Is the 1st Amendment supported at SUFA, or are we “faking” support? I used my authority/ability as publisher to delete some posts. Is this not suppression of free speech? I hope not & it was/is not my intent. USW established this site to allow respectful dialog of opposing views, so when personal attacks got out of hand, I censored. I have never censored anyone for content, even liberal talking points and stances I find offensive or ignorant.
But on another playing field, FaceBook, I have found myself censored by supposed friends/family. They invited me to be friends and see what’s on their mind. A black male deleted my response to his pro-Obama post, sorry, but his budget/economy can only be praised by wishful thinking, willful ignorance or lying you’re @ss off.
(NaturalNews) The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted a historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads:
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.(1)
And what happens when you try to have a “conversation” with a liberal on a hot button topic?
John Lott has been doing great work on CNN of late. He’s the author of “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” Though the title speaks for itself, Lott has elaborated a bit on-air on the work’s thesis: Policymakers have many tools to deter crime, including stiffer prison sentences, but “you can also make it more difficult and risk to commit crimes by enabling victims to protect themselves,” says Lott.
Those views have seeded Lott’s recent slugfests with CNN hosts. Hours after the tragedy unfolded, Piers Morgan hosted Lott on his show, and the result was dramatic. Lott argued that the gun-control laws advocated by Morgan “have killed people.” The host lashed back: “Oh, what a bunch of nonsense.”( It’s a lot worse, Piers also cut off Lott and said said he would not allow a statement Lott made to stand or be repeated, that he would not allow that lie to stand.)
Whether you’re extremely skeptical of John Lott and his theories or you view his contentions more sympathetically, there’s one point upon which both sides can agree: His clashes with CNN personalities have brought the network a great deal of clicks.
So this dedicated gun advocate is available for booking, though he sounds a bit worn down by his treatment on CNN. In reference to the network’s hosts, Lott says: “The thing that’s most disappointing to me is that they don’t engage the argument,” he says. “They just want to talk over you or just raise the volume.”
In two studio appearances with Morgan — one in July, after the Aurora shootings, and one after Newtown — Lott reports that the host shook hands with him prior to the segment, but not after. In other words, Morgan’s dismissive comments on-air aren’t an act. “I can see he feels strongly about this stuff and he feels that I am a horrible person but it comes across that he feels that way,” says Lott. “I believe that he’s very sincere.”
The treatment from Morgan, at least, is better than what he gets from viewers after a spin on CNN. One wrote to him, “YOU’RE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!” Many other such missives don’t comply with The Post’s family-friendly standards.(2) ( Funny also, the backlash has caused thousands to petition the president to deport Piers Morgan (3), who suggest he might deport himself.)
So, ” can we please have a meaningful conversation on gun control?”
I doubt it but OK, let’s try. Any thinking American (or person) has reason to not trust our(or any) government. History shows whatever they take from citizens, they are reluctant to return, ever. (Consider also Mr. Morgan’s treatment of Dr. Lott. That is Dr. as in PHD. Published, pier reviewed, etc.etc. I would accept the challenge to Dr. Lott’s conclusions, but not his numbers. He is a numbers geek. And while he does not make numbers cool, he has earned the PROFESSIONAL RIGHT to state his numbers are correct. Don’t like his numbers, bring on another PHD with their own numbers.)
1) Do any Native Americans have reason to trust the US government? Countless treaties and guarantee’s and a President BREAKING the law, defying the Supreme Court and somehow getting away with it anyway.(U.S. Grant)
2) Woodrow Wilson & FDR both ignored the law and imprisoned US citizens ignoring constitutional protections.
3) Income tax was touted to be a minimum tax that would only be used on the ultra wealthy, starting with one percent that was imposed on only the top one percent earners.
4) Social Security was promised to be kept as a “trust” fund, separate from the general fund and “protected”.
So to the liberal gun banners that want to have a conversation, first, how can we “trust” you? Remember your guy on his eleven million dollar vacation in Hawaii? The one that promised to REDUCE the deficit? Come on, with a straight face, tell us we can “trust” him with our 2nd Amendment rights. Next, even if we did work a deal and he kept his word, what stops the next senate/congress/president from breaking that promise? Incrementalism. (4) Apt term. ( I sometime try inventing words but then find Scooby Doo already said them) Incrementalism explains the NRA’s opposition to any and all gun laws, ban a machine gun today, tomorrow it’s the platform used to ban all semi-automatic firearms. (Machine guns are restricted, so all the news stories that include the “assault weapon” term such as Newtown & the Aurora theater, it was a semi-automatic firearm)
Next, can we be clear ( I mean honest) on what you want to ban or limit? Sen. Feinstein has stated on national television that if she thought she could get the votes, she would ban and confiscate ALL forearms in America. Is that what you want? If not, convince us that it’s not just another step, another increment to that total ban. I think this is the point where maybe the thirteenth “emotional appeal” has been paraded. “The NRA wants children to be murdered! Hmm, is this the same NRA that was the main force in implementing the Instant Background Check System? They advocate that every law-abiding citizen that wants to own (bear) a firearm may do so, not every person. They think criminals & firearms are a” Bad Thing.” They threw their support behind a measure to reduce criminal forearm ownership, despite the risk from some of their members who do not trust the government. What will you offer? Most media talking heads I’ve seen are back on the “assault weapon” ban and the high-capacity magazines.
Sorry, but I feel most liberals do not understand math or science very well. Semi-automatic in reference to a firearm means one bullet fired with each trigger pull. Pull that trigger very fast and bullets are fired equally fast. No more, no less. One and one is two. One and one and one is three. You want to “beat the math”? Let me help, just ban external magazines.(good luck) The ten round ban is useless, since it only takes a second or two to swap magazines. More to carry and keep track of, but they sell so many shooting vest with an unbelievable number of handy “pockets”. Yep, better ban vest with pockets. And knives. And bats. (5) ( the number-9 cause of death on the list: “non-firearm homicides.” The asterisk beside this category identifies, by the FBI, a baseball bat as the most-used item to cause death. Can we expect Senator Feinstein to react to this fact as well?)
A caution to you liberals wanting to ban “high-capacity” magazines, in the Old West, many carried extra cylinders loaded with bullets for their revolvers. While you study up on your history, math & science, don’t forget psychology. After you bring facts/numbers to the table, we are still going to be looking at the old/new fact that we cannot trust you.