Those are two sources I would trust, but not Mr. Beck, and since Beck was the only source provided, that is, and will continue to be my reaction regarding his legitimacy. I am not ignoring the argument, BTW, but have not made comment of late. One reason for that is because your comments seem to be focused as much on personal attacks as with discussing the facts of the discussion. It is not necessary to insult the people you are having a discussion with in order to make your point. So why would I waste my time trying to discuss something with someone who just can't keep it civil?
I knew immediately what you would do once I posted the source. The same thing you always do. Impugn and ridicule the source. How childish. And your sources, CNN MSNBC, the emperor? Ha, what lying idiots they are. JHD, you're like a tea party stalker, dude. Get a life.
I have a life, and a very good one. You are entitled to your opinions and your views, but I don't share them. However, unlike you, I try not to belittle you or call you names because of your views, because it would be childish if I did.
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
You have no idea what my "real source for news" is. You only assume to know.
What is it?
By what authority do you presume to have access to that information, and for what reason do you want to know? You see, that's much more polite than saying; It's none of your business, so what's it to ya?
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
You have no idea what my "real source for news" is. You only assume to know.
What is it?
By what authority do you presume to have access to that information, and for what reason do you want to know?
You were the one impugning my source. You are so quick to attack AM radio and/or Fox as not legitimate sources. I was just wondering what your sources are. Are is it a super secret?
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
You have no idea what my "real source for news" is. You only assume to know.
What is it?
By what authority do you presume to have access to that information, and for what reason do you want to know?
You were the one impugning my source. You are so quick to attack AM radio and/or Fox as not legitimate sources. I was just wondering what your sources are. Are is it a super secret?
Nope, not a super secret, it just isn't relevant to this or any other discussion, unless I provide false or inaccurate information.
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
You have no idea what my "real source for news" is. You only assume to know.
What is it?
By what authority do you presume to have access to that information, and for what reason do you want to know?
You were the one impugning my source. You are so quick to attack AM radio and/or Fox as not legitimate sources. I was just wondering what your sources are. Are is it a super secret?
Nope, not a super secret, it just isn't relevant to this or any other discussion, unless I provide false or inaccurate information.
Yet you ask for my source? And I politely gave it to you. I asked for your sources, yet you decline to name them. Wonder why?
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
You have no idea what my "real source for news" is. You only assume to know.
What is it?
By what authority do you presume to have access to that information, and for what reason do you want to know?
You were the one impugning my source. You are so quick to attack AM radio and/or Fox as not legitimate sources. I was just wondering what your sources are. Are is it a super secret?
Nope, not a super secret, it just isn't relevant to this or any other discussion, unless I provide false or inaccurate information.
Yet you ask for my source? And I politely gave it to you. I asked for your sources, yet you decline to name them. Wonder why?
When I provide a quote, or a video, or a news story regarding this or any other discussion, then ask for the source I have used to make my point. I'll be happy to provide it. You are asking for personal information of a general nature, and frankly, it's none of your business what I read or what programs I watch.
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
You have no idea what my "real source for news" is. You only assume to know.
What is it?
By what authority do you presume to have access to that information, and for what reason do you want to know?
You were the one impugning my source. You are so quick to attack AM radio and/or Fox as not legitimate sources. I was just wondering what your sources are. Are is it a super secret?
Nope, not a super secret, it just isn't relevant to this or any other discussion, unless I provide false or inaccurate information.
Yet you ask for my source? And I politely gave it to you. I asked for your sources, yet you decline to name them. Wonder why?
When I provide a quote, or a video, or a news story regarding this or any other discussion, then ask for the source I have used to make my point. I'll be happy to provide it. You are asking for personal information of a general nature, and frankly, it's none of your business what I read or what programs I watch.
Well isn't that special. Through all of your obfuscation, you still haven't commented on the young man's letter to the president. And his source is born from personal experience. You got a problem with that?
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
No, I questioned the legitimacy of the source because I do not consider Mr. Beck to be a legitimate source, not because of the reason you mentioned. Repeating your false claim over and over is not going to make it true, it will only be redundant.
The "source" was a young man who was shot during the Columbine incident. Glen Beck was the only one with the balls to run it. The major networks were too cowardly to even bring it up. Oh, by the way, your real source for news, NBC, just lost the ratings race to a spanish speaking station, Univision. LOL
You have no idea what my "real source for news" is. You only assume to know.
What is it?
By what authority do you presume to have access to that information, and for what reason do you want to know?
You were the one impugning my source. You are so quick to attack AM radio and/or Fox as not legitimate sources. I was just wondering what your sources are. Are is it a super secret?
Nope, not a super secret, it just isn't relevant to this or any other discussion, unless I provide false or inaccurate information.
Yet you ask for my source? And I politely gave it to you. I asked for your sources, yet you decline to name them. Wonder why?
When I provide a quote, or a video, or a news story regarding this or any other discussion, then ask for the source I have used to make my point. I'll be happy to provide it. You are asking for personal information of a general nature, and frankly, it's none of your business what I read or what programs I watch.
Well isn't that special. Through all of your obfuscation, you still haven't commented on the young man's letter to the president. And his source is born from personal experience. You got a problem with that?
I have not commented on the letter, and I have no problem with that. He is entitled to his view. So am I. BTW, his letter is validated by personal experience, but the source is the agency that made his letter public.
As I read the last few pages of this it occurred to me; that when a man argues with a fool it hard to tell the difference between the two. Those who rely on emotion cannot be persuaded by facts or logic. They don't operate in the realm of ideas. Just feelings...
I normally dont read the NCR thread, but stumbled across this video recently and thought it might be an interesting post. Please do not shoot the messenger, pardon the pun....just a funny video imho. As well, this is NOT to spark an international incident...as we do seem to have dramatically different views on some things...not better, nor worse...just different.
