http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/12/12/kurt-russell-slams-gun-control-push-fiery-interview?ref=yfp I have to say I like Kurt even more after hearing the interview in the link above. He cuts no punches. It's refreshing.
It's insane to continue to prop up a straw-man that liberals believe gun control is the only step in preventing terrorism. What's up with gun enthusiasts and their continued propagating of this ridiculous straw man that liberals believe that gun control is the only solution and a solution that will 100% eliminate gun violence/terrorism. The mere mention of control and right wing nut jobs are like: "YOU FOCKIN LIBTARD YOU THING CONTROL CONTROL WILL STOP EVERYTHING YOU COMMIE b****!"
Hollywood's had much bigger issues with well-spoken minorities and fat chicks than they ever had with guns.
Hollywood luhhhhh guns. Probably 50% of Hollywood movies include "exciting" gunplay and murders. I still remember laughing in the theater when Indiana Jones shot that Arab swordsman. Great fun for children! Now I pretend the guy is ISIS <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/anEuw8F8cpE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That isn't what he is saying. He isn't even saying that terrorists and criminals don't care about gun control laws, and thus they will ignore them (like the San Bernardino shooters did by modifying their weapons in a manner illegal under California law). He is saying that he is more focused on defending himself against an attack than trying to prevent the attack in the first place, except perhaps through intimidation.
What does gun control have to do with you not being about to defend yourself? Gun control = no gun? Dumb.
You fockin libtard. Of course you need a 30 round magazine for home defense! Fock that! We need beta Cmags! :grin:
Because these are the strawmen put forth via Fox news, AM radio, etc, etc. It's pretty simple. Whatever fantasy of a leftwing argument can get people angry will be what's put out by the ever-larger conservative media.
Because so very many are making them.....they just walk them back when they get slapped down and then pretend they never made the argument to begin with.
Little to nothing considering the measures typically talked about (which also have little to nothing to do with preventing violent crime and/or murder). I was just pointing out that Mr. Russell's statement was being misinterpreted. In other words, in accusing him of putting forward a strawman, our resident rifleman was in fact putting forward a strawman of his own. My interpretation of Mr. Russell's statement breaks down into two parts: first that a terrorist's mindset and determination to kill is unaffected by gun control, and to think otherwise is insane, and second that a man who prepares himself to fight off an attack, or even recognize an attack about to happen and put a stop to it, is not concerned with the legality or illegality of the attacker's equipment. Neither of those positions support an inference that he believes liberals are relying solely on gun control to combat terrorism, nor do I see how such an interpretation could possibly be drawn from his statement.
This whole 'laws don't stop criminals' thing is asinine. We can make it MORE DIFFICULT to obtain them. No one is stating that banning individuals from the 'no fly list' from obtaining firearms will make their chances of obtaining firearms at 0%. It'll make it more difficult. This rhetoric of 'criminals don't obey laws, thus why bother' rhetoric can apply to to any regulation of any thing yet it seems to be only used with firearms. Making it more difficult for potential terrorists to obtain firearms is only ONE ASPECT of combating terrorism and no one has stated otherwise. The moment Obama mentioned gun regulation, my Facebook news feed lights up with ridiculous straw man after ridiculous straw man.