The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 10, 2019, 01:25 PM   #1
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
Is it worth it to call out all candidates lies?

Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies? It's a genuine question. O'Rourke isn't seen as any kind of a front runner these days so maybe we should just ignore him.

On NPR he was talking about "assault weapons", AK-47's and AR-15's and about the UNIMAGINABLE wounds these weapons cause. He did not mentioning there are a variety of bullets these rifles can fire and that many other rifles fire the SAME bullets and that many, many rifles fire bullets MUCH MORE destructive and powerful.

He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.

So, ignore him or call him out? And by call him out I mean writing letters to the editor, posting comments to news stories about him and posting these lies right here on this forum.

The interview is about 6 and a half minutes long and can be found here:
https://jwp.io/s/BVum84Pq
or here:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/76784...s-want-details
DaleA is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 01:43 PM   #2
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 8,783
More "Push-Back" is coming !!!

Quote:
Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies?
Personally, I don't let these talking-heads poison me. I really don 't worry about them as much as I do, the folks that vote for them. Very few Politicians are well informed, on the subject of the Constitution and firearms. little by little, you will see push-back, so be patient. ……

Be Happy and;
Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 02:05 PM   #3
Targa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Posts: 2,083
Quote:
Is it worth it to call out all candidates lies?
That would be a full time job. As for me, I don’t have the time or energy.

Quote:
He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.
What I am sure of is that they didn’t intend for people to use the 1st amendment to wipe there rear ends with our flag and constitution. They (the Beto types) really are a pathetic group that couldn’t be anymore screwed up if I drew them with a crayon.

Last edited by Targa; October 10, 2019 at 02:16 PM.
Targa is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 02:47 PM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleA
Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies? It's a genuine question. O'Rourke isn't seen as any kind of a front runner these days so maybe we should just ignore him.

On NPR he was talking about "assault weapons", AK-47's and AR-15's and about the UNIMAGINABLE wounds these weapons cause. He did not mentioning there are a variety of bullets these rifles can fire and that many other rifles fire the SAME bullets and that many, many rifles fire bullets MUCH MORE destructive and powerful.

He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.
My personal bias is that liars should be called out whenever possible.

That said, I think some measure of "pick your battles" applies. First, most newspaper editors are dyed-in-the-wool liberals, so letters calling out the liberals' favorite lies probably won't ever be printed. Second, I think we need to be careful not to delve too deeply into the minutiae of technical "gun" stuff that will leave most fence sitters shaking their heads in total confusion. An example of that might be trying (once again) to explain the difference between a military full-auto rifle and a similar-looking commercial semi-auto rifle. Is it worth pointing out that the AR-15s we can buy are NOT the same as the M16s the Army buys? Of course. Just don't get bogged down in details. Remember that the average attention span of readers today in measured in nanoseconds.

Of most important to me is calling out the lies about the Constitution.

Quote:
He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.
It's worth point out that, in fact, they did have those -- and all new -- weapons in mind. Refer to writings of influential men at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, men such as Tench Coxe:
"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
You could then point out that the Founders didn't foresee typewriters and personal computers, but the Supreme Court seems to think that using modern computers and printers to express one's thoughts is a valid activity worthwhile of First Amendment protection. It's obviously unfair and illogical to claim that one amendment protects the use of the most modern technology while another amendment protects only the technology that existing as of 1776.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 03:13 PM   #5
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
All politicians tell lies, commit fraud and so forth. They can even get away with petty crimes. I don’t think calling them out these days will help. Constituents know that their chosen candidate or politician lies, cheats and say whatever they want... most are generally ok with it as long as they follow the agenda.

I grew up, been many years since I was young. None of us believed in propaganda, because we were taught about political rhetoric, yellow journalism and similar concepts and we were taught how to recognize them.
It’s pretty amazing and also mind blowing that so many people actually believe rhetoric, political propaganda and partisan journalism... accepting as fact.

We’ve got much larger problems in addition to proposed gun control, our country is changing, it was designed to change. Who is going to enjoy the new USA and who isn’t remains to be seen.
rickyrick is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 03:36 PM   #6
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleA
Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies? It's a genuine question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
My personal bias is that liars should be called out whenever possible.
I think these matters deserve attention, but I also have a bias against calling these false positions lies.

We've all seen the video of Carolyn McCarthy telling Tucker Carlson that a barrel shroud is the "shoulder thing that goes up". That was false, but probably not a lie. I genuinely doubt that she knew perfectly well what a barrel shroud is, but decided she would deceive. My guess is that she spoke with certainty on a matter about which she was ignorant.

I find minor factual lies (conscious deception) in public life fairly rare. When Camila Harris held a piece paper and asked Brett Kavanaugh if he'd ever had a conversation with someone and warned him to be careful because he is under oath, the implication that she had evidence of such a conversation was a deceit.

