Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

NRA targets Obama’s kids in a scathing new ad


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:19 PM

Your problem is employing bizarre analogies and comparisons.

I am not anti-gun. I grew up with guns and was trained to use both long guns and handguns.

I don't care if you grew up with guns. Bizarre = things you disagree with, just like apples and orangutans, and yes given your complete lack of respect for the second amendment, and your fear mongering about how guns are inherently dangerous due to their presence in a household, you are most certainly anti-gun. Your gimmick is just as easily identifiable as the NRA's.

The Knee Jerk Reaction from both sides is retarded. wow. It's a 3 ring circus.

Lefties and Righties all use children to push their agenda.

I don't own a gun but I want one now and if i had one I would'nt want the government to take it.

Bingo, and indeed politicians have been quoted as saying they would use government to do just that.

In at least three states (this was last I checked a week or so two ago), representatives have said they would both pass state laws refusing to acknowledge federal gun bans of any type, and simply not enforce any federal gun ban of any type, as well as any executive order declaring such weapons illegal.

Edited by zaibatsu, 18 January 2013 - 06:22 PM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#32 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:40 PM

The Knee Jerk Reaction from both sides is retarded. wow. It's a 3 ring circus.

Lefties and Righties all use children to push their agenda.

I don't own a gun but I want one now and if i had one I would'nt want the government to take it.

I have owned guns in the past but living in an urban environment I see no need for one any longer.

Since the recent massacre involved school children and studies and reports from the Harvard University School of Public Health's Firearm research Center indicates serious issues for children and young people, why would that be surprising?


We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for 5-14 year olds across the 50 states over a ten year period. Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide. The state rates of non-firearm suicide and non-firearm homicide among children are not related to firearm availability. ~ Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deb; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 Year Olds.


And:


The majority of people killed in firearm accidents are under age 24, and most of these young people are being shot by someone else, usually someone their own age. The shooter is typically a friend or family member, often an older brother. By contrast, older adults are at far lower risk of accidental firearm death, and most often are shooting themselves. This article highlights one of the many benefits of the National Violent Death Reporting System. Before the NVDRS, data on the shooter in unintentional gun deaths were not readily available. ~ Hemenway, David; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Unintentional firearm deaths: a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings.


And as this just released US government report U.S. Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health notes young people in the US are dying and being injured with firearms at an alarming rate compared to 16 other similar countries.
http://www.nap.edu/c...record_id=13497

So yes children and young people most assuredly must be part of the debate.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#33 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

I don't care if you grew up with guns. Bizarre = things you disagree with, just like apples and orangutans, and yes given your complete lack of respect for the second amendment, and your fear mongering about how guns are inherently dangerous due to their presence in a household, you are most certainly anti-gun. Your gimmick is just as easily identifiable as the NRA's.


Bingo, and indeed politicians have been quoted as saying they would use government to do just that.

In at least three states (this was last I checked a week or so two ago), representatives have said they would both pass state laws refusing to acknowledge federal gun bans of any type, and simply not enforce any federal gun ban of any type, as well as any executive order declaring such weapons illegal.


Statistics say otherwise, but then, what do facts really mean when one has an "agenda"?
  • 2

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#34 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:52 PM

Statistics say otherwise, but then, what do facts really mean when one has an "agenda"?


It has been shown, proven, posted yet those who don't want to hear it are sitting with their fingers in their ears yelling "Lalalalalala" as loudly as they can. Proof, facts mean nothing to this crowd (the pro-automatic, we must own asault weapons at all cost group) as they are firmly mired in the dregs of their own denial.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 18 January 2013 - 06:55 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#35 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:57 PM

It has been shown, proven, posted yet those who don't want to hear it are sitting with their fingers in their ears yelling "Lalalalalala" as loudly as they can. Proof, facts mean nothing to this crowd (the pro-automatic, we must own asault weapons at all cost group) as they are firmly mired in their own denial.


