Gretchen Carlson Fox news clueless


January 7, 2008, 08:55 AM
Jan 07 2008 ~06:30
Talking about TAZER PARTIES on Fox and Friends, and Gretchen Carlson starts going on about how tazers are much much safer than guns in a house and how much safer youd be with a taze as opposed to a gun.

I emailed her, to clarfy her point but no reply from her or about her comments.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gretchen Carlson Fox news clueless" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 7, 2008, 09:02 AM
For people like Gretchen Carlson it's probably true. She likely doesn't know which end of the gun is the dangerous end. :)

The good thing at least is they are now talking about fighting back, self defense, as a viable response rather than the "lie down and take it" that has been the "solution" for a number of years.

January 7, 2008, 09:02 AM
Saw that. And they are talking about it again now.

Her comment is that "Some people believe that they are safer to have in the home than a gun, and I believe they are."

We'll like everyone else, she gets to have an opinion-- even if I think she is wrong.

-- John

January 7, 2008, 09:30 AM
I believe that people who are anti-gun and use the "you'll hurt someone" argument against guns suffer from at least two psychological disorders

Intermittent explosive disorder -- these people have no control over their own emotions and/or actions and believe that having a gun will "make" them go and kill someone when they feel they've been wronged.

Projection -- they believe because they act/feel one way, everyone else does as well and assign this behavior to others.

By the way, I don't throw these out as illnesses/excuses for these people but rather a demonstration of their lack of emotional/mental maturity...they are trying to pass off their behavior as normal and need to be stopped.

January 7, 2008, 09:40 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

"Tazer parties" help our cause!

A fence sitter, or someone who thinks guns are icky, may find a Tazer more acceptable. Kudos to them for not falling for the "just cooperate and you'll be OK" BS... and for making the decision to fight back, even if it is with less effective tools.

But, what happens when they realize that that little Tazer is a weapon? In my opinion, this gets them thinking, and may open the door to an acceptance of firearms as a means of self defense. Even if they never carry a firearm, someone who carries a Tazer is more likely to be sympathetic toward someone who chooses to carry a gun in self defense.

January 7, 2008, 11:51 AM
Yup, tazers are good for us. It's the gateway gun.

i should probably go back and edit that out before anyone sees it.

January 7, 2008, 01:19 PM
Was that when Steve Doody asked if they ban alcohol at the parties because he was worried the women might get drunk and go on a rampage tazing?

He is such a moron.

January 7, 2008, 04:57 PM
Stick with Megan Kendell. She's hot, a lawyer, AND pro-gun.

January 7, 2008, 05:53 PM
One advantage I see in a Taser for those who are squeamish or hesitant about the idea of killing someone is that they are less likely to hesitate to fire in an emergency. The publicity also creates the impression that there are more people out there who are armed with SOMETHING and are planning to fight back. Anything that makes a predator think the sheep have teeth and might interfere with his/her "career path" is good.

I doubt that hesitancy or squeamishness would be an issue for anyone on this forum. But it may be a consideration for others of a more passive nature.

January 7, 2008, 06:28 PM
Stating that a Taser is more effective than a gun for SD is debatable. However, Taser parties are certainly a good thing. How can it be bad when someone realizes that the police and government can't take care of them in an emergency and seeks to be a prepared, responsible citizen? I say more power to them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gretchen Carlson Fox news clueless" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!