Does anyone here know if Rachel Maddow reads DU?

I have been asked to challenge her to a debate on guns. I don't know any other way to contact her.
(I don't own a bat-signal)

So here it is

Rachel Maddow If oyu read this I am challenging you to a gun rights debate.

First rule you must cite the source for all your arguments. ( IE you state that Jared Loughner couldn't have legally bought an "extended magazine" unde rthe AWB you'd better be able to prove it.

PM me to work out the details

:sarcasm:

I was going to say, 'She'll get right on that.'

I was asked to challenge her I did. If I ever see her I'll call her out to her face

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:thumbsup:

So who are these all so powerful people that have so much faith in your ability know one topic so well. Who are these braniacs that can tell you what to do and when to do it, and you get on here, instead of MSNBC? Who are these "clever dicks" that haven't yet figured out that Maddow will argue for and against things that matter to her...not you. Or haven't you noticed?

You post your challenge on a public message board asking if anyone knows how to contact her rather than just sending an email directly to her from the MSNBC web site?

Gee what is wrong with this picture...

You figure it out.

I took the OP as tongue in cheek.

It doesn't look like it was tongue in cheek to me.
It appears as an actual post, no humor implied...

Then get back to me.

paired with arrogance in one delusional package. ;)

That poor little Millionaire is the Justin Bieber of her show.

He's going home w/ Selena Gomez, who you dating?

I love her (in a grandfatherly way.) Justin better treat her right.

--imm

whether she reads DU or not no telling. She has said things before that makes me wonder if maybe she does. :hi: Rachel, just in case.

at a huge gun show, elucidating her points on current gun laws, and share with the board what your points of contention with her happen to be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x581662

I saw it and called her a liar

That'll show 'em.

First WTF is a "semi-assault rifle" ?

Loughner wouldn't have been able to buy his extended "clips" if the NRA hadn't forced the repeal of the AWB in 2004

The AWB wasn't repealed, it ended just as the original law provided because no one could prove it had any effect on crime

"extended capacity" magazines were available the law only banned the manufacture of new ones and did nothing to halt the sale of the millions already in circulation.

Semi-assault rifle (again WTF is that?)= M4s on the streets of America

An M4 is a highly regulated NFA item and is generally not available to civilians.

If you want to buy a gun w/out a background check go to a gunshow

First note that Meghan McCain had no clue what Rachel was talking about and even asked if Rachel meant waiting peroids weren't enforced at gun shows.

A licensed firearms dealer is required by law to fill out a form 4473 on any gun he sells regardless of location. A private sale is a private sale regardless of location closing the "gunshow loophole" amounts to a ban on private sales

Normal Glock magazines only hold 10/12 rounds anyway

Rachel flat out lied on this one standard Glock magazine hold 15 rounds

So,after watching this, why should I believe anything Rachel says
about guns?

and any other arsenal they're willing to throw money at to own. and when their house blows up unexpectedly, they can then turn around and sue the manufacturers for allowing their products into untrained civilian hands. It's the American way. :patriot:

I know exactly how to safely store, handle and use a LAWS rocket.

arsenals. That way we can wage war at the drop of a hat....cut out all that middle man stuff.....and then lets just do away with the government entirely. We can promote the degeneration of society back to the days of everyone having to wear a 6 gun at their side when the leave the house.....or maybe better still, we can devolve all the way back to the dark ages with futile lords, every house is a castle with it's own army and arsenal. I can't think of a better way to promote such silly ideas like peace, harmony, tolerance, and unity.

We'll never truly be free till everyone has a bazooka and an AK-47.


BAZOOKAS FOR EVERYONE! :woohoo:

rachel@msnbc.com

I don't think I've seen a post this naive in ages.

That is to say, like me she doesn't advocate banning or excessively regulating them, she only seeks mild reform that wouldn't hinder 2nd amendment rights. I don't believe Rachel wants to take the Glock out of anyone's holster so much as make it harder for one person to become an unstoppable assault force. I imagine that she, as well as most local gun shop owners, would also like an end to carpet bagging gun dealers who are in town one day and gone the next. Even I agree with that.

I'm a lifetime gun owner and my point is that perhaps you could find a more rabid opponent to debate.
On edit: Maddow and her life partner's first date was to an NRA shoot.

where hunting was a way of life. Even my dad, who loathed the NRA, was a hunter and my uncle, who was president of his local NRA chapter, resigned his lifetime membership over the issue of armor-piercing bullets.

