Posted on 04/06/2007 10:10:30 PM PDT by epow
You're right, and the magazine gives names and towns of the people involved in those self defense shooting incidents. ABC could get all the stories they want from those people if they're actually interested in investigating the issue from a neutral standpoint.
Envy attack and very impressive, to me at least, of 24 inches of solid wood penetration.
Any modern professional hunter in Africa would tell you that a 6.5 cartridge is much too small and puny to use on elephant, and he would be right. But several of the old time ivory hunters in Africa managed to kill an awful lot of elephants with 6.5x54 and other relatively small bore rifles such as the .303 British and 7mm Mauser. They could do it because they were expert trackers and stalkers who could get in very close and place their bullet in exactly the right spot. It's also probable that they wounded quite a few elephants which they didn't hit in precisely the right place.
I don’t know if it would be a good idea to sign up for this. The editors can spin an interview anyway they want, and 20/20 may not have an unbiased view on gun rights.
That’s hilarious as the creator of that game is a very religious Christian soul.
So ask if it’s Stossel’s story and refuse to put out if it isn’t his.
If there’s a chance of an honest story being reported, we should seize the opportunity.
If it is Stossel I would tell him but I wouldn't tell anyone else at ABC News.
If it is Stossel I would tell him but I wouldn’t tell anyone else at ABC News.”
I agree entirely. I have my own story about arming myself with a rifle to defend my brother from someone viscously attacking him. When I entered the scene with rifle in hand pointed at the attacker, he turned and ran very quickly. The police were called and the perp was arrested soon thereafter. Perhaps with the sole exception of John Stossel, I would never give the story to ABC News. Even then, I would insist on a contract stating that only Stossel could convey the story to viewers and requiring my review and approval before it aired. ABC News would probably never agree to my terms and I would tell them adios.
It's like saying my 5th amendment rights don't exist because nobody is asking me questions. I have them anyway.
It's in the Bill of Rights, ergo, I have them. God guarantee's my right to self defense, not government. The second amendment says "bear arms", it doesn't specify guns. It's about self defense.
That is a good idea. But without sending them an E mail it saves a lot of legal work. :)
You have it exactly right. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges an inalienable right to self defense that supersedes the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and the United States itself. Even if the 2nd Amendment were somehow repealed (not while I breathe), the inalienable right to self defense continues to exist, just as it existed prior to the formation of the United States.
I was interviewed by 20/20 a few years ago, after my name appeared in the New York Times (who also interviewed me).
Both 20/20 and NYT both tried to put words in my mouth, and tried to rephrase my statements based on what they wanted to hear.
The Times sidestepped my key point, and 20/20 decided at the last minute to leave me on the cutting room completely (they filmed me in Central Park).
Do not trust reporters of any kind, no matter what they say. Today I would secretly tape record my interviews and confront any outlet who played with my words, or even tried to put words in my mouth during the interview.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was, in the first place, a statement that free people have the right of self determination, so, according to more than one founder, they agreed that we have the right to defend ourselves against tyrannical GOVERNMENTS. It's not about shooting deer or even shooting intruders.
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.