I think the NRA will have a Happy New Year!
h/t to Steve C
A bonus your daily Letter to the Columnist — Jan. 11, 2013
From: David
To: Dan Casey
Subject: Happy New Year
One of your previous columns, about the congressman’s survey, spurred me to donate $100 to the NRA.
My New Year’s Resolution is to donate more money to them every time you assault, in print, the gun rights of Virginians.
Keep it up, I have deep pockets.
All best,
David
—————————–
Dan’s reply:
David,
Don’t forget about this column. It ran this past Sunday.
I think you owe the NRA another $100!
Happy New Year to you as well.
Dan Casey
January 11, 2013 - 2:30 PM
way to go, David!
Dan
I think this is worth at least one assault per day don’t you?
Rpost them all Dan, let ol’ David cough up a few thou. You ask me, I think he should pony up more unless his pockets aren’t so deep.
Maybe Dan could get commission from the NRA…lol
Chicago has a Sandy Hook every weekend. You should write about their lax gun control measures and how additional gun control could make the people of Chicago safer.
Yes Dan, re-post every single one of them. This is hilarious. Silly man will go broke.
Hey David,
You’ve got’em coming out of the wood work! Good for you!
Hey you libs, in case you wonder why 2nd Amendment supporters don’t trust you libs or obama even a little bit is because he can’t hide what little voting record he accumulated while he served in the Illinois State Senate. In case you don’t remember those days, take a look at the link below, which somehow managed to catch one of the votes on which your man did manage to figure out how to vote other than present.
obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of a municiple gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. And, let’s not forget the infamous “survey” he completed in 1996…along with his opposition in 2006, as a US Senator, to increasing the debt ceiling limit.
Oh, yeah, he respects the 2nd Amendment. We believe him. Uh huh.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/obama-opposed-gun-ban-exception-defend-home/
…history has turned the page, uh huh…
Frank, you could drive a person to drink, and I hear a glass of wine calling my name right now.
Frank when you were a child did you jump up and down waving your arms screaming “Look at me!”, “Look at me!”? Old habits die hard, no?
Hey Debbie,
Please go for that glass ’cause you want to, and… look forward to it! I’m on my 2nd glass right now. I look forward to it almost every day. Enjoy!
…the miniskirt’s the current thing, uh huh…
10.Hey Debbie,
Please go for that glass ’cause you want to, and… look forward to it! I’m on my 2nd glass right now. I look forward to it almost every day. Enjoy!
…the miniskirt’s the current thing, uh huh…
Comment by Frank — January 11, 2013 @ 6:08 pm
From your posts I would have guessed the whole bottle (or two)
not there yet, wayne. if fact, haven’t ever been THERE, ya know?
Careful wayne, you are being repetitive.
Since several of the gun fanatics here love to describe themselves as “students of history”, here’s an overview of a lie that Wayne LaPierre expects them to spread for him:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Bleed him Dan, the challenge sounds like a good one.
Somehow, I picture Frank swigging directly from a bottle of Boone’s Farm, ready to spring forth with furious “uh huh”s and “hey”s like little fletchettes of annoying inanities.
Hey you Frank, in case you wonder why we don’t trust you gun supporters or the NRA even a little bit, it is because you can’t hide what little concern for your fellow man is in the record you have accumulated. In case you don’t remember the many years of animosity, lies, distortions and insults you both have dealt, we do. For instance have you read the law that Obama voted against? No, I did not think so. According to you and the NRA, one can only
respect the Second Amendment if they interpret it as you do.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-1048
This is the full text of the law Obama voted against:
“AN ACT concerning criminal law.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:
Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding
Section 24-10 as follows:
(720 ILCS 5/24-10 new)
Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms;
affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative
defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits,
regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if
the individual who is charged with the violation used the
firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as
defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her
land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.
