When the hypocrites come marching in- starring rosie O'donnell!

Great Debates
21

Honesty…

Here’s what your lines of logic seems to be…

“Making guns illegal = nobody has a gun.”

Not true. Making guns illegal takes guns out of the hands of those willing to obey the law. Somebody willing to commit a crime with a gun can get a gun from numerous sources, AND won’t give a hoot if there’s another law against having a gun tacked on to his armed robbery or murder charge. Basically, you empower criminals and weaken the law-abiding citizen.

There are only two defenses if someone’s coming after you with a gun: A bullet-proof vest or another gun. Since it’s a lot more irrational to expect people to go out and wear a kevlar flak jacket 24/7, the only sane choice is to allow people to have a gun.

The guns themselves have nothing to do with the idea of self-defense… it’s the law of probabilities that fulfils that. If a criminal knows that a lot of people are likely to have guns (in their homes or on their person), that criminal is far less likely to start anything with a gun himself for fear of people shooting back. If a criminal knows that all those little people running around are defenseless, he’ll start shooting wildly.

Not the phrase “likely to have”… if guns are illegal, few people would be “likely to have” a gun, and therefore, they’re easy pickings for some nut who just lost ten million on the stock market.

NOW…

With Rosie… my comments about PR people weren’t directed primarily at her… I was referring to celebs who put their name behind a cause just for the publicity.

In Rosie’s case, I think she often states her opinions without looking at all the facts. Maybe she SHOULD get some PR people, who are paid to make sure that she doesn’t say something that she’ll regret later. While I certainly don’t question her right to defend herself and her family, I can’t help but think she got herself into this situation but shooting (no pun intended) her mouth off. Perhaps this experience will teach her and others that guns shouldn’t be abolished.

My apologies for the sermon, but lots of points were brought up throughout the thread that weren’t addressed.

22

Like I should care? Her “artistic ventures” matter not at all to me, just as Charlton Heston’s “artistic ventures” mean nothing to me. Even if I enjoy whatever an artist does, it doesn’t mean I can’t live without it. And all of that is secondary to the blatant mule-kick-between-the-eyes hypocrisy of this mouthy cow. This is limousine liberalism at its worst! And Rosie and her legion of gun-control zombies don’t even recognize it.

I didn’t have a whole lot of sympathy for the ban-the-guns crowd before. I have absolutely none for them now. Their credibility is blown, as far as I’m concerned.

23

I’m not talking about crimes, I’m talking about accidents, like a nine year old who shoots their best friend showing off Dad/Mom’s gun. Or a toddler who shoots themselves, thinking it’s a “toy”. Or that father who shot his own daughter, thinking she was an intruder.

24

Ok, first of all, Rosie is completely misguided b****. Second, the arguments most people have for gun control are completely out of wack. I was involved in a debate about this in a speech class (concerning mostly the use of guns as home defense) and the best argument pro gun control people could come up with was:

“You can defend your house with an alarm”.

Ok…well, what do you do if they ignore the alarm?

“Oh…you can use a kitchen knife to scare them away”.

Well, what if they have a gun?

“Well, if guns were illegal, they wouldn’t have a gun”.

Wrong! How illegal are guns in Mexico? Not very. It’s not too difficult of a task for someone to illegally acquire a gun, if they have the desire to so.

Anyways, that’s my rant. Rosie is stupid, gun control is supported by mislead morons determined to take away our rights, and I’m gonna go now.

25

I think we’re missing something here. a google search on " bathtub accidents" resulted in ** 4,090 ** results!

BAN THE BATHTUB!

26

Oooh! Oooh! Let me take a stab at Rosie’s thinking.

  • Guns are bad. All of my Hollywood friends say the same thing. No one should have one, ever, for any reason.

Huh? Target-shooting for fun?! Hunting? Who hunts? I’ve never seen a hunter in L.A. or Beverly Hills, so it must be a pretty damn irrelevant thing to do.

They can go down to the grocery store and get their meat between plastic wrap and styrofoam, like they’re supposed to. If they want to do something with their kids or grandkids, these strange “hunter-people” you keep referring to can play a video game - or watch my show!

  • I’m worried about some nut hurting my kid. I need to protect the kid. I’m going to hire a bodyguard to make sure … oh, shit. The bodyguard’s gonna need a gun. Oh wow. This makes me an outrageously flaming hypocrite. Maybe no one will notice.