I'd like to see some stricter controls but absolutely no outright ban. Mind if I ask you a few questions?

Do you belong to the NRA?
Is there any alternative to the NRA?
If you are a member, do you feel that your VERY reasonable approach has any representation in the NRA?

I know many, many liberals/progressives who are very responsible gun owners. I also know one gun owner who is a raving RW nutjob but is very responsible with gun safety; however, he opposes any restrictions whatsoever.


Thanks in advance. It seems this issue is so polarized that what I consider a reasonable approach will never be possible.

Are illegal for civilian ownership always have been always will be. What was your uncle's issue?

Got that call from Ms. Maddow yet?

But I understand you've gotta stay busy while you wait for the phone to ring, so do go on.

Bless your heart.

Because the previously debated and passed bans were predicated on ammo that was not at all "armor piercing".

and then go on with my life.

Since I'm not the gun nut he was, I don't know, and he's passed so I can't ask him.

All I know is he was a gun-totin' crazy-ass Republican (whom I loved anyway) who resigned the NRA because he said they went way, way too far and it had something to do with "cop-killer" bullets. The man LOVED guns, God, Republicans, and was a bigoted sob.

Thanks for the conversation. Oh, and once again--bless your heart.

No offense intended, but your reference to the phrase "cop-killer bullets" confirms my earlier comment. When that phrase was being bandied about during the proposed ammo bans, it was used in reference to ammunition that was neither armor-piercing, nor of any special lethality to anyone, let alone police. They were also not particularly used against police, and have never been commercially sold to non-law enforcement U.S. markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_bullet#Armor-piercing_ammunition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet

At the same time, nearly any conventional rifle (and some pistol) ammo used for hunting will penetrate a "bullet resistant" vest, but this is simple physics, not any result of special construction of the ammo. Your uncle, I am afraid, was ill-informed on this issue, as were a great many people, both pro- and anti-Second Amendment.

war for our "rights" for all sorts of weaponry yet resounding silence when some nut went on a killing spree. Then they resurface with mouths roaring if someone suggests responsible gun control.

The NRA is so not needed in it's present form. their WWF mentality is a joke. Scream, yell, pound chest, scream Constitution...2nd amendment...retreat into hole when school kids get gunned down by a nutjob. reappear as if a friggin groundhog on it's special day to fundraise...

The NRA jumped the shark decades ago. It does not serve the interest of law abiding gun owners. (I am one!, gun owner that is)

and what they are obligated to do to fight crime....

Please note that they are already heavily involved in training of many braches of law enforcement.

Who said they were responsible for the actions if criminals? This is what I love about NRA apologists.

I said, the NRA is very vocal and fanatical in it's concerted attack on anyone who wants a common sense conversation on much needed gun control. They scream, shout, yell 2nd amendment!!! Constitution..." From my cold, dead fingers..."

yet when someone goes on a mass killing spree, the NRA does not say, what can we do as a national organization to help reduce these senseless acts? The NRA has been co opted and you don't even know it.

none of the proposed legislation would prevent mass killing sprees. They are extremely rare and each one is unique - the idea that legislation will prevent them is nonsense. Criminals and maniacs are not deterred by laws.

It's funny how your "common sense conversation" always ignores the basic fact that gun violence is at historic lows and still declining - you have never been safer. Next year you will be even more safe. I am not willing to give up my rights based on your irrational fear of extremely rare events.

of choice was either a kitchen knife, a sword, a rope, baseball bat, frying pan, a copy of Going Rogue...if guns didn't exist, or at the very least, were extremely tough to get, you'd have a lot more people alive today, who were victims of mass killings. That is an undeniable fact, though I'm sure you will deny it anyway.

http://www.google.com/search?q=killing+sprees+knives&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

How far are you willing to extend that logic to save lives? More people die due to drunk drivers - let' s hear your plan to reduce those deaths to nothing. Or are those lives less meaningful because you both drink and drive a car (not at the same time, mind you)?

when a crime was commited, but you didn't specify what.

And you've just done it again.

What does the NRA have a duty to do, that they are not already doing?

They've already got safety and skills training, advocate no sales to criminals (either dealer or private), support harsh penalties for gun crime... come on, what more do YOU want?

