Rep. Franks (AZ) on MSNBC re:magazine issue
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Rep. Franks (AZ) on MSNBC re:magazine issue

  1. Rep. Franks (AZ) on MSNBC re:magazine issue

    Been lurking here for a while...I'm new to the gun world (I don't know why I waited so long). In any case, getting my CC permit next month and this website has been a wealth of knowledge for me...so thank you.

    Anyway...ran across this video clip today...watching this MSNBC idiot makes me so mad I want to spit. A real ass......Kudos to the congressman...he stood his ground and represented the gun owners well, I think.

    Lawrence O’Donnell Gets in Angry Debate With GOP Rep. Over Gun Control | The Blaze

  2.   
  3. #2
    So the news guy gets mad since he can't corner the Representative and starts yelling and interrupting the guest he invited to interview. UNBELIEVABLE!

    However; I did like the representatives analogy about the capacity of the magazine is to a gunman what the capacity of the fuel tank means to the drunk driver. And how when the news dude got mad and asked his very same question for the 3rd time the Rep. offered that the mentally ill killer could have brought a bomb instead.
    An armed society is a polite society.

  4. #3
    I don't think think Franks did a very good job. That interview will not help sway the minds of those in the middle of the issue.

    Franks was asked 3 times if he wished that Loughner had only had 10 round magazines.

    His first response was nothing but proselytizing about his religious beliefs and promoting Sarah Palin's political aspirations.

    His second response was a rambling incoherent statement that completely avoided the question.

    When he was cornered with the question the third time, he tried to evade the question with a question. Then he made the silly 'he could have done it with a bomb" assertion.

    Franks never responded to the question, and thereby let the reported answer it for him, and thereby let the reporter answer the question the way the reported wanted it answered.

    Many people watching that clip will now be thinking "hey, if Loughner only had a 10-round magazine, then he would have been tackled after the first 10 rounds and fewer people would have died and been injured. Rep Franks seems opposed to that because of his religious beliefs and Sarah Palin but he couldn't articulate a coherent reason as to why."

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    there was no reason to answer why due to if the reporter every fire a gun with a 30 round magazine he would know that they are harder to reload then your ten round magazine. Plus ten round magazines are smaller and the lady that grab the 30 round magazine would not have been able to grab the 10 round magazine and stop him. But thats me assuming that he held the magazine the right way.

    I thought he gave a good first answer if you can over look the religious stuff he was throwing in with it. I have no problem with the religious stuff he was saying due to it being the part of treating others the way you want to be treated and looking out for one another.

    The best part was the last 30 seconds. So we should take everybody's guns including the police then there will be no problems due to guns. The reporter " Don't be silly" Whats silly about that if there are no guns in the USA the so called problems gun cause would be gone. The down side is the same reason we what to have guns will be learned when a country comes to invade us and we have no guns to defend ourselves. Instead of country swap that for Mexican drug smugglers and the US border controllers would most likely quite due to not being able to defend themselves while doing a dangers job.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    there was no reason to answer why due to if the reporter every fire a gun with a 30 round magazine he would know that they are harder to reload then your ten round magazine. Plus ten round magazines are smaller and the lady that grab the 30 round magazine would not have been able to grab the 10 round magazine and stop him. But thats me assuming that he held the magazine the right way.
    assuming what you stated is true, then that is the answer Franks should have given.

    Whether or not the reporter already knew the answer doesn't matter - the question was asked for his audience. Franks could have educated that audience rather than look evasive. Missed opportunity.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Funny how when a liberal evades a question and lets the interviewer answer for them, it's no big deal. Let a conservative do the same thing and everbody notices. I agree he did mis a teaching moment.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. #7
    I read the comments before seeing the video. Given the circumstances and opinions, I think Franks did well and did the right thing. I think the "God" talk was very minor here. I know this bothers some people and Franks could have gotten his points across just as well without it. Some people talk about "God," and some people talk about "Civility." His choice. Our choice. His position was unfairly criticized by O'Donnell without bringing God into the picture.


