Left has lost gun control debate

[Jamie6.5]

Ya know,...
I hear there's a couple of openings over at NPR that buggy and CEF1959 would be a natural fit for!
You guys should jump in there right quick before they lose their federal funding!

ROFLMAO

 

[bugeye]

Ya know,...
I hear there's a couple of openings over at NPR that buggy and CEF1959 would be a natural fit for!
You guys should jump in there right quick before they lose their federal funding!

ROFLMAO

The house defunded NPR, and public TV, before this sting, they don't care how many kids read better because of big bird, I suspect they hate education and find an informed public to be their greatest threat. After all, burning books is a right wing tradition.

I'm a sustaining member, real news and quality programs are worth paying for.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The house defunded NPR, and public TV, before this sting, they don't care how many kids read better because of big bird, I suspect they hate education and find an informed public to be their greatest threat. After all, burning books is a right wing tradition.

You have that one bass-ackwards buggy.
Burning books is a leftist thing. At least according to Marx, Lenin et al. History has shown that the ultimate sponsorship of ignorance has always been from the left.
It's too bad that they teach willful ignorance to adults, telling them what not to read, while big bird teaches the kids how.

I'm a sustaining member, real news and quality programs are worth paying for.

Is Air America on your donation list also?
Given what we know about their misguided administration's mindset, as proven by the recent expose', I am not the least bit surprised you feel like this. But feeling isn't thinking. Proof of this is in the expose', as it was the two NPR folk's feelings about conservatives and the TEA party that got them in trouble with public funding. From all I've read here, your views are in alignment with theirs, and therefore wallowing in the same pit. Relying on feelings instead of thinking your way through the facts to find the truth.

One side of the "real news" never tells the entire story buggy. However your statement above does explain your political position(s), and your blind obedience in defending them. "Real" or not, it's still only one side.

The quality programming may extend as far as your 6 year old, but once the age of adulthood is achieved, you should know better. Or at least cause you to question the lack of dissenting opinion in your sources, thereby setting you on an intellectual course in search of the whole truth.

True diversity may help you understand buggy, but diversity as defined by the current leftist movement is a one way street, and therefore not diverse at all.
With all the facts regarding gun ownership, right to carry etc., it should be obvious that for the moment at least, the OP is correct.
THE LEFT HAS LOST (the) GUN CONTROL DEBATE.

Yet here you are, defending the left's position, and the position of gun-grabbers everywhere.
I find it odd that you would do so on a gun forum, without an ulterior motive.

 

[2506]

To argue over whether NPR is "liberal" is to waste everyone's time. Yes, it's liberal, and it does great journalism, and I wouldn't have it any other way. There's a very good reason why American news organizations have a long tradition of not accepting money from the government: because of exactly what NPR is going through right now. The Juan Williams fiasco. This week's farcical James O'Keefe "sting" that revealed that a non-news NPR employee held mainstream political opinions. And now, the (apparently forced) resignation of the CEO. The reason these were huge political controversies rather than mere run-of-the-mill media stories is that NPR is on the government payroll, and is therefore a voluntary target for every angry taxpayer with an bubblegum and an opinion. (All of them.)

But back to the original assertion: I feel that gun control is off the table. Until the economy is fixed, taxation is dealt with, heck even funding the government to run for another month is dealt with--nobody is going to bring up anything regarding gun control on a FEDERAL LEVEL. I'm very concerned about states and municipalities, however.

 

[svxr8dr]

. After all, burning books is a right wing tradition.

Because we all know anyone that leans right equates to being abook burner.

Also are you saying Big Bird could not survive on the airwaves without the government nipple?

 

[rufus]

The house defunded NPR, and public TV, before this sting, they don't care how many kids read better because of big bird, I suspect they hate education and find an informed public to be their greatest threat. After all, burning books is a right wing tradition.

I'm a sustaining member, real news and quality programs are worth paying for.

How predictable.