How is it that I bought 3 boxes of black talons right off the shelf in Walmart for my 357 before they became illegal to sell to the public then?

I still have two boxes, I just had to try a box to see how destructive they are MMmMM Good.

Kindly stay the fuck out of my neighborhood.

Please, keep your ignorance out of my neighborhood.

They are in fact hollow point etched rounds rather than solid core teflon coated rounds.

is that sooner or later someone who knows it's full of shit will read it and refute it and make you look like an idiot ( well more like an idiot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

Black Talon is a type of ammunition that was introduced by Winchester Ammunition in 1991 primarily for law enforcement and self-defense. This hollow-point ammunition (Edit armor piercing hollow points yeah right) became known for its bullet's unique construction and sharp petal shape after expansion following impact with tissue or other wet media


The ammunition was targeted by those opposed to civilian ownership of handguns<8><9> and eventually the Talons became known by the moniker "cop-killer" bullets.<10> The identifying characteristic of the Black Talon ammunition was the black coating on the bullets themselves, which some mistakenly identified as a Teflon-coating. There were false rumors that the bullets were armor piercing and could penetrate body armor, including that worn by law enforcement

Winchester bowed to pressure and in 1993 removed the ammunition from public sale,<17> and eventually law enforcement began using the re-branded Ranger SXT line of the same basic design, but at no time was Black Talon ammunition illegal to possess

Winchester discontinued the Black Talon line completely in 2000. The “Ranger SXT” ammunition sold later by Winchester is very similar to the Black Talon though without the black Lubalox coating on the bullet. Among shooters, a running joke is that SXT stands for “Same eXact Thing",


But go ahead tell us all about your illegal evil Black Talons

Though my youngest son (a collector) maintains a card, I let mine lapse from lack of interest. That was in the Heston days when I believe the NRA was more an advocate for gun rights and less the arm of the Republican party that it has become under Wayne LaPierre. Since he took over leadership I've watched as he routinely ignores pro-gun democrats across the country to shill for garden variety republicans.

As an example here in Ohio, the NRA skipped endorsement of Democrat Ted Strickland for governor a few years ago to back an ex Bushie, former Ohio GOP sec state Ken Blackwell. While Strickland held a triple A rating with the Ohio Firearm Owner Assn, Blackwell was lackluster by comparison, but he was a loyal republican. Ken Blackwell was active under Gov Bob Taft in delivering Ohio's hotly contested electoral votes to GW Bush in 2004 in this swing state. Indeed, Bush's last stop on the eve of that election day was to land Air Force One in Columbus on his way to Crawford for a private visit with Blackwell. We all know the result and controversy with Diebold machines that year. Since then, Ted Strickland overhauled Ohio's election system and Ohio miraculously turned blue in 2008.

To the NRA's marginal credit, they did grant a very quiet endorsement to Strickland's failed campaign last year when he faced John Kasich, but only because Kasich is such a bane to gun owners and holds fame in helping write the so called assault rifle ban when he was a congressman here in the '90s. Apparently, that's an unforgivable sin even for a republican in the eyes of LaPierre.

My son explains his continued membership by discerning between the NRA lobby, which he says focuses on 2nd amendment issues, and what he describes as a separate entity within the organization that grants political endorsements. To me, NRA money is NRA money, and I don't like them. There are many other gun lobbies available that may or not be so biased and only concentrate on individual candidates and their personal positions. I like that the Democratic party doesn't use this issue as a litmus test for candidacy, with many good Democrats across the country standing up for the rights of Americans to legally own guns.

is funded by membership fees and individual and corperate donations and is a non-profit org.

The part that funds political activity is financially seperate and independent and funded by individually solicited funds and chartered as a political org.

The non-political wing is still the paramount firearms training and education group in the nation, if not the world. That alone makes it worth supporting, at least until some other group starts picking up the slack. (Brady's? Yeah, pull the other one....)

:toast:

A truly loathesome individual he is.

I've heard from others about their disgust for some NRA endorsements. The NRA isn't the first organization to get co-opted, but I think they might be an interesting study due to their size and influence.

Thanks!

like her belief that "assault clips" were illegal and not available during the AWB.

She also refuses to acknowledge that gun violence is at a historic low and still declining.

:thumbsup:

Try contacting her through MSNBC. I think they know her there. :rofl:

about now.

