Larry Elder's 10 unsayable things in America.

[Weevil]

A poll of democrat presidential candidate's wives showed less than half endorsed their husband's campaigns since 1932. They had some real losers.

There is no bias. At FOX anyway.

Which is ridiculously comical. They are the most biased news station around.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Weevil
If you don't mind though Bill, ignoring the debatable truth of each of the ten points, wouldn't you at least agree that these things are not only sayable in american but have been said Ad Nauseum?

As to Goldberg's book I'd say that, without actually arguing the point, his book was a complete an utter failure in attempting to proove a conclusive liberal bias in the media.

As to arguing the point, republican presidential candidates have recieved a majority of newspaper endorsements since 1932.

Not sayable implies the fact that these statements are not politically correct with today's advocates of the thought police, not that they can't be uttered, at least not yet.

As for Goldberg's book, it seems to me the vicious ad himinem attacks of his persona by those whom he criticized (former friends and colleagues) are more than adequate proof of the validity of his assertions.

Originally posted by Thumper
Do you actually understand anything you read? I was not referring to gun control opponents as nutcases. I was referring to less than mentally stable individuals that try to obtain guns. . .

You are right a criminal will always be able to get a gun. But why make it easy?

My apology. I did misread your post.

But it is already easy for the criminal; no permits, no waiting period, no restriction of the choice of weapons, etc. Why make it hard on the honest man?

The fact is, there are already more than twenty-thousand (20,000) laws regulating the ownership of firearms.

And part of the problem is releasing multiple conviction violent felons back into society when they have conclusively demonstrated that they are not going to forsake crime as their primary pursuit.

Don't you think it a tad ridiculous that a man can receive a more stringent penalty for selling marijuana or cocaine than for murder?

I have trouble with the concept that a murderer or a rapist or a child molester should ever be released from incarceration. Why should one of these predators ever breathe free air again and be allowed to perpetrate his crimes on more innocent victims?

 

[Thumper]

Easy...

But not as easy as just marching into a retail outlet and out again with a weapon. Only a criminal would need it "right now". The criminal still has to seek out illegal means to obtain his tools. You propose we put no restriction at all on obtaining weapons. That would just make it easier for the criminal or the unfit. If you can find a way to make it tougher on the criminal while at the same time lessening the inconvenience for the law abiding citizen then I would be for that, but until then it is the best we can do.

You have no argument from me on the idiocy of criminal sentencing in the US.

And I apologize for getting snippy(?). *I couldn't think of a better word for that outburst.*

 

[Weevil]

1. Bill, I'm sorry but how ever the right might like to think that they are the poor persecuted ones the simple truth is that this stuff is said. A lot.

2. While I think we might agree on the actual point here(That much of the media tends to be centrist) Goldbergs book does not do a good job of showing this to be the case. I won't go into detail(Because Salon.com did it already) but the case that Goldberg bases his book upon is ludicrously flawed as an example of a left-leaning bias in the media.

 

[miles]

Thump

But not as easy as just marching into a retail outlet and out again with a weapon. Only a criminal would need it "right now". The criminal still has to seek out illegal means to obtain his tools

That's the whole point, Thumper! Criminals don't buy guns in stores. They get them from other criminals! If you stop the retail sale of guns now, who will have them?

To say only a criminal would need a gun "right now" is faulty logic.
If I felt my family was in danger and I had no place to run or hide, who are you to tell me I don't have an immediate need? The police can't and won't provide someone round the clock protection.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Easy...

Originally posted by Thumper
But not as easy as just marching into a retail outlet and out again with a weapon. Only a criminal would need it "right now". The criminal still has to seek out illegal means to obtain his tools. You propose we put no restriction at all on obtaining weapons. That would just make it easier for the criminal or the unfit. If you can find a way to make it tougher on the criminal while at the same time lessening the inconvenience for the law abiding citizen then I would be for that, but until then it is the best we can do.

The whole point is, the criminal can always produce an ID that gives him a clear background check if he wants. Fake ID's and false identities are as easy to find as are illegal guns or other weapons. And being previously experienced as the criminal, he already has the means of locating a source virtually as easily as I can find a gun shop in the Yellow Pages. And he isn't constrained by shop hours and can probably get delivery at the same price without any forms to complete and submit and no sales tax.

And for the criminal, cost is no real concern; he simply steals the money or goods convertible to money to pay for it.

As in all things, firearms prohibition laws don't work. The criminal will always evade or subvert them. The solution which the politicians, esp. from the left, are reluctant to enact is to put away those who prove they are violent for a LONG time, perhaps forever.

But by passing assinine laws which infringe on the rights of free and honest people, they create the facade that they are actually doing something useful.

Did you look at the site which presented the information regarding the total ban of firearms in Australia and the rousing success it brought about?