For your information, Bert makes Charlie Sheen look like Anderson Cooper and is a bad influence on little Johnny. How could you support PBS? Why do you hate kids? Think of the children! Oh yeah, save the whales too.

 

[bugeye]

You have that one bass-ackwards buggy.
Burning books is a leftist thing. At least according to Marx, Lenin et al. History has shown that the ultimate sponsorship of ignorance has always been from the left.
It's too bad that they teach willful ignorance to adults, telling them what not to read, while big bird teaches the kids how.
Is Air America on your donation list also?
Given what we know about their misguided administration's mindset, as proven by the recent expose', I am not the least bit surprised you feel like this. But feeling isn't thinking. Proof of this is in the expose', as it was the two NPR folk's feelings about conservatives and the TEA party that got them in trouble with public funding. From all I've read here, your views are in alignment with theirs, and therefore wallowing in the same pit. Relying on feelings instead of thinking your way through the facts to find the truth.

One side of the "real news" never tells the entire story buggy. However your statement above does explain your political position(s), and your blind obedience in defending them. "Real" or not, it's still only one side.

The quality programming may extend as far as your 6 year old, but once the age of adulthood is achieved, you should know better. Or at least cause you to question the lack of dissenting opinion in your sources, thereby setting you on an intellectual course in search of the whole truth.

True diversity may help you understand buggy, but diversity as defined by the current leftist movement is a one way street, and therefore not diverse at all.
With all the facts regarding gun ownership, right to carry etc., it should be obvious that for the moment at least, the OP is correct.
THE LEFT HAS LOST (the) GUN CONTROL DEBATE.

Yet here you are, defending the left's position, and the position of gun-grabbers everywhere.
I find it odd that you would do so on a gun forum, without an ulterior motive.

You cover lots of territory here.

Give us some Marx Lenin quotes about bookburning! Can't wait to read these!

I guess for someone who thinks NPR is only good for kids, history is childs play, and having it show anything you want only requires a short grunt and a reach down to pick up your freshly extruded steaming element of absolute truth.

I don't know if you actually listen to NPR but they interview plenty of yappers from the right wing think tanks, of course they seldom win an actual discussion with a yapper from a left wing think tank but that really isn't NPR's fault. You have no need to burn books if you teach people that real history, or facts, or even an ability to prove your own statements, is less important than making the barking noise. After all, that bark clearly shows that the universe is exactly as you say it is, no proof is ever required.

Guns are just one of the rights I value as a citizen of the USA. Indeed I think the righties on the Supreme Court destroyed more of our rights in the People's United case than the gov has in relation to firearms in my lifetime.

 

[2506]

Now, now, Buggy. You wouldn't be suggesting that anyone on the SCOTUS would be an activist judge, now would you?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The house defunded NPR, and public TV, before this sting, they don't care how many kids read better because of big bird, I suspect they hate education and find an informed public to be their greatest threat. After all, burning books is a right wing tradition.

I'm a sustaining member, real news and quality programs are worth paying for.

What people like me object to is the leftist/multicultural indoctrination added into the ABCs and me having to pay for that. Funny how I learned to read and write and was reading Treasure Island and Shakespeare by age 7, and I had never even heard of PBS

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Right on, brother. In the good old days, we could own slaves. Now that the lefties are in charge, we can't. And I heard yesterday that women can vote now, and old people get pensions. Crap, dude, you nailed it: It's been downhill since 1789.

Wait a minute, though. What was that about "weak" government? I thought we were supposed to be in favor of that. Or do we have to do the whole Hamilton/Jefferson debate all over again? Or are we talking Franco/Mussolini? They were definitely opposed to weak government.

It's so difficult being ideologically pure, innit?

BTW, your quote, "Left wing threats make me giggle" was first uttered by Fulgencia Batista in 1958. He stopped giggling a bit later.