    A Dilbert quote comes to mind after seeing this video:

    "Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."


    Mr. O'Donnell was trying to hide his weaknesses by being louder about Frank's weaknesses, or maybe a better way of putting it is the weakness that were being defended. He was already trying to misquote Franks on having more guns there that will, per O'Donnell's "facts," miss their targets at the scene, before he was trying manipulate Franks to agree with his 10 round magazine arguement.

    Are we that foolish to think that people like O'Donnell will stop at the "hypothetical" as he put it? And of course it was presented in such a way that if Franks said disagreed with the question he would have been trapped, labeled, called a nazi, etc. Franks did the right thing by avoiding the "straw man" arguement, which O'Donnell was giving at full force, going to the unrealistic extent of assuming that because police often miss their targets that private citizens will do so as well. What nonsense!

    With regards to reloading, Franks did allude to the reloading issue, but was quickly shut down on the issue. Loughner's inexperience, not magazine capacity, may have saved a few lives. I'm comparing this to the Fort Hood shooting here. Of course, the so-called expert O'Donnell does not realize that with accurate aim, a 9mm FMJ round can wound and/or kill more than one person, so his 10 round magazine limit theory is further blown out of the water. Even if Franks had all this information at his fingertips, I doubt he would have been given the opportunity to say it.

    I think we all know that if this was done with a 10 round magazine, then people would want them banned as well. If Giffords was shot with a subcompact handgun that fits in a pocket, people would want them banned as well. Do you really think Representative McCarthy and other anti-gun advocates are going to say, "Well, it's OK because he/she was killed by a gun with a 10 round magazine." That will never happen, but they're spinning it that way. People shouldn't be OK with this on either side of the arguement, but they need to put the blame where it belongs.

    It was arguements like these that Franks was successfully trying to avoid, but they were presented in such a way that only one correct answer was possible, and of course, the emotional electrical charge was used to make Franks appear wrong about the situation, regardless what he said.

    Franks was correct and smart by not feeding into O'Donnell's anti gun arguements.

    O'Donnell, like may others, is a pro at politicizing tragedies.

  9. #8

    Cool Catch 22

    O'Donnell was trying to set up Rep. Franks with a question that would go against him however he answered it. It would have been a win-win answer for the liberals and Franks would have been made to look foolish. I think he quite adequately evaded an assinine question and, in my books, made O'Donnell look like a horse's rear end. I can't understand people who get upset by Franks' mention of religion. He wasn't preaching but made some good points which makes me wonder why some took offense. Oh well, can't please everybody.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    O'Donnell was trying to set up Rep. Franks with a question that would go against him however he answered it. It would have been a win-win answer for the liberals and Franks would have been made to look foolish. I think he quite adequately evaded an assinine question and, in my books, made O'Donnell look like a horse's rear end. I can't understand people who get upset by Franks' mention of religion. He wasn't preaching but made some good points which makes me wonder why some took offense. Oh well, can't please everybody.
    To help you out with why some take offense to the use of religion is if it is not your religion or your not a religious person you are not included in the group. As Franks was saying "My Christian brothers" he was leaving out the rest of us who are not Christians. This is why some are taking offense. I looked past it due to he was not trying to convert me to his religion but was just saying people need to look out for one another.

    Also if you are pleasing everyone you are doing something wrong or need to write a book tell the rest of us how it is done.

  11. #10

    Cool My Bad!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    To help you out with why some take offense to the use of religion is if it is not your religion or your not a religious person you are not included in the group. As Franks was saying "My Christian brothers" he was leaving out the rest of us who are not Christians. This is why some are taking offense. I looked past it due to he was not trying to convert me to his religion but was just saying people need to look out for one another.

    Also if you are pleasing everyone you are doing something wrong or need to write a book tell the rest of us how it is done.
    Kasper, you have a point there. Guess I may have stepped on my whang with golf shoes but no slur intended. I guess I just don't understand downing anyone's religion (of whatever denomination or belief) or being hyper-sensitive to the mention of religion. I'll try to not do that again! Mea Culpa!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast