Pro Gun OP/ED in USA Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
A PRO-GUN EDITORIAL IN USA TODAY!

I thought I would never see the day: a logical, coherent neutral essay that simply follows the logic of both arguments--and a professor from Skidmore at that.
 
Actually, though it is heartening to see a pro-gun, logical article appear in a mainstream media outlet like this one, I was unhappy with one major deficiency;

Million Mom founder Donna Dees-Thomases has issued the dire warning that if the ban expires, "terrorists, drug lords and the mentally unstable will be able to stock up on assault weapons that can wipe out a schoolyard full of kids in a matter of minutes." True, perhaps in theory

No, actually it is NOT true in theory, and not only did she provide readers with a factual mistake that might serve to further cement a reader's support of this laughable ban, she passed up an opportunity to educate people as to what the ban really constitutes, something that would have also gone a long ways in bolstering her central argument.
 
...and the Cleveland Indians win the World Series!!!!


[slap!, slap!!, SLAP!!! ]

Who...wha.....

I must have dreaming there. Did the USA Today actually print a pro-gun op-ed????
 
Terrorists, drug lords and the mentally unstable can stock up on assault weapons now -- with post-ban models.
 
Terrorists, drug lords and the mentally unstable can stock up on gasoline, Diesel fuel and fertilizer, propane; heck, you could drive a car around a playground and squash dozens of kids before a law abiding citizen intervenes with his/her legal gun and dispatches the problem.
There are lots of ways to kill people.
However, the only thing capable of commiting an 'assualt' is the single common factor in any of those situations: the responsibility of the individual, not the tool.
 
First we get one paper writing pro gun, then another, and another.

Soon we'll have pro gun movies in theaters.

We're winning the majority of people in the US back to the common sense side.

Keep it up!
 
Outstanding!!!

The "in theory" statement is a way of saying that "anything is possible, but this is absurdly improbable". It can be misconstrued when taken out of context to imply that it is theoretically possible, but let's not ignore that her message is that feminists should not support the right of a woman to self-determination in one area and abandon it in others as important as the right of self defense.
 
Has anyone else ever noticed that the people that proclaim the AWB as 'for the children' is usually also an abortion supporter?

I do agree wiht this lady though. I am anti-abortion. But you know what? I think that it is really not my place to decide if that should be legal or not. Just as the same as someone thtas anti gun shouldn't be deciding what should be legal or not.
 
I'm surprised and pleased the way she neatly hooked the abortion rights issue to the gun issue , do I detect a possible debate issue for the upcoming election ?
 
Has anyone else ever noticed that the people that proclaim the AWB as 'for the children' is usually also an abortion supporter?
Click to expand...
Yep, and they are usually against capital punishment too!

Yes, some accuse me of hypocrisy being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. Whenever I get this, I reply with two things. First reply is always the obvious, in the case of capital punishment we have an individual who has proven that he is not safe for society.

The second reply is to make them an offer, if they support anti-abortion I will support anti-capital punishment. I have yet to convice someone to take me up on this offer... I think that is telling in itself.
 
From the USA Today Editorial:
But practically speaking, most criminals use guns against one another.
Click to expand...
Very true. Some years back, the City of Chicago police department completed a 20-year study of murders in that city. It turned out that about three quarters of the murders were committed by people with previous criminal records, but about two thirds of the murder victims themselves ALSO had criminal records, putting those killings into the "good riddance" category. (Anecdotal evidence puts the percentage of "bad guys" killed even higher than the 2/3 reported, as the study only included people already convicted in their totals.)

But the study was suppressed for PC reasons . . . it turned out that certain demographics were disproportionately represented. :rolleyes:
 
Thesis: USA Today put this article in the paper to:

  1. Remind the public that the AW Ban expires.
  2. To stir up letters to the editor to assault this opinion, and stir up controversy, thereby increasing sales.
  3. By reminding the public of the AW Ban expiration, they will help to keep it in the public mind, and thereby ensure its continued survival.
    [/list=1]

    "So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."


    -Morgan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top