Just one thing: no matter how nice they are, don't eat or drink anything that they offer. I'd hate to visit here on Thursday and find this blog has been renamed "Let's Be Reasonable Here".
Perhaps I can provide you with an additional stripper clip:
Since each Virginia Tech survivor or family of fatalities received $100,000, does this not establish a legal precedent for lawyers to use as a guide to property owner liability for property owners who restrict concealed weapons by individuals on their property? If it does, it would seem to either provide an incentive for property owners to allow concealed weapons on their property or give rise to an additional provision, translated to additional cost, in their property owner liability insurance. For property owners to impose such restrictions would require this additional insurance to be purchased by the property owner to avoid risking the loss of their business or property for maintaining an unsafe environment. In light of the State of Virginia’s negotiation of $11 million liability protection for Virginia Tech University this would seem to be the only two legal paths for property owners to take.
Thank Heaven Florida schools and other "secure locations" are still "gun-free".
Virginia Tech was yet another prophesy that the next big terror attack will be on schools, but the NRA is still pissing around with wal-marts.
LaPierre still officially supports "gun-free" school zones, as he long has. NRA refused to even talk about the issue after Virginia Tech. Blew the opportunity to fix it in Virginia colleges. Instead, they got together again with Sarah Brady & her ilk to push more police state background check placebos. So the V-Tech people died for nothing, and they will be a drop in the bucked compared to the "Perfect Day".
Forwarned is disarmed. How many thousands of kids will have to die on "The Perfect Day" before LaPierre stops supporting "gun-free" school zones?
The notion that being in Afghanistan and Iraq will prevent something like "The Perfect Day" even though our borders still relentlessly subverted and our immigration laws are a joke, gambles American lives on wishful thinking.
It's ironic the Chamber of Commerce is the main opponent of the Florida carry extension; myopic business whores are behind a lot of problems. The "U.S." Chamber of Commerce wants open borders. Even after 9/11, they didn't want to be inconvenienced by any restrictions, tightening, or enforcement. So their water boy politicos encourage the wishful thinking that "fighting the enemy over there" is enough, provided it is combined with police state legislation to surveil, track, monitor, and control ALL American residents ... "REAL ID", Patriot, etc. - as if that makes unlimited immigration safe. It facilitates the next attack by luring Americans into false sense of security. Took less than 20 quasi-documented Islamic immigrants to kill 3000 people on 9/11. The notion that with over a billion Muslims worldwide, the fundamentalists will send every last one of their guys to die in Iraq, like mindless bulls charging a red flag, and not save a few hundred to visa in or saunter in over our border for the "perfect day", or activate a few hundred of the sleepers they already have here, is dangerous wishful thinking. But a lot of people are incapable of admitting it. Otherwise someone would've moved to impeach Bush for what is nothing less than treasonous subversion of the very core of ANY real war, particularly a "war on terror": Full enforcement and tightening of borders and immigration laws.
Thanks to the suicidal PC open border policies of the US gov, there are already estimated to be the equivalent of 15 divisions of terror sympathizers in the USA. Over 25% of the million Muslims who live here openly admit to sympathizing with terrorists when polled.
Our guys are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Bush is still ensuring that the enemy within remain here, and pour in through the front and back doors in unlimited numbers.
And NRA still supports "gun-free" school slaughter zones to make the U.S. safe for the terrorists Bush let come in and stay.
The Pastor of the Blackburg church may be on our side as he is pastor to the police department, but that's no sure thing. The rest look like a who's who of the worst gun grabbers out there.
And David? Count on the Gray Bitch, er...*ahem* Lady to twist what you say against you.
I can think of plenty of others on our side I'd like to see get in on this who bring in particular areas of expertise (Lott, Cramer, Kopel, Hardy, etc.), but don't control the invite list--perhaps they have been invited but not yet had a chance to respond.
In re twisting words, we're doing our arguments via email, so I'm going in thinking positive that what I write is what will appear.
In terms of the one chance, I'll do my best to present things to the best of my ability--I doubt I'll come across an argument I haven't addressed before. I intend to enjoy this and not worry overmuch. When you start stressing on things is when you trip up.
These are just guys. This will be fun.
