Quantcast

"France-Style Attack Would’ve Been Worse in US Because Guns"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Cee Zee, Jan 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RustyShackelford

    RustyShackelford member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Msnbc/cnbc .....

    It's strange, I was thinking over the weekend how slanted & anti 2A MSNBC-CNBC is. :rolleyes:
    I haven't watched regular basic cable in about 5 years. I can't stand MSNBC's constant trashing of US gun owners, the NRA & members, CCW holders and armed citizens who legally defend themselves.

    They have a agenda and want to vilify gun owners/CCW license holders.
    Their ratings are low & CNBC is a TV industry joke.
     
  2. Cee Zee

    Cee Zee member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,297
    I have DISH and right now we can't even get Fox News. They are having a contract dispute. I'm not real crazy about Fox but it beats the heck out of those other propaganda outlets. And with all the stuff going on it stinks not having any decent news at all. I usually get all of my news from the net but during a real crisis it's hard to beat TV or at least some TV. Fox certainly has it's problems (like Mr. Arrogant himself, Bill Oreilly). DISH is losing subscribers like crazy because of this. I heard they had lost like 75,000 subscribers over it.
     
  3. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,108
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    I love how he has the complete right to say this without physical reprisals. Words only!

    Anti-gun nuts stay with their ignorant dogma regardless of logic. And we of all people act surprised?

    The thing that goes up!!!!

    I do love it when liberals start on the whole "smarter than conservatives" fallacy. Soon to be followed up with CNN poll "data". Not saying all liberals are anti-gun, because they aren't, but guys like this make it particularly interesting to watch them defend the position of only liking some of the US Constitution.
     
  4. Johnny_B_Goode

    Johnny_B_Goode member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Franklin County, NC
    I have dish. Starting Christmas eve we hve had a bunch of channels shut off. This action forced me to put up an outdoor antenna to see the football games. Now I have djscovered we have 33 free local channels. I am seriously considering changing our programming to the lowest package so we can get ESPN. Right now we are spending $95 a month with dish.
     
  5. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    62,366
    Location:
    Alabama
    While the talking heads on TV are indeed "ignorant" about guns in many ways, they are not "stupid" (Or at least the ones driving the propaganda are not), and the calling of semi autos automatics, and the showing of full auto fire is intentional, and, as posted, it does sway many of the general public who are not into guns and don't know any better.

    It will never stop, as the anti's never rest. Be forever vigilant, or sit back and watch them take your gun rights (And your guns) away as slowly, or as quickly as we let them.
     
  6. saltydog

    saltydog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    From The Free State of Okla
    CNN knows exactly what they are doing. Unfortunately yes there are a lot of stupid people in America and they play on this. Propaganda works and they know it!:barf:
     
  7. Cee Zee

    Cee Zee member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,297
    You take your average female city dweller and you'll probably find they know very little about guns so whatever they see on tv must be true, right? There are still people who think they're smart because of stuff they see on tv and the media people know it. So they present their dogma in the form of news and entertainment not only because they are pushing an agenda but because their agenda sells to a lot of people who don't know any better. There's a reason every single network promotes anti-gun rhetoric and that includes Fox News. They at least do show some positive aspects of guns at times but I still see idjits like Bill Oreilly putting down "assault weapons". He also wants gun registration. Yeah that's a good idea. Fox News is not much better than the other networks really. And I hear the "you don't need that to hunt" argument from time to time there too.

    It's an uphill battle for us but surprisingly we are winning IMO. There's a lot of us and no matter how much the media bashes the NRA they still do a good job of putting pressure on Washington.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  8. mr.trooper

    mr.trooper Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,829
    Location:
    Midwest
    FACT: Anywhere something is prohibited, a black market exists.
    EVIDENCE: Assault weapons are prohibited in France, yet terrorist Muslims still have full auto AK47s.

    FACT: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
    EVIDENCE: The cops were unarmed and incapable of fighting back + the dissarmed citizens standing around filming the terrorist Muslims on their rampage = Evil doers accomplished their goal.
     