Effective Date: 11/16/2004
Now you may not believe that the handgun ban in Illinois is correct. You may not like it, as apparently Hale DeMar did not. You can even fight such a law. What you should not be able to do however is break that law and then have that crime go unpunished. Can we all just break laws we don’t like?
Frank, what is it you think “a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms” means? If it is OK to have a gun even if the gun is banned? Do you support convicted felons having guns for self defense too? Very progressive of you?
Nice Beretta. I don’t have a simple way to link a photo, but here is a Glock 20 nearly identical to mine (right down to the Hogue grip, adjustable sight, and lack of rail on the frame) if you wish to feature it on the next stamp.
.
http://tinyurl.com/b9ylj4z
Sandi Saunders:
“You can even fight such a law. What you should not be able to do however is break that law and then have that crime go unpunished. Can we all just break laws we don’t like?”
Unless you’re David Gregory. Sandi thinks the double standard is okay for him.
Unless you’re David Gregory
Uninformed comment by John Wilburn
JW proves yet again that some gun fanatics can’t handle the truth:
http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/26/meet-the-press-david-gregory-dc-police-atf-gun-magazine/
“Unless you’re David Gregory”
Fluffy should get jail time simply for his incorrigible douchebaggery.
What you should not be able to do however is break that law and then have that crime go unpunished[, unless you are David Gregory]. Can we all just break laws we don’t like? [Well, all of us other than David Gregory?]
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 11, 2013 @ 10:29 pm
Sorry, Sandi. I had to add some clarification to your comment. You’re forgetting that some people are first class citizens, while folks like you and I are second class.
I nominate mine for a stamp…
http://www.coolhandlukefirearms.com/images/guns/springfieldxd40.jpg
Warren,
Your link from TMZ is a top notch source. We have information directly from the Washington, DC attorney general that says he did *not* have permission and that he did commit a serious crime, but that he will not be charged.
Also, FYI, law enforcement does not have the authority to give someone permission to break the law.
Warren, thanks for the link to the article about Hitler and guns. Form the story:
“The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.”
Hmm, wonder why the gun lovers never mention that part?
And then thew author turns one of the gun lovers’ favorite inane arguments on them:
“The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not.”
Hi Sandi,
Thanks for your response, and the link.
First, I think laws should be adhered to and enforced, such as immigration laws, and gun laws, along with the laws which you think aren’t being enforced, but should be. If folks object to a law, then they should go about the process of changing the law, legally.
Second, would Obama’s vote have enabled, or prevented, folks being able to defend themselves while in their home or on their property, by using a hand-gun? If his vote would have ENABLED folks to lawfully use a hand-gun to defend themselves, then I stand corrected. If, however, his vote would have PREVENTED folks from lawfully using a hand-gun to protect themselves while in their house or on property they owned, then you stand corrected.
Which is it, Sandi, me corrected, or, you corrected?
By the way, you mentioned Hale DeMar…did you know that the Village Ordinance permits shotguns and rifles, just not handguns?
Also, did you know that the Illinois House passed the bill 90-25, and the Senate passed the bill 41-16….meaning that a total of 131 elected officials voted for, while only 41 (23.8%) voted against? The make-up of the Illinois General Assembly was then, and is now, a pretty lib-oriented body. State Senator Obama was one of the veto-proof small minority voting against. Which, means that Senator Obama voted to the left of many of his lib-cohorts. Meaning that Senator Obama, even back then, was more libber than many libs.
Sandi, this is fun! Now, let’s go see how Illinois State Senator Obama voted to treat live new-borns who where supposed to be extracted from their mothers’ wombs, …dead.
Guns don’t kill. People kill. Even doctors and nurses.
“We have information directly from the Washington, DC attorney general that says he did *not* have permission and that he did commit a serious crime, but that he will not be charged.
Also, FYI, law enforcement does not have the authority to give someone permission to break the law.”
–Comment by Jack
I kind of feel a little sorry for Jack that David Gregory wasn’t charged. Because he wanted so badly for that to happen.