You'll notice a difference in tone between my published articles and what I feel free to say here in relaxed company--even though the core convictions don't change. I'm aware of the importance of audience-appropriate composure and will not be overly wild-eyed.
And this won't be the first time I've had to address multiple assailants. At least this time I won't bleed.
As I understand it, Stephen, it will be happening on the NYT blog and be continuously updated throughout the day. The participants will provide their inputs via "send to all" emails so they can respond to what they wish to address. I'll provide a link tomorrow when I have it.
An online panel sounds like it might actually work if is isn't moderated to death, but don't expect the hard copy of the paper to actually get the story right, or even manage to minimize, much less conceal, its venomous bias against gunowners.
My favorite gun dealer was once approached by a reporterette who desired to interview him for what she claimed was ostensibly a "business" article. After an hour of friendly conversation about retailing and gunsmithing, she left. He was absolutely astonished the next week when the article came out as a virulent anti-gun polemic that made him sound like a malevolent spider enmeshing innocent Americans in the purulent, diseased "gun culture."
I never talk to those people, even when they show up at the range, having been burned before, myself, but I understand your desire to reach the fence-sitters. I just don't know if this will be a fair communication deal, or if you're being invited to play the patsie in a game of Snipe Hunt.
Alright! Go David! Might be an opportunity to be heard by some fence sitters. Always a good thing. Good luck. Smokehouse
ReplyDeleteTerriffic!
ReplyDeleteJust one thing: no matter how nice they are, don't eat or drink anything that they offer. I'd hate to visit here on Thursday and find this blog has been renamed "Let's Be Reasonable Here".
:)
Outstanding!
ReplyDeletePerhaps I can provide you with an additional stripper clip:
Since each Virginia Tech survivor or family of fatalities received $100,000, does this not establish a legal precedent for lawyers to use as a guide to property owner liability for property owners who restrict concealed weapons by individuals on their property? If it does, it would seem to either provide an incentive for property owners to allow concealed weapons on their property or give rise to an additional provision, translated to additional cost, in their property owner liability insurance. For property owners to impose such restrictions would require this additional insurance to be purchased by the property owner to avoid risking the loss of their business or property for maintaining an unsafe environment. In light of the State of Virginia’s negotiation of $11 million liability protection for Virginia Tech University this would seem to be the only two legal paths for property owners to take.
Good luck and give 'em hell.
Chris
Here is who has signed on so far:
ReplyDeleteRichard J. Bonnie is the director of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia.
Richard L. Canas is the director of the State Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.
David Codrea is a blogger and columnist for Guns Magazine.
The Rev. Alexander W. Evans is pastor of the Blacksburg (Va.) Presbyterian Church and also serves as pastor to the Blacksburg Police Department.
Josh Horwitz is the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Ada Meloy is the director of legal and regulatory affairs at the American Council on Education.
Looks like a situation rich in target opportunities, does it not?
Thank Heaven Florida schools and other "secure locations" are still "gun-free".
ReplyDeleteVirginia Tech was yet another prophesy that the next big terror attack will be on schools, but the NRA is still pissing around with wal-marts.
LaPierre still officially supports "gun-free" school zones, as he long has. NRA refused to even talk about the issue after Virginia Tech. Blew the opportunity to fix it in Virginia colleges. Instead, they got together again with Sarah Brady & her ilk to push more police state background check placebos. So the V-Tech people died for nothing, and they will be a drop in the bucked compared to the "Perfect Day".
http://tinyurl.com/3dt8jm
http://tinyurl.com/376jrx
http://tinyurl.com/39689r
http://tinyurl.com/3c9cce
http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml
Forwarned is disarmed. How many thousands of kids will have to die on "The Perfect Day" before LaPierre stops supporting "gun-free" school zones?
The notion that being in Afghanistan and Iraq will prevent something like "The Perfect Day" even though our borders still relentlessly subverted and our immigration laws are a joke, gambles American lives on wishful thinking.