I know I do. :rofl:

Why do you think you have the credentials to debate someone with a PhD. in Politics (and a Bachelor's in Public Policy)?


Also, if you don't know that the extended magazines were included in the assault weapons ban then you certainly have no right to challenge anyone to any gun rights debate.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_maddow


^snip^


Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.<15> At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.<16> Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons (supervisor: Dr Lucia Zedner). She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.[17

It is quite obvious from her screeds that her technical knowledge on firearms is teh phale, and her grasp on fire-arm related crime issues is, at best, tenuous.

It is quite obvious from her screeds that her technical knowledge on firearms is teh phale, and her grasp on firearm related crime issues is, at best, tenuous.

second what credentials would you prefer she had to debate this subject?



We are talking about gun control laws. It is my opinion that degrees in Politics and Public Policy are both relative to the making of those laws.


If we wanted her to design a new weapon then other areas of expertise would be needed.

20+ years in the military, and approx 4+ years of activity in the area of Second Amendment rights give me a passing familiarity with firearms and firearms laws, neither of which Rachel seems to know much about, despite her admittedly impresive schoolastic qualifications.

When she perpetuates falshoods about "semi-automatic assault rifles", "assault clips", "gun-show loophole", etc., whether purposefully or through ignorance, her credibility takes an instant crash-dive. This applies to anyone who does the same.

One need not be a mechanical engineer nor a lawyer to speak knowledgeably about firearms and law. A degree does not confer infallibility, nor particular diligence in any non-related subject.

Can you be specific about what falsehoods she perpetuated?

I am betting you are the one perpetuating falsehoods.

the real issue is private sales of guns. If I make a living selling guns or sell to someone out of state I must have a fire arm dealer license and must conduct background checks - even if I am at a gun show.

However, if I do not make a living selling firearms and want to sell a privately owned weapon to someone that lives in the same state, then I do not need a license and am barred by law from doing background checks. But it has nothing to do with gun shows - I can sell it anywhere: a gun show, the parking lot, my living room, on the internet, by a classified ad.

You know, the Gungeon---the DU Guns Forum, where you've kicked off yet another Gun Militants vs. Rachel Maddow hate thread.

And fair's fair---in the very remote chance that Rachel has the time to waste in debating you on guns, you have to give the sources of your arguments, as well. Let's see how many of your citations derive from extreme right wing sources---I'm making an educated guess that they'll be the usual Gungeon mix: 75% wingnut propaganda, with the remaining 25% consisting of misinterpreted, NRA-friendly statistics.....

yup

:rofl:

I have been asked to challenge him to a debate on education and the fair value of the teaching profession. I don't know any other way to contact him.

Bill Gates if oyu read this I am challenging you to a debate on schools.

But you must cite the source for all your arguments, or I'm not in.

PM me to work out the details.

I have been asked to challenge him to a debate on the abolition of the monarchy. I don't know any other way to contact him.

Prince Charles if oyu read this I am challenging you to a debate on the crown.

But you must cite the source for all your arguments, or I'm not in.

PM me to work out the details.

I have been asked to challenge her to a debate on modern music whether its noisy. I don't know any other way to contact her.

Lady Gage if oyu read this I am challenging you to a debate on music.

But you must dress non sexual to avoid destracting people, or I'm not in.

PM me to work out the details.

That is all.

Take the footage of Rachel Maddow saying the things you find objectionable and make a video for Youtube in which you show what she says and you respond to it. Because that's as close as you are likely to get to a real-life debate (and if you're really good, it may even get you closer!).

all the time; I actually look better with them on than I do without them.

So does Ms. Maddow!

yup

:rofl:

RACHAEL YOU ROCK... I LOVE YOU! :hi:

Apparently she know how much she screwed up...

:applause:

EDIT: Oh and by the way ---> rachel@msnbc.com

to understand that spell-check is giving the right spelling, obviously the OP doesn't demonstrate good use of spell-check.

Maddow would likely look at an email challenge from the OP with wonderment, before forever sending the poorly crafted challenge to electronic trash.

Victoria Jackson is that you?

What joke!

existed, delivered by horse.

The debate does not get called on account of your arrogance and ignorance.

If she wasn't the one who asked, I really don't see what the point of this is.

Who are you that she'd want to debate you versus someone who is either an elected or acknowledged expert in the field?