Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ABC does it again... gun control.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    ABC does it again... gun control.

    Anyone watch 20/20 last night?

    Check it out, post your opinions, and then lets see if anyone noticed what I did....

    #2
    I watched it out of the corner of my eye. I can't remember specifics, but it seemed pretty anti-gun. No real surprise with ABC, unless Stossel would have done it.

    Comment


      #3
      So far the only reasonably balanced show on the issue was done by the National Geographic channel not to long ago. They were fairly impartial.

      Comment


        #4
        It's too bad they went in with such an obvious slant. The stuff about peoples reactions in the simulations could have made a good show without the editorializing.

        Comment


          #5
          this sudden super-politicizing of this issue is pissing me off

          why?

          There are like six guns in my neighborhood gun store. Six. All of them Kahr .32s

          No ammo. No reloading shit. Nada. FORGET about anything that's normally a little scarce. The only deagle or big 50 you're shooting around here are gonna be the ones in counter-strike.

          Comment


            #6
            History lesson....

            Over 20 years ago they took on ASR's (WCA's cs spray) and "proved" they would not work.

            They gave the spray to women, and told them to walk in a parking lot. Then a big burly Policeman jumped out, and took the spray away.

            EVERY policemen was wearing sunglasses and held his breath.

            About 10 years ago a local reporter did the same silly thing. When I called him on the glasses he took them off.... it was very funny to watch him in agony as he said "Well... I... have... you..."

            Once again last night, we used highly trained police officers to say "See, even if you have a gun you won't be able to get it out, and as you try, you will be killed."

            The scam this time was the "shooters" ALL KNEW EXACTLY where the armed citizen was! They directed their fire to the person right after they shot the teacher.

            In the real world, the bad guys don't have that knowledge.

            There is no doubt that most people with a CCW have not trained correctly in getting the firearm out and using it under stress. There are courses for that, and people should take them.

            But it was plain, ABC feels the only people who should have any kind of a weapon are the Police. There is a term for that, they call it, a Police State.

            PS: I found it interesting they removed Stossel from last nights show, and replaced him with Diane Sawyer... but there is no agenda there.
            Last edited by Mtripp; 4/11/2009 2:47pm, .

            Comment


              #7
              I actually kind of think it's a little too easy to get a CCW where I live. That's against dogma, I know, but seriously - the hunter's safety class I took 17 years ago , a class I barely remember that had no carry or pistol specific content, qualifies me for urban CC of a pistol? I think a weekend course in where you can and can't carry and a few draws and retentions, maybe a demonstration of the 20 foot line and some actual pistol shooting, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

              Comment


                #8
                The argument against that is that the state shouldn't really be regulating whether or not you can carry in the first place. And while, yeah, it'd be great to magically keep idiots away from firearms, it won't make much difference either way and only allow Government to think we'll cave to regulation as long as it's couched properly.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Maybe this is against SOP for the armory, but the thread title says it's about gun control
                  Originally posted by JohnnyCache View Post
                  I actually kind of think it's a little too easy to get a CCW where I live. That's against dogma...
                  This is why gun control laws will always be fucked up and why I will probably never be a member of the NRA. Both sides are equally irrational about their positions. Gun laws end up being a compromise between what the gun nuts and anti-gun nuts are willing to compromise on and have little to do with actual safety or prevention of crime.

                  Of course I'm more than a little pissed off that I can't find ammo for my 9mm anywhere, which I blame on right-wing hysteria (ZOMG! the liberals are coming! buy all the gun shit you can before the liberals ban it all! ZOMGWTFBBQ the liberals! the liberalssssss!!!!!!!!!111one eleven) so it may color my opinion.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Phrost View Post
                    The argument against that is that the state shouldn't really be regulating whether or not you can carry in the first place. And while, yeah, it'd be great to magically keep idiots away from firearms, it won't make much difference either way and only allow Government to think we'll cave to regulation as long as it's couched properly.

                    well, this ain't really the thread for that I guess, but if our defense for owning guns is that we're allowed other dangerous objects, we should be prepared for the rejoinder that some permitting or training is required to own or operate those objects. I don't think it's unreasonable to make sure someone with a CCW actually knows how to operate a pistol and is actually versed in the terms of the CCW.

                    Actually, I have essentially a three step program for sensible gun ownership

                    1. A gun operators' liscense that clears you to operate any gun
                    2. A well maintained national database of felons (against which to run those applying for number one
                    3. greater liability for "lost" and "stolen" weapons, especially if you're getting "robbed" every six months.

                    The fact is, shooting down (heh) every argument by alluding to slippery slopes has probably done responsible gun ownership more harm than good.

                    Also, of course the language and practicality of the law -whether it's "couched properly" is of the essence - the idea that we as gun owners will reject a gun law even if it's smart, practical, and constitutionally correct reduces us to fundamentalists.
                    Last edited by JohnnyCache; 4/11/2009 3:27pm, .

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Let me be clear... OWNING is a right.

                      Carrying is an EARNED responsibility.

                      However, the "both sides are too far out there" is flummery. One side will not be happy until there are no firearms in private hands. That is the goal.

                      The other says the second amendment means exactly what it says.

                      I'll go with that second one.....

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I think that's projective. You're opposition might well say you're not happy until there's no gun laws.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by JohnnyCache View Post
                          1. A gun operators' liscense that clears you to operate any gun
                          That's been proven to be a bad idea for the same reasons that voting tests are a bad practice.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by JohnnyCache View Post
                            I think that's projective. You're opposition might well say you're not happy until there's no gun laws.
                            Let me be clear... OWNING is a right. MTripp

                            The Second Amendment is a civil right, not a property right. A right to possess and bear arms.

                            Kind of like a right to "free speech."

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by JohnnyCache View Post
                              I think that's projective. You're opposition might well say you're not happy until there's no gun laws.
                              Not at all. We have their record and history to show us they will not be happy till there is no private ownership of guns.

                              The NRA is about law-abiding people owning firearms. Not a single member wants to see guns in the hands of criminals, the insane, or children.

                              We DO want to see gun crimes dealt with. Do a crime with a gun, you are going away, period.

                              But the silly crap about "cop killer bullets," "assault weapons," "sniper rifles," et al is the stuff they have used to muddy the waters. Not projections, facts.

                              As such, I agree with the second ammendment and those who defend it.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X