Frank @ 26 – Let’s work from the same set of fact, no?
This is blatantly Right-wing manipulation of facts: [your comment]: “Now, let’s go see how Illinois State Senator Obama voted to treat live new-borns who where supposed to be extracted from their mothers’ wombs, …dead. ”
The Christian Broadcasting Network.
CBN Correspondent David Brody: “Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.”
Obama: “Let me clarify this right now.”
Brody: “Because it’s getting a lot of play.”
Obama: “Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429313.aspx
An unidentified “well placed source”:
**
Well-placed law enforcement sources tell TMZ … a staffer from “Meet the Press” called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun control.”
Vs.
An official Police statement:
**
D.C. police released a statement today, saying “NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Dept. inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied.”
**
Sort of like picking your stats, eh?
Careful wayne, you are being repetitive.
Comment by Frank — January 11, 2013 @ 7:46 pm
Now that’s irony!
I kind of feel a little sorry for Jack that David Gregory wasn’t charged. Because he wanted so badly for that to happen.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 12, 2013 @ 10:25 am
I actually prefer that David Gregory NOT be charged. I think they should realize how stupid the law is and not charge anyone.
But, stupid law or not, they should treat everyone equally. If that means not charging anyone, starting with David Gregory, that would be awesome.
Regardless of the source of information about David Gregory, neither the police nor the ATF have the authority to give someone permission to break the law.
I have a really close friend in law enforcement. If he personally gives me permission to carry a gun on K-12 school property, would that be okay with you, Warren? Sandi? Dan?
Wait a minute. I got it. According to a well-placed law enforcement source, charges are not being brought in a Franklin County murder case because Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Ashley Agee alleged told a third party that it was OK for yet another party the perp to to commit kill if….
[/sarcasm off]
FWIIW, I didn’t expect that Gregory would be charged and I am losing any sleep over it. However, the ridiculousness of the justification being put forward is unbelievable.
Jack @ 12:53 pm
“I actually prefer that David Gregory NOT be charged. I think they should realize how stupid the law is and not charge anyone.”
——————
Absolutely!
In addition, it highlights the hypocrisy of authoritarians almost as much as the raft of anti-freedom pols and other anti-freedom influential folk who with CHPs, themselves and/or armed body-guards. 1st class authoritarian to 2nd class citizens, “Do as I say, not as I do!” The modern day version of “Let eat cake.”
The DCAG was saying things about how the magazine wasn’t attached to a gun, and how it didn’t have any ammunition in it, and how prosecuting the case wouldn’t promote public safety.
However, if I were to take a 30rd magazine into the District with no ammunition and no gun, I would no doubt be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
They are treating different people differently for violations of the same law. That is just plain wrong.
Like I said, I prefer they don’t charge anyone, but if they want to continue to charge people, David Gregory should definitely be one.
Jack,
I’m assuming he brought it into the district across a bridge that was unposted, so that’s a loophole, you know?
Kinda like the same way you justify taking your concealed handgun into Valley View Mall
@Dan,
Actually, the Valley View thing is a mall rule. The DC thing is a law. There are very big differences between the two, you should know that.
Jack, I gave a source that’s backed up by what’s actually happened: no charges. You just say “We have information” without any specifics. Well, some gun fanatics also said “we have information that Pres. Clinton plans black helicopter raids on ordinary Americans” and that didn’t happen, so guess what becomes of their “information”? It gets ignored.
If you’re going to cite an unidentified source, you ought to at least give them an identity that’s plausible, which your “Washington attorney general” isn’t. The state of Washington has an attorney general but had nothing to do with the Meet the Press question. The District of Columbia has a U.S. district attorney, but no “attorney general”, except the United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Is that who you meant? Because when you give an unidentified source, using a title that doesn’t exist, it makes you sound as unreliable as Wayne LaPierre’s history of gun control.
