[Trent]

This is epic... A must watch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=evEg1VNfX3o

[JAshley73]

Trent, thanks for sharing. Some excellent points made there. Perhaps my favorite, "Trying to blame guns for crime, would be like blaming airplanes for the 911 attacks."

[esheato]

Ratatouille? Lolololololo

[postalnut25]

Wow!

[dirtengineer]

Chuck Woolery is now my hero!

[Blackstone]

Well said, well said

[Tinker]

Amazing....who knew?

I also noticed his reverence to Ice Tea. Found an interview Mr. Tea ;) did with some Brit host. He nailed it too.

Would have never guessed entertainment types having a clue.

[dickz]

Now if we could only get that aired at half time during sundays game.

[TAKtical]

Good stuff

[OilyPablo]

That was very entertaining! Go Chuck!!

[SharpsDressedMan]

He's no Charlton Heston, but he's a close second!:D

[Lex Luthier]

Excellent. Imagine being of a reality-based mind and having to bite your tongue to get along in Hollyweird. What a blessing it would be to see and hear more traditional voices from the left coast.

[Double Naught Spy]

Chuck is surprisingly well spoken. Good for him.

[robhof]

What a breath of fresh air in these liberal gun bashing times. WOW!!! And for the liberals;:neener::neener::cuss:

[almherdfan]

While I found Chuck's video quite clever and mostly on point, I fail to understand the "shotgun" approach of equating liberal to anti-gun. Why? There are plenty of "conservative" hunters/shooters (probably NRA members) that would happily ban "assault weapons" as long they keep their bolt-actions or 30-30s.

The pro 2A cause is best served by focusing on guns issues and not broader politics in general.

I just don't understand the need to alienate folks who agree with a cause you think is very important.

[Arkansas Paul]

I fail to understand the "shotgun" approach of equating liberal to anti-gun.

This is a false impression that some people have. My boss is very liberal, but he is a big duck hunter, has several handguns, and frequents the range. He is very pro 2A. Political party affiliation doesn't always equate to what you think in terms of firearm ownership and views.

[mljdeckard]

Paul, would he throw black rifles under the bus thinking it will let him keep his shotguns?

[mljdeckard]

While there are some republicans and other conservatives who are deficient on the definition and intent of the Second Amendment (Bill O'Reilly comes to mind,) it absolutely IS a stated goal of the democratic party to reintroduce an assault weapons ban. There absolutely IS a preponderance of democrats and liberals who would do this as opposed to republicans and conservatives.

[gp911]

C-Wooly/Ice-T 2016! Great video, very good points made there.

[PapaG]

Chuck is the spokesman for Generation America, a much more conservative group than AARP. I joined GA and dropped AARP.

[Arkansas Paul]

Paul, would he throw black rifles under the bus thinking it will let him keep his shotguns?

I'm not sure about that. I know he's fired an AR and likes them, but I don't know how sensible he would be if it were crunch time.

[valnar]

The words "Chuck Woolery" haven't escaped my lips in a long time. I remember him from the original Wheel of Fortune.

So after checking out the video and his Wikipedia entry, I have to say Way to go Chuck!

[CraigC]

Political party affiliation doesn't always equate to what you think in terms of firearm ownership and views.
Yes but democrats are hell-bent on destroying our gun rights. IMHO, a gun owner that votes democrat is equivalent to the chicken who votes for Colonel Sanders. D-U-M-B. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of old Civil War era Southern democrat rhetoric in these parts from folks who do not realize that party roles have reversed. My grandfather voted democrat because his father brain washed him into think that you did so if you wanted to keep your job. He never looked any deeper, if he had, he would've found that he was really a conservative.

[Tinker]

This is a false impression that some people have. My boss is very liberal, but he is a big duck hunter, has several handguns, and frequents the range. He is very pro 2A. Political party affiliation doesn't always equate to what you think in terms of firearm ownership and views.


Give the leftists more time. They will eventually purge that unfortunate faction of thier voting block out or throw them under the bus.

[PT92]

Yup--As others have stated 'why not ban spoons' to prevent obesity?

Chalk a 'rare-one' up for Hollywood.

http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt163/markewall/rudolph.jpg

[Arkansas Paul]

Unfortunately, there's still a lot of old Civil War era Southern democrat rhetoric in these parts from folks who do not realize that party roles have reversed.