  9. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,482
    Location:
    WNY
    Mr. Robinson should read the following books on how civilian arms were crucial to the Civil Rights movement which benefited him:


    We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement
    by Akinyele Omowale Umoja

    This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible
    by Charles E. Cobb Jr.

    The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement
    by Lance Hill

    Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms Paperback – January 14,
    by Nicholas Johnson (Author)
     
  10. Cee Zee

    Cee Zee member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,297
    The Black Panthers certainly called for the use of armed resistance back during the civil rights era. And the government was concerned enough about the idea of an uprising that they mounted machine guns on the steps of the capitol during the 1968 riots in Washington following the death of Martin Luther King. Washington had essentially been occupied by black people who started out demanding stores close out of respect then ended up looting those stores. I guess they didn't care that such things (the looting) hurt their cause more than the demonstrations might have helped. The occupation of the city got within 2 blocks of the White House which was being guarded by troops from the 3rd Infantry.

    There's no doubt that black people were getting shafted in those days and the threat of armed revolt helped push their agenda big time. IMO that was actually a good thing because what was happening was just plain wrong. I actually believe that "all" men were created equal. When the government treats one group terribly different that group certainly has the right to complain. I do not ever want to see any armed conflict but just the threat of it being possible is generally enough when push comes to shove.
     
  11. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,465
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    I've been following "The O'Rielly Factor" since it was first aired 18 years ago. At one point in time O'Rielly was in favor of what you said, but Hurricane Katrina changed his mind. The storm and its aftermath opened his eyes and he realized the authorities can't be everywhere and people often must fend for themselves ~~ and of course after the authorities take your guns when they DO show up, it doesn't help, it hurts.
    I won't say he's gone so far as to become an NRA supporter but I do think he atleast is capapble of learning, which is more than I can say for some other TV "celebrities."
     
  12. dmancornell

    dmancornell Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    Texas
    Eugene Robinson isn't stupid, he is simply one of a pair of doctrinaire pro-government writers for WaPo. The other is E.J. Dionne. They reliably articulate the statist stance on every single issue so the Beltway crowd can nod their heads and bask in the glory of media approval.
     
  13. Cee Zee

    Cee Zee member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,297
    His appearance on Letterman when he called for gun registration (check the link I posted before) was in Feb. of 2013. He said he wanted registration for "heavy" firearms by which he apparently meant assault rifles or anything that fired more than a few rounds. I used to watch his show until his arrogance started making me ill ( I also started when Fox News first aired when Bill had Playboy Playmates as guests on a regular basis). If anything he has gotten progressively worse on gun issues. Basically he will say and do anything he thinks will make people watch his show. He's a first class dunce with an ego the size of a mountain. He thinks he knows all sorts of things that simply are not true. And his views of guns are so full of bull it's amazing. For example he has called for the Feds to ban moving certain guns across state lines (no doubt those notorious "heavy guns" whatever they are). In fact he wants all gun crimes federalized. He also wants a mandantory 10 year prison term for "any" gun law violation. Are you sure you never break a gun law? Ever carried a gun to the range in a way that wasn't exactly kosher with state laws? Are we all going to need to become lawyers just to know what we can do and can't do with a gun? I certain support strong punishment for certain gun crimes. But he didn't say certain crimes. He said "all" gun crimes. I read this stuff from his own talking points. He's not the worst gun grabber I know. I never said he was. But he is no friend of the 2A IMO. Registration alone is a very onerous suggestion. How many times has registration led to confiscation in other countries? He talks about the fact we have to register automobiles. That isn't actually true btw. You only have to register them to drive them on public roads. But cars aren't a constitutionally protected right anyway. Guns are. The way I see it any new laws aimed at curtailing gun ownership are not in my interests because they won't be satisfied until only the terrorists have access to guns. Like France.
     
  14. joem1945

    joem1945 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,016
    I've watched the news clips but is anyone sure they had FA weapons or were they semi AK47's. The news will report anything that looks like military are is a MG.
     
  15. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,675
    Location:
    Illinois
    Extremist islamics declare Jihad.

    An extremist Islamic shoots up Fort Hood.

    A pair of extremist Islamics blow up Boston.

    A group of extremist Islamics knock down both world trade centers, smoke the pentagon with another airliner, and make a crater somewhere in Pennsylvania with a 4th.

    ... etc.

    At some point it STOPS being profiling and starts being ACCURATE.

    Hardcore extremist Islamic Jihadists are just that - holy war crusaders bent on destroying "our" way of life.

    This is not a SLIGHT against Islam or Muslims in the least. This is FACT.

    They *declared holy war against the rest of the world and now they are taking on targets of opportunity*.

    Let us not lose sight of that. This isn't a religious issue, per se, this is a subset of a religious organization - one culture, Islamic Jihadists - which is out to disrupt, undermine, and destroy another culture, ours.

    The 2nd amendment could protect our religious freedom (inadvertently) by giving us the right (however suicidal it might be at any given time) to attempt to overthrow a civil government which is persecuting their religion or beliefs; in other words, a government which is itself bent on purging 'unwanted' cultural groups from it's general population.

    In this regards, Muslims have protection on the 2nd amendment (although it is definitely arguable how well protected ANY of us are with the 2nd amendment, considering the sheer military power of the current civilian police forces).

    It ALSO means that any subset of the population which feels the desire to do so may attempt to overthrow the government or disrupt civilian government; or even terrorize the general population. The 2nd amendment is a double edge sword, in this fashion.

    Was that what it was meant for? In a roundabout way, yes, as a 'tyrannical' government is largely a matter of *perception* of the individual. Yes, we have a collective feeling, but it's still an individual viewpoint altered by the individual's world-view.

    So far, fortunately, we've seen lone wolf or paired attacks. But something like Paris is *definitely* possible in the US - with or without the 2nd amendment. (A suitably motivated terrorist without direct access to guns - say, all guns are banned - would simply kill a lone police officer to gain access to his weapons, then move on to the locale where they will perpetrate the attack. In this regards the 2nd amendment is moot, any arms available - anywhere - will be on the shopping list for someone already decided on murder and terrorism as a valid tactic.)

    You are spot on in the rest of your argument that a lone or small group of terrorists cannot continue on an insurrection indefinitely in the United States as - even if they had sufficient numbers of volunteers - they lack one vital component to such a campaign - a safe harbor. The Viet Cong had gray borders they could slip across at will, which we couldn't violate (generally speaking). The Iraqi's and Afghans just dropped their weapons and blended back in to the populations after an attack - we couldn't kill the unarmed civilians. So in 20 seconds they go from shooting at US soldiers to "safe"; our soldiers spent most of their time hunting for (or hunkering down from) ghosts. Here in the states there is no "safe harbor" for them to seek refuge which isn't to a large degree mitigated (made less 'safe harborish') by currently deployed technology.

    The 2nd amendment DOES and DOESN'T figure in, in various ways.

    Yes, it gives minority groups (religious or otherwise) protection when they are persecuted.

    It also gives minority groups (even extreme minorities, "jihadists" in this case) access to (very basic) small arms.

    It give mundane civilians the means to protect themselves when others (even extreme minority groups) attempt to do violence on the general population.

    Heck, it even grants the ability for two minority groups to slug it out against one another. (Notice I didn't say "right" - I said "ability").

    Many of the above examples are properly classified as rights abuses since the intention of the 2nd amendment is to target, specifically, either a hostile domestic government or foreign invader. But, it is what it is.

    The instrument isn't the issue, how it's used, is the issue.

    Murder, and terrorism, are both very, very serious crimes.

    Whether or not guns used in the acting out of those two offenses is largely irrelevant - the actors (in this case, Islamic Jihadists) simply don't care. Their world view has skewed their vision to the point they view our entire society as acceptable collateral damage. Our way of life is the enemy.

    I tried to remain objective in this post - by no means do I want to get involved in a religious discussion. This isn't strictly a religious issue.

    It's one (subset of a) culture waging war on another culture.

    Let us not lose sight of that.

    For any author to say that "the 2nd amendment makes Islamic Jihad possible inside the United States"...

    Well, that's actually accurate, to a degree.

    But, it's a shell game argument, as it is still possible even with a complete LACK of the 2nd amendment.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  16. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    If I banged my head on my desk every time I read something some anti wrote about what they THINK and cannot support in anyway, I would either be dead or be replacing my desk every week.
     
