Pro-Gun Woman Scolds Dem Senator

[red states rule]

I love it when people will not back down and cower to liberals who are trying to tell them how they may or my not protect their family, property and the lives. Meanwhile this Dem will still have all the security he wants while telling the rest of us what the government will permit us to have




During this morning’s Senate hearings on gun violence, Independent Women’s Forum fellow Gayle Trotter tore into Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), scolding him for what she believes was his argument against a woman’s right to defend her family with whatever firearm she so chooses.


Sen. Whitehouse pointed out to Trotter that 18-year-old Oklahoma mother Sarah McKinley shot dead a home intruder using a 12-gauge Remington shotgun, which would not be banned under Sen. Dianne Feinstein‘s proposed statutes.


Trotter expressed uncertainty over the exact weapon used, prompting the senator to respond: “Trust me. That’s what it was and it would not be banned under the statute. It proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-magazine, peculiar types of artifacts — people are quite capable of defending themselves.”
The gun advocate replied:

“I respectfully disagree. I understand your also a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law and you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson penned our Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. I think you can understand that, as a woman, it is very important not to place undue burdens on our Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourself.”
Whitehouse defended himself, saying that he simply brought up the McKinley story as an example of “one that would not bear an argument against the proposal” to ban certain weapons, “because that Remington Express is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed.”
An incredulous Trotter responded by asking, “Would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child?”
“I think if she was using a ’100 weapon,’” Whitehouse said before repositioning: “Let me put it another way. She would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100-round piece of weaponry.”


At this point, Trotter became irritated, asking, “How can you say that?” She pointed out that Whitehouse is “a large man,” eliciting laughter from the crowd. “You are a tall man,” she clarified before scolding the senator:

“You are not a young mother who has a young child with her. And I am passionate about this position because you cannot understand, you are not a woman stuck in her house, having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to seek safety, on the phone with 9-1-1, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child, and she is not used to being in a fire fight.”
Whitehouse concluded the allotted time by saying, “My point is that she did it adequately and safely with lawful firearms.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/female-gun-advocate-lays-into-democratic-senator-over-womens-second-amendment-rights/

[bingster]

I love it when people will not back down and cower to liberals who are trying to tell them how they may or my not protect their family, property and the lives. Meanwhile this Dem will still have all the security he wants while telling the rest of us what the government will permit us to have

Her testimony was a joke. She purposely plagerized the "Right to chose" language from the "Pro-choice" crowd to make an appeal to women with her not applicable stories. She looked like my bi-polar sister who I wouldn't trust with a sling shot, let alone a gun.

[Kathianne]

Her testimony was a joke. She purposely plagerized the "Right to chose" language from the "Pro-choice" crowd to make an appeal to women with her not applicable stories. She looked like my bi-polar sister who I wouldn't trust with a sling shot, let alone a gun.

Why should she not borrow or even steal language that made her point? Really, you are becoming too academic in a political world. She wasn't asking for undergrad credit for her responses, nor looking for publication, other than in Congressional Record, which is full of plagiarisms.

[bingster]

Today at 12:10 AM
15Comments (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/talking-about-women-isnt-helping-gun-advocates.html#comments)

Talking About Women Isn’t Helping Gun Rights Advocates Make Their Case



<cite class="byline">By Margaret Hartmann (http://nymag.com/author/margaret%20hartmann)</cite>


http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/30/31-gayle-trotter.o.jpg/a_190x190.jpg Gayle Trotter.

NRA vice-president Wayne LaPierre's claim that the answer to America's problem with gun violence is more guns and fewer background checks isn't going over all that well, so at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, gun rights activists rolled out a different argument. Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women's Forum testified (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/craziest-moments-from-senate-panel-on-gun-control.html) that the proposed legislation would hurt women in particular because "an assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon." Presenting an image of the assault weapon user as an otherwise defenseless mother rather than a guy who's stockpiling AR-15s to prepare for the government takeover seems like a good idea, but it's already backfiring. It's come to light that Trotter opposes both allowing women in combat and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, calling into question her theories on how to keep women safe.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/talking-about-women-isnt-helping-gun-advocates.html


Why should she not borrow or even steal language that made her point? Really, you are becoming too academic in a political world. She wasn't asking for undergrad credit for her responses, nor looking for publication, other than in Congressional Record, which is full of plagiarisms.

I'm not really making a point of plaigirism. It was just transparent politics. She's trying to appeal to all women by disguising her terms in left wing jargon. I thought she was ridiculous.

Not to mention, she's inconsistent. While she's playing the helpless little small framed female victim at the hearing, being conservative she also lobbying against the "violence against women act". She's a fake.

[jimnyc]

I'm not really making a point of plaigirism. It was just transparent politics. She's trying to appeal to all women by disguising her terms in left wing jargon. I thought she was ridiculous.

I wonder if it would be equally ridiculous, and we weren't talking of a woman's right to choose the weapon, but the right of the woman to have an abortion (which isn't a "right" anyway). Would she be just as ridiculous putting up an argument defending her rights?

[bingster]

I wonder if it would be equally ridiculous, and we weren't talking of a woman's right to choose the weapon, but the right of the woman to have an abortion (which isn't a "right" anyway). Would she be just as ridiculous putting up an argument defending her rights?

Good shot, but at least she would look more sincere.

[Robert A Whit]

I love it when people will not back down and cower to liberals who are trying to tell them how they may or my not protect their family, property and the lives. Meanwhile this Dem will still have all the security he wants while telling the rest of us what the government will permit us to have

She has spunk in spades. I saw her testify. I was also posting and when focused on posting, stuff escapes my attention on TV. But I remember her and how she fought back. I believe that she has dark hair and seems to be not over weight.

You know Whitehouse may object to the parents of those killed kids defending their kids too or the staff that tried to save children. I don't get that guy.

[jimnyc]

I'm not really making a point of plaigirism. It was just transparent politics. She's trying to appeal to all women by disguising her terms in left wing jargon. I thought she was ridiculous.

Not to mention, she's inconsistent. While she's playing the helpless little small framed female victim at the hearing, being conservative she also lobbying against the "violence against women act". She's a fake.

Why did she oppose the act? You make it sound as if her stances are in contrast, so I assume her reasoning must have to do with women not needing it? Did she offer different wording of the act, to hopefully deter fraud?