Its great how the only way you can support an argument is by suposition, or inventing things that I may believe. Its also enlightening how you pull two issue...slavery and womens rights from our historical past to try to slow your snowball of lack of credibility. No wonder there is such lack of respect for you here. I could do a bullet point list of every sentence of the bill of rights and what I think about them but I am sure it would matter little to you. Suffice it to say I am the furthest thing from a racist you will ever encounter and I am more than happy for women to vote or do whatever it is that floats their boat.In any case, my point still stands. The liberalization of our financial policy in DC is the largest threat to the Republic. It is the spawn of progressives from both parties. Both parties are comprised of humans and are therefore equally capable of evil and screwing up this 'Grand Experiment'. My perspective is that the right (not the GOP) is much less likely to kill us as the left is.
However, I do not list all 'lefties' in the same category as you. While I might disagree with them they are not socialists per se and actually bring logical discussion to the table.

'Weak' as in impotent. Your point here was intentionally inane. Unless you really are igorant and I give you more credit than that.

I have real doubts about you or others like you, who claim to be 2A supporters. It is more than likely just a front. But in reference to the 'left' being 'capable', well, snort. Maybe if you could pry them away from hugging trees and drag parties.
And by the way, I believe it was 'Fulgencio', and he was a pussy.

 

[bugeye]

What people like me object to is the leftist/multicultural indoctrination added into the ABCs and me having to pay for that. Funny how I learned to read and write and was reading Treasure Island and Shakespeare by age 7, and I had never even heard of PBS

Shakespeare at 7? Oh, do tell us more stories of your greatness, not since Pompey graced Ancient Rome has there been such a superman!

Yeap, a non white or two on that ABC show have ruined the poor kids for the world of tomorrow, lol.
I don't know who has been reproducing in your hood but around here they ask where the maternity pants are in Spanish.

I did manage to catch a bit of the commerical Nick Jr. tonight just for fun, heck public broadcasting is cheap compared to the cost of the therapy the poor kids that watch this particular bubblegummed gummedbubble are going to require.

 

[bugeye]

.....
'Weak' as in impotent. Your point here was intentionally inane. Unless you really are igorant and I give you more credit than that.
....

I got CEF's point, and it was that liberalism has been pretty darn good for America, I suspect you got that too but couldn't argue against it, so you put up this smokescreen. But tell me, who exactly is supposed to be blinded by it?

 

[Jamie6.5]

A little education for you buggy. Try googling "Samizdat." The practice among Soviet citizens of reproducing books and literature and passing/distributing them by hand, so as to avoid Soviet/Stalinist censorship. Of course the Soviet response was more than just destroying the publication(s), it involved imprisoning the "perpetrator' as well.
Or are we all wrong and Solzhenitsyn was lying?

From Wiki: Censorship in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soviet government implemented mass destruction of pre-revolutionary and foreign books and journals from libraries. Only "special collections" (spetskhran), accessible by special permit from the KGB, contained old and politically incorrect material.

<snip>

All media in the Soviet Union were controlled by the state including television and radio broadcasting, newspaper, magazine and book publishing. This was achieved by state ownership of all production facilities, thus making all those employed in media state employees. This extended to the fine arts including the theater, opera and ballet. Art and music was controlled by ownership of distribution and performance venues.

Censorship was backed in cases where performances did not meet with the favor of the Soviet leadership with newspaper campaigns against offending material and sanctions applied though party controlled professional organizations.

In the case of book publishing a m****cript had to pass censorship and the decision of a state owned publishing house to publish and distribute the book. Books which met with official favor, for example, the collected speeches of Leonid Brezhnev were printed in vast quantities while less favored literary material might be published in limited numbers and not distributed widely. Popular escapist literature such as the popular best-sellers, mysteries and romances which form the bulk of Western publishing was nearly non-existent.

Possession and use of copying machines was tightly controlled in order to hinder production and distribution of samizdat, illegal self-published books and magazines. Possession of even a single samizdat m****cript such as a book by Andrei Sinyavsky was a serious crime which might involve a visit from the KGB. Another outlet for works which did not find favor with the authorities was publishing abroad.