Tbhe whole issue with Gregory centers on a jurisdictional grey area that has cropped up
Dave Hicks, Jack et al: The whole issue with Gregory highlights a jurisdictional grey area that has cropped up in other D.C. issues, and that has been mentioned in other reports I’ve heard on this case. Also, are we sure that the law covers empty magazines, not just loaded ones? I don’t know, so I’ll have to see credible citation of the actual D.C. law before accepting “we have information” as truth.
Dave Hicks, you love demanding citations of others, so how about it? Give the D.C. law and the specifics about empty mags to demonstrate that Gregory unequivocally was wrong, and then give the specifics of MTP’s efforts at clearance and the responses they received that left the answer unambiguous. Because you certainly opine as if you know those details as well as anyone. All I’ve said is what’s backed up by what’s actually happened so far, like the thousands of gun deaths that happen while you soundly sleep.
Jack, I was wrong, apparently D.C. does call their top municipal legal officer by the title “attorney general”. I live and learn, and I’ll learn more when you give the citation of the law and the details of MTP’s clearance efforts that demonstrate why Gregory should have been charged. Because of course you know those details as well as the principals involved, don’t you?
However, if I were to take a 30rd magazine into the District with no ammunition and no gun, I would no doubt be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
comment by Jack
Jack, categorical statements require categorical proof.
Proof, please.
The press has always been given more leeway than the average citizen in legal matters because there is a world of difference in displaying something to help the general public understand what it is, like crack, pot, guns, ammo, or the carnage at scenes of crime and breaking the law for some personal purpose that truly undermines the rule of law and our society. If you refuse to see the difference, that is your problem.
If David Gregory had been caught with that magazine out in public for some other reason, or no reason at all, then he absolutely should be charged just like everyone else would be.
As usual, you all conflate the differences into being the same for your own purposes and to divert the conversation.
Here’s an interesting survey of NRA members on gun safety by Frank Luntz, noted Republican pollster – According to the poll, NRA members support:
Requiring background checks for every gun purchase (74% NRA member support);
Requiring background checks on gun shop employees (79% NRA member support);
Prohibiting individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms (71% NRA member support);
Requiring gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen (64% NRA member supports); and
Establishing minimum standards for concealed carry permits (63-75% NRA member support for each standard)
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
Goes to show us that overall, NRA members are willing to have some controls/regulations in direct contrast to the opposition by the NRA leadership.
You just say “We have information” without any specifics.
Comment by Warren — January 12, 2013 @ 3:04 pm
I’m sorry. The “information” is a letter from the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. Probably not as good a source as TMZ, though, I’m sure.
Warren, re: 12:20
If the TMZ story is the “truth”;
One might wonder; if given conflicting guidance, should a rational person accept the guidance they like or err on the side of caution and accept the guidance that might keep them out of jail?
Of course, as Sandi suggested, liberal “journalists” usually get a free ride; especially in a liberal town.
Warren,
Here is the letter. You can argue with the Washington DC Attorney General yourself about whether he actually exists or not.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/david-gregory-letter/240/
Also, if you read the letter, the statute is in the last paragraph of the first page. The magazine does not need to be attached to a gun or even loaded for one to be guilty.
Also, if you view the last paragraph of the second page, you will see that Warren’s source, TMZ, was wrong and that no federal agency told NBC that it would be okay to display the magazine on television. They were told “no” by MPD and no federal agency told them otherwise.
Jack, I already corrected myself about the top DC legal official being called “attorney general”.
Now, if you’ll pay attention to the part in the letter about “confusion from…conflicting advice…from federal and local law enforcement agencies” you’ll see that TMZ was accurate in it’s report. The DC jurisdictional confusion, not unique to this case, gave NBC reason to think its’ federal clearance was sufficient. That Gregory apparently won’t be charged should be telling you that the DC AG knows that too.
And there is merit to the point that the AG also must see the difference between Gregory’s purposes in displaying the empty mag versus the purposes of some random mook with a loaded mag. A Sandi said in #42:
“…you all conflate the differences into being the same for your own purposes and to divert the conversation.”
