Philip Levine Gun Ad Falls Short

[protectionist]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you gping to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you gping to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

Have you a link to the ad?

This is the most recent ad I 'm aware of from him:

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats.

Wait 5 minutes.

 

[protectionist]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you going to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

Have you a link to the ad?

Just a few minutes.

 

[protectionist]

Have you a link to the ad?

This is the most recent ad I 'm aware of from him:

Off Topic.

 

[protectionist]

It seems to be difficult to find a video of the ad that doesn't present a leftist rant. I won't post that either. The conservatives seem to not want to give Levine publicity (I guess)

 

[usmbguest5318]

Have you a link to the ad?

This is the most recent ad I 'm aware of from him:

Off Topic.

I realize the video I added has nothing to do with the thread topic. My not being able to find the ad you've noted is why I asked, ahead of the video I posted, if you have a link to the ad you've described in your OP. The only reason I posted it is to identify specifically what video is the most recent one from Levine of which I'm aware.

 

[BULLDOG]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you gping to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

Schools are just part of the immediate problem. A very important part, but just part. Mass shootings, some at schools, are our immediate problem.

 

[protectionist]

I realize the video I added has nothing to do with the thread topic. My not being able to find the ad you've noted is why I asked, ahead of the video I posted, if you have a link to the ad you've described in your OP. The only reason I posted it is to identify specifically what video is the most recent one from Levine of which I'm aware.

See Post # 6

 

[protectionist]

Schools are just part of the immediate problem. A very important part, but just part. Mass shootings, some at schools, are our immediate problem.

Of course. Although schools are the main focus right now, adequate security is needed for many other places too (stores, office buildings, theaters, etc)

 

[Flash]

Is he the same bat shit crazy Democrat asshole that is so detached from reality that he is calling for Florida to be a "sanctuary state"?

 

[BULLDOG]

Is he the same bat shit crazy Democrat asshole that is so detached from reality that he is calling for Florida to be a "sanctuary state"?

Can't vote for him,cause I don't live there, but I can send him some money. Got the address?

 

[Flash]

Is he the same bat shit crazy Democrat asshole that is so detached from reality that he is calling for Florida to be a "sanctuary state"?

Can't vote for him,cause I don't live there, but I can send him some money. Got the address?

Is that like I didn't live in Georgia but I contributed to Karen Handel's campaign fund?

 

[midcan5]

For the conscious American lots below:

"More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined"
Since 1968, guns have killed more Americans than all U.S. wars combined
Statistics behind US violence

"In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy - the recorded spend on lobbying in 2014 was $3.3m. That is only the recorded contributions to lawmakers however, and considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track."
US gun control: What is the NRA and why is it so powerful?


Supporting an organization that is about corporate profits over life may appeal to some but ironically many of the same supporters are opposed to abortion on the belief it kills people. So then the fact guns kill 1,300 US children every year, and has killed more people than war is OK with the gun huggers? I guess like frightened children they need the security blanket of corporate induced fear. Money manages the mind of the right and liars like Wayne LaPierre pad their pockets while talking BS about freedom etc. Americans are so easily led today, what ever happened to courage to speak back at power? The right have been made into corporate puppets.

For those not inclined to hide or be afraid of false bogeymen lots of information below.

Wayne LaPierre is a lying corporate paid shill.
NRA Chief's Bogus Background Check Claims - FactCheck.org

The NRA is being supported by these companies
Airlines drop NRA after school shooting

The NRA is part of the reason we have so many gun deaths in America to say otherwise is to lie or hide from facts.
Statistics behind US violence

"From early childhood I was an outdoor person and loved hunting and fishing. About 10 years ago, at age 60, I gave up both. I had learned outdoor craft from my father, a WWII combat veteran. For over 20 years I lived in England . When we moved back to the US I gave up on hunting first and then fishing. No one in my family has ever owned a gun that could chamber more than three rounds. Handguns were never even a consideration. In the UK it is impossible to own a handgun. My shotguns were kept in a locked metal chamber bolted to the wall. Every 12 to 36 months a police constable came by the house - unannounced - to check that the guns on my permit were the guns in the closet. If I was not home and another person knew where the key was my gun license would have been voided. I am astonished that people with no sense of what a gun does, kill, own weapons of war in our country. I was lucky enough to learn about guns from a WWII combat veteran and to learn the respect a gun and a human life merit. Weapons of war cannot be a 'hobby'. There is no reason beyond personal insecurity for any civilian in our country to own a handgun or any rifle or shotgun that chambers more than three rounds. By Federal law waterfowl get the protection of hunters only having three rounds in their guns. Why don't people deserve the protection of no handguns and war weapons in the house next door ? Gun regulation is not a 'tribal' issue, tribes protect their members. It is a simple common sense issue." Bill Wilson, Boston, Comment: Opinion | Respect First, Then Gun Control

"Giant militarized countries, "he said, "breed violent populations.""

