How anti-gunners think - perfect example

...and its all the guns fault. How dare it do that.

You'll never see this though:

One stolen car blazes a violent path

John Doe was looking for a “ride.”

In the spring of 2007, he browsed a North Mankato auto dealer’s collection for a used vehicle, one of the least expensive types of vehicles on the market.

Doe wanted the vehicle for personal transportation.

He paid $1500 to the Red Bear Driving Emporium and took home a 4 wheeled , 4 door, 8 cylinder vehicle, vin#xxxxxxx. But soon the car was stolen, changed hands, then changed hands again, spiraling beyond the bounds of lawful ownership.

Young gang members in Minneapolis passed the car among themselves and put it into action. They used the car to hit people. They used it to rob. They used it to terrorize a neighborhood.

-Gee, if only that car had been registered.
-Gee, if only the owner of that car had a license.
-Gee, if only the owner of that car had liability insurance.
-Gee, if only the thieves had a background check prior to stealing that powerful car.
-Gee, if only that car had 4 cylinders instead of 8, then when the cops chase them, they'd have less chance of getting away.

Etc etc. People that write articles like that are idiots.

I can't believe people write crap like that.

You're getting ahead of yourself.

You're talking about HOW anti-gunners think without first establishing WHETHER they think at all.

LOLOL, true.

As our former company headquarters was there before the merger, most of us called the Star Tribune the "Hammer And Sickle".
That anti-gun article is so typical of their so-called journalism.

Why? Because of its very abrasive anti-establishment style.
Some of their writers and editors must truly be frustrated revolutionaries, without the courage to actually do anything.
In the late 60s/early 70s a few were probably "professional demonstrators" (more fun than having a job) nearby in Madison WI.

I no longer look at that rag, as it makes the NY Times appear to be conservative.
A regular clerk at a hotel near the Mall of America in Bloomington said the paper "is not a liberal newspaper, it's a leftist paper".

Anti's don't think; they emote.

What do you expect from a hi-point? They are so ugly and maligned we shouldn't be surprised when they run away from home and lash out at society.

What difference does it make whether it's a hi point or a kimber ? The lefties just don't get it. They can't blame the people because it is the low class riff raff drawing on government programs that keeps them in office.

berettaprofessor said:

Anti's don't think; they emote.

Click to expand...

sure dosn't sound like you like to stay on THR!

Ignition Override said:

As our former company headquarters was there before the merger, most of us called the Star Tribune the "Hammer And Sickle".
That anti-gun article is so typical of their so-called journalism.

Why? Because of its very abrasive anti-establishment style.
Some of their writers and editors must truly be frustrated revolutionaries, without the courage to actually do anything.
I can't stand to ever look at that rag, and it makes the NY Times appear to be conservative.

A regular clerk at a hotel near the Mall of America in Bloomington said the paper "is not a liberal newspaper, it's a leftist paper".

Click to expand...

I am acquainted with one of the editors-from another forum-as well as another prize-winning investigative reporter from the cities. Basically decent, working class folk, but I have no problem whatsoever believing that the s-t skews hard left, since those journalism guys are each typically to the left of Susan Sarandon and Alan Alda, themselves. They have demonstrated a strong dislike for my views and postings on gun control issues, suffice to say.

At least the article was not without humor, though:

"Gomez said he’s writing a book about his life."

"How scumbags blaze a violent path" dealing drugs, identity theft, murder...

The article does provide some insight into the thought process of the other side. It is heavily focused on the item, not the people. The only "people" they think about are victims of violent crime, or by inference, the perpetrators as disadvantaged members of society. It is also heavily focused on emotional reaction, not a serious analysis of the problem. This appears to be the pattern in the other side of the ongoing debate.

So in my mind, the real question for our side is how do counter the visceral reaction? How do we persuade those in the middle without strong feelings to not react in horror to our side? Hopefully this is what the NRA tries to do...

Those "people" vote and have "needs" (that "we" can give them). pathetic lolz