But there’s a difference here! I’m not going to handle a gun. And this gun’s use in protecting my family – well, it’s really needed in our case. Everybody else can’t be trusted with this kind of decision.

http://www.nra.org

All gun-grabbers, visit the web site. Read some of the stuff in there. The agenda-driven left and their lackeys in the major media have done a pretty effective hatchet job painting them all as kooks. Read some of what they have to say, and decide for yourself. I went there expecting to read some pretty extreme propaganda, and I was surprised.

The bottom line for most people is, they don’t want guns in the hands of criminals, or anyone else who will or might use that gun irresponsbily. Guess what? Neither do people who support gun rights! Honest!

Enforcement. Enforcement, enforcement, enforcment. We don’t need more laws. We need to prosecute each and every criminal who uses guns irresponsibly to the fullest extent of the law. It ain’t happenin’ right now, folks.

As I’ve said before on other threads of this ilk, I propose one new additional gun law. Currently, in my state, use of a firearm during the commission of a felony adds something like four years to a prison sentence. I say, make it 50 years. Why not?

That might not stop the gun crime that that particular individual perpetrated, but he won’t be committing any more of 'em.

27

Yes, she is. Oxford Illustrated Dict : “hypocrisy”…1. the assumption of moral standards to which ones own behavior does not conform… “winner, Winna, WINNA!!!” :smiley:

28

Here ya go, Lotus; here’s a paragraph from a “letter to the editor” I wrote a while back concerning accidental firearm deaths:

In case you don’t look up the numbers, the NSC’s stats say that 110 children under age 14 were unintentionally fatally injured by firearms in 1998. Far cry from the “dozen a day” or whatever inflated figure it is that HCI would like the public to believe, eh?

29

Rosie is a talk show host. She’s got a remarkable tallent in memorizing show tune lyrics. She’s a pretty good actress. She sounds like a fairly involved parent. That’s it folks… that’s all there is! She is not a scientist splitting atoms. She is not a sociologist. She is not a career politician. She is not an authority figure on anything and thus should not be expected to exist and reason on a higher plane. She is simply a frightened mother who’s kid has been threatened by some lunatic who either does or does not have a gun. Simple as that. When that kind of reality hits you in the face, whatever convictions you have about guns, vaccines or speed limits go out the window. If my family was threatened in that way, I would certainly use every means at my disposal to protect them - including purchasing a gun and a body guard to go with it. Would I feel good about it? No. Would I be proud of myself for doing it? No. Would ignoring serious threats to my family be an acceptable alternative? Certainly not!

And what’s with people saying that she has lost all credibility with them with regards to her gun control platform? How come nobody said that the pro gun lobby is losing all credibility since some of these obvious gun enthusiasts are annonimously threatening children (famous or otherwise)? Why have I not seen a single post from a pro-gun person condemning the threats and insisting that all gun owners undergo mandatory background checks in order to help weed out the wackos amongst them? Wouldn’t that go a long way in quelling the major objections to private gun ownership in America? Why aren’t the NRA PR people jumping all over this opportunity as a show of good faith?

On the topic of personal protection; all you Rambo types who think a gun at home is the ideal answer to this type of threat are quite patently wrong and somewhat delusional. A gun is good when the guy breaking into your house is doing so out of despiration or error in judgement. Even then, 9 out of 10 of each and every one of you will be quaking in your slippers and robe at the sight of an intruder. You’ll be lucky not to shoot your own foot off regardless of the hours of target practice you’ve had or copies of Soldier of Fortune you’ve read. Especially if the intruder has a gun as well. Chances are, the guy breaking in is far more prepared to use his gun than you are to use yours. Everybody thinks they are going to react like Bruce Willis in Die Hard or Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon given a hostile situation. Face it - odds are you won’t. Even seasoned cops have trouble hitting a target 10 yards away when that target is shooting back at them. And I don’t care if your pappee learned you to shoot guns every since you were a young’en. Grow up.

Finally, if someone is after you or your spouse or your kids, don’t you think it’s more likely that they will attempt to harm you or them in a place you or they are most vulnerable? These people who want to harm you may be maniacs but they are not necessarily stupid. They want to enjoy their victory and live to tell about it. They are not going to come waltzing up to your front door with a business card in hand and a mother-may-I attitude. So any comfy cozy feeling you get from your gun under your pillow at night is just that - a false sense of security. Unless you are prepared to alter you lifestyle and protect yourself and your loved ones 24/7, chances are you will not be there at the critical moment and all your guns and ammo will be cold comfort to you after the fact. Think about that.