In other words, massacre weapon supporters (as opposed to the majority of moderate gun owners), in stretching to claim a huge scandal where there is only a minor contretemps, divert the conversation from useful directions, and in doing so show a sense of desperation borne of their massacre weapons’ uselessness for anything but rapid mass violence.
Dan Casey @ 2:10 pm
You are wrong, Dan — unless that was pure satire, on your part.
Lots of folk have been prosecuted for violation of DC’s draconian prohibitions. For one example see: http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/washington-times/newspaper/2012092401/6.html#6
Enough for such minor violations that the city prohibitions that DC is considering revising the law. See: http://tinyurl.com/bhqucd6
Warren,
You apparently didn’t read the letter. It indicated that the investigation concluded that MPD told NBC “no,” and no federal agency told them otherwise.
Also, it indicates that the law does not distinguish between magazines attached to firearms and magazines without firearms and also does not distinguish between loaded and unloaded.
NBC claimed that there was confusion, but the investigation apparently concluded that there was no conflicting advice. The people at NBC apparently just feel like the law doesn’t apply to them, or they are idiots for doing something they were told not to do.
In either case, he broke the law. I say the law is garbage and nobody should be prosecuted for something so stupid.
MPD feels otherwise, which is fine… so prosecute for it. But prosecute everyone the same.
I know an attorney who once spoke to state lawmakers in Richmond regarding guns in bars. To help illustrate his point, he brought a pistol and a bottle of liquor. At the security check at the entrance to the Capitol the one question he was asked, in complete seriousness…
“What do you plan to do with that bottle, sir?”
Re: Warren @ 3:17 pm
I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you, however:
From DC Police Department:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/node/243962
**
Firearm Registration General Requirements – Study Guide
SNIP
IX. Possession and Sale of Ammunition
(No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. A “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
[my bold]
**
Also see District of Columbia Firearms Registration, General Requirements Guide (July 2012)
Metropolitan Police Department @ http://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/firearms_registration_req.pdf
From the District of Columbia Official Code @ http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000
**
Division I. Government of District.
Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety.
Subtitle J. Public Safety.
Chapter 25. Firearms Control.
Full text of all sections at this level Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations.
Full text of all sections at this level Subchapter VI. Possession of Ammunition.
Current selection§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
**
BTW the penalties include “a maximum fine of $1000 and/or up to a year imprisonment.
Re: Hillary @ 4:51 pm
Mad mayors against guns conned up poll?
How about these:
http://tinyurl.com/b42ucsc
**
Choose Your Own Crime Stats
Published on Dec 31, 2012
Crime stats they’d rather you not hear.
https://www.facebook.com/AmidstTheNoise
https://twitter.com/AmidstTheNoise
Dave Hicks let’s try this again…the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz a republican pollster and the results released to the media…many media outlets, including the mayors’ you dissed.
Pollster Frank Luntz, who has studied attitudes about gun control, [...] said that he doesn’t “think the NRA is listening” to the American public in the wake of the massacre of 20 children at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
In his own words:
“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/luntz-nra-not-listening-to-public-85490.html#ixzz2Hofoohql
Those survey numbers were correct and not “ginned” up…you may disagree with the results, but they are what they are…the link provided by Mayors Against Illegal Guns released the findings of the survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz. which was widely reported through other media outlets…including the link provided in the original post.
Dave Hicks, you may have missed my reply to Jack @5:44pm (#49). See especially the middle paragraph.
And no one should have to do your logic work for you, however, if inanimate guns can’t be assigned any credit in killings by gun, then the same inanimate guns can’t be asigned any credit in saving lives. So, do guns save more American lives than they take?