People who think Obama's proposals in any way attack the 2nd Amendment, either HAVE an agenda +/or their heads buried so far up their collective rectums they think no-one can "see" thru them .. fits in perfectly with the old "fingers in their ears" .. :)
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#36 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:19 PM

Christie: NRA ad with Obama daughters ‘reprehensible’

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 3 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.co...--politics.html

Blunt-speaking New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, thought to be eyeing a 2016 run for the Republican presidential nomination, blasted an NRA ad that mentions President Barack Obama's daughters as "reprehensible" and warned it "demeans" the powerful gun-rights group.

"To talk about the president’s children, or any public officer’s children, who have—not by their own choice, but by requirement—to have protection, and to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible," Christie said.

"The president doesn’t have a choice, and his children don’t have a choice, of whether they’re going to be protected or not," the governor said. "It’s awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate. They don’t deserve to be there."

He added that "for any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad, and you cringe, you cringe."

Christie's remarks are unlikely to endear him to those conservatives he already annoyed by praising Obama for the federal government's response to superstorm Sandy. But the NRA ad—which could either be about the Obama daughters' Secret Service protection or the armed guards at their posh D.C. private school—has drawn sharp criticisms for bringing the girls into a debate about gun violence. The NRA has said it's a legitimate criticism of Obama, who has expressed skepticism about the organization's call for armed guards in schools in the aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.


"They’ve got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don’t be dragging people’s children into this, it’s wrong, and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid, trusted source of information on the real issues," Christie said.

The governor made it clear that, if he decides to run in 2016, his kids won't have much of a say in the decision.

"My children had no choice, realistically, in what I decided to do with my career and what effect that’s had on their lives, in making them somewhat public figures, and making them subject to protection from the executive protection unit," he said. "My kids don’t have a choice about that.

"My children had no choice that I wanted to run for governor. I mean, I pretended that they did, I asked them what they thought. But in the end they had absolutely no choice in whether I ran for governor or not," he said, to chuckles from his audience.

"They knew that, by the way, when I was asking them, which is why they didn’t spend a whole lot of time answering," he quipped.


Rand Paul Rips Chris Christie For Going After NRA, GOP: Won’t ‘Play Well’ In GOP Primary

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-paul-rips-chris-christie-for-going-after-nra-gop-wont-play-well-in-gop-primary/


by Meenal Vamburkar | 1:25 pm, January 18th, 2013

Posted Image

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) paid a visit to Laura Ingraham‘s radio show on Friday and responded to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie‘s recent remarks about the Republican Party and the NRA, which haven’t exactly been kind. Displeased with the governor, Paul said such comments wouldn’t bode well in the Republican primary race.

According to the excerpt posted online, Paul asserted that Christie — who labeled a new NRA ad “reprehensible” for making mention of the President Obama’s daughters — “backed down” on gun rights.

“You have some Republicans backing down like Christie backing down and criticizing the NRA, and I think that doesn’t do any good,” he said.

Christie’s remarks “may be solidifying his support with Democrats in New Jersey and maybe liberal Republicans,” but he may not be doing himself any favors coming 2016.

“I think criticizing the Second Amendment movement and the over-the-top ‘give me my money’ stuff, ‘I want all sixty billion now or I’ll throw a tantrum,’ I don’t think that’s going to play well in the Republican primary,” Paul asserted.

For a while now, Christie’s been discussed as a potential 2016 candidate, which, of course, we don’t know for a fact. But what would we do without speculation?

(h/t Laura Ingraham Show)

Edited by dudeone, 18 January 2013 - 07:21 PM.

  • 0

#37 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:26 PM

Ann Coulter Scolds NRA’s LaPierre: When Asked If You Want Fewer Children Killed, Answer Is ‘Yes’

Posted Image

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter appeared on MofoPolitics on Friday where she scolded National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre for his organization’s response to the tragic slaying of 26 in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14. Coulter said that LaPierre’s hedging and defensive appearanceonMeet the Press following the attack did nothing to advance his organization’s goals. His answer to questions about not wanting more mass shootings should always be “yes,” and to then highlight the fact that only an armed populace has been able to prevent shootings like what happened in Connecticut.

“The NRA needs a better spokesman,” Coulter said. “I was watching Wayne LaPierre on Meet The Press this weekend and — is he the only gun rights supporter who has not read John Lott‘s book?”

