Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Luke Chisolm said:

You’re the one who attacked the source. 

 

The baseline by the mainstream media has always been “Trump colluded with Russians, and that is why he won the election.” There is an investigation, after all, isn’t there?

 

The article is just evidence that there might have been tampering on both sides. So it’s suspicious that the mainstream media is not reporting it. 

I don't think that's narrative at all. No one is actually investigating whether Trump is the legitimate president. He won. That's n-o o-n-e. He is the president. NO ONE in any important position is disputing that.

 

Many dispute that he is an acceptable president, but that is a much different issue. The Constitution allows the Congress to get rid of an unacceptable president or judge quite legally and lays out procedures for doing so.

 

I also linked to where the MSM is indeed reporting it. Additional instances are not at all hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, frogtwang said:

https://thinkprogress.org/the-new-smear-campaign-against-students-who-survived-the-parkland-massacre-b71c1e1d722c/

 

The far-right smear campaign against students who survived the Parkland massacre

 

At the risk of being criticized for questioning sources, I would think you might want to look for confirmation before totally going with thinkprogress. I realize I am bad for saying this.

 

That said they're usually right if pushing the envelope a bit. They tend to not outright lie like other partisan sources. In this case I'd question how key the critical sources are. They may just be isolated right wing loons. There's a lot of them out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether these kids are actors or were given scripts or not, I find it absolutely disgusting and reprehensible that these news outlets are trotting out these teenagers as a political baton to try to beat down their opposition and gain some 'moral high ground' to push an agenda. 

 

I sympathize with these kids. I think 99.99% of America does too. But I've always said, just because you survived/experienced some sort of trauma does not make you an expert in policy. With all due respect, these kids don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about. 

 

The attacks on the NRA and 2nd amendment going on right now is absurd. The NRA has done more to educate people about guns, the responsibilities that comes with ownership, and protection than any other organization out there. They gave a total of $21 million to candidates who they thought would protect their 2nd amendmemt rights. Who cares? Not one NRA member has carried out a mass shooting. So for these teens to say their blood is on the NRA's hands is flat out propaganda.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

Women are like that :ph34r:

 

!

Did you watch that? Two dudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SuperToad said:

Whether these kids are actors or were given scripts or not, I find it absolutely disgusting and reprehensible that these news outlets are trotting out these teenagers as a political baton to try to beat down their opposition and gain some 'moral high ground' to push an agenda. 

 

I sympathize with these kids. I think 99.99% of America does too. But I've always said, just because you survived/experienced some sort of trauma does not make you an expert in policy. With all due respect, these kids don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about. 

 

The attacks on the NRA and 2nd amendment going on right now is absurd. The NRA has done more to educate people about guns, the responsibilities that comes with ownership, and protection than any other organization out there. They gave a total of $21 million to candidates who they thought would protect their 2nd amendmemt rights. Who cares? Not one NRA member has carried out a mass shooting. So for these teens to say their blood is on the NRA's hands is flat out propaganda.

 

Yep, it’s disgusting and shameful.

 

I just joined the NRA for the first time.  If you’re not a member you should as well.

 

The only people responsible for that tragedy are the murderer and the officials who were aware of the threat and refused to stop it.

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/20/parkland-survivor-media-pushing-gun-control/

 

“I wholeheartedly believe that the media is politicizing this tragedy,” Minoff said. “It seems that gun control laws is the major topic of conversation rather than focusing on the bigger issue of 17 innocent lives being taken at the hands of another human.”

 

“I know many people who are pro-gun and others who support gun control but it seems that the media is specifically targeting those in support of gun control to make it seem as if they are the majority, and the liberal news outlets are the ones that seem to make the bigger effort to speak to these people, and I’m talking from experience,” Minoff explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the NRA. They have every right to advocate for their positions on gun issues. I do think they have too much power over politicians, though.  I think there are some gun legislation that have fairly broad appeal and not really restrict gun ownership at all that don't see the light of day because of their pseudo-veto power. I'd like to see the other side of the debate to be able to do a better job counteracting the NRA in a deliberate and strategic way in the same way the NRA does.  And I said earlier, I'd really like to start with lifting the moratorium on gun research. The last thing we want to happen is to pass laws that don't make a difference or misappropriates funds in lieu of things that do make a difference.  Let's get some good data first before we make any major decisions.  

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

...The last thing we want to happen is to pass laws that don't make a difference or misappropriates funds in lieu of things that do make a difference.  Let's get some good data first before we make any major decisions.  

 

True enough. That said, since the prevailing theory involves mental illness, unless you make the assumption that Americans are far more mentally ill or have far worse mental illness treatment options than the rest of the world, there is, in fact, good data out there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

True enough. That said, since the prevailing theory involves mental illness, unless you make the assumption that Americans are far more mentally ill or have far worse mental illness treatment options than the rest of the world, there is, in fact, good data out there.

