Let me make this statement very clear. I find it extremely seedy and slimy to use the shooting in the Northeast to push an agenda that she, and several others, have had on the plate for a long time. However, I suppose that is politics, and it is seedy and slimy. She is misrepresenting information to the media. Especially the fact that she is keeping crime statistics using these so called "assault weapons" out of her discussions. If you want to present a point of view on a subject, lets at least look at all the facts concerning the subject. The fact is that far more crimes are comitted using knives than "assault weapons" in this country every year. She would be a lot less seedy if she would bring these facts up to the media, but say that "assault weapons" have a larger death potential. At least then she would have a leg to stand on. As it is, she is lying by intentionally ommitting several facts that are pertinent to the issue.

 

WOW So your definition of lying is when someone that favors one side of an argument fails to present the arguments against their position. They need to change the name of the debate team to the liars club. If you have facts to counter what she proposes, fine, but to call her a liar because she doesn't make your argument for you, especially when you also fail to make her argument for her is a little beyond reason.

WOW So your definition of lying is when someone that favors one side of an argument fails to present the arguments against their position. They need to change the name of the debate team to the liars club. If you have facts to counter what she proposes, fine, but to call her a liar because she doesn't make your argument for you, especially when you also fail to make her argument for her is a little beyond reason.

 

She is without a doubt lying. Her entire basis is that taking assault weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens will save lives. Multiple statistics show that this is not true. She is trying to deceive the section of the Amercian public that is ignorant to the operation and use of firarms, and the actual statistics concerning their unlawful use. False representation and omission of facts are lying. She is not using news cameras as a base for debate, she is using them as a platform to present false information to the American public. No one is there to argue the point when she is giving a press conference. BTW, if you asked your signifigant other if she cheated on you with your best friend and she said no, would you consider her a liar if she said no but she was cheating on you with someone else. You can lye through omission of the facts. Also, I would personally consider anyone trying to institute gun control through any means except a new Amendment to the Constitution as attempting to achieve their goals through a backward, subversive process. There is an Amendment protecting these rights. It should require another Amendment to take these rights away.

She is without a doubt lying. Her entire basis is that taking assault weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens will save lives. Multiple statistics show that this is not true. She is trying to deceive the section of the Amercian public that is ignorant to the operation and use of firarms, and the actual statistics concerning their unlawful use. False representation and omission of facts are lying. She is not using news cameras as a base for debate, she is using them as a platform to present false information to the American public. No one is there to argue the point when she is giving a press conference. BTW, if you asked your signifigant other if she cheated on you with your best friend and she said no, would you consider her a liar if she said no but she was cheating on you with someone else. You can lye through omission of the facts. Also, I would personally consider anyone trying to institute gun control through any means except a new Amendment to the Constitution as attempting to achieve their goals through a backward, subversive process. There is an Amendment protecting these rights. It should require another Amendment to take these rights away.

 

You seem like a person who absolutely hates attorneys.

She is without a doubt lying. Her entire basis is that taking assault weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens will save lives. Multiple statistics show that this is not true. She is trying to deceive the section of the Amercian public that is ignorant to the operation and use of firarms, and the actual statistics concerning their unlawful use. False representation and omission of facts are lying. She is not using news cameras as a base for debate, she is using them as a platform to present false information to the American public. No one is there to argue the point when she is giving a press conference. BTW, if you asked your signifigant other if she cheated on you with your best friend and she said no, would you consider her a liar if she said no but she was cheating on you with someone else. You can lye through omission of the facts. Also, I would personally consider anyone trying to institute gun control through any means except a new Amendment to the Constitution as attempting to achieve their goals through a backward, subversive process. There is an Amendment protecting these rights. It should require another Amendment to take these rights away.

 

Sorry, but whether or not the proposed ban would save lives is a matter of opinion, not fact. You can present facts to support your opinion, but it is still opinion. With regard to the constitutionality of a gun ban, your opinion may be of interest to you, but beyond that it carries no weight. The Supreme Court has ruled that some restrictions are permissible. I have no doubt that any bill that might be passed will face review by the Supreme Court.

You seem like a person who absolutely hates attorneys.

 

I have a few that are friends, but I certainly don't agree with many of their actions.

Sorry, but whether or not the proposed ban would save lives is a matter of opinion, not fact. You can present facts to support your opinion, but it is still opinion. With regard to the constitutionality of a gun ban, your opinion may be of interest to you, but beyond that it carries no weight. The Supreme Court has ruled that some restrictions are permissible. I have no doubt that any bill that might be passed will face review by the Supreme Court.

 

No doubt, my opinion carries no weight past my vote. However, you were just asking for the reasons behind the opinions of posters on this issue. I was giving you the reasons behind my opinion. How can solid statistics that link gun control with incresed violent crime and greater carry and ownership of firearms freedom with a reduction in violent crime be an opinion. People try to call it opinion who want gun control, but it is a set of statistics, not opinions.

I don't address that question because I don't have a good answer. And by the way, that is a different thread. That is why I don't favor the AR ban as it has been presented. I think a ban on some weapons would pass constitutional review, but as I understand the last AR ban, as fast as you could put a weapon on the list the manufacturers would modify it to get around the list. I don't want any law that people can get around that fast. I do favor background checks on all sales or transfers. I do favor magazine limitations. I do favor mental health reviews as part of the background check. As far as the rhetoric being offensive, yes I find it offensive. To me it sounds like something you would have heard in 1860 South Carolina. (How did that work out?) Nothing is to be gained by constantly questioning the motives of anyone that disagrees with you. Senator Feinstein has been very clear about what she wants to do. How can that be a misrepresentation? I've asked before for you to show me the lies and misrepresentations. So far you haven't even tried. You just choose to say she is scum. Okay, thanks for the inciteful and intelligent discussion.

OK, go along blindly. I told you she misrepresented ASSAULT WEAPONS from the very start. She did it last time, she's doing it now. It's a lie. She tells you the ban will save lives. It's a lie. If bans save lives, why so many gun murders in Chicago?

I've never been anything but law abiding but if someone came for my guns..... I'm not saying that it wouldn't be hard but if anything I think I'd put up a fight because I know my family would.

Sorry, but whether or not the proposed ban would save lives is a matter of opinion, not fact. You can present facts to support your opinion, but it is still opinion. With regard to the constitutionality of a gun ban, your opinion may be of interest to you, but beyond that it carries no weight. The Supreme Court has ruled that some restrictions are permissible. I have no doubt that any bill that might be passed will face review by the Supreme Court.

The last time they put through a ban there were still school shootings. The ban did nothing to stop it.

The last time they put through a ban there were still school shootings. The ban did nothing to stop it.

Come on now, woodsrider. That's just opinion....

'Collateral Damage'? or 'They always get their man (or family)...even if we are corrupt.'

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/hearing-yields-explosive-testimony-about-law-enforcement-corruption-gun-case

 

"Defendants Rick and Terri Reese and son Ryin, New Mexico gun dealers jailed for allegedly knowingly selling guns to cartel members, and who have since had conspiracy and money laundering charges against them dismissed,...

 

“the comparatively minor charge of lying on gun sales forms -- even though the lies they were convicted of were perpetrated by federal agents and the Reese's crimes were that they ‘should have known’ that the agents were lying.” A second son, Remington Reese, was cleared of all charges.

 

...

 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not provide the defense with potentially damaging information about a key prosecution witness until after the trial ended,”

 

Normally the examiner.com is not a popular source. But tie this into the media thread. None of the MSM or cables will touch this story...

Remove double post

Edited January 30, 201313 yr by Bluegrasscard
Double post