"One of the first things he said was that both Russia and America produced disproportionate shares of mass killers.

'Thoughts and prayers' aren't enough – but sarcastic and outraged reactions to them aren't much better.'

Taibbi: If We Want Kids to Stop Killing, the Adults Have to Stop, Too

Rust Belt Philosophy: Not the accidental failures but the purposeful successes: gun edition

'The Right Wing: 5 Places Hypocritical Republicans Ban Guns for Their Own Personal Safety'
5 Places Hypocritical Republicans Ban Guns for Their Own Personal Safety

"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same." Humiliation and rage: how toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings | Aeon Essays

Guns kill 1,300 US children every year, study finds
Guns kill 1,300 US children every year


A day in America
"3 adults, 1 child found shot to death inside Alaska hotel room
Police: Man shot dead while trying to stop man from beating woman
3 shot while hanging Christmas lights amid fight with driver
Good Samaritan fatally shot outside Northwest Side Walmart
Accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof competent to stand trial"

 

[protectionist]

Is he the same bat shit crazy Democrat asshole that is so detached from reality that he is calling for Florida to be a "sanctuary state"?

I haven't checked on that. He probably does call for that. Most Democrats do.

 

[protectionist]

Can't vote for him,cause I don't live there, but I can send him some money. Got the address?

He doesn't need money. He needs brains.

 

[protectionist]

For the conscious American lots below:

"More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars —

And without good guys carrying guns (CCW), the number would have been 10 times as large. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment, and the US Supreme Court.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I realize the video I added has nothing to do with the thread topic. My not being able to find the ad you've noted is why I asked, ahead of the video I posted, if you have a link to the ad you've described in your OP. The only reason I posted it is to identify specifically what video is the most recent one from Levine of which I'm aware.

See Post # 6

It seems to be difficult to find a video of the ad that doesn't present a leftist rant.

??? I thought the whole point of your OP is that the ad itself is a leftist rant....What? Are we all just to take your word for what the ad does and doesn't say and imply?

 

[protectionist]

??? I thought the whole point of your OP is that the ad itself is a leftist rant....What? Are we all just to take your word for what the ad does and doesn't say and imply?

You don't have to. But I don't see any reason why you would question it. My word has always been pretty good in this forum (for 5 years)

As for the point of the OP it is that the leftist rant of the ad falls short by not including the most important point of the school shooting issue >> school SECURITY.(ie.stopping the shooter who shows up)

 

[usmbguest5318]

??? I thought the whole point of your OP is that the ad itself is a leftist rant....What? Are we all just to take your word for what the ad does and doesn't say and imply?

You don't have to. But I don't see any reason why you would question it. My word has always been pretty good in this forum (for 5 years)

As for the point of the OP it is that the leftist rant of the ad falls short by not including the most important point of the school shooting issue >> school SECURITY.(ie.stopping the shooter who shows up)

I don't see any reason why you would question it.

That you don't is intrinsically problematic.

• I don't know you at all. Like everyone else here, you are a complete stranger to me, and I to you. Consequently, neither of our "real world" reputations carries any weight here.
• People are given to all sorts of misrepresentations of fact, context, nuance, etc. Some people do it deliberately, some are so f*cking clueless they don't know they're doing so, and others do it as a result of carelessness. Until one knows a person well, one cannot suss what motivation another may have. Were I to recognize your ID or avatar -- I recognize neither -- I might have some idea of whether you've misrepresented my remarks or others' that you and I both heard/read. Thus your word, to me, is no different than that of another complete stranger; I would expect you are equally unfamiliar my ID and avatar.
• Of all the places where one must practice "trust, but verify," the Internet surely is foremost among them.

And, not, it's not about you or me. It's merely that we are strangers who happen to find ourselves exchanging words via the Internet.

It's also not a matter of my expressly questioning your word; I neither blindly question it nor blindly accept it. It's a matter of my wanting to know, before I start discussing a matter, that the representations of it that one's presented are completely accurate and representationally faithful. If I'm not confident of that, I'm at risk of looking ridiculous when, having relied upon someone else's representation and remarking on the matter based on their say-so, it turns out they misrepresented a material aspect of the matter. That's just a discursive risk I don't have to take and won't. It's also a risk I don't impose upon my readers.

Here's an example of exactly the scenario I just described playing out to quite a few folks' reputations' detriment.

• CNN Tries to Script Students’ Meeting with President Trump
  
• My, my, my....Seems Fox's fathers of fake news now say the MSD town hall wasn't scripted

How hard would it have been for Fox to verify that man's claim? Not hard at all; it'd be literally child's play to do so. All a Fox staffer had to do was forward the email to CNN, asking, "Is this email authentic?" CNN, of course, would have said, "no," and simply forwarded the original unedited email to the Fox staffer. A quick check of the email header info would have confirmed that CNN was telling the truth and that Haab SOB wasn't and that'd have been that. No story, but no embarrassment for not upholding the most basic of journalistic standards later either.