Basically, you are regurgitating headlines you read on Huffingtonpost or another liberal rant. Her reasons for opposing the act had nothing to do with "helpless female victim" or anything in contrast to her testimony about women and guns.

http://www.iwf.org/blog/2787750/There-Are-Real-Reasons-to-Oppose-VAWA

[Kathianne]

I'm not really making a point of plaigirism. It was just transparent politics. She's trying to appeal to all women by disguising her terms in left wing jargon. I thought she was ridiculous.

Not to mention, she's inconsistent. While she's playing the helpless little small framed female victim at the hearing, being conservative she also lobbying against the "violence against women act". She's a fake.

So your complaint is that 'she's acting like a Democrat.' Too bad. Time for the right to wake up and do what they need to do.

[Robert A Whit]

I am happy somebody posted her photograph. I had only seen post #1 and replied to that one. Bingster says she was ridiculous.

I do not accept that characterization.

I am still not sure why an intelligent person Bingster feels as if his second amendment rights are, well perhaps silly and not needed. Or maybe he believes that a very short amedment is not understood. But those words are very clear.

Cast your eyes on the last few words. That explains all of it.

Your rights are not to be infringed.


Her testimony was a joke. She purposely plagerized the "Right to chose" language from the "Pro-choice" crowd to make an appeal to women with her not applicable stories. She looked like my bi-polar sister who I wouldn't trust with a sling shot, let alone a gun.

Man, with a disturbed sister, maybe you best not show any of us your photograph.

How long have you had the unique ability to make the claims you just made?

I saw her talking and she was very lucid and very well spoken and did very well explaining her views.

But for the protections afforded by the second amendment our nuts would be ground into mush by Obama and his team.





Today at 12:10 AM
15Comments (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/talking-about-women-isnt-helping-gun-advocates.html#comments)

Talking About Women Isn’t Helping Gun Rights Advocates Make Their Case



<cite class="byline">By Margaret Hartmann (http://nymag.com/author/margaret%20hartmann)</cite>


http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/30/31-gayle-trotter.o.jpg/a_190x190.jpg Gayle Trotter.

NRA vice-president Wayne LaPierre's claim that the answer to America's problem with gun violence is more guns and fewer background checks isn't going over all that well, so at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, gun rights activists rolled out a different argument. Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women's Forum testified (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/craziest-moments-from-senate-panel-on-gun-control.html) that the proposed legislation would hurt women in particular because "an assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon." Presenting an image of the assault weapon user as an otherwise defenseless mother rather than a guy who's stockpiling AR-15s to prepare for the government takeover seems like a good idea, but it's already backfiring. It's come to light that Trotter opposes both allowing women in combat and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, calling into question her theories on how to keep women safe.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/talking-about-women-isnt-helping-gun-advocates.html

The man is right. They should only background check those who may pose an actual danger.

Why background you for instance? Have you any signs of being angry or willing to kill anybody?

There are better ways. And they are also more efficient.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Her testimony was a joke. She purposely plagerized the "Right to chose" language from the "Pro-choice" crowd to make an appeal to women with her not applicable stories. She looked like my bi-polar sister who I wouldn't trust with a sling shot, let alone a gun.

Point 1:
First, read the definition of the word, plagiarize...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source


intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source


Now, explain how she can steal 'right to CHOOSE (not chose, dumb ass') language from a group you call 'the pro-choice crowd'. Who is the 'pro-choice' crowd? Did they put out a paper or publish a work with the exact wording you claim was plagiarized? Can you link to said work? Did she claim the words were her own and no one elses?

If you're going to make accusations, you should at least spell check, and then make sure you have a way to back them up. Otherwise, you're just proving your stupidity.


Point 2:
I'd trust your bi-polar sister more than I would you.

[bingster]

Why did she oppose the act? You make it sound as if her stances are in contrast, so I assume her reasoning must have to do with women not needing it? Did she offer different wording of the act, to hopefully deter fraud?

Basically, you are regurgitating headlines you read on Huffingtonpost or another liberal rant. Her reasons for opposing the act had nothing to do with "helpless female victim" or anything in contrast to her testimony about women and guns.

http://www.iwf.org/blog/2787750/There-Are-Real-Reasons-to-Oppose-VAWA

VAWA "embraces gender stereotypes by casting women as victims and men as abusers; and,"
I took this off of your link. Tell me her fake "pro-choice" pro-gun testimony didn't "embrace gender stereotypes by casting women as victims and men as abusers"-This is my point! It's probably on you-tube. If you didn't see it, see it.

[Kathianne]

VAWA "embraces gender stereotypes by casting women as victims and men as abusers; and,"
I took this off of your link. Tell me her fake "pro-choice" pro-gun testimony didn't "embrace gender stereotypes by casting women as victims and men as abusers"-This is my point! It's probably on you-tube. If you didn't see it, see it.

Huh? Sort of like saying, 'How dare those poor folk accuse other poor folk criminals of killing them.' Not pc, but more than a bit true.

[bingster]

Point 1:
First, read the definition of the word, plagiarize...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

Now, explain how she can steal 'right to CHOOSE (not chose, dumb ass') language from a group you call 'the pro-choice crowd'. Who is the 'pro-choice' crowd? Did they put out a paper or publish a work with the exact wording you claim was plagiarized? Can you link to said work? Did she claim the words were her own and no one elses?

If you're going to make accusations, you should at least spell check, and then make sure you have a way to back them up. Otherwise, you're just proving your stupidity.


Point 2:
I'd trust your bi-polar sister more than I would you.

If your only point is my bad spelling, quit wasting both of our time. It was obvious to most people how she belabored the language every time she said that line probably 5 times during the hearing and twice on Lawrence O'donell that she was obviously using the same language to get sympathy from left-wing women. Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it so.

[Kathianne]

If your only point is my bad spelling, quit wasting both of our time. It was obvious to most people how she belabored the language every time she said that line probably 5 times during the hearing and twice on Lawrence O'donell that she was obviously using the same language to get sympathy from left-wing women. Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it so.

Again, your point? That right folks use the left points, is a problem? Why?

[logroller]

Again, your point? That right folks use the left points, is a problem? Why?
Apparently propaganda is trademarked now.

[Kathianne]

Apparently propaganda is trademarked now.

didn't know.

[bingster]

Let me put it this way:
Maybe I'm too hard on her, maybe you are being too emotionally supportive of her.

She told a hair raising truly thought provoking true story about a woman defending her babies through a closed door against two attackers.

Then supported that story by describing how a woman like herself needed a scarey looking AR-15 weapon to defend herself against 5 or 6 attackers.