Barry u r sooooo dumb. (insert mean remark here). Worry about Canada! That's how it's being going as of late, anyways! Seems like a lot of arguments as of late have become personal, so if anyone resumes this argument, let's keep it respectful :)Love ya Barry
Barry u r sooooo dumb. (insert mean remark here). Worry about Canada! That's how it's being going as of late, anyways! Seems like a lot of arguments as of late have become personal, so if anyone resumes this argument, let's keep it respectful :)Love ya Barry
Thanks for clarifying Randy! I enjoy discussing and debating 'ideas', and attempting to understand other peoples views, clarifying the basis of their beliefs, etc. Ultimately, if things get personal, then the concept of discussion has been lost...sadly imho.
So, please don't anyone go 'postal' on me...please...or is that offensive
Barry u r sooooo dumb. (insert mean remark here). Worry about Canada! That's how it's being going as of late, anyways! Seems like a lot of arguments as of late have become personal, so if anyone resumes this argument, let's keep it respectful :)Love ya Barry
Thanks for clarifying Randy! I enjoy discussing and debating 'ideas', and attempting to understand other peoples views, clarifying the basis of their beliefs, etc. Ultimately, if things get personal, then the concept of discussion has been lost...sadly imho.
So, please don't anyone go 'postal' on me...please...or is that offensive
It's all a plot. I know it. First, the forecast of a colder, icier winter. Then, the fashion trend of wearing over-sized hockey jerseys. Now, convincing people to disarm.
I ask you, WHO is best equipped to fight unarmed men in jerseys stuck on ice? I think we all know where the answer... CANADIANS
I'll bite. Ive written and erased this post more time than i care to admit, final draft. The following is my opinion only. There is and will never be a solution to this problem. There will never be any common ground or equilibrium struck between the pro gun camp and the anti gun camp. I file this away with the illegal immigration problem(please, i'm not trying to kick over that stone) in that there are so many illegal immigrants already in the US, there exists no solution that wont pi$$ off one side or the other. There are already a flood of weapons out there. Weapons that are registered, unregistered, legal, illegal, assault rifle or single shot shotgun. Make a handle illegal and gunmakers will make it into a stock, detachable magazines will be sold as parts kits...or buy a 3d printer and make them yourself(yes, thats illegal...). Just because something is illegal doesnt mean someone isnt going to do it or try to legally mince words and circumvent it. If that were true there would be no crime. Clamping down on guns coming into the marketplace does nothing to curb criminal intent. I do believe that the mental portion of the background check is severly broken. Again i dont see any solution that is going to have any measurable effect on it's intended outcome.
Take all the guns(i.e make them illegal) Short of sparking a second revolutionary war you're never going to get them all.
Make assault rifles illegal. I hate the term assault rifle but it's whats out there. Being that most gun related crimes are committed with handguns, i dont see that as a viable solution. I'll admit that when "assault rifles" are used in the commission of crimes they cause a lot of damage, really fast. But so can someone proficient with reloading a hand gun standard 10 round capacity.
Reduce Standard capacity. Who came up with the magic number of 10 for standard capacity. Even if that number gets reduced to saaaaay 6(the number a revolver uses...most anyway), it does nothing to the millions of over limit mags already out there, and those arent registered so good luck with that(i shouldnt say that too loud, Maryland tried that a few years back...)
Ballistic Fingerprinting. MD tried that, epic fail. Etching firing pins to imprint a serial number on the primer. Too expensive, the guns already out there argument and whoever thought about that didnt think about revolvers.
And on and on. I think all of the rhetoric is a combination of people who are more concerned with making a decision than with making the right decision(never let a good crisis go to waste) and to keep us distracted from the real core of the issue at hand. I dunno... i'm curious to see what ya'll think. As for me, i think were so far underwater with this there is no hope for air.
The Constitution of Texas also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2: All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.The Second Amendment was put forth to protect one's right to keep and bear arms: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.^^^I did not author either of those statements.I don't even own a firearm...maybe I just have a different opinion from being around them/carrying one for 24 months. You don't hear of many soldier on soldier mass shootings from down range, and IT'S NOT because soldiers are the most ethical people around. It's because everyone is armed and you would not get very far....
Comments
http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/nbc-sweeps-ratings-lastloses-to-univision/
NRA Hypnosis from MarkFiore on Vimeo.
So, please don't anyone go 'postal' on me...please...or is that offensive
I ask you, WHO is best equipped to fight unarmed men in jerseys stuck on ice? I think we all know where the answer... CANADIANS
Take all the guns(i.e make them illegal) Short of sparking a second revolutionary war you're never going to get them all.
Make assault rifles illegal. I hate the term assault rifle but it's whats out there. Being that most gun related crimes are committed with handguns, i dont see that as a viable solution. I'll admit that when "assault rifles" are used in the commission of crimes they cause a lot of damage, really fast. But so can someone proficient with reloading a hand gun standard 10 round capacity.
Reduce Standard capacity. Who came up with the magic number of 10 for standard capacity. Even if that number gets reduced to saaaaay 6(the number a revolver uses...most anyway), it does nothing to the millions of over limit mags already out there, and those arent registered so good luck with that(i shouldnt say that too loud, Maryland tried that a few years back...)
Ballistic Fingerprinting. MD tried that, epic fail. Etching firing pins to imprint a serial number on the primer. Too expensive, the guns already out there argument and whoever thought about that didnt think about revolvers.
And on and on. I think all of the rhetoric is a combination of people who are more concerned with making a decision than with making the right decision(never let a good crisis go to waste) and to keep us distracted from the real core of the issue at hand. I dunno... i'm curious to see what ya'll think. As for me, i think were so far underwater with this there is no hope for air.