Arkansas Paul
Member
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.
Chuck Woolery Speaks About "Assault Rifles"
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
Maybe a lot of Democrats/liberals aren't pro-2A. Why marginalize the Liberals that are Pro-2A? How does that promote gun rights?
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.
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.
Last edited:
chris in va
Member
Interestingly, Pat Sajak is quite the conservative as well, but not sure on his 2A stance.
RBid
Member
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.
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.
http://www.ontheissues.org/democratic_party.htm
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.
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.
1911 guy
Member
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
Member
Great video! It's a shame that more "West-Coasters" don't think like that.
PT92
Member
Strike that--Should read "Left-Coasters."
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!
Sam Cade
Member
Unfortunate that he spouts that fake Yamamoto quote. I turned it off at that point.
Sam Cade
Member
People who don't bother to do basic fact checking aren't worth listening to.
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.
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
Member
I liked the part where he showed the gnome.
Sam Cade
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Sam Cade
Member
MachIVshooter
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Thanks for sharing that.
I always liked Chuck Woolery. Now I know why!
I always liked Chuck Woolery. Now I know why!
- Status
Similar threads