When she was questioned her whole argument fell apart because the true story in her testimony was about a shotgun. The made up story had nothing to do with reality. If she was a man defending a liberal point of view, this forum would have laughed their keyboards off!

It just seemed to me that she was carrying an almost groundless argument with the sheer gravitas of a bad impression of a pro-choice line. "undue burden on my constitutional right to choose..."

[Robert A Whit]

Let me put it this way:
Maybe I'm too hard on her, maybe you are being too emotionally supportive of her.

She told a hair raising truly thought provoking true story about a woman defending her babies through a closed door against two attackers.

Then supported that story by describing how a woman like herself needed a scarey looking weapon to defend herself against 5 or 6 attackers.

When she was questioned her whole argument fell apart because the true story in her testimony was about a shotgun. The made up story had nothing to do with reality.

I will tell you this much, with the right shot-gun, the right ammo, one hell of a lot of dying can go on using a shot gun. As well as others close to the person being killed.

Give me a rifle and at least I get the bad guy. Matter of fact, I defend myself with a .22 cal pistol. But plenty of ammo in the magazine.

I plan to go to CSPAN to find out what I must have missed.

Say Bingster, this is the woman that testified. Can you please tell me the hour and minute where she said what you claim she said?

<object id="cspan-video-player" codeBase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" classid="clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="410" align="middle" height="500">





<embed height="500" name="cspan-video-player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="410" src="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=310644-1" flashvars="system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=299990&style=full" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" allowscriptaccess="always"></object>

[gabosaurus]

Silly nagging woman. She should have been slapped silly and put in her place.
I mean, seriously, women should be seen and not heard right? Who wants to marry a spunky, obstinate woman anyway?
I bet you could go to South American and find a peaceful, obedient woman who would NEVER talk back to a man that way!!

If I was that senator, I would told the woman to shut up and go make me a sandwich. :rolleyes:

[logroller]

didn't know.
Cause you're informed.

Gotta go with the dem lady's argument here though; using an emotional plea for choosing the type of weapon where the chosen weapon wasn't the subject of the legislation-- the anecdotal evidence doesn't support the claim.

[red states rule]

Let me put it this way:
Maybe I'm too hard on her, maybe you are being too emotionally supportive of her.

She told a hair raising truly thought provoking true story about a woman defending her babies through a closed door against two attackers.

Then supported that story by describing how a woman like herself needed a scarey looking AR-15 weapon to defend herself against 5 or 6 attackers.

When she was questioned her whole argument fell apart because the true story in her testimony was about a shotgun. The made up story had nothing to do with reality. If she was a man defending a liberal point of view, this forum would have laughed their keyboards off!

It just seemed to me that she was carrying an almost groundless argument with the sheer gravitas of a bad impression of a pro-choice line. "undue burden on my constitutional right to choose..."

So let me get this straight. Libs have no problem sending women into combat with a weapon to kill the nations enemies

But that same women is too emotional to defend her life, the lives of her family with the weapon of her choice

[logroller]

So let me get this straight. Libs have no problem sending women into combat with a weapon to kill the nations enemies

But that same women is too emotional to defend her life, the lives of her family with the weapon of her choice
Fwiw, combat troops don't really get to choose their weapon.

[red states rule]

Fwiw, combat troops don't really get to choose their weapon.

Point is libs have no issue with a women in combat but that same women is not fit to defend her family with the weapon she wants

Come on LR you see how condescending that Dem was to her. Looks like this Dem has his own "War on Women" going on here

[logroller]

Point is libs have no issue with a women in combat but that same women is not fit to defend her family with the weapon she wants

Come on LR you see how condescending that Dem was to her. Looks like this Dem has his own "War on Women" going on here
Point is her evidence failed to support her argument, and pointing that out isnt being condescending-- it's being a better orator.
So lady made a poor argument, got pwned, then went straight into personal references to the senator's alma mater...a little history lesson for the senator on his own alma mater-- Talk about condescending. He knows where he went to school and those statesmen before him. She, on the other hand, didn't know what kind of weapon was used in the story she introduced. Thing is, I agree with the right to own these weapons; if given the opportunity to defend that right before Congress, I'd bring my A game, not factual inconsistencies and emotional pleas. Who is this lady anyways, besides yesterday's news?

PS Im sure they're plenty of libs who do, in fact, have a problem with women in combat. Not everyone fits into nice little boxes rsr.

[bingster]

So let me get this straight. Libs have no problem sending women into combat with a weapon to kill the nations enemies

But that same women is too emotional to defend her life, the lives of her family with the weapon of her choice

No, I'm saying her sob act was a drama that was transparently political and without factual grounding. Her real story was irrelavent to the argument, and the acting out regarding the scarey weapon was meaningless. People acting out fairy tales have no place in a hearing.

I guess it worked for you guys, though.


Say Bingster, this is the woman that testified. Can you please tell me the hour and minute where she said what you claim she said?

<object id="cspan-video-player" codeBase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" classid="clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="410" align="middle" height="500">





<embed height="500" name="cspan-video-player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="410" src="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=310644-1" flashvars="system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=299990&style=full" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" allowscriptaccess="always"></object>

Sorry, Robert, what things I claimed she said do you want me to find?


Point is libs have no issue with a women in combat but that same women is not fit to defend her family with the weapon she wants

Come on LR you see how condescending that Dem was to her. Looks like this Dem has his own "War on Women" going on here

I was being condescending to a woman being condescending to you. It was transparent emotionalism with no factual muster. She appealed to you only because of her emotions. I think she made a fool out of herself.

[CSM]

I was being condescending to a woman being condescending to you. It was transparent emotionalism with no factual muster. She appealed to you only because of her emotions. I think she made a fool out of herself.

Well, maybe we should consider her for vice president! Those occupying that office seem to have that trait as a basic qualification!

Emotionalism runs rampant throughout the whole gun control debate and we hear it from both sides. I find it rather ironic that both sides of the discussion present emotional appeals more often than fact and expect to convince anyone of the "rightness" of their cause. Sadly, there are many who fall for that little trap and we end up with a whole lot of unnecessary bullshit to wade through if trying to decide what is a sane abd reasonable course of action.

[bingster]

Well, maybe we should consider her for vice president! Those occupying that office seem to have that trait as a basic qualification!

