news article compairing us to jihadist fundamentalists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well pardon my dumb then, its getting so hard to tell these days. I would think if google news puts this on its front page that it would be from an accredited source seems thats not the case.
 
Read it. Don't mind serious discussion about gun control when all parties are informed and discerning.

This author is neither. In opening with comparing gun enthusiasts to jihadi fundamentalists as one-to-one analogues, the author betrays his own fundamentalist leanings in refusing to acknowledge the nuances of the gun control issue and the many shades and stripes of people who support gun ownership.

Some thinkers on both sides of the divide are worth reading, but not this one.
 
Well pardon my dumb then, its getting so hard to tell these days. I would think if google news puts this on its front page that it would be from an accredited source seems thats not the case.
Click to expand...

You do make a valid point. Unfortunately the line between journalism and commentary has become harder and harder to see. This is unfortunately a trend that has exploded as demonstrated by the number of cable tv shows like those of Bill Oreily, Rachel Maddow, Hannity and in addition to am radio programming. None of these are actually news and are far more interested in catering reinforcing the world views of their audience for the sake of ratings.
 
Upon further digging this is the blog The Atlanta journal-constitution and that is a real news source from what I can tell. The blog in question is their version of the opinion column.
 
hrmm.....i wonder if i should write an article comparing anti-gun advocates to the KKK....because they are trying to remove rights and discriminate against a specific group of otherwise law abiding people....

i wonder how much theyd like to see an article comparing Feinstein to Bin Laden for using the deaths of children to their political advantage......

or maybe i could just publish the locations of homes that do not have guns.....



"What could be simpler? It doesn’t need research, experts, data or studies to see a simple truth that guns will kill far more in an uncontrolled environment than in a well-regulated one"
Click to expand...

i love that, essentially what they are saying is "the current data doesnt reflect my views, and i dont want to admit im wrong"......
 
Last edited:
Yes, and I also realize that blogs and editorials are blatent attempts to communicate bias to the readership.
Click to expand...

Well of course they are. That's their whole point. The real problem is when the line between becomes harder and harder to see and that people today so commonly rely on bloggers and pundits for their news.
 
Follow the anti-gun author's links; he/she writes for Khabar, which turns out to be a magazine for the Indian-American community. Does anyone want to bet that Parthiv Parehk is as foreign as Piers Morgan? I'm not saying foreign-born individuals are all bad, but it would be helpful that if they don't like the culture here, they'd return to the one they like. I don't plan to move to England/India/wherever and start complaining that they are all backward because they don't have American Football.
 
Common left propaganda. They demonize all conservatives by name calling and making false comparisons. They have been allowed to,define arguments such as calling moral people, haters, defenders of freedom as fanatics
They are modern brown shirts. They have become mainstream. How crazy this world has become, that the crazies are now normal and normal is evil.
 
Common left propaganda. They demonize all conservatives by name calling and making false comparisons. They have been allowed to,define arguments such as calling moral people, haters, defenders of freedom as fanatics
Click to expand...

Riiiiight. Because those on the right never engage in such activities. Uh huh.

Follow the anti-gun author's links; he/she writes for Khabar, which turns out to be a magazine for the Indian-American community. Does anyone want to bet that Parthiv Parehk is as foreign as Piers Morgan?
Click to expand...

So what? There are plenty of Pro-gun immigrants as well. I hate to dissapoint you but the 1st amendment does not only apply to natural born americans.
 
While the established media won't write these "hit pieces" on their own time, they are more than willing to publish them when written by someone they can disavow as not being on payroll. So while they maintain the illusion of parity in reporting, they also achieve their goal of influencing their readership with an extreme leftist agenda.

When we stop crying about "fairness" in journalism (there never has been such a thing) and just start selecting reporting that either comes from a worldview similar to ours or select a cross section of views and sort the wheat from the chaffe while being aware of and discarding the view in favor of gleaning facts from the fluff, we'll all be better off.

In other words, listen to both CNN and Alex Jones. The truth will lie somewhere in the middle.
 
berettaprofessor said:
Follow the anti-gun author's links; he/she writes for Khabar, which turns out to be a magazine for the Indian-American community. Does anyone want to bet that Parthiv Parehk is as foreign as Piers Morgan? I'm not saying foreign-born individuals are all bad, but it would be helpful that if they don't like the culture here, they'd return to the one they like. I don't plan to move to England/India/wherever and start complaining that they are all backward because they don't have American Football.
Click to expand...
There's no single-point, monolithic American culture to like or dislike -- it's many-headed and many-hued, and whether you and I agree with it or not, Parehk's opinion does reflect the attitude of many of our fellow Americans.

That's what the whole point of the melting pot is.

Wishing a foreigner away just because they don't agree with your view of things is really un-American.
 
Those that have no respect for, and seek to actively undermine the Constitution are not just 'disagreeing with our viewpoints'.
 