On the other hand, there are plenty of civilized, first world countries in the world that have very strict laws against citizens posessing guns and they seem to do very well statistically when it comes to shooting deaths (accidental or in commissions of a crime). That does not mean there is no crime in those places. That does not mean that some of those crimes could not be avoided had the victim owned a gun and successfully used it to defend him/her self. It simply means that in a country where guns are illegal to all residents except law enforcement agents and the military, far less armed crimes are commited resulting in death(s). You can quote any statistic you like but we all know very well how a statistic can be twisted to show any damn thing you like. A statistic is usually a foregone conclusion in the hands of any lobby group - the NRA for one.

As for banning bathtubs in lieu of 4,000+ accidental deaths - why does there always have to be that kind silly extreme used in an attempt to counter a perfectly valid debate about guns. Was the bathtub loaded and discharged innocently by a two year old at his sibling? Did the tub go off while being improperly cleaned? Was the tub dropped and discharged automatically because the safety was not on? Stop trying to obfuscate the issue by raising irrelevant statistics.

30

Getting back to the point of the OP (I think)… Rosie is only hypocritical if she doesn’t stand up and say, “You know, I was wrong when I made all those statements about how no one should have guns. I know now that in some instances it is necessary and right to own a firearm. My apologies to Tom Selleck and all of the other hard-working intelligent people I credited with having the collective IQ of a stalk of celery.”

If she were to say that, I’d have no problems. I’ve eaten crow before, more than once, and it won’t kill you.

She also made another reference that I’m surprised no one’s picked up on. I’ll have to dig for the quote, but it was something along the lines of: “people in Greenwich have too much money.” This from a woman who has a private daycare built into her place of business so her kids can be near her. Yeah, they’ve got too much money, but you’re just right.

31

QuickSilver, It’s all about peace of mind. If some maniac broke into your home, was carrying a quite illegal fully-auto handgun, and obviously wanted more than fine china, would you or would you not want the ability to protect yourself and your family? Accidents are deplorable simply because they can always be prevented. Training is the key. If you have been trained in the proper use of a gun from a young age, you know what to do. You will not make mistakes. Just like in the Army, if the training has been drilled into you enough you do not forget it. That’s why middle-aged people who’ve been driving for 25-30 years have so few accidents. They’ve been driving so long they know how to handle themselves. Young kids can be taught not to mess with the family’s guns. They can also be taught to use them in a safe manner. I grew up in a gun-owning house. In the Midwest, nearly every male owns at least two guns (a rifle or shotgun and a handgun). Most women own a few as well. They use them for hunting, target shooting, and, in the rare occasion it comes down to it, defense. People who have been shooting BB guns since age 6, who got their first .22 at age 9-10, and who got their first ‘real gun’ (.30-06 or similar deer hunting weapon) around 14-15 know how to handle guns. I think that gun safety courses should be as required as math or English in every school beginning in first grade (basic gun safety, leave them alone unless a trusted adult is around, etc) and on up (target practice, handling and care, possible extension into more hunting-related courses [Owning a gun just to target-shoot is a very valid reason to own a gun. PETA members, while I don’t agree with them, will have no reason to be offended, though they doubtless will be.], etc.) into high school.

32

Let’s not forget not just the accidental deaths from firearms, but the unintended, such as children caught in crossfire, etc.

I agree with QuickSilver 100%.

I would also like to add that bathtubs, cars, etc. have a harmless purpose that they fulfill very well when used properly. Guns serve no other purpose than to slaughter a living thing. They are not tools, toys or hobbies, they are weapons, used to maim the body of a living creature to the extent that it cannot function.

33

Quicksilver: Yes, and we can add Switzerland to the list of 1st world counties with low crime & strict gun control. The law is VERY strict: Every able-bodied male citizen MUST keep a fully automatic assault rifle in their home or business.

Sweet: if guns only serve to kill, they are doing a very poor job of it. Less that 1/10 of 1% of guns have been used to kill a human or commit a crime. Maybe 10% are used for hunting. Most are kept for protection, or collections, or just for fun shooting targets. Really, it IS fun. You should try it. Swords are also “meant only to kill humans”, but there are few laws restricting their possession. You would not think a collector odd for collecting swords, right. :smiley:

34

Reading all this gun control debate stuff reminds me of the Weird Al song “Trigger Happy”, with such great lines as:

*Come on and grab your ammo, what have you got to lose?
*We’ll get all liquored up and shoot at anything that moves!