It was the practice of libraries in the Soviet Union to restrict access to back issues of journals and newspapers more than 3 years old.

Hmmmm,... Sounds a lot like "The Fairness Doctrine" doesn't it?

American Thinker: The Fairness Doctrine at Work

The Fairness Doctrine was originally intended to encourage a public dialogue on controversial issues by ensuring that both sides of a topic were aired. As a former radio and TV journalist, I can assure you that the opposite was true. Station owners were afraid that their licenses would be yanked if there was the slightest possibility that they could be accused of violating the doctrine; it was far safer to simply avoid controversial matters.

Book burning « Info

The 20th century witnessed many book burning incidents including the destruction by the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia of works deemed to be contrary to communism

Reference for Book burning - Search.com

In 1917 in Russia the Bolsheviks ordered the destructions of all books contrary to Communism, including many religious works, works in favour of the Czarist history, works on nationalism, works on freedom and economic profit.

As part of Joseph Stalin's efforts to stamp out Jewish culture in the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Judaica collection in the library of Birobidzhan, capital of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast on the Chinese border, was burned.

After reading the above links, if you can't/don't/won't realize what your limited source(s) of info have cost you, then you're hopeless.
Diversity, honesty and a truly open mind can and would lead you to a much different world and national view.
But it will take courage on your part. Starting with the courage to admit you have closed your mind to the pitfalls of the leftist doctrine you currently espouse.
But don't worry, the current crop of gun owners here ensures that you and CEF will continue to have the opportunity to expand your horizons.
At least as long as the left continues to lose the gun control debate.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

I got CEF's point, and it was that liberalism has been pretty darn good for America, I suspect you got that too but couldn't argue against it, so you put up this smokescreen. But tell me, who exactly is supposed to be blinded by it?

So you are suggesting that our liberal financial policy has been 'good for America'?
I stand in awe of your critical thought process.

 

[bugeye]

So you are suggesting that our liberal financial policy has been 'good for America'?
I stand in awe of your critical thought process.

You will need to define 'liberal financial policy' as I see nothing liberal about our unregulated derivatives trading and find that aspect the most dangerous finanical element that hangs above our heads, making the deficit look like a tiny shooting star. We have nearly unregulated futures markets, a stock market that thrives on perpetual insider trading, and a financial system that runs on corruption to such an extent that it looks perfectly normal to us.

I would say a 'liberal financial system' would be governed by practical regulation, with lots more checkers so the culprits don't skate. Of course, we have no liberals to inact this sort of thing, as these demons only exist in the welll stoked imaginations of righties. It seems perfectly clear that we have a choice between two parties, one that loves corporations and money an iota less than they want to prevent seeing bodies laying in the streets, and the one most of you support that worries not about the bodies.

The Peoples United decision is a milestone, only if advertising stops working will we have a shot at not becomming an Aristocracy of $. And this brings us to your opinions, they are a dime a dozen. really, that is how much they cost.

 

[bugeye]

So you are suggesting that our liberal financial policy has been 'good for America'?
I stand in awe of your critical thought process.

You will need to define 'liberal financial policy' as I see nothing liberal about our unregulated derivatives trading and find that aspect the most dangerous finanical element that hangs above our heads, making the deficit look like a tiny shooting star. We have nearly unregulated futures markets, a stock market that thrives on perpetual insider trading, and a financial system that runs on corruption to such an extent that it looks perfectly normal to us.

I would say a 'liberal financial system' would be governed by practical regulation, with lots more checkers so the culprits don't skate. Of course, we have no liberals to inact this sort of thing, as these demons only exist in the welll stoked imaginations of righties. It seems perfectly clear that we have a choice between two parties, one that loves corporations and money an iota less than they want to prevent seeing bodies laying in the streets, and the one most of you support that worries not about the bodies.