Don't complain that America is different that the hole you or your parents left. Matters of opinion are open for debate. Saying you want to dismantle our Constitution is, regardless of how un-PC is sounds, an act of war.

I'd opt for deportation, but maybe the author would prefer we did things like they do in India. Whippings and hangings used to be popular here, too.
 
RX-178 said:
Those that have no respect for, and seek to actively undermine the Constitution are not just 'disagreeing with our viewpoints'.
Click to expand...

1911 guy said:
Don't complain that America is different that the hole you or your parents left. Matters of opinion are open for debate. Saying you want to dismantle our Constitution is, regardless of how un-PC is sounds, an act of war.
Click to expand...
Listen, I think Parehk's a schmuck, but not because he wants to increase gun control, though I happen to disagree with him -- Parehk's a schmuck because his logical and rhetorical skills are so inept he can't even follow his own line of reasoning, much less the larger issues.

But let's not get breathless here. Arguing for gun control doesn't automatically equate to having no respect for, actively seeking to undermine, or dismantling the Constitution.

You, me, and everyone here who isn't an anarchist or a fool believes in gun control -- it's just a matter of where the lines get drawn. That isn't unconstitutional.

And it's cheap to turn to anti-foreigner talk, not to mention playing right into the most negative stereotypes they have for gun ownership supporters at a time when we have to maintain a more principled higher ground.
 
Last edited:
So instead of attacking poorly-argued ideas listed by a misguided or bigoted author, we resort to lumping everyone that opposes our idea into one stereotypical political ideology, xenophobia, and "git out of 'Merica" rhetoric?

We don't need liberals to make up stereotypes when we have plenty of folks are willing to volunteer playing that stereotype. This is THR, not call-in talk radio.
 
Quote:
You, me, and everyone here who isn't an anarchist or a fool believes in gun control -- it's just a matter of where the lines get drawn. That isn't unconstitutional.

You make false assumptions. And just so you know, it IS unconstitutional. The framers, men smarter by far than you or me, wrote pretty plainly what they intended.

As far as being "anti-foreigner", that depends. Sometimes I'm also very much "anti-born here but pretty damn blockheaded". Issues and values are what make decisions, not emotional crap like what color, religion or nationality you happen to be. When the assumed to speak against the Constitution of the very republic they sought refuge in, that's called biting the hand that feeds you.

We here in the U.S. are a very tolerant bunch. I like it this way. But look into it for yourself and see how long a dissident, even one relatively harmless and confined to an opinion column, would last in the other eighty percent (non-western) of the world. But they are more than willing to come here and poke their finger in our eye, rather than stand up and make a difference in their own countries.

Yes, I was being sarcastic about whippings and hangings. The point being that some (most of them born and raised right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.) are cowardly enough to hide behind what parts of the Constitution and liberties they choose while demonizing and decrying those parts they find not in keeping with their own philosophy.
 
And yes, there is a touch of "git out of 'merica" (as you so eloquently stated it) in my thinking. I'll explain that in lthree sentences.

If you're coming here, America is better than where you're at now.

Once you're here, you find it different than where you came from and are not happy about it.

Rather than adapting like generations before, you strive to make it more like the place you just left.


People have been coming here for four centuries now, from all over the planet, and have built one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen with regard to liberty, personal rights and democratic process. Why have non-players and homeland nationalists become the accepted class? What about the generations that came before and built the very fabric their own descendants are tearing apart?
 
I admit, it sucks seeing people in politics and in the media pushing their agenda. In fact, it's downright criminal at times. People can't seem to be happy with, "I have all these rights, so I'll just exercise the ones I want and let others exercise the ones I don't care for." It's got to fit their worldview. And that's idiotic.

But if we could simply flip a switch and deport anyone that thought differently, we'd "clean up the mess" according to our idealistic standards, but at the same time create a country that is frightening on it's own account. I don't want to live in a country where we can boot folks out for thinking differently.

There isn't really a reasonable solution though, is there? Maybe we need giant robotic overlords to enforce the Constitution instead of fickle humans who insist on fixing, tinkering, revising and, "living documenting" a pretty basic fundamental document.
 
All right, I'll be blunt. Claiming that everyone here, you and I, as well as the other ten thousand or so members here, believe in some form of gun control and only differ in to what extent is a false assumption.

The framers and authors of our Constitution wrote exactly what they intended, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Preceding this, they made the case for what reason the people were to retain arms. Security of a free state. Coupled with the Declaration of Independence which states an obligation of the people to replace oppresive government, the intent was clear. The founding fathers wanted parity between the standing army and the militia, which was comprised of the whole of the population, to again go back to the framers.

In short, any gun control beyond "do you want it and can you afford it" is unconstitutional. Period, full stop. The fact that we've accepted it because the encroachment began before we were born doesn't make it any less an infringement.

So you have made a false assumption that I believe in some form of gun control. Go read some of the debates and discussions on the Legal forum and you'll find that I am neither alone in this nor the most outspoken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top