*Got a brand new semi-automatic weapon with a laser sight!
*Oh, I’m praying somebody tries to break in here tonight!

It’s required listening for people on both sides of the gun control debate! Buy it today!

35

And, by your statement of outrage there, Sweet_Lotus, I can safely assume that all you eat are nuts, seeds, berries and fruits, right? And, of course, it goes without saying that you only eat those after they naturally fall off of the innocent living thing that provides them, correct? Otherwise, you’d be causing that living thing pain.

If the above-mentioned statement isn’t true about your eating habits, you’re apparently trying to give Rosie O’Donnell a run for her money on hypocrisy.

Or is a hamburger OK, as long as you can delude yourself that it’s being harvested from the ‘hamburger tree?’ Is it all in the method of the slaughter, then?

And if you do, indeed, only eat fruit and nuts, do you think every other person out there should subscribe to your eating habits?

Where I live, guns are a hobby, and they are a tool. You failing to accept that doesn’t make it any less so.

36

Quicksilver, I have to ask… HAVE YOU EVER USED A GUN?

Based on your post, I’d have to conclude that you haven’t, since it seems that you know absolutely nothing about firearms other than “they have a barrel” and “they can kill somehow”.

Rambo types? Sounds like standard anti-gun propaganda to me. As I’ve said in other threads… the only defense against a gun is a bullet-proof vest or another gun. And a bullet-proof vest isn’t very practical.

I have no idea how you come to that reasoning. A criminal chooses a house to break into because he/she believes that said house would be an easy target. If the inhabitants of said house have a means to defend themselves (i.e.- A GUN), then it’s not an easy target anymore, is it?

You think the only defense a gun provides is being able to kill an intruder? Then YOU’ve been watching too many movies, my friend. If you’re breaking into a house, and you notice that someone living there has a gun, you’re not going to stay and shoot it out with him/her. You’re going to run INSTANTLY.

In my mind, you just countered your own debate. Yes, these “maniacs” DO want to live to tell about their escapades. Which is why they’d LEAVE the second they discover someone in the house has a gun.

Chances are? I’ve never seen any statistic to back that up. Every statistic I’ve seen about home-invasions seems to say that they normally take place at night. Unless you’re a night-owl, you’ll be there, comfy and cozy in your bed… and then you hear a window smash in, you jump up, reach under your bed, and pull out your trusty baretta. The friendly neighborhood maniac intent on taking your china and raping your wife rushes up the stairs, just in time to see you poking a gun out the bedroom door. Unless he’s pretty stupid, he’ll be gone in the next five seconds.

What other defense can you offer in that situation? “I know karate!”? A broom? A plunger? Some harsh words?

NOW… With regards to Rosie…

Then she shouldn’t get involved in Gun Control Politics. Seeing as how she has, this just makes her doubly hypocritical.

Take your own advice.

37

First off, what kind of piece of shit shoddy gun are you using? You know those moving pictures with the noises and stuff? Those are called MOVIES and TV. They are NOT real. A gun will not discharge from your dropping it. You can beat a gun with a hammer and it will not fire. You must somehow activate the firing pin.

Second, having the safety on isn’t going to matter, even if this could happen. If you dropped a gun and it went off, it’s not because the trigger was yanked back when it hit… it’s because the firing pin was jostled and struck the bullet. Having the safety on usually just locks the trigger in place.

Third, have you ever even SEEN a gun? Sheez!

–Tim

38

Rosie O’Donnell is a gun control proponent in a nation with millions of armed citizens, many of them nutjobs and criminals. She has received death threats against her daughter. Obviously, the only rational position is that she should be prepared to sacrifice her daughter’s life to maintain her philosophical consistency.

39

Singledad (and others), her reasons for hiring a gun-toting bodyguard are irrelevant.

She said (in essence) that guns are bad and civs shouldn’t have them.

Then she has a civ with a gun acting as bodyguard.

She still holds that guns are bad and civs shouldn’t have them (seeing as how she hasn’t retracted her statements… or has she?)

NOBODY’s disputing her right to protect herself or her family. We’re disputing her credibility, which is practically nonexistent now in light of these events.

40

**

**

Please back up this spurious bullshit, or admit you are a liar.

Thank you.