Let's assume that Robert Francis O'Rourke believed the falsehood he spoke with conviction. That doesn't get him off the hook. What does this tell us about his other convictions?
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 05:55 PM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Let's assume that Robert Francis O'Rourke believed the falsehood he spoke with conviction. That doesn't get him off the hook. What does this tell us about his other convictions?
But why should I assume that he believed what he said? Especially the part about the Second Amendment not contemplating modern firearms. Believe what you wish; I do not believe for one nanosecond that Mr. O'Rourke is so ignorant of constitutional issues that he isn't aware of at some of the writings by the Founders, and that he is also totally ignorant of the Heller decision.

It's possible that he's that ignorant ... but I don't believe it.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 06:21 PM   #8
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
But why should I assume that he believed what he said? Especially the part about the Second Amendment not contemplating modern firearms.
I ask you to assume it arguendo for the purpose of whether that makes the critique of his comments more or less effective.

RFO spent several sessions as a member of the house, as did Carolyn McCarthy. Remember when a member of the upper house, the Senator from Hawaii, condemned a reference of Jeff Session to Anglo-Saxon legal tradition as racist? That was so achingly ignorant that it was difficult to believe his ignorance was feigned. There may be quite a bit someone in that position doesn't know, or may know that isn't true.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 07:11 PM   #9
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,792
Let him keep talking. He won't be the nominee, but his rhetoric will make it harder for anyone to win that isn't pro-gun.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill
jmr40 is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 08:07 PM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
I'd say the point of calling him out on his untruths, whether due to ignorance or deliberate lying, is not to convince or educate HIM, but to make others who hear him aware that what they are hearing is bull ..dung...

If you can open the eyes of even one voter, tis a worthwhile thing.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 08:41 PM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44_AMP
I'd say the point of calling him out on his untruths, whether due to ignorance or deliberate lying, is not to convince or educate HIM, but to make others who hear him aware that what they are hearing is bull ..dung...

If you can open the eyes of even one voter, tis a worthwhile thing.
absolutely. It's extremely unlikely that we'll ever change the minds, opinions, or positions of zealots such as O'Rourke. The potential benefit to calling them out -- as politely as possible, using facts rather than calling them ugly names -- is to try to win a few hearts and minds among the fence sitters.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 10, 2019, 10:26 PM   #12
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
If it’s a misdemeanor to lie to the cops,
and a felony to lie to the FBI,
then why isn’t it a capital offense for the elected or appointed to lie to the American people?
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old October 11, 2019, 07:24 AM   #13
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
So, ignore him or call him out? And by call him out I mean writing letters to the editor, posting comments to news stories about him and posting these lies right here on this forum.
True of any politician these days, yes? Telling lies. Either side of the isle, at any level of the federal government. What is lacking is coherent ideology, what is common is the desire for notoriety, and getting elected or getting re-elected. Desire for power, control, being the guy who is perceived as 'right'.
Media these days is all about talking heads, ratings..on EITHER side of the political spectrum. Again, not about ideology or 'courage of their convictions'...

So, hear something, get all sweated up and indignant and yell, 'gotta do something'..or ignore the circus, and vote on November 3, 2020.
Quote:
If it’s a misdemeanor to lie to the cops,
and a felony to lie to the FBI,
then why isn’t it a capital offense for the elected or appointed to lie to the American people?
Be careful what you wish for..these days...

Fits here
Quote:
Whether or not you conclude that he believes what he says, a would be officeholder who rests his appeal on blowing right past legal limits on government power is a problem.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”

Last edited by USNRet93; October 11, 2019 at 09:26 AM.
USNRet93 is offline  
Old October 11, 2019, 08:02 AM   #14
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmr40
Let him keep talking. He won't be the nominee, but his rhetoric will make it harder for anyone to win that isn't pro-gun.
That's how I view this as well.

The 2d Am. isn't the only part of the COTUS that RFO seems determined to mangle. He also wants to apply federal income tax differently according to whether he agrees with an organization's stated positions.

Whether or not you conclude that he believes what he says, a would be officeholder who rests his appeal on blowing right past legal limits on government power is a problem.

Casual observers won't know about that problem unless you identify it.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 11, 2019, 09:53 AM   #15
TheGunGeek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 182
Lies and misinformation should ALWAYS be called out. Otherwise the uninformed can take it as gospel, and then the result is people actually believing this junk.
TheGunGeek is offline  
Old October 12, 2019, 10:31 AM   #16
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 8,783
Push back in your way and ..... VOTE

Quote:
Otherwise the uninformed can take it as gospel, and then the result is people actually believing this junk.
I often wonder if these "Liberal" talking-heads, actually believe what they say, think and do. If so, I'm reminded of the phrase;

"Never try to teach a pig, how to sing; It's a waste of your time and annoys the pig"

My push-back is to influence the folks, in my circle and vote on all levels of governments. ……

The first time I was able to vote, I had to get some input from friends as it was somewhat confusing as to how to I should vote.???? I am no longer confused !!