Emotionalism runs rampant throughout the whole gun control debate and we hear it from both sides. I find it rather ironic that both sides of the discussion present emotional appeals more often than fact and expect to convince anyone of the "rightness" of their cause. Sadly, there are many who fall for that little trap and we end up with a whole lot of unnecessary bullshit to wade through if trying to decide what is a sane abd reasonable course of action.

I can't agree with you more on that one.

(you have to include Sarah Palen, though)

[CSM]

I can't agree with you more on that one.

(you have to include Sarah Palen, though)

as far as I know, Sarah Palin never held the office of vice president. As I remember, many a lib/Dem thought she was not qualified.

[bingster]

as far as I know, Sarah Palin never held the office of vice president. As I remember, many a lib/Dem thought she was not qualified.

I agree she was not qualified, but if McCain would have won she would have occupied the office and would have fit in nicely with the embarrassing vice president pattern.

[jimnyc]

I agree she was not qualified, but if McCain would have one she would have occupied the office and I think she falls in nicely with the embarrassing vice president pattern.

Perhaps so, we may never know. I do know she had much more experience than Obama and his 143 days in office voting "present" and his community organizer background. And she could have spent $$ like a stuck pig in excess of $6 trillion dollars, and we'd be in the same position basically. (minus Obamacare, Fast and Furious & Benghazi)

[Robert A Whit]

Sorry, Robert, what things I claimed she said do you want me to find?

Just the things, using the video on post 23 to support the things you claim. I could not find what you claim she did so I offer you the full video to tell us all why you have kept running her down.

You have claimed some things you claim she did wrong. Since you brought the charges, I can't prove them but offer you a way to back up your own charges.

Hr and minute please. If you are correct,, I want to correct my statement to reflect that.

[bingster]

Perhaps so, we may never know. I do know she had much more experience than Obama and his 143 days in office voting "present" and his community organizer background. And she could have spent $$ like a stuck pig in excess of $6 trillion dollars, and we'd be in the same position basically. (minus Obamacare, Fast and Furious & Benghazi)

She didn't seem very intelligent to me. I could be wrong.


Just the things, using the video on post 23 to support the things you claim. I could not find what you claim she did so I offer you the full video to tell us all why you have kept running her down.

You have claimed some things you claim she did wrong. Since you brought the charges, I can't prove them but offer you a way to back up your own charges.

Hr and minute please. If you are correct,, I want to correct my statement to reflect that.

I described her testimony quite accurately. I don't want to relive it. She described a true story. Then she described how a woman needs the "confidence" the feeling of having a scarey weapon would give them. And throughout, she kept repeating the phrases "undue burden" and "right to choose". The true story was shot down during cross examination, and I thought her theatrical description of a helpless woman with a scarey weapon defending herself against 5 or 6 attackers was not credible testimony. If "witnesses" get to make up dramatic skits to make their point I think it cheapens the process.

Watch it yourself, if you want, and tell me what you think is not accurate.

here's a link that contains only her testimony.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0S00MjkIQxRbHIAvr37w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdG pndTY2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzNQ--?p=gayle+trotter&vid=7fdf4b85003843d61574586f3a6d031c&l=&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVB.2 77255881799%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F 01%2F30%2Fgayle-trotter-gun-control_n_2583098.html%3Fref%3Dtopbar&tit=Gayle+Trotter+Testimony+Captivates+Senate+Gun+ Control+Hearing&c=0&sigr=12sarmbbl&fr=my-myy-s&tt=b

[jimnyc]

She didn't seem very intelligent to me. I could be wrong.

She didn't come off as the brightest person in the world to me either, but not dumb I don't think. But I also don't think Obama is the brightest bulb either. Talk of long lost education, which we can't see transcripts of, doesn't spell a genius to me. Current times is what concerns me. He needs a teleprompter all the time - and they should put a few in the Oval Office, maybe help him make decisions which aren't harmful to the nation? LOL

[Marcus Aurelius]

If your only point is my bad spelling, quit wasting both of our time. It was obvious to most people how she belabored the language every time she said that line probably 5 times during the hearing and twice on Lawrence O'donell that she was obviously using the same language to get sympathy from left-wing women. Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it so.

you're not very bright, are you... you've gone from 'She purposely plagerized the "Right to chose" language from the "Pro-choice" crowd', down to whining that she repeated the same thing several times in various situations and interviews.

Seems to me that there is no rule, at least that I am aware of, requiring someone to say something differently in every interview they are part of. Do you hold liberals to that dumb ass standard as well?

BTW, you left out a word in the RED part above. Lets see how long it takes you to figure out what word.





Your original comments for reference...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613610#post613610)

Her testimony was a joke. She purposely plagerized the "Right to chose" language from the "Pro-choice" crowd to make an appeal to women with her not applicable stories. She looked like my bi-polar sister who I wouldn't trust with a sling shot, let alone a gun.




Point 1:
First, read the definition of the word, plagiarize...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source


intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source




Now, explain how she can steal 'right to CHOOSE (not chose, dumb ass') language from a group you call 'the pro-choice crowd'. Who is the 'pro-choice' crowd? Did they put out a paper or publish a work with the exact wording you claim was plagiarized? Can you link to said work? Did she claim the words were her own and no one elses?

If you're going to make accusations, you should at least spell check, and then make sure you have a way to back them up. Otherwise, you're just proving your stupidity.


Point 2:
I'd trust your bi-polar sister more than I would you.


I described her testimony quite accurately. I don't want to relive it. She described a true story. Then she described how a woman needs the "confidence" the feeling of having a scarey weapon would give them. And throughout, she kept repeating the phrases "undue burden" and "right to choose". The true story was shot down during cross examination, and I thought her theatrical description of a helpless woman with a scarey weapon defending herself against 5 or 6 attackers was not credible testimony. If "witnesses" get to make up dramatic skits to make their point I think it cheapens the process.

Watch it yourself, if you want, and tell me what you think is not accurate.

Are you as equally offended when liberals continually repeat the words 'undue burden' and 'right to choose' in regards to abortion? Of course you're not. That's just different, right? It's ok to repeat yourself when you want to kill an unborn child, but God forbid you repeat yourself when you want to shoot an armed intruder who could kill you or a loved one.

[bingster]

Just the things, using the video on post 23 to support the things you claim. I could not find what you claim she did so I offer you the full video to tell us all why you have kept running her down.

You have claimed some things you claim she did wrong. Since you brought the charges, I can't prove them but offer you a way to back up your own charges.

Hr and minute please. If you are correct,, I want to correct my statement to reflect that.

Actually, that link I gave you only had the first part of her testimony. This link shows the second part:

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0S00MjkIQxRbHIAxr37w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdG pndTY2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzNQ--?p=gayle+trotter&vid=8325a6cc60ea2ac7b2e31ac0683440c7&l=5%3A09&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVB.3 45993709947%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.msnbc.msn.com%2Fnbc-news%2F50640975&tit=Firearms+advocate+to+Senate%3A+Guns+make+women +safer&c=8&sigr=11c0ov9o6&fr=my-myy-s&tt=b


Are you as equally offended when liberals continually repeat the words 'undue burden' and 'right to choose' in regards to abortion? Of course you're not. That's just different, right? It's ok to repeat yourself when you want to kill an unborn child, but God forbid you repeat yourself when you want to shoot an armed intruder who could kill you or a loved one.

As always, you miss the point. Her true story was not applicable. Her made up story was pure drama. Her use of the pro-choice words was a political trick.

You can mix up the issues here and moralize about a different point, but I don't think she helped her cause.

and I wasn't offended. I just thought she hurt her credibility by being obviously political.

[Robert A Whit]

Silly nagging woman. She should have been slapped silly and put in her place.
I mean, seriously, women should be seen and not heard right? Who wants to marry a spunky, obstinate woman anyway?
I bet you could go to South American and find a peaceful, obedient woman who would NEVER talk back to a man that way!!

If I was that senator, I would told the woman to shut up and go make me a sandwich. :rolleyes:

Which woman? The woman attorney that represents women?

[bingster]

you're not very bright, are you... you've gone from 'She purposely plagerized the "Right to chose" language from the "Pro-choice" crowd', down to whining that she repeated the same thing several times in various situations and interviews.

Seems to me that there is no rule, at least that I am aware of, requiring someone to say something differently in every interview they are part of. Do you hold liberals to that dumb ass standard as well?

BTW, you left out a word in the RED part above. Lets see how long it takes you to figure out what word.

You know what? Sometimes you're very bright, but usually you're not, and you are always a hostile juvenile.

[Robert A Whit]

As always, you miss the point. Her true story was not applicable. Her made up story was pure drama. Her use of the pro-choice words was a political trick.

You can mix up the issues here and moralize about a different point, but I don't think she helped her cause.

and I wasn't offended. I just thought she hurt her credibility by being obviously political.

Are you still running down the woman attorney? What the hell for?

I gave you a video of her testimony. Why haven't you accused to police chief of non stop political partisanship?

Is this the democrats plan, to put all the blame on one woman and ignore that their own arguments are nothing other than irrational political arguments?

Didn't you pay a bit of attention to the Senators that correctly used the police study proving such bans don't work? Then one Senator showed a legal gun that were you to attach a piece of plastic to it, suddenly it would be banned.

and that makes sense to you?

[bingster]

She didn't come off as the brightest person in the world to me either, but not dumb I don't think. But I also don't think Obama is the brightest bulb either. Talk of long lost education, which we can't see transcripts of, doesn't spell a genius to me. Current times is what concerns me. He needs a teleprompter all the time - and they should put a few in the Oval Office, maybe help him make decisions which aren't harmful to the nation? LOL

Transcripts? Are you serious?

I almost never agree with you, but you are always sensible and persuasive. If you think the President of the United States needs to justify Donald Trump's irrational ravings.... I don't know, bud, this president has taken more outragious, unfounded, illogical crap than any president ever. Did the libs call George W. a war criminal? Yes, that is divisive and not constructive. But, that's the worse we've ever called him and at least it's definitively correct when you're talking about torture. None of the crap aimed at Obama has a shread of factual foundation.

[Robert A Whit]

Actually, that link I gave you only had the first part of her testimony. This link shows the second part:

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0S00MjkIQxRbHIAxr37w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdG pndTY2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzNQ--?p=gayle+trotter&vid=8325a6cc60ea2ac7b2e31ac0683440c7&l=5%3A09&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVB.3 45993709947%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.msnbc.msn.com%2Fnbc-news%2F50640975&tit=Firearms+advocate+to+Senate%3A+Guns+make+women +safer&c=8&sigr=11c0ov9o6&fr=my-myy-s&tt=b

You gave me NBC news part.

I gave you CSPANs entire full testimony.

You have not persuaded me you are correct despite me giving you several opportunities to cite the part of her testimony backing up your own claims.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You know what? Sometimes you're very bright, but usually you're not, and you are always a hostile juvenile.

way to ignore your complete FAIL.


You gave me NBC news part.

I gave you CSPANs entire full testimony.

You have not persuaded me you are correct despite me giving you several opportunities to cite the part of her testimony backing up your own claims.

Bingy isn't into backing up his claims. It's beneath him.

[Robert A Whit]

Transcripts? Are you serious?

I almost never agree with you, but you are always sensible and persuasive. If you think the President of the United States needs to justify Donald Trump's irrational ravings.... I don't know, bud, this president has taken more outragious, unfounded, illogical crap than any president ever. Did the libs call George W. a war criminal? Yes, that is divisive and not constructive. But, that's the worse we've ever called him and at least it's definitively correct when you're talking about torture. None of the crap aimed at Obama has a shread of factual foundation.

You are making things up about the woman attorney. And you are making things up about Bush too. Bush never tortured anybody. And the CIA used the same proceedure the Navy does in trianing on some serious killers. But you object. Killers can count on you from the looks of it.

I recall how vicious the Democrats were to Bush. Even when he tried to meet them half way, they were always abusive to the man. Even Cheney was abused. Remember the abuse he endured over the accident that happened to one of his good friends in TX? Then the Democrats despised Donald Rumsfeld. But did they read his book?

Name one Democrat that read the following books that gave explicit detals of the what, when and why?

1. American Soldier; Gen Tommy Franks
2. A General Speaks out; Gen Mike DeLong
3. My year in Iraq; Ambassador Paul Bremer
4. Decision points; President GW Bush
5. Cheney's book
6. Rumsfelds book

I dare any of you Democrats to tead those books and then come back to make up false stuff.

[jimnyc]

Transcripts? Are you serious?

I almost never agree with you, but you are always sensible and persuasive. If you think the President of the United States needs to justify Donald Trump's irrational ravings.... I don't know, bud, this president has taken more outragious, unfounded, illogical crap than any president ever. Did the libs call George W. a war criminal? Yes, that is divisive and not constructive. But, that's the worse we've ever called him and at least it's definitively correct when you're talking about torture. None of the crap aimed at Obama has a shread of factual foundation.

You act as if supplying school records is unheard of? I'm not talking the birther crap, just his school records. If one is going to brag about their schooling, they should supply their schooling records, like so many have before. Not much different than like when GWB supplied everyone with his military records. And like them supplying financials. Oh, and even GWB had his college transcripts publicized. And John Kerry did the same. Obama has his sealed.

[Robert A Whit]

How the hell could her answer to Whitehouse amount to scolding?

Words matter. Somebody wanted to give a false impression.

I recall that exchange but was confused when somebody called it scolding.

I believe she was much more laid back than the police chief was at times.

[gabosaurus]

I recall how vicious the Democrats were to Bush. Even when he tried to meet them half way, they were always abusive to the man. Even Cheney was abused. Remember the abuse he endured over the accident that happened to one of his good friends in TX? Then the Democrats despised Donald Rumsfeld. But did they read his book?



Name one Democrat that read the following books that gave explicit detals of the what, when and why?

1. American Soldier; Gen Tommy Franks
2. A General Speaks out; Gen Mike DeLong
3. My year in Iraq; Ambassador Paul Bremer
4. Decision points; President GW Bush
5. Cheney's book
6. Rumsfelds book


Why would any of us want to read this self-serving crap?
Have you read any of the many books questioning the decisions of the Bush administration? I am guessing not, since you believe it was all a perfect Camelot.

[aboutime]

Why would any of us want to read this self-serving crap?
Have you read any of the many books questioning the decisions of the Bush administration? I am guessing not, since you believe it was all a perfect Camelot.


Gabby. Asking yourself such a question only makes us laugh at you all the more. It's only self-serving crap because of your educational challenges, and total inability to comprehend simple things, like tying your shoes.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613884#post613884)
I recall how vicious the Democrats were to Bush. Even when he tried to meet them half way, they were always abusive to the man. Even Cheney was abused. Remember the abuse he endured over the accident that happened to one of his good friends in TX? Then the Democrats despised Donald Rumsfeld. But did they read his book?




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613884#post613884)
Name one Democrat that read the following books that gave explicit detals of the what, when and why?

1. American Soldier; Gen Tommy Franks
2. A General Speaks out; Gen Mike DeLong
3. My year in Iraq; Ambassador Paul Bremer
4. Decision points; President GW Bush
5. Cheney's book
6. Rumsfelds book





Gabby snorts: Why would any of us want to read this self-serving crap?
Have you read any of the many books questioning the decisions of the Bush administration? I am guessing not, since you believe it was all a perfect Camelot.

Why?

Well for one thing, they all were involved. Your left wing authers never were there.

I found none of those books to be self serving. The content was backed up using foot notes and reference material.

[bingster]

Are you still running down the woman attorney? What the hell for?

I gave you a video of her testimony. Why haven't you accused to police chief of non stop political partisanship?

Is this the democrats plan, to put all the blame on one woman and ignore that their own arguments are nothing other than irrational political arguments?

Didn't you pay a bit of attention to the Senators that correctly used the police study proving such bans don't work? Then one Senator showed a legal gun that were you to attach a piece of plastic to it, suddenly it would be banned.

and that makes sense to you?

Robert, I'm not attacking anyone. It's the subject of this thread. You know, you make an argument, then someone opposes, then you oppose, etc...? Actually, as I've posted, I was very impressed with Lindsey Graham. He made very good points about a 6-shooter vs a magazine with 15.




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613884#post613884)
I recall how vicious the Democrats were to Bush. Even when he tried to meet them half way, they were always abusive to the man. Even Cheney was abused. Remember the abuse he endured over the accident that happened to one of his good friends in TX? Then the Democrats despised Donald Rumsfeld. But did they read his book?




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613884#post613884)
Name one Democrat that read the following books that gave explicit detals of the what, when and why?

1. American Soldier; Gen Tommy Franks
2. A General Speaks out; Gen Mike DeLong
3. My year in Iraq; Ambassador Paul Bremer
4. Decision points; President GW Bush
5. Cheney's book
6. Rumsfelds book






Why?

Well for one thing, they all were involved. Your left wing authers never were there.

I found none of those books to be self serving. The content was backed up using foot notes and reference material.


The Price of Loyalty
-Ron Suskin telling the story of Paul O'neil former Secretary of Treasury Bush Administration
Against All Enemies
-Richard A. Clarke former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Bush Administration
My American Journey
-Colin Powell Secretary of State Bush Administration


You act as if supplying school records is unheard of? I'm not talking the birther crap, just his school records. If one is going to brag about their schooling, they should supply their schooling records, like so many have before. Not much different than like when GWB supplied everyone with his military records. And like them supplying financials. Oh, and even GWB had his college transcripts publicized. And John Kerry did the same. Obama has his sealed.

I don't know why they're sealed. I just think responding to Donald Trump is beneath the President of America. No other president in the history of this nation has been put through so much scrutiny of his education and birth. He's a good family man and Republicans, used to Clinton, can't find a real character flaw to attack so they're making stuff up.


You are making things up about the woman attorney. And you are making things up about Bush too. Bush never tortured anybody. And the CIA used the same proceedure the Navy does in trianing on some serious killers. But you object. Killers can count on you from the looks of it.

I recall how vicious the Democrats were to Bush. Even when he tried to meet them half way, they were always abusive to the man. Even Cheney was abused. Remember the abuse he endured over the accident that happened to one of his good friends in TX? Then the Democrats despised Donald Rumsfeld. But did they read his book?

Name one Democrat that read the following books that gave explicit detals of the what, when and why?

1. American Soldier; Gen Tommy Franks
2. A General Speaks out; Gen Mike DeLong
3. My year in Iraq; Ambassador Paul Bremer
4. Decision points; President GW Bush
5. Cheney's book
6. Rumsfelds book

I dare any of you Democrats to tead those books and then come back to make up false stuff.

That thing with Cheney was just funny. Gee wiz man, get a sense of humor.

[jimnyc]

I don't know why they're sealed. I just think responding to Donald Trump is beneath the President of America. No other president in the history of this nation has been put through so much scrutiny of his education and birth. He's a good family man and Republicans, used to Clinton, can't find a real character flaw to attack so they're making stuff up.

I don't even care about Trump, this issue about his records was on the campaign trail back in '08, long before Trump came into the picture. And no other president went through it as #1 - not many have the circumstances as him, with the birth of the parents, Hawaii, Kenya... It was worth looking into to ensure, but not the drama some of the birthers made it into. #2 - he made the issue of his transcripts by sealing his records. I think it makes sense that people would want to see what is on his transcripts, and what information a presidential candidate offered back then.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, I'm not attacking anyone. It's the subject of this thread. You know, you make an argument, then someone opposes, then you oppose, etc...? Actually, as I've posted, I was very impressed with Lindsey Graham. He made very good points about a 6-shooter vs a magazine with 15.

Fine and all with that, but has this occurred to you that since so many cranky socialists (Democrats) used the argument that when the second amendment was crafted and made part of the constitution, those people used muskets.

Based on that logic, one can also argue that our military weapons must also not be allowed since the founders had no M-2 Abrahms tanks, machine guns, aircraft carriers or nukes.

So, how can the government claim it has a right that the people do not have? To wit: when the second was enacted, the citizens had the right to any gun the Feds had. Sure, some claim they could not have cannons. But I find nothing in the history record that proves this contention.

To drive the point even deeper in the hearts of Democrats, they want to damned near ban our rights to the terms of the constitution.


That thing with Cheney was just funny. Gee wiz man, get a sense of humor.

Not to Cheney nor the pal that was hit.


I don't know why they're sealed. I just think responding to Donald Trump is beneath the President of America. No other president in the history of this nation has been put through so much scrutiny of his education and birth. He's a good family man and Republicans, used to Clinton, can't find a real character flaw to attack so they're making stuff up.

Cheney was not president yet Democrats persisted in alleging that it had to be Cheney operating as if he was the president. But I also wish to mention that Democrats were crazy with rage that Cheney came to his office as a resident citizen of Wyoming. They bellowed that Cheney was a Texan. Funny thing though is that Cheney was born, raised and partly educated in Wyoming and as a congressman represented Wyoming.

When this was going on, I spent a great deal of time speaking of Cheney not being a Texan, but being a wyomian.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't even care about Trump, this issue about his records was on the campaign trail back in '08, long before Trump came into the picture. And no other president went through it as #1 - not many have the circumstances as him, with the birth of the parents, Hawaii, Kenya... It was worth looking into to ensure, but not the drama some of the birthers made it into. #2 - he made the issue of his transcripts by sealing his records. I think it makes sense that people would want to see what is on his transcripts, and what information a presidential candidate offered back then.

now , why would obama still refuse to release his transcripts?? He has his second term!!
I will tell you why, because they will show for all to see that his image put forth by the g-damn lying media is totally false. He likely barely has even average intelligence! I 'd make a bet to blow my brains out if my IQ isn't greater than his and very ,very likely far far greater!!--Tyr

[bingster]

I don't even care about Trump, this issue about his records was on the campaign trail back in '08, long before Trump came into the picture. And no other president went through it as #1 - not many have the circumstances as him, with the birth of the parents, Hawaii, Kenya... It was worth looking into to ensure, but not the drama some of the birthers made it into. #2 - he made the issue of his transcripts by sealing his records. I think it makes sense that people would want to see what is on his transcripts, and what information a presidential candidate offered back then.

Sorry, I don't recall it from the campaign. I just thought it was regarding Trump.


Fine and all with that, but has this occurred to you that since so many cranky socialists (Democrats) used the argument that when the second amendment was crafted and made part of the constitution, those people used muskets.

Based on that logic, one can also argue that our military weapons must also not be allowed since the founders had no M-2 Abrahms tanks, machine guns, aircraft carriers or nukes.

So, how can the government claim it has a right that the people do not have? To wit: when the second was enacted, the citizens had the right to any gun the Feds had. Sure, some claim they could not have cannons. But I find nothing in the history record that proves this contention.

To drive the point even deeper in the hearts of Democrats, they want to damned near ban our rights to the terms of the constitution.

The government does have a right to pay for and maintain a standing army, but I don't see where it says the government can't have something the people can't have. I'm sorry, I'm not going to agree that Democrats "want to damned near ban our rights to the terms of the constitution". This seems like a "slippery slope" type of argument.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614192#post614192)
Fine and all with that, but has this occurred to you that since so many cranky socialists (Democrats) used the argument that when the second amendment was crafted and made part of the constitution, those people used muskets.

Based on that logic, one can also argue that our military weapons must also not be allowed since the founders had no M-2 Abrahms tanks, machine guns, aircraft carriers or nukes.

So, how can the government claim it has a right that the people do not have? To wit: when the second was enacted, the citizens had the right to any gun the Feds had. Sure, some claim they could not have cannons. But I find nothing in the history record that proves this contention.

To drive the point even deeper in the hearts of Democrats, they want to damned near ban our rights to the terms of the constitution.





The government does have a right to pay for and maintain a standing army, but I don't see where it says the government can't have something the people can't have. I'm sorry, I'm not going to agree that Democrats "want to damned near ban our rights to the terms of the constitution". This seems like a "slippery slope" type of argument.

I was afraid that in such a short post my point would be missed.

The very idea that Government is a thing different than people must be challenged. Abe the rogue president admitted that the idea of this country is a government of we the people, by the people and for the people.

Democrat slugs have claimed over and over that we must not ever get our hands on government grade arms because the founders had muskets.

Well, as the Feds grow in power of arms, we must do the same thing. If Trump can afford an M1-A2 Abrahms tank, he should be sold one.

That dipwad Feinstein believes she should have many more powers than you or I. She does not believe what the rogue Abe Lincoln believed. Even George Washington did not share her beliefs.

This crap that perfectly innocent Americans must be constrained is crazy talk. It violates the very purpose of this particular governrment.

Feinsteins ideas are apparently more the kin of the Mao Government or the Stalin Government.

Lord help us that this country escapes the belief systems of the Democrats. They will put the citizens into slavery.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, I don't recall it from the campaign. I just thought it was regarding Trump.

I have no love for Trump, but would like him more if he gave me some of his wealth!

I would have liked to have seen Obama's records nonetheless. A candidates educational history should be open for inspection, IMO. And even more so when it's someone without much of a background to speak of. His days as an organizer, and his days in college are really all we have to go on since he was a child. We're actually finding out more and more about him AFTER he is in office. For example, the Jeremiah Wright crap - he swears he was paid lots of $$ to stay out of the campaign and any discussion with the press. There's no doubt that Obama had a long history with this man, contrary to what he stated on his campaign, but the subject became taboo after awhile, then we were told we were racist if we continued to press for answers. Character goes a LONG, LONG, LONG way towards who we place in office, so I would rather uncover stones than leave them unturned.

[jimnyc]

Good shot, but at least she would look more sincere.

The argument is what matters - the FACTS are what matters. Emotions and sincerity are nice, but really mean nothing next to the facts and words they speak. I don't vote or make my stances based on emotions. :)

[Voted4Reagan]

I'm not really making a point of plaigirism. It was just transparent politics. She's trying to appeal to all women by disguising her terms in left wing jargon. I thought she was ridiculous.

Not to mention, she's inconsistent. While she's playing the helpless little small framed female victim at the hearing, being conservative she also lobbying against the "violence against women act". She's a fake.

Would you want your mom or sister to have only 3 shots in an 870 express against a Criminal with possibly multiple handguns each with over 10 rounds?

[bingster]

Would you want your mom or sister to have only 3 shots in an 870 express against a Criminal with possibly multiple handguns each with over 10 rounds?

That wasn't my point. It was the lack of relavance and abundance of drama was my problem. I wouldn't mind my older sister having a Glock with the factory clips, but they aren't being considered in the ban.

[Robert A Whit]

That wasn't my point. It was the lack of relavance and abundance of drama was my problem. I wouldn't mind my older sister having a Glock with the factory clips, but they aren't being considered in the ban.

Thank God that my high school offered hands on weapons training.

Major Best was our CO.

I have a calendar created by a former student which has a lot of history of the high school I attended.

Who would love to show up at a high school that looked like it was actually a university?

That my friends was my experience for 4 years.

What added to the beauty was the setting. The original team that built in around 1926 put it right next to an impressive hill. WE had many Redwood trees. Much of the site was level but it had just that right touch of hills. For instance, you had to go up a hill to get to the language classes.

To this day, the city of Hayward uses the former high school boys gym for public events.

OMG. I AM BEWILDERED.

Looking up photos of the old Gym, at least I got data on it. Turns out the creeps tore down that wonderful building.

The boys Gym was larger than many schools are.

OMG. Did Obama's money destroy an important building?

I did not have any idea it was torn down in 2011.

================
The Centennial Hall Convention Center was a former gymnasium and convention center (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Convention_center) located in downtown Hayward (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Downtown_Hayward), in the City Center complex with the former Centennial Tower (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/City_Center_Building). It closed as a convention center on November 1, 2009, and was demolished shortly afterward.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Centennial_Hall_Hayward_California.jpg/220px-Centennial_Hall_Hayward_California.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/File:Centennial_Hall_Hayward_California.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf8/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/File:Centennial_Hall_Hayward_California.jpg)
former location of the center (2011)


[edit (http://www.debatepolicy.com/w/index.php?title=Centennial_Hall_Convention_Center&action=edit&section=1)] HistoryThe city of Hayward opened Centennial Hall as a convention center in honor of the city's 100th birthday. Before that it was the gymnasium for Hayward Union High School (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Hayward_High_School). The hall contained 14,000 square feet (1,300 m2) of exhibit space and a capacity of up to 1,500 for events. It had eight additional rooms totaling 11,448 square feet (1,063.6 m2) and a 1,280-square-foot (119 m2) patio.

[Voted4Reagan]

That wasn't my point. It was the lack of relavance and abundance of drama was my problem. I wouldn't mind my older sister having a Glock with the factory clips, but they aren't being considered in the ban.

in NY they are......nothing over 7 shots...

from CUOMOS LAW


"Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge."

so.....from this we can be assured 2 things

1: criminals wont care about loading full mags because they will not care about the misdemeanor charge....
2: You have just cut the ability of law abiding citizens to fight back by at least 30%. Putting innocent lives at risk because we wont risk a misdemeanor.

Check mate..... you lost this argument sir.... learn your laws....

[bingster]

in NY they are......nothing over 7 shots...

from CUOMOS LAW


"Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge."

so.....from this we can be assured 2 things

1: criminals wont care about loading full mags because they will not care about the misdemeanor charge....
2: You have just cut the ability of law abiding citizens to fight back by at least 30%. Putting innocent lives at risk because we wont risk a misdemeanor.

Check mate..... you lost this argument sir.... learn your laws....

When I said "they" I was referring to Congress and the president. Even so, I've stopped arguing for a ban a week ago. I just am reading no reasonable arguments against background checks.

[bingster]

A much more articulate opponent of the "pro-gun woman"s argument. (this is only the last half, see link for full article)

The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.
In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.
Regulating guns, on the other hand, can reduce that risk. An analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that in states that required a background check for every handgun sale, women were killed by intimate partners at a much lower rate. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, has used this fact to press the case for universal background checks, to make sure that domestic abusers legally prohibited from having guns cannot get them.
As for the children whose safety Ms. Trotter professes to be so concerned about, guns in the home greatly increase the risk of youth suicides. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics has long urged parents to remove guns from their homes.
The idea that guns are essential to home defense and women’s safety is a myth. It should not be allowed to block the new gun controls that the country so obviously needs.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html

[jimnyc]

When I said "they" I was referring to Congress and the president. Even so, I've stopped arguing for a ban a week ago. I just am reading no reasonable arguments against background checks.

Many aren't arguing against background checks, and most wouldn't even mind expanding it to cover all weapon purchases. "Most" argue that it's not necessary to expand the type of check they do. A simple criminal background search will suffice.

[bingster]

Many aren't arguing against background checks, and most wouldn't even mind expanding it to cover all weapon purchases. "Most" argue that it's not necessary to expand the type of check they do. A simple criminal background search will suffice.

You're the first one to write that to me. I thought the NCIS check was the easiest and fastest. I'm sure that's the one they're proposing.

[red states rule]

How the hell could her answer to Whitehouse amount to scolding?

Words matter. Somebody wanted to give a false impression.

I recall that exchange but was confused when somebody called it scolding.

I believe she was much more laid back than the police chief was at times.

Robert she did scold the Dem. He sat up on his perch and lectured her how she did not "need" that tyoe of weapon to protect herself (while he proibablt has armed security protecting himself and his family) and she fought back with facts

She put the arrogant liberal in his place and and he was talking down to her - she talked to him and showed the country what all of us are facing. A gun-grabbing government hell bent on putting most of us at the mercy of criminals