Coulter said that when NBC News anchor David Gregory was hammering LaPierre on his organization’s objective when asked if he supports fewer children being killed, his answer was not confidence-inspiring.

“There was hemming and hawing,” Coulter said. “The answer is — get this right-wingers, get this gun supporters — yes, yes, yes.”

Coulter said that the only mechanism for preventing mass shootings is to have an armed populace, which is a topic of discussion that should be in LaPierre’s comfort zone.

She said that, with mentally disturbed people pushing strangers onto train tracks in New York City twice in one month, there is room to attack the political left for their tolerance of with mental disorders. “Can we lock some of these people up,” Coulter asked.

Edited by dudeone, 18 January 2013 - 07:26 PM.

  • 0

#38 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:29 PM

I don't care if you grew up with guns. Bizarre = things you disagree with, just like apples and orangutans, and yes given your complete lack of respect for the second amendment, and your fear mongering about how guns are inherently dangerous due to their presence in a household, you are most certainly anti-gun. Your gimmick is just as easily identifiable as the NRA's

Bizarre is strange comparisons and analogies - the sort that you regularly trot out. Hence the "apples and orangutans" comments.

Guns are inherently dangerous as study after study show - I referenced several of them in my post above.

More guns = more gun homicides, injuries and suicides.

Ignoring them does not make them less valid. Big Tobacco tried this approach for decades but finally were unable to hide behind the bafflegab and misdirection. The same appeas tp be overtaking the NRA and its acolytes.

IMHO the Second Amendment should be interpreted in the traditional manner set out by the four justices of the SCOTUS in Heller that had been followed since the 1939 Miller case and not the novel interpretation that the 5 judge majority came up with in ignoring past precedent. That majority opinion was schizophrenic. Part of it relied upon strict constructionism (aka frozen concepts) and appeals to writings from the 1700's while other parts took a "Living Tree" approach to find that modern weapons were covered. The least one should see is consistency and that was missing from the majority opinion in Heller.

However note that even the majority said:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Edited by Wetcoaster, 18 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#39 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:29 PM

Ann Coulter Scolds NRA’s LaPierre: When Asked If You Want Fewer Children Killed, Answer Is ‘Yes’

Spoiler



Ann Coulter.........fits into the same category as Rush Limbaugh..........one sees her name associated with an article and you already know what it's going to consist of........crap........more crap..........covered in .........wait for it............crap.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 18 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#40 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:46 PM

Ann Coulter.........fits into the same category as Rush Limbaugh..........one sees her name associated with an article and you already know what it's going to consist of........crap........more crap..........covered in .........wait for it............crap.

John Lott's thesis of More Guns, Less Crime has been thoroughly deconstructed by a number of academics and researchers finding that there were serious problems with his data and the interpretation of the data.

For example see "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis" by Professor Ian Ayres (the William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School) and John J. Donohue III (the William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Stanford Law School) in the Stanford Law Review.
http://islandia.law....hue_article.pdf

Lott's work was pretty much trashed in the early 2000's as junk science but he is popping up yet again as we see from the comments of Ann Coulter. As this article notes Lott has been wandering in the academic wilderness after having his hypothesis well and truly trashed.


In the early 2000s, his work fell into controversy for employing what some academic critics termed “junk science” and for various apparently fatal methodological flaws. Later, he was unable to prove the existence of a study central to his thesis. He was also caught using a fake “sockpuppet” persona to defend his work and attack his critics online. “In most circles, this goes down as fraud,” Donald Kennedy, the then-editor of the prestigious journal Science wrote in an editorial. Even Michelle Malkin said Lott had shown an “extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.”


There were other controversies as well, such as the case of the mysterious missing table and the claim that 50 percent of black Republican votes in Florida were rejected. Eventually, even the conservative American Enterprise Institute apparently was not a good fit for him, as he left that gig in 2006, which he had taken after leaving academia. He now has no academic affiliation and is a general conservative commentator.


Yet in the wake of the shooting, the media has turned to him as an expert, and often failed to caveat his arguments by mentioning the controversy surrounding his work. Since the shooting, he’s appeared on CNN at least three times, done numerous radio interviews, and most disappointingly, appeared on the ”NewsHour” on PBS.