That is the 100% truth. Hope we don't get this shut down for talking political, but today's Democrats and the Democrats of 30 years ago are WAY different.

[almherdfan]

Maybe a lot of Democrats/liberals aren't pro-2A. Why marginalize the Liberals that are Pro-2A? How does that promote gun rights?

[Skribs]

I think the issue here is that being a democrat does not mean you agree with everything the democratic party supports. So while the party in general might be after gun control, that doesn't mean that individuals who associate with the party agree on that particular politic. So we need to go after the specific anti-2A folks instead of the party in general.

I had no idea who Chuck Woolery is, though, but he has a good radio voice and I can see why he did good in game shows.

ETA: While I agree with his point #3, the WW2 Japan myth is just a myth. That said, it DOES help us provide a sort of rudimentary militia if we have weapons at home, and the militia is probably the first line of defense.

[chris in va]

Interestingly, Pat Sajak is quite the conservative as well, but not sure on his 2A stance.

[RBid]

The broadstroke blaming of "liberals" or Democrats for anti-gun sentiment is inappropriate. To be clear, I'm neither offended nor liberal. I am saying that it is not appropriate, because liberal and anti are no more interchangeable than gun owner and criminal.

Some liberals and/or Democrats are anti. A great many are not. I am among many who live in predominantly liberal/Democrat States, while enjoying great gun laws.

Group-blame and group-rage are dangerous, and often alienate potential allies.

[Skribs]

http://www.ontheissues.org/democratic_party.htm

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. (Sep 2012)
Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole. (Jul 2004)
Strengthen gun control to reduce violence. (Aug 2000)

I'm not talking about the democrat/liberal individuals, but the official position of the party (the group) is that of reducing our gun rights. So there is legitimate cause for concern for what "the democrats" want to do to our rights.

[mr.scott]

I'll be watching this in Two-and-two.

[1911 guy]

As already said, it's nice to see a voice of reason from the Holly weird types. He's not alone, just severly outnumbered. Along the vein of conversation, I agree that there are no hard and fast "rules", but I've found I can usually tell a persons outlook on life (which also usually determines politics they find appealing) by four items. One of them is RKBA.

[JTHunter]

Great video! It's a shame that more "West-Coasters" don't think like that.

[Skribs]

Hey, Washington has some pretty decent gun laws JT.

[PT92]

Great video! It's a shame that more "West-Coasters" don't think like that.

Strike that--Should read "Left-Coasters." :barf:

Just kidding as I know quite a few Pro-2A guys out there (blanket statements are almost always naive)--Most of them find the gun-control laws/regulations abominable but have become equally pi$$ed about the ever-increasing tax environment in CA which is lucky if it actually avoids bankruptcy--I had not been out there for a dozen or so years and was shocked to see how things have deteriorated (but I digress...).

Happy Holidays!
http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt163/markewall/3-santa-sleigh-reindeer.gif

[Sam Cade]

Unfortunate that he spouts that fake Yamamoto quote. I turned it off at that point.

[Skribs]

Sam Cade, just because he made one error you turned him off? Good to know you only support pro-gun celebrities as long as they're 100% perfect.

[Sam Cade]

Good to know you only support pro-gun celebrities as long as they're 100% perfect.

People who don't bother to do basic fact checking aren't worth listening to.

[Skribs]

Well if you look up the issue on snopes (at least the way I did) then you won't find it. So maybe you have to look at a specific fact checking site to find the issue.

It doesn't invalidate his other points, and instead of just turning him off as "not worth it" maybe you should point it out.

[mokin]

I liked the part where he showed the gnome.

[Sam Cade]

So maybe you have to look at a specific fact checking site to find the issue.