It's ironic the Chamber of Commerce is the main opponent of the Florida carry extension; myopic business whores are behind a lot of problems. The "U.S." Chamber of Commerce wants open borders. Even after 9/11, they didn't want to be inconvenienced by any restrictions, tightening, or enforcement. So their water boy politicos encourage the wishful thinking that "fighting the enemy over there" is enough, provided it is combined with police state legislation to surveil, track, monitor, and control ALL American residents ... "REAL ID", Patriot, etc. - as if that makes unlimited immigration safe. It facilitates the next attack by luring Americans into false sense of security. Took less than 20 quasi-documented Islamic immigrants to kill 3000 people on 9/11. The notion that with over a billion Muslims worldwide, the fundamentalists will send every last one of their guys to die in Iraq, like mindless bulls charging a red flag, and not save a few hundred to visa in or saunter in over our border for the "perfect day", or activate a few hundred of the sleepers they already have here, is dangerous wishful thinking. But a lot of people are incapable of admitting it. Otherwise someone would've moved to impeach Bush for what is nothing less than treasonous subversion of the very core of ANY real war, particularly a "war on terror": Full enforcement and tightening of borders and immigration laws.
Thanks to the suicidal PC open border policies of the US gov, there are already estimated to be the equivalent of 15 divisions of terror sympathizers in the USA. Over 25% of the million Muslims who live here openly admit to sympathizing with terrorists when polled.
Our guys are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Bush is still ensuring that the enemy within remain here, and pour in through the front and back doors in unlimited numbers.
And NRA still supports "gun-free" school slaughter zones to make the U.S. safe for the terrorists Bush let come in and stay.
RH
Somehow, I don't see you getting any help from the rest of the panel.
ReplyDeleteYep! Looks like our man David is the lonely/only guy on our side at this talk-fest. I know you'll do us proud if they let you participate.
ReplyDeleteAfter you get down thrashing the NYT and company, let the following quote enter their minds if they consider having you on again in the future.
ReplyDelete"You don't learn anything new the second time you're kicked by a mule."
This is your one shot, make it count.
The Pastor of the Blackburg church may be on our side as he is pastor to the police department, but that's no sure thing. The rest look like a who's who of the worst gun grabbers out there.
ReplyDeleteAnd David? Count on the Gray Bitch, er...*ahem* Lady to twist what you say against you.
I can think of plenty of others on our side I'd like to see get in on this who bring in particular areas of expertise (Lott, Cramer, Kopel, Hardy, etc.), but don't control the invite list--perhaps they have been invited but not yet had a chance to respond.
ReplyDeleteIn re twisting words, we're doing our arguments via email, so I'm going in thinking positive that what I write is what will appear.
In terms of the one chance, I'll do my best to present things to the best of my ability--I doubt I'll come across an argument I haven't addressed before. I intend to enjoy this and not worry overmuch. When you start stressing on things is when you trip up.
These are just guys. This will be fun.
You'll notice a difference in tone between my published articles and what I feel free to say here in relaxed company--even though the core convictions don't change. I'm aware of the importance of audience-appropriate composure and will not be overly wild-eyed.
And this won't be the first time I've had to address multiple assailants. At least this time I won't bleed.
Very cool.
ReplyDeleteThanks David.
C.H.
I'm sure there will be a transcript somewhere?
ReplyDeleteGood luck and we are proud of you.
As I understand it, Stephen, it will be happening on the NYT blog and be continuously updated throughout the day. The participants will provide their inputs via "send to all" emails so they can respond to what they wish to address. I'll provide a link tomorrow when I have it.
ReplyDeleteAn online panel sounds like it might actually work if is isn't moderated to death, but don't expect the hard copy of the paper to actually get the story right, or even manage to minimize, much less conceal, its venomous bias against gunowners.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite gun dealer was once approached by a reporterette who desired to interview him for what she claimed was ostensibly a "business" article. After an hour of friendly conversation about retailing and gunsmithing, she left. He was absolutely astonished the next week when the article came out as a virulent anti-gun polemic that made him sound like a malevolent spider enmeshing innocent Americans in the purulent, diseased "gun culture."
I never talk to those people, even when they show up at the range, having been burned before, myself, but I understand your desire to reach the fence-sitters. I just don't know if this will be a fair communication deal, or if you're being invited to play the patsie in a game of Snipe Hunt.
Well good on them for their choice of contacts.
ReplyDeleteThere may be intelligent life on Earth (in the future) after all!