“NewsHour” is perhaps the finest news program on television and is well respected by people whose respect you would want (full disclosure: It also gave me my first internship in Washington), but it was a lapse in judgment to bring Lott into the program so uncritically. On CNN, at least, he went toe-to-toe with hosts Piers Morgan and Soledad O’Brien, who challenged his thesis and methodology. The “NewsHour” interview, however, was characteristically civil and credulous.


“John Lott has been a prominent voice in the gun rights debate, arguing against further restrictions. He’s an economist and the author of ‘More Guns, Less Crime,’” was anchor Ray Suarez’ introduction of Lott. He appeared with Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA who is also skeptical of the effectiveness of gun control. Lott and Winkler were both key sources in Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent article in the Atlantic making “The Case for More Guns.”


Even Fox News, which employs Lott as a contributor and generally has significantly lower standards than “NewsHour,” appears to have avoided booking him or commissioning him to write Op-Eds on its website it the wake of the shooting.


News program should be free to bring on whomever they want to interview — there’s no value to viewers in censoring certain guests by keeping them off the air. But, if you choose to bring on someone like Lott, who has been so thoroughly questioned by his peers, broadcast journalists owe it to their audience to give all the pertinent information, or at the very least, challenge the arguments the guests are making, so they may better make up their own minds.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/21/why_is_the_media_rehabilitating_john_lott/
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#41 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:53 PM

Ann Coulter.........fits into the same category as Rush Limbaugh..........one sees her name associated with an article and you already know what it's going to consist of........crap........more crap..........covered in .........wait for it............crap.


Uh oh .. I would say you gave Spinny Anne a "crappy" review .. uh huh .. :emot-parrot:
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#42 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:56 PM

Stewart And Bob Schieffer Take On How Pro-Gun ‘Interest Groups’ ‘Skew’ Media Coverage Of Gun Control

http://www.mediaite....of-gun-control/

by Andrew Kirell | 8:18 am, January 16th, 2013

Posted Image

CBS’s Face the Nation moderator Bob Schieffer sat down with Jon Stewart last night for a discussion that largely focused on the gun debate, with both men tearing into the pro-gun advocates who refuse any new gun control laws in the wake of last month’s Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

“This seems to be a very explosive conversation,” Stewart said of the national gun debate, “but not a very pragmatic one.” The two then lamented that the media has paid very little attention to the law enforcement officials who may have relevant opinions about the “logistics” of preventing new episodes of gun violence.

Stewart said that, thus far, all we’ve heard about is the fact that “guns are a right, Hitler took away guns … if the Jews had been armed, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. That kind of stuff. Why is it that those people get to be on TV?”

Schieffer laughed and seemed perplexed by the question, adding, “If we’re not going to do something now, if killing little people in kindergarten is not enough to say, ‘We’ve got to do something here, we’ve got to get serious,’ then I have a question: What is enough?”

He continued: “It always comes down to the people who turn it around and say they’re going to take away the guy’s gun who goes hunting or lives out in the country. And that’s not what it’s about. It’s about keeping these weapons with this tremendous killing power out of the hands of deranged people. That does not seem all that radical an idea. People keep rat poison in their house to kill rodents, but they keep it on the top shelf.”

When Stewart asked Schieffer if there is any internal newsroom conflict over how to appropriately cover the debate, the veteran CBSer said, “We’re all trying to think, ‘How can we cover this? How can we tell this story? How can we be fair and help people to understand what the issues are, not the issues as they’re told by these interest groups.”

Edited by dudeone, 18 January 2013 - 07:57 PM.

  • 1

#43 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,185 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:32 PM

30 years later here we are.


  • 0

#44 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,445 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:57 PM

Notice how after shootings and after events like this when people start blathering about gun control, the NRA gets started after a short while, and once the issue is raised, a bunch more people start buying guns


Im not happy to admit it, but there is a lot of truth to what you are saying here. I can only hope there is enough urgency to break the pattern this time.

Edited by Red Light Racicot, 18 January 2013 - 11:00 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.