ABC hires ex Handgun Control Inc employee to report on gun issue

[briansmech]

........

this guy dated Monica Lewinski.....

he wrote a book on Jesse Ventura...

and spent such a short time in iraq it doesnt even fit on his timeline, but he likes to throw it into every conversation he has, where he found it too dangerous, and thus, put in for a change of jobs to avoid demonstrating his cowardice...

and this makes him an expert consultant on the gun issue... how?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Echo_Four]

I do not have a problem with them hiring an anti to do their commentating. In fact, I appreciate it. It helps us know what their newest arguments are and learn to counter them. I worry when the only people talking are the lobbyists and only behind closed doors with lawmakers.

Sure, it would be nice if they would hire someone from our side. I'd suggest me, since I'm not opposed to cashing a check with their name on it.

[peacefuljeffrey]

To any question posed for debate, there are indeed two sides to be considered for the question.

Sure, but as goawayfarm is saying, any other "side" is pretty much composed of nonsense. That's what debates between pro-gunners, who arm themselves with facts, and anti-gunners, who arm themselves with hysteria and claims, always show!

Anyone can come up with some foolish position with no rational basis underlying it and say he has a "side" in the debate. Having a "side" and having a "legitimate side" are often two very different things.

[peacefuljeffrey]

Among other things, flat refusal to have a debate causes things to get mired and go in circles, instead focusing on irrational feelings and fears, not facts and reality.

There is one principal factor that is causing the gun-control debate to go in circles, and it most certainly is NOT any refusal to have a debate, on the part of pro-gunners.

That one factor is the FLAT-OUT REFUSAL TO HAVE AN HONEST DEBATE, ON THE PART OF ANTI-GUNNERS.

It's that simple. They can look at the wording of the 2nd Amendment and claim to see a requirement that anyone who wants to have guns must serve in the National Guard. They claim that the amendment protects the power of the state to arm against the Fedgov.

They pretend that people are safer when they have nothing with which to fight back against aggressors, than when they have guns with which they can fight. They claim that a cellular phone with 911 on the other end of the line is all that is needed to keep people safe from criminal predators.

They will not dignify the correctness of what the Pro-Gun side has to say, no matter how objectively rational it is.

WE are not the ones causing the debate to run in circles. How many times have you personally argued with an anti-gunner and found them maddeningly obtuse, and unwilling to grant that certain things are true and factual and not to be argued?

We can lay the blame for the go-nowhereness of the gun debate squarely at the feet of the antis.