 

 

 

This.  The "mental illness" route is a dangerous one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

Americans are far more mentally ill

It is a dangerous route, but we are more mentally ill than anyone will accept. Mental illness is a stigma that will carry a huge amount of baggage for the individual if they ever "come out" or are forced out. If that information gets into some type of governmental vetting database, that will open a whole can of worms for the person. But, the mentally ill are everywhere, all around us. They are here on our board, they are gun owners already, they are adamant about amassing as many guns as they choose. Those with mental illness are also people who have their disease under control and live normally like nearly everyone else, as long as their disease is managed by a physician, therapist, and medication, when appropriate. But, the crucial aspect is first realizing there's a need to seek help. Anti-social behavior has to be a trait that a huge majority of these gun enthusiasts who turn into murderers have in common. I wonder how many of them join message boards and seem normal for a while and then begin to get more bizarre in their behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

I don't have a problem with the NRA. They have every right to advocate for their positions on gun issues. I do think they have too much power over politicians, though.  I think there are some gun legislation that have fairly broad appeal and not really restrict gun ownership at all that don't see the light of day because of their pseudo-veto power. I'd like to see the other side of the debate to be able to do a better job counteracting the NRA in a deliberate and strategic way in the same way the NRA does.  And I said earlier, I'd really like to start with lifting the moratorium on gun research. The last thing we want to happen is to pass laws that don't make a difference or misappropriates funds in lieu of things that do make a difference.  Let's get some good data first before we make any major decisions.  

 

Here’s some research for you 

 

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

I don't have a problem with the NRA. They have every right to advocate for their positions on gun issues. I do think they have too much power over politicians, though.  I think there are some gun legislation that have fairly broad appeal and not really restrict gun ownership at all that don't see the light of day because of their pseudo-veto power. I'd like to see the other side of the debate to be able to do a better job counteracting the NRA in a deliberate and strategic way in the same way the NRA does.  And I said earlier, I'd really like to start with lifting the moratorium on gun research. The last thing we want to happen is to pass laws that don't make a difference or misappropriates funds in lieu of things that do make a difference.  Let's get some good data first before we make any major decisions.  

 

Here’s another interesting article from one of my crazy right wing fringe sources 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

 

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a polllast December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

Herein is the problem.  John Lott and his organization is a very controversial figure pro-gun "research" dude, who has been "debunked" by the other side. And visa versa. We need the CDC and public health researchers to look at this systematically over time. And then let elected officials look at that data to determine what is the best way to allocate funds to protect schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

Herein is the problem.  John Lott and his organization is a very controversial figure pro-gun "research" dude, who has been "debunked" by the other side. And visa versa. We need the CDC and public health researchers to look at this systematically over time. And then let elected officials look at that data to determine what is the best way to allocate funds to protect schools.

 

Here’s the problem.

 

Nothing is non partisan.  Especially the Government.

 

Instead of immediately dismissing the source, it’s probably more valuable to critique their research methods.

 

What flaws to you see in this study besides the source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

Here’s the problem.

 

Nothing is non partisan.  Especially the Government.

 

Instead of immediately dismissing the source, it’s probably more valuable to critique their research methods.

 

What flaws to you see in this study besides the source?

 

There is amazing NIH and CDC funded research out there in many different fields of science. Why can't they look at school safety and gun safety, too?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

There is amazing NIH and CDC funded research out there in many different fields of science. Why can't they look at school safety and gun safety, too?  

 

 

Because the CDC has a history of bias towards gun control:

 

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

 

Government-funded research was openly biased in the 1990s. CDC officials unabashedly supported gun bans and poured millions of dollars into “research” that was, in fact, advocacy. One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

There is amazing NIH and CDC funded research out there in many different fields of science. Why can't they look at school safety and gun safety, too?  

 

 

I’m not opposed to research.  However, I would consider the source as well.

 

Did you read the article I posted by the New York Times about the FBI’s findings regarding the “Assault Weapon” ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Because the CDC has a history of bias towards gun control:

 

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

 

Government-funded research was openly biased in the 1990s. CDC officials unabashedly supported gun bans and poured millions of dollars into “research” that was, in fact, advocacy. One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

 

2514rn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Because the CDC has a history of bias towards gun control:

 

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

 

Government-funded research was openly biased in the 1990s. CDC officials unabashedly supported gun bans and poured millions of dollars into “research” that was, in fact, advocacy. One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

 

That is an op-ed from the NRA, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

I’m not opposed to research.  However, I would consider the source as well.

 

Did you read the article I posted by the New York Times about the FBI’s findings regarding the “Assault Weapon” ban?

 

I definitely don't want an assault weapons ban, to be clear.  I don't want any legislation at all until we get more data.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...