Everybody knows (and Dave Hicks knows this, too) the the NRA is a gang of whores for the firearms industry. Wayne LaPierre, who earns a little under $1 million a year, is the chief whore. Their goals are to ensure as many as possible guns are sold in the U.S. each year, because that’s how the NRA’s chief backers earn their money.
All those firearms safety courses, and Johnny-love-your-gun schools course, or Eddie Eagle or whatever it’s called, are merely window dressing.
Warren:
“…then the same inanimate guns can’t be asigned any credit in saving lives.”
It’s unfortunate that we cannot conduct exit polls with criminals who changed their minds when they noticed a holstered handgun or fled the property when they heard a pump-action shotgun chambering a round. It is entirely plausible that defensive use is very much under-reported.
Jack, nowhere that I saw does the DC AG say that “no federal agency told them otherwise” as you claim. In fact, the letter acknowledges the possibility that conflicting advice was given; it just doesn’t concede ground on the jurisdictional question.
But what you’re really deliberately ignoring is the heart of the letter’s message, the reason why there will be no charges:
“Influencing our judgement…is the recognition that the intent was to promote the first amendment purpose of informing an ongoing debate…”
As I said before, the DC AG obviously sees the difference between Gregory’s purposes in displaying the empty mag versus the purposes of some random mook with a loaded mag. But you obviously have a need to ignore that crucial distinction, especially since it highlights how the First Amendment is more effective than any massacre weapon.
Re: Hillary @ 9:00 pm
Just because someone has an “R” behind their name doesn’t mean that they are pro freedom.
Re: Lutz (the king of it is all in the wording):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html
Re: Dan Casey @ 10:20 pm
Dan, don’t hold back — tell us how you actual feel.
.
Re: Warren @ 9:39 pm
Classic Red Herring — lose your main point; switch subjects.
Been taking lessons from Suzie?
Did folk here give Lutz any creds when he polled that 60 per cent of Americans supported the Republicans’ Contract with America?
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/10/comment.conservatives
“Add to that the reprimand Luntz received from the American Association for Public Opinion Research for his unsubstantiated claim that 60 per cent of Americans supported the Republicans’ Contract with America and you seem to be left with a mediocre propagandist the BBC would never allow near its programmes in normal circumstances.”
JW, if one wishes to believe that non-events prompted by gun wielding occurs on a scale that rivals reported gun violence, then one also must count all the incidents of anger, crime, petty assault, manifestations of mental illness, or accidents, that DON’T involve greater violence because no gun was present.
Dave Hicks, I don’t see where I switched subjects, I stayed on Jack’s subject in addressing him; I just added a special logic question for you.
Classic Avoidance technique: Pretend you didn’t notice the question:
If inanimate guns can’t be assigned any credit in killings by gun, then the same inanimate guns can’t be asigned any credit in saving lives. So, do guns save more American lives than they take?
Been taking lessons from Wayne LaPierre?
Frank Luntz is pond scum. His focus groups birth talking points like “job creators” and “death panels.”
Folks, see if you can imagine this guy:
A guy who puts great faith in firearms for his well being. He’s so much in thrall to the idea of firearms, coupled with a preference for thinking himself a great advocate for liberty, that he lets fear of a dystopic future prevent him from admitting the degree to which he lives in a dystopic present.
The tyranny of undefined “elites” that he thinks are possible someday pales in comparison to the tyranny of violence all around him today. But he has developed skill at keeping most of the violence abstract to him, and he’s aided in doing so by the culture he’s helped shape. He won’t admit that potential for carnage has been democratized, and he’s encouraged in that denial by the gun industrial complex that profits from him.
Despite hundreds of months of life experience, he ignores the eternal quality of human nature. Putting the worst in human nature at a disadvantage by giving violence a harder path to occur seems unnecessary to him. He only wants to indulge his personal conceits about liberty and freedom, which are highly self-centered and largely ignore the realities of the social compact he’s benefited from during his life.
He gives himself great credit for his own achievements, and shows great faith in his own opinions. Yet he talks about undefined “elites” as if he has never held himself capable of joining an elite, and the irony of that escapes his notice.
