Only because I hate everyone.
Hello! Videographer searching someone willing to be interviewed
- Thread starter Jordi Rubio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- docummentary interview
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
The positives don't outweigh the negatives. I'll pass. "I don't see the need for normal people to own guns." You see @Jordi Rubio, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Consider this my interview. Feel free to use as you see fit.
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.
I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.
You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.
I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.
You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
Sweetyzfd
.45 acp
Interview David Hogg
Jordi Rubio
.38 Special
I understand it might be hard to believe. But I spent the last 4 years working so hard to get a living from my passion. And I work mostly with musicians, you can imagine how rich I am XD
As you claim to be a journalist of sorts, I would expect that you would do some actual research on the Second Amendment to understand its significance to American history and culture prior to any interviews on either side of the subject. Also understand the difference between a Right and a Privilege. Note - actual research includes historical texts and writing of the Founders, not sound bytes from CNN, MSNBC or Katie Couric.
Doing some slipshod interviews in the wake of a tragedy that has been politicized makes your work no better than the propaganda the main stream media spews out. Worse yet it sounds as if you would use any interviews to support your own opinion/perspective as you haven’t presented anything remotely resembling a well thought out objective or agenda.
As for reasons to carry a gun it’s quite simple and requires no interviews.
Do you drive a car with airbags? Why?
Do you have a fire extinguisher or smoke detector in your home? Why?
Do you have a first aid kit at home or work? Why?
Do you have health insurance if you’re not sick? Why?
Some people choose to BE ABLE to defend themselves and their loved ones in an emergency without relying on the state to protect them. Police are under no obligation to help you when you are in danger.
Doing some slipshod interviews in the wake of a tragedy that has been politicized makes your work no better than the propaganda the main stream media spews out. Worse yet it sounds as if you would use any interviews to support your own opinion/perspective as you haven’t presented anything remotely resembling a well thought out objective or agenda.
As for reasons to carry a gun it’s quite simple and requires no interviews.
Do you drive a car with airbags? Why?
Do you have a fire extinguisher or smoke detector in your home? Why?
Do you have a first aid kit at home or work? Why?
Do you have health insurance if you’re not sick? Why?
Some people choose to BE ABLE to defend themselves and their loved ones in an emergency without relying on the state to protect them. Police are under no obligation to help you when you are in danger.
Jordi Rubio
.38 Special
Jordi Rubio
.38 Special
The problem is that unless I want people to get so bored, I do need to edit the interview and choose the most interesting parts. But I would never publish something that the interviewee wouldn't like.
Jordi, sorry, I can not imagine you're going to get any takers to your offer here.
You are honestly not aware of the Katie Couric debacle? I suggested you read into that.
I have some ocean front property in AZ really cheap.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
People that would consider the full story and reason we don't want to give up our constitutional rights "boring" I guess are the ones that already have their mind made up. Not saying it's for everyone, just saying I don't see the benefits of talking to a wall. If someone who believed big time in pharmaceuticals approached me as a natural practitioner, basically telling me "I don't believe in anything you do, as a matter of fact I believe in the complete opposite. Would you like to do an interview with me about what you do", I would give you my answer before you finished your sentence. Although it would be dishonest of you, you probably would have had more volunteers if you told us that while you don't own guns, you really haven't made up your mind where you stand. Thank you for your honesty.
Last edited:
Celt
.338 Win Mag
@Jordi Rubio Do you believe you have the right to defend yourself if somebody attacks you?
What would be your method of choice to defend yourself if the attacker had a knife, what if the attacker had a gun? What would be the best way for you to defend yourself?
Are you married, do you have children? Imagine you are home at night with your wife and kids watching TV and three armed attackers enter your home, you hear a window break and your wife and kids look at you as their sole protector. At that point would you wish you had a gun?
What would be your method of choice to defend yourself if the attacker had a knife, what if the attacker had a gun? What would be the best way for you to defend yourself?
Are you married, do you have children? Imagine you are home at night with your wife and kids watching TV and three armed attackers enter your home, you hear a window break and your wife and kids look at you as their sole protector. At that point would you wish you had a gun?
Twogunwilly
6.5 Creedmoor
Should have been in my yard today while I shot the shit out of a pine tree, I killed the fucker; couple of more sessions, it hits the ground.
PS: stay the fuck out of my yard.
PS: stay the fuck out of my yard.
Jordi Rubio
.38 Special
Thanks for taking the time on writing this. I think this really explains so good your position, but to me is shocking that you consider the right of owning a tool that it's just useful for killing people, more important than the right of feeling safe in your community. That's how I think.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
First things first. The tools primary function is to defend yourself from a violent attacker. Secondly you have no right to feel safe, what makes you feel safe is different than what makes someone else feel safe. it's arbitrary and not listed in our founding documents.
If you understand how Sports work then take a game of soccer, it has a rule book with specific rules to follow if you want to play the game. Our constitution lists the rules for the game of Life in America, and in those rules it protects the right of citizens to own guns.
Please also read my post just above an answer the question.
Last edited:
Jordi Rubio
.38 Special
I understand. Where is "the range"?
"The range" is the generic term for a facility where one takes firearms to shoot. They are all over. I am not from NYC nor am I familiar with range locations that would be nearby you.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Clearly you value the illusion of safety over actual safety. All of this because you can't get over the grotesque nature of what it is and takes to defend yourself. Put your headphones back on and do your best to shut the real world out. Go ahead, it's what you were taught to do. That's your defense. Good luck dealing with that when you find yourself alone with no one to help you in the community you thought you were safe in.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
And herein lies the problem and why you will get zero people agreeing to be interviewed. You did get one thing right though. It is just a tool. A tool that can be used for harm or for good. Here's a project for you. Contact the people who's lives have been saved by legally using the tool and interview them so you can promote their stories. Concealed Nation. BTW, although it is good to feel safe in your community it isn't a "right" as you refer to it. I do happen to feel safe though because I have the RIGHT to have my firearms.
I don't think its at all productive to be insulting, regardless of the OP's motivations.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
If he ever showed up to my club's range I would tell him to leave or be arrested for trespassing.
Safety is an illusion, one is not entitled to saftey. Guarantees of safety and security are guarantees of tyranny. The only safety one can reasonably depend on are whatever measures oneself has put in place for themself.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Your feeling of being safe doesn't trump my feeling of being safe by being left unarmed. As I've said before, the criminal is armed. He'll do what he wants to do and the only thing the police can do to help you is to write a report, try to catch him, and perhaps call the morgue to pick up your body after it's all said and done.
Again I do not think this would be productive.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
This is insulting to me and it should be to you as well:
You think what I wrote was insulting? I find it to be an accurate illustration of where this person comes from. He or she believes in gun free zones and values the illusion of safety over actual security.
Private club we don't need anti gunners bothering our members.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Well, 11 posts since we've heard from him. Looks like Jordi is splitsville.
If you’re truly interested in research you should also read John Lott Jr’s book “More Guns Less Crime.” Lott presents the actual crime statistics and cites actual sources of information, not emotional wailing or opinion. Facts are, states/communities with higher rates of gun ownership have lower rates of violent crimes. Liberal policies really do contribute to higher crime rates.
I belive there is a difference between an anti gunner and a new arrival that doesn't know any better. The OP may just be the latter.
PR, hearts and minds is a thing you know.
Wether or not the OP is genuine or not, regardless of whatever ulterior motives he may have we should strive to be good ambassadors to our way of life. Or we will lose it.