Would you care to fathom how this horrible tragedy would be spun and exploited if THIS came true?
Posted on 10/02/2017 8:22:24 PM PDT by Cheerio
FULL TITLE - Brokaw: Gun Conversations Become ‘Emotional’ Between Gun Owners and People Saying There’s ‘Reasonable Middle Ground’
On Monday’s broadcast of NBC’s “Today,” Tom Brokaw argued that it’s impossible to have a conversation on what kind of firearms can be purchased because it becomes emotionally-charged between gun owners “who are protected by the NRA, and other people who are saying, ‘There ought to be a more reasonable middle ground.'”
Brokaw stated there should be a national conversation on the amount of mass shootings in the US. He added, “You listen to those weapons, they’re on full auto at that point. Where did he get that kind of a gun? You can now get an AR-15, which is a modification of a military weapon, an M1, but it’s supposed to be a single shot at a time, but it has a big capacity. I go to a gun store in Montana, and I’ve owned guns all my life, and it used to have mostly .30-30s and high-powered sporting rifles. Now, they’ve got racks of these adapted military weapons. Stan McChrystal, who led our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq said, we ought not to be selling these kinds of weapons to the American civilian population. They’re designed to do one thing, which is to kill people. And they can be adapted. So, we need to have that kind of a dialogue in this country. No other Western nation has the number of gun deaths that we have in America, and we need to talk about it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I did not invite you to converse with me, Tom.
I do not care what you think, and I have further nothing to say to you.
An AR-15 is a modification of an M-1? WTF, over?
For petes sake, if you are going to have a cogent debate, have the facts straight...
Would you care to fathom how this horrible tragedy would be spun and exploited if THIS came true?
Stan McChrystal, who led our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq said, we ought not to be selling these kinds of weapons to the American civilian population. They’re designed to do one thing, which is to kill people. And they can be adapted.
And that's why we can't have a conversation, ya putz.
I know the reason for the shootings!
Global Warming, I tell you!
Here is the reasonable middle ground:
All of the lunatics who call conservatives fascists and NAZIs need to be treated as felons and lose their gun rights.
And if you attempt to disarm me or my family, you are going to die for it.
Serial killers have killed thousands. Gun-grabbing tyrants have killed millions. And the best defense against both is a well-armed citizenry.
“Well, we got that gun restriction we were asking for, so I guess we’ll stop advocating for the next restriction” said no gun-grabber ever.
The problem with gun grabbers is that they always lie. Every single time. The “reasonable middle ground” is nothing but an intermediate step to their real goal of confiscation.
Given that, and that the ratchet only turns one way, the only rational response to a gun-grabber is to say “NOT ONE MORE INCH”. We must oppose them at every turn, on every point, great or small. They are relentless. So we must be relentless as well.
I won’t have that conversation with anyone. The answer is ‘no.’ The debate is over.
These weapons are practically identical.
The M-16 was a definitive of the AR-15 prototype designed as a civilian spotter by Eugene Stoner. So it was civilian before military.
I remember 1962-1985 when handguns were reviled and rifles were blessed by the MSM.
In the 1970s, many TV shows including ALL IN THE FAMILY had an episode in which Meathead declared rifles to be good and constitutional by the Miller decision of the SCOTUS, but handguns not so.
Then rifles were suddenly BAD beginning in 1986.
Dear Tom,
The founders were wise enough to guarantee our right to defend our self. You STUPID LIBERALS would have us disarm and have no reasonable means to defend our self, our family or our property.
TOTAL MORONS such as you are trying to put me and my family at risk to further your STUPID ideas about big government.
You are right. We can NOT have a conversation about this because anything less than the right to keep and bear arms DEPRIVES ME OF THE ABILITY TO PROTECT MY FAMILY, PROPERTY AND MY LIFE.
Why don’t you shut up and go away and let me defend myself instead trying to sell the false idea the government can protect me.
Typical liberal attempt to frame the debate between people seeking middle ground with no mention whatsoever of the Second Amendment’s guarantees.
How do you convince a lib that a government that is strong enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take it away?
How do you convince a 2A supporter that the government has neither the political willpower or logistical ability to confiscate guns?
I am aware that the 2A says nothing about hunting or personal self-defense but to tamp down arguments, you have to get naysayers to see logic, especially the ones that are calling for the banning of all firearms.
I can and have argued successfully to liberals that I need a firearm for self defense against criminals. (Burglars, robbers). Liberals are victims of these crimes as well and it is the probably the most poignant argument for them to support firearms.
It’s harder to convince them of the need for conservation (i.e. hunting), they will say its our fault because we disrupted the natural balance of things. Well, that toothpaste is out of the tube and we must have conservation. Plus deer meat is yummy.
It is almost impossible to convince any of them that a government can get tyrannical enough that citizens may need to arm themselves with rifles to keep it in check.
Theoretical question: If the argument to keep rifles is that it is a defense against a tyrannical government, and there is the real possibility that rifles may be banned, what checks and balances/assurances could be put upon the government to assure the populace that such a tyrannical government could not come to power?
Folks, this fight is upon us. This maniac shot and killed/wounded/injured almost 600 Americans in less than ten minutes. Those who seek death on a mass scale are taking notes. It has been demonstrated twice in one years time that you can kill hundreds with rifles before a law enforcement response puts the suspect down. Further these shootings happened in very liberal gun law states.
People are going to say no more, and a lot of them.
We are not the same America where you could buy a Tommy Gun or a BAR at the local Sears store.
I saw a profile on Stanley McChrystal on “CBS Sunday Morning” a few years ago.
He’s a gun-grabbing POS.
I understand that OJ was secretly released from prison on same day. Coincidence? hmm........
But not even remotely a derivative of the M-1. The M-14 was though...
Not that easy to spot a civilian, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.