The Peoples United decision is a milestone, only if advertising stops working will we have a shot at not becomming an Aristocracy of $. And this brings us to your opinions, they are a dime a dozen. really, that is how much they cost.

 

[bugeye]

A little education for you buggy. Try googling "Samizdat." ..............
......
After reading the above links, if you can't/don't/won't realize what your limited source(s) of info have cost you, then you're hopeless.
Diversity, honesty and a truly open mind can and would lead you to a much different world and national view.
But it will take courage on your part. Starting with the courage to admit you have closed your mind to the pitfalls of the leftist doctrine you currently espouse.
But don't worry, the current crop of gun owners here ensures that you and CEF will continue to have the opportunity to expand your horizons.
At least as long as the left continues to lose the gun control debate.

I asked you: "Give us some Marx Lenin quotes about bookburning! Can't wait to read these!"

So, to you, Stalin is Marx or Lenin?

There is a school of thought that says if we go through life rejecting anything that does not jive with our preconceived notions that we are really slaves.
Perhaps this is the basis for a mentality that considers only one right to be worth defending above all others.

You could have made a better, but still, useless case with Mao's cultural revolution, they burnt books and anything else western that could find.
If you really want to 'school me' your going to have to do a lot better, but keep trying, I suspect I've learned much of what I know in attempts to do the same thing.

 

[Jamie6.5]

History buggy history,... Yet again. The 1917 "October Revolution" was under Lenin. That is when the books WERE BURNED Did you bother to read the links I posted? You want quotes? Deeds don't suffice?
In my world actions speak louder than words.

So Stalin was less abashed and carried his iron fist openly. He kept "subversive" writings and books banned because Lenin had already burnt them.
Lenin just kept his fist in a "velvet glove." The results were the same. Burnt books, no free voicing of thought, don't even think about writing anything down that was anti soviet.
Marx wrote of a socialist utopia, but the reality is/was, that when Lenin applied it, it wouldn't survive the light of the truth if the books were kept around for reference. So he did the only thing he could, he burned them.

You apparently also missed the "et al in the post of mine you quoted. As in "other" soviet leaders.

 

[bugeye]

History buggy history,... Yet again. The 1917 "October Revolution" was under Lenin. That is when the books WERE BURNED Did you bother to read the links I posted? You want quotes? Deeds don't suffice?
In my world actions speak louder than words.

So Stalin was less abashed and carried his iron fist openly. He kept "subversive" writings and books banned because Lenin had already burnt them.
Lenin just kept his fist in a "velvet glove." The results were the same. Burnt books, no free voicing of thought, don't even think about writing anything down that was anti soviet.
Marx wrote of a socialist utopia, but the reality is/was, that when Lenin applied it, it wouldn't survive the light of the truth if the books were kept around for reference. So he did the only thing he could, he burned them.

You apparently also missed the "et al in the post of mine you quoted. As in "other" soviet leaders.

You wrote " Burning books is a leftist thing. At least according to Marx, Lenin et al. "
This is a personal sentiment in favor of bookburning that you attribute to Marx and Lenin specifically, so to prove this you need personal quotes, or proof that actions were direcly initatated by them. Lacking this you have no argument. Et. al. does not save you from the very poor defense of your statements.

As far as the argument of who has burned, or banned, more books, the right or the left, I can't find any good quantitative info on that, both sides have done it, who has done more can only be a matter of opinion. In this case you have the more persistent and one sided argument. The Facists movements of the early to the mid 20th century were huge bookburners with these activities being directed by departments of propaganda, with existing historical documents to prove it.

I know you righties want to shed the Nazi's from your side, and the lefties would like to get rid of Stalin and Mao, and if somehow we could remove these vast edge momements from our current discussion, I believe I could easily show that groups that support the right (evangelicals, and social conservatives) are the primary book banners in the US at present.

 

[Trlsmn]

I know you righties want to shed the Nazi's from your side,

OK I will hold you to your own standards Bugeye, show me this connection of those on the right to the Nazis.