Skip to comments.Maddow:‘Only the NRA claims that we shouldn't pass laws that people won’t follow’(MSNBC 4/5/2013)
Posted on 04/05/2013 7:35:17 PM PDT by sickoflibs
Tonight (4/5/2013) clever MSNBC Maddow was playing clips of NRA Wayne Wayne LaPierre responding to the question:
What is wrong with these different proposed gun laws like background checks and magazine sizes? (clip of Megan Kelly question )
with Because criminals wont follow them only law abiding citizens will(LaPierre response) .
Now I could easily come up with arguments pros/cons of using that as a general guideline for rejecting laws.
But then Maddow throws in her punch line :
No one else but the NRA uses that argument against laws to be passed, that we shouldnt pass laws that wont be followed.
So immediately an example came to mind:
How about liberals very frequently used argument that we cant pass laws against abortions because pregnant women will find a way to get them anyway and that will be dangerous for them to do.
Or Restated libs including Maddow argue
: PREGNANT WOMEN WONT FOLLOW ABORTION LAWS SO WE SHOULDNT PASS THEM.
Two years......armed rebellion or death -
Standup and fight or lay down and die.
But it would be lost on Maddow. She wouldn’t know what pregnancy is.
Guns and guts ping!
I submit the Progressive position on Border security and drug laws as proof madcow is a dumb little boy.
Or, to put it a different way, as verbalized in 1970-71, "Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose...'"
We'll be seeing more and more of that sentiment expressed as the response to the attempt to make the U.S. "just another Soviet Union, or Cuba, or Venezuela," countries in the dust bin of history.
It is actually a very weak argument.
All you need to do is look at obvious intuitive laws.
Why have murder laws when there will always be murderers? Only law-abiding people will not murder?
I said I could argue pros and cons.
Yes, on one hand it is not the strongest argument for those reasons you give, esp in political fights like these.
He is saying that the new laws wont prevent murders and will only make criminals out of those who don't commit crimes with them now.
Suicide is illegal. How’s that working out?
IMO, laws against murder (for example) for the most part end up punishing the murderer after the fact rather than actually preventing murder.
Sure she does... To Madcow, pregnancy is an illness one must first contract in order to get an abortion, preferably an abortion paid by taxpayers.
Well, it wouldn't matter at all if they were not on a winning streak 3 out of the past 4 national elections (2006 to 2012) two of (the 3) which were POTUS years.
Maybe we need to start trying to stop assuming they will always lose and counter their arguments.
The comparison isn’t accurate. Most of the new gun laws are enacting law restricting a normally legal activity born out of a recognized right, because a very few people might abuse it.
A better comparison would be like requiring woman to register within 24 hour of finding out if they are pregnant so that the government can monitor the pregnancy and prosecute the mother if she fails through negligence or criminal act to bring the child to term.
There, one could argue that the only people who would register would be the ones who didn’t intend to kill their children, so what good would it do at the cost of extending goverment intrusiveness?
Oh how I wish there was a Conservative alternative to MSNBC.
We’ll see if this has any promise
Thanks for the ping.
B U M P
Someone said liberalism is a mental illness. This helps prove the point.
Thank you for the ping.
You hit on a good and very valid point I been making for a while.
I watch MSNBC much more than I do FNC because I get more out of seeing what they are up to on MSNBC than FNC commercialized entertainment channel.
I watch Cavuto daily and sometimes Baur and Megan Kelly is entertaining. No Hannity, O Reilly or Greta for me and F+F is terrible
FNC is the GOP/entertainment channel and MSNBC is the liberal(progressive) political activist channel.
They (MSNBC) are constantly on issues and arguments and progressive movements. Maddow, O Donnell, Hayes, Harris Perry even sleeze-bag Sharpton are activists,
More proof : MSNBC is live EVERY primetime (8 to 11 weeknights) and FNC is playing pre-recorded shows at those same times. They have a mission. FNC mission is just to make $$$$.
Men can’t get preggers silly.
Good point sick - It would be nice to have a political activist channel for our side too...
This is my serious conclusion after years of watching and analyzing these two networks.
At a gym I go to here both FNC and MSMBC are both on side by side which is what I want to see.
MSNBC is the progressive (Lean Forward) activist channel
We need a regressive activist channel that champions age old time and tested ideas like traditional Mom and Dad families (being killed the past decades) and why they are best for society.
Ideas that many immigrants coming here believe in that American popular culture is killing.
MSNBC was much more fun when Keith Olbermann was around. Watching him have a meltdown when the GOP took control of the House was classic entertainment.
I disagree somewhat.
MSNBC and their hosts are obsessed with Conservative Republicans to the point that is all they talk about.
Sure, the talk is smearing, degrading and mocking them, but that is what they do - the Alinsky tactic of making it personal; and then destroying the person.
There is little to no talk about Liberal solutions to problems, just maintaining the status quo.
No, it is all part of their political activist strategy.
In POTUS election years especially 2012 this ‘they are coming for YOU’ message is especially effective in getting non-whites out to vote against the GOP.
That is what you are seeing.
Off year elections like 2010 and 2014 it is less effective,
Dems now outnumber Republicans so its ‘get out the vote’ game.
” I watch Cavuto daily and sometimes Baur and Megan Kelly is entertaining. No Hannity, O Reilly or Greta for me and F+F is terrible “
Yep to all.
I find Fox to be boring. All they do is invite a GOP Congresscritter and let him/her recite the latest talking points for 5 minutes.
Chris Matthews and Lawrence O’D are arrogant jerks. Can’t stand them. However, Chris Hayes try to assemble a liberal panel to talk about an issue for an hour. It can be interesting. Rachel Maddow is good at opposition research and zeroing in on Republican weak spots.
LOD was especially obnoxious when he was a guest before he had his show, in 2004 on the Scarbouro night-time MSNBC show he shouted down Jim O Neill (Swift Boat) when Buchanan was guest host, repeatedly calling him ‘liar’.
But unfortunately many times he nails down exactly what is going on and how it will play out on his show.
He nailed down the Palin run in early 2011 pointing out how she had a commentator contract with FNC and wasn't planning a run(per campaign law) . Meanwhile FNC whose top execs knew she wasn't running (per law) still encouraged their ‘newscasters’ to tease their audience with a possible election run segment after segment for $$$, esp Greta.
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.