  17. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "But something like Paris is *definitely* possible in the US - with or without the 2nd amendment."
    One could argue the Columbine attacks were essentially the same concept, and the Boston Bombings even more so. Pretty much as effective, too (one or two incident locations, and a double digit number of casualties, and causing lingering fear/change responses to the locale impacted)

    "it's a shell game argument, as it is still possible even with a complete LACK of the 2nd amendment."
    That's really the thrust of what I was getting at, even apart from the cultural portion of the argument. The funny thing about the shell game, though, is that while all those involved have arms, the shells keep moving. It's only when the option of resistance is removed that things can start snowballing towards one group's detriment, at least as regards the use of force with impunity (your Kristallnacts, lynchings, and etc.) I think there could even be an argument made that they most gun-phobic Western societies appear to be first in line for Jihadist's efforts (USA, Australia, England, Canada, now France --all in the most gun phobic, urban areas, of course). Perhaps it is merely that gun-phobica tends to follow the cultural decadence that is supposedly the actual target of these creatures, but I tend to think they insist on each other rather than mere coincidence.

    The only reason I commented on the cultural aspect of the issue is that there was no explanation whatsoever for why dense Muslim enclaves in the US have not so far proven nearly so caustic as those in France. Maybe it just hasn't happened yet, maybe our system does a better job of meeting their needs, maybe the crazy ones just don't like the weather in Michigan as much. The fact there is a deviation in the situation begs an explanation, though (not just the supposition that if we were like France, we'd be at war since we have guns; if we were like France, we wouldn't have guns in the first place. You could just as easily claim, like I did, that freedoms like firearms are working to hold back the problem)

    TCB
     
  18. TrickyDick

    TrickyDick Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    722
    Location:
    Maine, USA
  19. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    56,254
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    The OP misquotes and incorrectly interprets Eugene Robinson's statement on the air. If you listen to the complete piece and pay attention to what and how he is saying you hear something entirely different than most here are reacting to.

    Eugene Robinson was contrasting the conditions and tensions in France where the large percentage of recent immigrant population from North Africa and the Middle East is at odds with the French government and French culture vs. the very different and overwhelmingly peaceful muslim population here that are not at odds with America and American culture. Considering Americas greater total population and our ready access to firearms, he was expressing relief that relations with our muslim citizens were so much better than the French with theirs.

    What we fail to grasp is that France has a large recent immigrant population (legal and illegal) that lives in relative poverty on government subsidies and that doesn't have much opportunity to assimilate and resists assimilation because they've fled their homelands because of the dangers there. Even with that Rand estimates that less than 1% are "at risk of radicalization", not being radicals, but just at risk of becoming radicalized. That's a pretty small number even in France with its poor relations. The U.S. does not have this sort of problem so we don't face the same risks as seen in France.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  20. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,108
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
  21. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,465
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama

    While I disagree with your characterization of O'Rielly as a "dunce," if he has supported registration as of Feb., '13 then he has at best been "two-faced" about the subject.
    I don't know if O'Rielly understands the connection between registration and confiscation. I have a feeling he'd dismiss it as a "theoretical" argument until he was educated about how registration has led to confiscation in both New York City and California.
    I also don't know what he thinks he's describing with the phrase "heavy weapons." I think of mortars, artillery, cannon, and the like. He probably thinks of M-16s that fire 5.56mm., even though some military folk sometimes refer to them as "poodle-shooters." :scrutiny:
    I cede that he can come across as arrogant .... but I hardly think he has the market cornered on that in the world of TV show "talking heads."

    Such as? Not that I agree with everything he's said, anymore than I agree with Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, or any other TV/radio personality. But you made a provocative statement, and I am curious as to what he has said with which you take exception.
     
  22. Cee Zee

    Cee Zee member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,297
    Actually the Mexican border is pretty much used in that fashion by other forces right now. It wouldn't be hard for Muslim extremists to blend in. Some say they already do.

