TexasCHLforum.com

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/op ... l?referer=

Nicholas Kristof

FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.

We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

........

Kind of interesting to see someone identifying themselves as a Liberal but acknowledging facts and reason. The thing is, the fervent anti-gun Liberals shut their ears and eyes (putting their heads in the sand, so to speak) the moment facts and reason point to a conclusion they don't find popular.

Sounds like.

" I come to bury Ceasar.
Not to praise him".

He throws a bone and then he tears (the pro-gun reader) apart.
First of all,
1) Why consider "suicide by firearm" gun violence?
2) Why focus on guns when so many other "articles" are more dangerous than firearms. For instance, Transportation vehicles and backyard pools....
3) 50% more guns and 50% less violent crime is excellent news, not the "epidemic of gun violence"
4) Banning semi-auto rifles has no effect, so why call for it again?
5) Restraining order and guns, if 10% of 10% is 1 in 1,000 in 10,000 murder you would save 10 lives. Yeah you saved 10 out 330,000,000. If you call this worthy to restrict a civil personal right such as 2ndA, then may be the anti-gun folks should be muzzled too under the 1stA.

David Keene, a past NRA president, had a good discussion on this exact topic the other day... On PBS believe it or not.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/former-n ... heck-plan/

Read the comments. The writer may be reasonable, but the comment writers are not. For example, "Perhaps the reason we are condescending to gun owners is because they deserve it", "I support a complete ban on guns", "no one needs a gun except police and military".

Didn't read the article, didn't need to. Nothing is inconvenient when you are willing to be a hypocrite.

A clue to the real nature of this article is that it was published in the New York Times, or crimes :)
The actual purpose of the article is more of a Trojan horse to get a 2A supporter to read it by announcing that it is about some facts the liberals don't want to hear. In fact the article is really trying to get 2A supporters to give ground on their position and agree that gun anything is gun bad.

The author's real point is to say liberals stop calling them names; 2A supporters stop trying to stop our gun control efforts. americans need to give up their rights in the name of saving lives as I want to count them.

baldeagle wrote:Read the comments. The writer may be reasonable, but the comment writers are not. For example, "Perhaps the reason we are condescending to gun owners is because they deserve it", "I support a complete ban on guns", "no one needs a gun except police and military".

If the left, including the anti-gun crowd, had the power to round us up, put us in camps, and exterminate us, they would. That is always the fate of the left's opposition when they gain sufficient power. Before Obama was elected they were coy about it...since their hero came into office they've been shouting it from the rooftops. Note that for years they've been saying "no one wants your guns," and while there was plenty of evidence they were lying, they're now openly calling for gun confiscation and introducing confiscation legislation.

At all these left wing sites....in which I include the NYT as their editors and readers are nearly as rabidly left as those at places like Huffpo and the Daily KOS, there are frequently comments about how those who oppose their vision of the world have no place in their utopia. While I believe they've overestimated their power at the moment, and grossly overestimated their future potential for power, they've clearly been emboldened by Obama, his media presstitutes, and the pusillanimity of the RNC.

They're convinced Hillary is going to be president and they're going to get 8 more years of executive tyranny in their favor. If the GOP establishment doesn't deliberately tank the election by manipulating the system to install an establishment candidate over the clear wishes of the voters then the left is going to be in for a rude awakening.

Classical Liberalism -- challenging the status quo -- played a large part of the Founding of this nation. Classical Liberalism, though, challenged the status quo using arguments based in timeless values and truths. Modern (Progressive) Liberalism views timeless values that have benefited civilization as things to be challenged simply because they played a role in establishing norms and the status quo. The value of Classical Liberalism to civilization is lost on Modern Liberals because the methods have become their values and their truths allowing them to freely discount all social underpinnings -- even individual rights that they'll surely miss later.

Self defence in Australia
wait for it. wait for it.....He needs to educate the US liberal democrats

Tracker wrote:Self defence in Australia
wait for it. wait for it.....He needs to educate the US liberal democrats

Obviously liberal democrat means something different down under. Here it just means a communist that hasn't had his way yet.

What the video says about Australia is exactly what the libs here want...citizens required to be defenseless by law.

Beiruty wrote:He throws a bone and then he tears (the pro-gun reader) apart.
First of all,
1) Why consider "suicide by firearm" gun violence?
2) Why focus on guns when so many other "articles" are more dangerous than firearms. For instance, Transportation vehicles and backyard pools....
3) 50% more guns and 50% less violent crime is excellent news, not the "epidemic of gun violence"
4) Banning semi-auto rifles has no effect, so why call for it again?
5) Restraining order and guns, if 10% of 10% is 1 in 1,000 in 10,000 murder you would save 10 lives. Yeah you saved 10 out 330,000,000. If you call this worthy to restrict a civil personal right such as 2ndA, then may be the anti-gun folks should be muzzled too under the 1stA.

When I read it, I thought the same thing. This is really a plea to his fellow liberals (he admits to being one by saying "we liberals") to be smarter because with their current tactics, they are losing.

SA-TX

When they lose, the debate and/or do not like that more people of USA own guns, love guns, and love the 2ndA.
They call us Gun Nuts or more demeaning word, Ammo Sexual. What so sexy about ammo? nothing. Beautiful guns that is another story to tell.