He rails against imagined future “tyranny” and makes his firearms his primary focus on that subject, yet at the same time he voluntarily subjects himself to a personal tyranny in the here and now, for instance by smoking, becoming obese, abusing animals or drinking alcohol to habitual excess. Yet he always limits his analysis of these things to exercise of his personal liberties, ignoring the costs that others ultimately absorb as a result of them. Even when the costs become personal and the tyranny of his own habits evident, his self-image depends on projecting tyranny as something only imposed by others.
Could such a guy exist?
66.Frank Luntz is pond scum. His focus groups birth talking points like “job creators” and “death panels.”
AH, to be fair, I think his own focus group testing suggests that Luntz is lagoon blossom or aqua bloom, not pond scum. And since he insists that lying is only parallel framing and euphemisms are just rebranding, I guess we’re free to tell people Luntz is a dorsal orifice.
Re: Warren — January 12, 2013 @ 11:08 pm
“Dave Hicks, I don’t see where I switched subjects,…”
vs.
Addressed to me, @ January 12, 2013 @ 11:08 pm
“And no one should have to do your logic work for you, however, if inanimate guns can’t be assigned any credit in killings by gun, then the same inanimate guns can’t be asigned any credit in saving lives. So, do guns save more American lives than they take?”
Re: Hillary — January 12, 2013 @ 9:00 pm
See: Warren — January 13, 2013 @ 12:53 am
Give Lutz’s word games, I wouldn’t trust Lutz even if he published a poll that supported my position.
As always, YMMV.
“Luntz is a dorsal orifice”
We should include this in tomorrow’s blast-fax to the House.
Jack, nowhere that I saw does the DC AG say that “no federal agency told them otherwise” as you claim. In fact, the letter acknowledges the possibility that conflicting advice was given; it just doesn’t concede ground on the jurisdictional question.
Comment by Warren — January 12, 2013 @ 10:43 pm
From the last page on the second paragraph:
Although there appears to have been some misinformation provided initially, NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity-magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any federal official.
#67, I will at least engage in dialogue with other real people no matter how different their views. I do not care, and should not be expected to care, about the opinions of cowardly, anonymous blog entities started by pantywaists who drew the short stick in life. Could such a guy exist?
Look, John W is such a manly guy. How do we know? He used the insult “pantywaist.” And he carries lots of guns.
gdad:
“74.Look, John W is such a manly guy. How do we know? He used the insult “pantywaist.” And he carries lots of guns.”
Says another anonymous bomb thrower….
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002981836
This Tom Tomorrow cartoon aptly sums up the gun debate in this country.
“Says another anonymous bomb thrower….”
And that has what to do with to do with your use of idiotic and telling insults like “pantwaist,” John W?
Why, nothing.
gdad, what do your posts ever have anything to do with? From what I gather, you’re a cool guy with some neat experiences. You’re really selling yourself short by trolling around here anonymously. You’ve admitted that you are afraid to identify yourself while nearly simultaneously telling me that I’m afraid because I carry.
Why don’t you step forward as yourself and contribute more than snarky one-liners about Suzie, people who carry, and pooping in Elmwood Park.
Most Americans support tough new measures to combat gun violence, including a ban on assault weapons and posting armed guards at every school, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
More than half of all Americans — 52 percent in the new poll — say the Newtown shootings made them more supportive of gun control; just 5 percent say they are now less apt to back tighter restrictions. Most also are at least somewhat worried about a mass shooting in their own community, with concern jumping to 65 percent among those with school-age children at home.
The findings, which also show broad bipartisan support for requiring mandatory background checks for buyers at gun shows, come as President Obama said Monday he will lay out specific White House proposals on gun control legislation and executive actions this week.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-hell-offer-plans-to-stem-gun-violence-th is-week/2013/01/14/b7ad8ea8-5e6c-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story.html