Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Normally this is an enjoyable podcast, but Mike’s naivety on the left’s gun control position was just fingernails on the chalkboard awful. The goal is total confiscation ala the UK or Australia. It’s not about crime reduction, it’s about control of the population that might oppose them.
This. The rabid left wingers I have to deal with in my moderation of a message board want total confiscation. The “yahoos” are too angry and too stupid and there’s always potential that one day they’ll just snap and kill a bunch of people. The average conservative to them is a person who under their bourgeois lifestyle and phony Christianity harbors animosity towards progress, towards minorities, and allowing them to have a weapon is a recipe for disaster on any given day where these small minded people aren’t able to hide their hate.
It’s not about the guns, it’s about the control. See also environmental regulations and cars.
Plus, if people don’t have guns, their safety is reliant on the big government, despite seeming contradiction on their views of the racist institution of the police in the new “utopia” we will have a woke security force that will enforce law based on your privilege.
Enjoyed the podcast – and Bonnie Raitt’s song more than the hip-hop last week. I think the people of Missouri ought to vote McCaskill out just for the private plane myself. And she had the whole ‘bus tour’ which really wasn’t a bus tour except when she’d hop on the bus just before it got someplace and then back in the private plane. I would agree that the Republicans seem a little less mendacious than the Democrats. Maybe they have a less radical agenda to hide from the voters or they have more contempt for the voters? I am intrigued by the playing by the rules idea as making some difference. I will not speculate about the mid-terms but will be fascinated to see how it goes.
The liberals that I know personally do indeed think that England and the other civilized countries are far more sensible than the cowboy-minded USA. That said, I think that they are mainly focused on the murder rate – not the potential for opposition when the tanks from the People’s Liberation Army roll into the streets. Most garden-variety liberals of my acquaintance didn’t much care for the Tiananmen Square ambiance of the Red Chinese any more than we did.
Mike, maybe you need to widen your net of liberal friends. Every anti-gun liberal I have ever talked with makes the argument that if we did not have guns, there would be no more gun violence. Only a complete ban and effective confiscation could achieve their theoretical Utopian ideal. I think you are being naive if you still think that garden variety liberals would oppose gun bans and confiscation.
Even if you are right about these garden variety liberals, their elected representatives want to do everything in their power to move toward the elimination of guns in the general populace and it makes no difference to them if there exist somewhere garden variety liberals who disagree. These friends of yours may not be rabidly in favor of gun confiscation, but they would not oppose it either. That makes them nearly as dangerous as their elected gun-banning politicians.
The University of Harvard?
BUT – Feinburg’s accurate quoting and context of Trump’s announcing as a hypothetical debate tease “I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity paid for by Trump” is brilliant, and frankly ought to be the center of a discussion within all of mainstream journalism about how mainstream journalism has lost its way.
No reasonable person can read Trump’s quote – as it was even transcribed in the New York Times that Todd read – and interpret it the way that the Times interpreted it. The New York Times is being blatantly dishonest. This is shades of Groucho Marx’s line “who you gonna believe – me, or your lying eyes?”
Fake news. Mainstream journalism cannot be trusted. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Andrew Klavan discussed this concept in his podcast the same day, I believe.
I long ago gave up trying to read my local paper. the Washington Post, since every “news” story contains such bigoted bias where everything Republican is described as racist/bigoted/homophobic/sexist and everything Democrat is described as some sort of esoteric inarguable truth.
But, they are NOT focused on the murder rate. If they were, they would be advocating for nationwide rejection of concealed carry restrictions and overturning of the local firearms bans currently in place. Numerous well-documented studies have shown that where the public if free to own and bear firearms, the crime and murder rates are lower. Look up “more guns, less crime”.