its the authoritarian in them they cant help it. They also like to talk over people during a debate and resort to threats and name calling like piers morgan. I had a couple of conversations with people this week one of them is a self proclaimed liberal democrat that my wife is friends with. I usually asked if defending ones life is a fundamental natural right if they answer no then the conversation is over cause i know they are devoid of reason.

koconcept wrote:

C-dub wrote:Another thing that I constantly notice with liberals as that they say, "You have to admit" or "You have to ..." something. I conservative always asks if another person can admit to or agree on something. I think the next time some like that tells me I have to admit to something I will just flat stop them and tell them I don't have to admit to anything and point out what they are doing.

Its the authoritarian in them they cant help it. They also like to talk over people during a debate and resort to threats and name calling like piers morgan. I had a couple of conversations with people this week one of them is a self proclaimed liberal democrat that my wife is friends with. I usually asked if defending ones life is a fundamental natural right if they answer no then the conversation is over cause i know they are devoid of reason.

They have no logic. All they can do is read from their play book, Rules for Radicals ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/0679721134/?ta ... ogcgf2nl_e. They're so conditioned in this (even without having read it) that it's just reflex action.