    I quoted what he said directly from the written report on what he said. I wasn't able to hear his words clearly enough to be sure the quote was exactly accurate. But I think you have his intentions completely wrong and a lot of others share my view. I've read numerous other articles on what he said and none of them took the position you have taken. He made it pretty clear he thought He said we would have more of that sort of carnage here if our relations with Muslims were the same because we have more weapons here for them to gain access to. Yes he was expressing the opinion that we have better relations with our Islamic community but he also made it clear that he thought access to weapons here could make things much worse. I don't know what rock he's been hiding under but using box cutters the radical Muslims killed 3000 Americans on one day. I don't see how having access to firearms could have made that any worse.

    And I disagree that our relations with our Muslim community are actually that much worse in France than they are here. How many extreme examples do you need that we have a huge problem with Muslims here? I think you have glossed over his slam of American culture and agreed with his insignificant point that the French treat Muslims worse. It hasn't stopped Muslims from trying to kill us one bit that we treat them better. In fact it may have made things worse. Muslims aren't motivated by financial issues in France or at least those terrorists weren't. They were totally and completely motivated by their radical views. They set out to punish a magazine for publishing perceived insults of the prophet. Muslims have threatened that same action here repeatedly and they have had success in limiting what media outlets put out. That has zero to do with the poverty of the Muslims in France and everything to do with their xenophobic religion bent on world domination. I'm sure Robinson meant to imply that there was a difference in how our relationships with Muslims play out but he's a fool for believing that's the case. And he is a suicidal fool to think that taking away our weapons would make things better here under any circumstances. The French police had no way to fight back. I'll be danged if I want that for my country and Robinson is an idiot for thinking it would make things better.

    Good grief. Are we really going that far out on a tangent? Please don't hijack this thread in that direction. It won't be of much use to anyone. I will answer your question but that's as far as I go with this.

    Start with him accusing DISH of trying to "censor" what you hear because they were fighting the giant rate increase Fox has asked for to carry their programming. They only want 3 times what they were getting and bandwidth for 2 extra channels. DISH made a financial decision to say no. It had nothing to do with censorship. Bill claiming that's what it was about is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid. I'm actually going with incredibly dishonest on this one but he no doubt thinks people will believe what he said which also clearly makes his statement a clear example of something that would come from a dunce. How many people are stupid enough to not know the battle is about money. DISH dropped the Cartoon Network for a good while recently. Were they censoring reruns of "King Of The Hill"?

    One more. He once told an atheist, "Tide goes in, tides goes out - you can't explain that." While I agree that most atheists are goofy it's pretty well established that the moon causes the tides to come in and go out. Most 5th graders can tell you that. But Dunce Bill doesn't understand it with his Harvard "I'm and intellectual" education. And yes he said "he" was an intellectual. Maybe not so much when it comes to simple science.

    I could go on for hours about Mr. Bill. I watched his show until I couldn't stand his arrogance any more. Arrogance combined with mind numbing stupidity (like the tides thing) is a really irritating combination. You can think what you want. I've seen the guy in action. He is very much a dunce. I mean come on - you can't explain how the tides work??? Maybe if he had said you can't explain how the moon happened to be in just the exact position to make the tides work like they do I might have thought he had something on the ball. But he clearly didn't have a clue. Dunce.

    BTW my son had the opportunity to go to Harvard grad school to study physics. That's the hardest field to go into. There were 5 positions available for the entire nation to get into that program at Harvard. My son was one of them. He chose to go elsewhere because he said it was better than Harvard. I'm just pointing this out as proof that I know the difference between stupid and smart. My son is smart. Bill is not. Not even close. Can't explain the tides - good grief.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2015
  23. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    If it bleeds.... It leads...

    I have a problem taking seriously the opinion of people who would be out of business if crime went down appreciably. Hell, we have been living years in a massive fall in crime, so the news reporters just import stories. Now if someone is shot in LA, it makes the news here. So people believe that crime is rampant and that the FBI and others are manipulating statistics... Way to inform the public.
     
  24. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    12,312
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    People on all side of the media say silly, often stupid, things on a daily basis. That coupled with the slant this thread is veering down, namely national security and border defense, and they already touchy responses by some has lead me to close this before it goes farther off track.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice