en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1678156 Comments by PilgrimPatriot http://bigjournalism.com/jsexton/2011/01/13/palin-death-threats-are-the-predictable-result-of-poor-editorial-judgments/#IDComment121223986 At first, they act surprised.... then they become patronizing: "Oh! You poor, uninformed, uneducated fools! We understand that you don't realize how much BETTER your lives will be if you allow your government to enslave you! Obviously, we need to do a better job of educating you about the benefits of enslavement! Clearly, you didn't understand us!" Then they become indignant: "What? You don't WANT to be enslaved? After all we're trying to do for you? You ignorant bigot! How dare you deny good, hard working people the right to be enslaved! Fascist!" ...and then, finally, they become violent: "You'll BE enslaved and you'll LIKE it.....or we will KILL you!" These are the stages of left-wing thinking. It's probably why they call it 'Progressivism' - because it is a progressive disease. At the moment, the American Left (call it the anti-American Left, if you like), is mostly at stage three: Indignant. So.....count on it getting pretty interesting, fairly soon. Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:45:49 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jsexton/2011/01/13/palin-death-threats-are-the-predictable-result-of-poor-editorial-judgments/#IDComment121223986 http://bigjournalism.com/jsexton/2011/01/13/palin-death-threats-are-the-predictable-result-of-poor-editorial-judgments/#IDComment121069620 I think one can't JUST blame the liberal media's selective editing; this is symptomatic of a general seething anger and hatred that is constantly boiling under the surface of the entire Progressive/Liberal/Socialist movement. The Left has always been violent; the amount of evidence of this is too massive to deny. Left-wing protests are never peaceful; Left-wing dictatorships always kill huge numbers of their own people; Left-wing politicians, activists and media personalities always use violent imagery in their speeches - we have all seen that from the time Bush was in office and we all saw it intensify during the last Presidential election: Look at the remarks that were made then about Palin and McCain. One only needs to take a look at the history of organized terrorism: Almost every terrorist group that has ever existed has been inspired by leftwing political philosophy.....INCLUDING the Muslim Brotherhood and - by extension - Al Qaeda, Hamas and most other Islamist groups. The Left is predisposed to violence and always will be, because they understand that people are never willingly enslaved. Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:08:07 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jsexton/2011/01/13/palin-death-threats-are-the-predictable-result-of-poor-editorial-judgments/#IDComment121069620 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120995844 So......you're saying that just because you google something and you get a result, that makes it true? Don't get out much, do you? Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:03:17 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120995844 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120995606 Very entertaining! I especially liked "murdered him with his own heart attack." Thanks for the laugh.....and the eerily accurate portrayal of the liberal media machine at work! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:00:41 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120995606 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120995202 They are currently getting the same 'scientists' who fabricated evidence of man-made global warming to come up with 'evidence' that Beck was PERSONALLY responsible for Katrina... and the Spanish Inquisition. Oh, yeah.....he caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs too, apparently. Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:56:15 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120995202 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120994832 Yeah, OK, genius....because the leftists on these forums NEVER call anyone names! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:52:21 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/media-matters-david-brock-beck-responsible-for-three-assassination-attempts/#IDComment120994832 http://tv.breitbart.com/liberal-analyst-say-we-need-to-tone-down-rhetoric-then-calls-obama-murderer-over-drone-attacks/#IDComment120994267 I think it is appalling that Breitbart allowed this to be published on his site. It could only have been out of sheer malice; the idea that the Progressives' heads would explode, trying to decide which way to go on this one... Do they agree with MLH that Obama is a murderer, or do they castigate and ridicule one of their own, the way they would any Conservative who called Obama a murderer? Mr. Breitbart, you are a sick, evil man....but I like your style! LOL! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:46:26 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/liberal-analyst-say-we-need-to-tone-down-rhetoric-then-calls-obama-murderer-over-drone-attacks/#IDComment120994267 http://tv.breitbart.com/liberal-analyst-say-we-need-to-tone-down-rhetoric-then-calls-obama-murderer-over-drone-attacks/#IDComment120993547 I could be wrong, but I understand he's not actually a real anthropologist: His subject is 'social anthropology", which - to me - sounds like code for "Coming up with wacky theories to justify Socialism". Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:38:25 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/liberal-analyst-say-we-need-to-tone-down-rhetoric-then-calls-obama-murderer-over-drone-attacks/#IDComment120993547 http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2011/01/12/lets-talk-about-the-democrat-partys-arrestables/#IDComment120990725 Man, that was so good, I'm wondering if you actually graduated from Columbia to have gotten it down so well! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:08:31 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2011/01/12/lets-talk-about-the-democrat-partys-arrestables/#IDComment120990725 http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2011/01/12/lets-talk-about-the-democrat-partys-arrestables/#IDComment120990493 Well,so long as they're wearing body armor when they come to break my windows, they may just survive! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:06:06 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2011/01/12/lets-talk-about-the-democrat-partys-arrestables/#IDComment120990493 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120797051 Ok...we've had a good exchange here and I appreciate you expressing your thoughts. For my part, I cannot get past two things: The first is that people in this country have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Here, I'm going to invoke the dreaded 'slippery slope' argument: If the federal government is allowed to disregard the 2nd Amendment and outlaw the ownership of firearms, then this is no longer the USA that we know and all other rights are in danger. I'm not saying that, if guns are outlawed, the next step is dragging people off to the gulag - just that the spirit of independence that built this country will be gone forever if the 2nd Amendment goes. The USA may as well rename itself "The United States of Transatlantic Europe". The second thing I can't get past (and this is not speculation, but based on a very large mountain of evidence) is that criminals will always acquire guns, regardless of how many laws we put in place. The fact that someone is on a 'list' somewhere, because he illegally acquired a firearm, does not - in any way - prevent him from using that firearm. Neither the government, nor the police, can protect you or your family from a deranged gunman - if they could, then Tuscon would never have happened....nor Virginia Tech, the DC sniping episode, the Son of Sam, nor any of the many other fatal or near-fatal shootings that have happened. I CAN protect myself and my family, however: I have extensive training in recognizing the threat (and I wish more private citizens could get easy access to such training); I have training in how best to react to it; I have extensive training in the use of firearms.........and I have the RIGHT to carry one. I'll be absolutely honest with you, too, my friend: If this, or any other, administration passes laws that say I no longer have the right to carry a firearm, I shall continue to do so. Not only that, but every time an innocent civilian is gunned down by some crazy, I shall write a letter to the White House, demanding to know why the victim was not allowed to defend themselves. If one CHOOSES not to carry a gun, then fine; that person has chosen to be a victim. If one is not ALLOWED to carry a gun, however, then the government is directly responsible, if the time comes that one is faced with an armed homicidal maniac and is not able to even attempt to defend oneself. That wasn't intended as a rant or a lecture: I am aware that I am not about to change your mind on the issue and I respect that. I merely wanted to express the depth of feeling I have, concerning this issue Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:37:02 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120797051 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120761971 Your post was duplicated and the last one took a while to show up, even after I received an email alert that you had posted it. I think IntenseDebate is having a nervous breakdown! Without making this into a debate about politics, I think your football stadium scenario demonstrates why you are a Liberal and I am a Conservative: You don't believe that people are responsible enough to be afforded the right to carry a gun, whereas I do. As I have pointed out on other threads, it is a known fact that concealed carry permit holders are the MOST law-abiding demographic in this country; meaning, obviously, that people who carry guns are the people least likely to break the law. I am all for higher standards of training for those who wish to carry guns - including intensive lessons on use-of-force laws and the RESPONSIBILITIES of carrying a firearm. Most of the people I associate with professionally carry guns all the time: Often as part of their job and always when NOT working. Many of those people also own high-capacity magazines and assault weapons (or, at least, semi-automatic rifles). Very few of them (outside of a combat environment) has ever drawn a weapon - and they are mostly all private citizens. Whether we live in a society where everyone carries a gun, or we live in one where no-one is legally allowed to carry one, the Tuscon incident is going to reoccur from time to time. The guns laws in effect for the Tuscon shopping mall are irrelevant, since I could list numerous incidents of mass shootings in places where NO-ONE was legally allowed to carry a firearm. We could keep going for days on this one and neither would convince the other. I respect your point of view, but see no evidence that tighter gun-control leads to a reduction in violent crime. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:17:34 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120761971 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120759356 Your premise that we should make it more difficult for people to kill - or inflict mass casualties - is not an unreasonable one. However, it always comes down to the fact that law-breakers pay no heed to gun-control laws. thirty years ago - at a time when people in the UK were allowed to own and carry guns - the only police that carried guns were tactical teams. Today, the British police in the big cities are carrying handguns, machine-guns (or assault rifles) and shotguns, to deal with the INCREASE in, not only the general rate of gun-crime, but also in the use of high-capacity, high-power, high rate-of-fire weapons in the commission of crimes. Now, it's not strictly fair to compare one country to another, because of the differences in demographics and culture, but it does serve to illustrate the point that gun-control laws only effect law-abiding people, whilst criminals will continue to get their hands on whatever firepower they want to, if determined enough. In this country - which is awash with all kinds of firearms - that fact is magnified to an horrific degree. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:58:23 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120759356 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120746555 I would add two other facts: The majority of mass shootings happen at venues that are either - by law - gun-free zones or are most likely to be; such as political rallies or meetings, colleges and schools. The other fact is that the places in this country where one is most likely to be a victim of gun crime are the large inner-cities where, in many cases, people are not allowed to carry guns. Look at the cities that do not generally allow the carrying of guns: New York, Chicago, D.C... Do any of these cities have lower crime-rates than anywhere else? No. D.C. is still close to being the homicide capital of the western world. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:34:28 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120746555 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120745023 OK, this is a civil discussion - which is nice - so let's have it: Firstly, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting: The Founding Fathers were quite clear, on numerous occasions, that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that states and individuals had a means to defend themselves. Secondly, I can tell you for a fact (and you are free to verify this fact with law enforcement officers and/or firearms instructors) that, no, one bullet will NOT do: One bullet RARELY kills and, in many cases, does not even render the 'bad guy' harmless. You raise an excellent point about where we draw the line. I certainly do not believe that grenades or rocket-launchers should be available to the general public. However - as the Founding Fathers made quite clear - one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from the "tyranny of government" - to quote Thomas Jefferson. Since government agencies have, at their disposal, all kinds of sophisticated weaponry, I DO believe that people should be able to purchase firearms up to, and including, FULLY-automatic assault weapons. By the way, the 'assault weapons' that were banned were not TRUE assault weapons, since they were not fully automatic; most of them were really nothing more than hunting rifles that resembled assault rifles. I would not attempt to tell you that you are wrong or stupid for not agreeing with me on this issue: You have your point of view, as I have mine. The whole "where do we draw the line" argument cuts both ways, however: One can pose a valid argument that, if we allow the private ownership of weapons, we need to 'draw the line' to prevent people owning all kinds of highly effective and dangerous weapons. However, if we are going to start banning firearms, we also need to draw the line, otherwise the government will forever come up with ANOTHER reason to ban this or that weapon, until ALL of them are banned. Someone who is proficient with a semi-automatic rifle or 'hunting' rifle can ALSO kill a number of people in a short space of time. I, myself, carry a handgun that does not have a high-capacity magazine, but I carry extra magazines with me and can reload in less than two seconds - so what's the difference, when it really comes down to it? Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:27:25 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120745023 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120729701 + Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:19:48 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120729701 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120729298 So, let me get this straight: You are saying that anyone who owns a glock is a 'menace to society'? A glock is merely another type of handgun: it has no more capability to "kill and maim people - a lot of people - in a short period of time" than many other semi-automatic handguns. So, I'm not seeing your logic here, since your argument leads to the conclusion that ALL semi-automatic handguns should be banned....even though you said "If you want to buy a pistol because you think the police can't protect your family, fine." Seems to me that you are saying you are OK with the 2nd Amendment, so long as no-one is allowed to own a gun! Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:18:23 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120729298 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120727472 It is a FACT that concealed carry permit holders are THE most law-abiding demographic in this nation. Your attempt to somehow equate this tragedy with those who carry concealed weapons has no basis in logic or fact. Whether we live in a society that outlaws guns, or whether we live in a society where everyone carries, these incidents will always occur from time to time. The old saying that "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns" has been proven correct, time and time again. Look at what happened in Tuscon: An armed, concealed carry permit holder arrived on the scene just moments after the shooting: Did he pull out his handgun and start blazing away? No, he immediately saw that there was no call to do so. I absolutely believe that no-one with a history of psychological problems should be allowed to purchase a firearm. The only efficient way to ensure this would be to create a new system of background checking, whereby any diagnosis of mental disorder PLUS any criminal conviction is kept on one record that is checked by the FBI when someone purchases a firearm. Is THAT even full-proof? No; there are people who have committed crimes for which they have never been convicted and there are people with psychological problems who have never been diagnosed or received treatment. What IS certain, however, is that when guns are banned, gun-crime rises. The UK is a classic example; that country has some of the strictest gun-laws in the developed world and shootings are not uncommon (in fact, gun-crime has risen by a staggering amount since gun-ownership was all but completely banned, following the 1996 'Dunblane Massacre'). ....and let's not even START talking about Mexico, that has very strict gun laws! Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:10:52 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/big-journalisms-dana-loesch-combats-calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-tucson-shooting/#IDComment120727472 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/01/11/media-pivots-to-blame-gun-laws-sloppy-reporting-punditry-ensues/#IDComment120721832 Two days ago, I posted the following: "Such talk is going to lead to the Democrats demanding all kinds of new legislation and regulation aimed at two of their favorite targets; free speech and the 2nd Amendment." Oh, the predictable Left! Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:47:46 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/01/11/media-pivots-to-blame-gun-laws-sloppy-reporting-punditry-ensues/#IDComment120721832 http://biggovernment.com/jwurzelbacher/2011/01/11/how-to-use-evil-to-promote-your-agenda/#IDComment120716539 I know that a couple of people responded to my comment, but those responses haven't shown up, for some reason. To those people who did: Yes, you are both right - there is a difference between those who ACTUALLY believe in God and those who SAY they do. I am a former atheist who is now quite sure that there is a God; a 'higher power' or 'supreme being'. I am not a Christian and I do not have the same view of God that Christians have, but some of the kindest and most respectful people I have ever met are TRUE believers. So, yes; merely SAYING that you believe does not really make you a believer and both responses to my post were quite correct. I would merely add - as one response noted - it IS possible to be an atheist is still be a moral person. One is not automatically evil, merely because one does not believe in God. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:25:41 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jwurzelbacher/2011/01/11/how-to-use-evil-to-promote-your-agenda/#IDComment120716539