Like factcheck.org?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

[gym]

The fact is that many fact checking sites have been proven to be unreliable, and even biased depending on who owns them. I read an article that cast doubt on much of what snopes in particular has to say about many of these so called truths. They are finaneced by people who lean to the left or right, and actually are not reliable for checking some things if it differs from their moral compass.
I say good for Chuck and we can use all the help available in out fight to keep our rights. I don't have to love the guys politics, or his personality, only that he made what seemed like a decent argument for our side and did it in a humerous and interesting way. if one person moves over to our side because of it, then it's a good thing. We already know where we all stand on the subject, so it's not essential that he be accurate with his historical references, as long as the point is made. some say that saying was made by another Japaneese commander, but if I am not mistaken, in the movie "Midway", he is quoted by the actor who portrayed him, as saying that line, "even though he is said not to". It's easy to see how it got started.

[mr.scott]

Unfortunate that he spouts that fake Yamamoto quote. I turned it off at that point.
So if someone uses incorrect punctuation or spelling do you ignore them too?

[Skribs]

I'm just saying, he might not be perfect, but he's on our side. I would rather not alienate the people on our side.

[Sam Cade]

So if someone uses incorrect punctuation or spelling do you ignore them too?

Yes.

Like the man said:

If they don'''tb bother 2 maike they posds wher I can red um I dont eben try 2. YOLO. --George Washington

[MachIVshooter]

Would have never guessed entertainment types having a clue.

There are a few. They just tend to be less vocal.

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; A fool speaks because he has to say something"

[MrDig]

I'm what you might call a "Dixie-crat" if it were not for the fact that I'm from Minnesota born and raised. I don't care what you do in your house long as it don't affect what I do in mine.
Your right to wave your fist in the air ends where my nose begins.
That being said I also hold to the idea that as a nation and more importantly as a society we need to care for those who cannot care for themselves. We spend far less on Social programs than we do on foreign aid. We give "Social Services" money to Illegal Aliens and ignore our own even our Veterans.
I believe in the First Amendment as much as I believe in the Second.
My reaction to the title of the thread was "who gives a rip what he thinks" and to some extent it still is. Just because I agree with him does not make his point more valid. His point is not more valid simply because of his celebrity. His point is valid because it is not only protected by the First Amendment it is protected by the Second as well.

[Double Vision]

Thanks for sharing that.
I always liked Chuck Woolery. Now I know why! :D

[Skribs]

Mr. Dig, his point isn't more valid because he's a celebrity, but his point will reach more people because of that status.

[MrDig]

Skribs to an extent I get that. I am a little fed up with people with Celebrity status expecting me to listen to them because they are Celebrities. Call it the Costas effect if you like but, I have thought this way for a long time.
The Comic Janinne Garofolo, trying to school me on politics, Tom Cruise trying to school me about modern medicine, Rosie Odonell trying to tell me "Guns Bad Gay Good" every time I hear a celebrity speaking about policy I take it with a grain of salt.
I would at least appreciate them giving me some references for their position and or saying "Don't take my word for it find out for yourself"

[Trent]

Like it or not, individuals tend to "side" automatically with celebrities they feel they can relate to. There's been a few actors over the years I've grown fond of only to find out that their personal beliefs are directly contrary to my own (usually about gun rights), and found myself enjoying their stuff less. For me it's the Schwarzenegger effect - used to be a huge Arnold fan when I was young, only to grow up and find out the dude is kind of a ... well, you know. (Don't want to offend Art's Gramma..)

However, this being said; actors are actors and they make their LIVING off of their popularity and ability to "lie" convincingly. So I take it ALL with a grain of salt now.

Like Costas. I don't follow football, didn't even know who the guy was before this week. But I sure know his name now.

When actors come out on controversial topics strongly they actually GAIN popularity on both sides - through agreement or notoriety. One little 30 second speech and he went from "every football dude knows who he is" to "everyone watching the news knows who he is."

Not the first "celebrity" to use controversy to advance a career.

[Axel Larson]

MrDig sounds like you need some ketchup, just kidding, good to see there are other Prairiehome Companion listeners on here.
I like that he is on our side but at the same time he also used the blanket term liberal to refer to all anti gun people this could turn off some potential firearms owners.

[Neverwinter]

The fact is that many fact checking sites have been proven to be unreliable, and even biased depending on who owns them. I read an article that cast doubt on much of what snopes in particular has to say about many of these so called truths. They are finaneced by people who lean to the left or right, and actually are not reliable for checking some things if it differs from their moral compass.
"We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers."

Colbert was right!

[bldsmith]

Just watched it. Very well articulated.