Vote and;
Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old October 13, 2019, 07:46 AM   #17
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGunGeek View Post
Lies and misinformation should ALWAYS be called out. Otherwise the uninformed can take it as gospel, and then the result is people actually believing this junk.
True words, for both aides of the isle...

So post right below..and NO, not making ANY statement of political loyalty but I rankle at absolutes of partisan 'decisions' or observations. Really BAD on both sides at all levels these days..in terms of 'truth telling'...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”

Last edited by USNRet93; October 14, 2019 at 07:06 AM.
USNRet93 is offline  
Old October 13, 2019, 09:11 AM   #18
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
If you are going to call out O'Rourke on the statements you consider to be lies, will you also call out Trump on the incorrect things he says? I am just curious to know if your goal is to ensure truth in politics (a truly noble cause) or if your goals are more politically motivated simply for your preferred party to win, signing off on its lies while calling foul on the lies of the opposition?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old October 13, 2019, 12:07 PM   #19
Don Fischer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2017
Posts: 1,868
Waste of time. People that vote for liberals have already made up their mind. Poor people like those getting government benefits have also. They may be good people but are ignorant! They think the way to survive is the guy wanting to give them more. Seem's there's been less talk about that this time and I see where lot of those people are walking away from the Democraps. Hope that's true! But you calling them out simply bring's their name up front and that is what I think they really want! Ignore them.
Don Fischer is offline  
Old October 13, 2019, 02:46 PM   #20
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 1,117
If you told the truth about the future of entitlement programs and the implications of the national debt you'd never get elected.
Mainah is offline  
Old October 14, 2019, 06:03 AM   #21
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
Focus: One recent anti gun personal locally made an interesting comment The comment went all guns should go. Only police should have guns. You gonna reason with that?

This thinking is shared widely by many anti-gun people. Looks like the main force of the anti-gun drive ends up being aimed at visible firearms owners. You may come to the conclusion that anti-gun rhetoric has more with making war on the Base. Much of the anti-gun is a smoke screen for something else-call it what you may.
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old October 14, 2019, 07:16 AM   #22
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry View Post
Focus: One recent anti gun personal locally made an interesting comment The comment went all guns should go. Only police should have guns. You gonna reason with that?

This thinking is shared widely by many anti-gun people. Looks like the main force of the anti-gun drive ends up being aimed at visible firearms owners. You may come to the conclusion that anti-gun rhetoric has more with making war on the Base. Much of the anti-gun is a smoke screen for something else-call it what you may.
Ya know, I hear this all the time..gun grabbers'..in this country, with the second amendment, which has been upheld in various ways by the SCOTUS, how exactly does the government confiscate 393 MILLION some odd guns? And how do you find out who owns all those guns? The 'plumbing' to do this would be immense, cost $BILLION$, takes decades and would employ thousands of people.
Lots of rhetoric out there by LOTS of people who populate the airwaves but their actual power to do the above is limited or non existent.
Quote:
Focus: One recent anti gun personal locally made an interesting comment The comment went all guns should go. Only police should have guns. You gonna reason with that?
Why 'reason' with that? it's as far left as those who say "any gun at any time by anybody for any reason".
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old October 14, 2019, 09:43 AM   #23
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
Back in the day...

Back in the day...: The was an article in slick paper magazine. The article went on to make two points. Point number one is that very large majority firearm owners are law abiding citizens with a hunting or shooting interest.

The second point confirms what has just been shared in the previous post. That to confiscate all firearms would cost as much as enforcing all the other laws in this country combined.

There was also those who have a real interest in firearms but did not hunt or shoot. This last point is my addition. I personally handload and participate in shooting matches. I do not remember being involved in a mass shooting of any sort.

From one individual anti-gunner was that neighbors would turn gun owner in. One of the other was to listen for shooting and call the authorities. Yet another wanted to go after cartridges. This is individual stuff but may reflect more widely held beliefs.

My question is what would happen after all this confiscation was over with this huge police force?

Addendum: What would happen as these firearms were being confiscated?
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems

Last edited by J.G. Terry; October 14, 2019 at 09:53 AM.
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old October 14, 2019, 10:11 AM   #24
scottycoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2005
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 830
the state of the media has now sunk to the point that you have the liberal news and facts and the concervative news and facts and the truth is somewhere in between.

The "do whats right" part of me whispers that lies should be called out, but whos going to listen lol.
__________________
"i got the most powerful gun in the world........an .88 magnum. It shoots thru schools......"
scottycoyote is offline  
Old October 14, 2019, 10:29 AM   #25
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 405
The difficulty in finding and confiscating firearms does not in any way preclude the government from making them illegal. Anyone who was caught in possession of a banned firearm would be prosecuted. Not any different than the ban on bump stocks or illegal drugs, where there is no large scale search and confiscation process.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition
LeverGunFan is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09421 seconds with 8 queries