CNN squirms when Newt makes sense!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Danzig, Jul 22, 2012.

  1. Danzig

    Danzig I do hood rat sh%t! Supporter

    Jesse Jackson can't add anything other than his talking points. Were 71 shot, or injured? Whatever you think of Newt, he has an answer for all their counterpoints.
  2. The only thing Newt didn't say that I wish he would have is that if a well-armed citizenry were legally permitted in the cinema, the chances of a lower casualty count in this incident would likely have been much improved, and give the good Reverend time to refute it so he could have ignored the topic by talking about soldier suicides some more. Not a big fan of Newt, but he was a good voice of reason in the panel and my respect for the man has ticked up a couple of notches for it.

  3. brutusvk

    brutusvk New Member

    Mexico has very strict gun laws. How'd that work out for them?
  4. Danzig

    Danzig I do hood rat sh%t! Supporter

    What is the goal of the anti gun pundits? Ban all future firearm sales? There are millions of guns out there already it would change nothing. Total gun confiscation? That would touch off a huge resistance movement. So realistically what do they want to do? D.C., Chicago style bans actually promoted gun violence in the decades it was implemented.
  5. 71 were not shot. New numbers reflect that 58 were injured, not all by gun shots, probably trampled in the rush to get out more then likely and 12 were killed. No firearms law on the planet could have stopped this, if a nut case is bent on harming others he'll find a way. Also, remember The Columbine shootings took place DURING the '94 AWB when standard cap mags and so called Assault weapons were banned. That law didn't stop that shooting from taking place, new laws won't do anything to stop future shootings from taking place either.
  6. I agree with Newt, wow I actually said that crap. But yeah I do, but in this case I don't know if we should be using the, if someone in there would have been armed things could have went different argument. I think it is possible but this coward was well prepared, the few shots one person would have taken at him wouldn't have done anything and caused him to take aim at them. Its just hard to say.
    They have to find another way of lowing gun crimes then gun control because its stupid. This prick, did these crimes with legal guns, but in reality must crimes that are out there are not being down with legal guns. So you cant use this as a bench mark.
  7. I think the thing that Jesse Jackson and others of his ilk just don't get is that Criminals DON'T Follow Laws. That's what makes them Criminals. You can pass all the gun laws that you want but it won't stop criminals from doing anything. It'll only deprive the law biding citizens from a chance to fight back.
    I get so sick of going through this each and every time some nut case shoots a bunch of people. I just want to Scream sometimes. We need MORE guns in the hands of Citizens, not less. :mad:
  8. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    I love Newt. This is just another good example of why we need him, or someone very much like him, in the White House. He's no nonsense, he's intelligent and he speaks his mind no matter what. I don't really care about his personal life or the things that people complained about him doing when he was the Speaker of the House. He may have voted for things we don't like and he may have pushed policies we don't like, but that was a long time ago and he's demonstrated what he believes now.

    Similarly, Romney has some baggage from Mass., but considering he had a Dem legislature with enough votes to override anything he chose to veto, I think he did pretty well.

    Jesse Jackson's been spewing this idiocy for so long that he probably really believes it's true and nothing anyone says can change his mind. Intelligent (this is not the same as smart) people are able to evolve, to change their opinions when presented with compelling facts. The far left and the Brady Campaign are, clearly, not intelligent.