Fairfax, VA --(Ammoland.com)- The NRA has announced that Colion Noir is going to be their newest contributor to NRA News.
If you’re part of the Youtube gun community at all you’ve certainly seen some of Noir’s videos where he breaks down gun arguments into easy to understand terms and cut through stereotypes.
Noir has over 82,000 subscribers on Youtube and over 6.7 million views on his videos.
We could not think of a better spokesman for the NRA to have right now.
Noir’s ability to cut through the BS and identify with younger gun enthusiasts should make him invaluable in the fight for our rights.
A con artist seeks to take your money through deception. Colion Noir tells us his opinions on politics and civil rights, as well as guns and gun culture.
ReplyDeleteYour prejudices are showing, Mikeb.
You think he's not making money? Really.
DeleteHis branding via YouTube might have generated income. So what? Though I don't know, my guess is that he will be compensated by the NRA for his work with them. Again, so what? Neither of these indicate involvement in a confidence scheme.
DeleteI have no idea how much he's made by his videos or how much he'll make in his new position. I said that a con artist makes money through deception. Colion Noir is giving his opinion.
DeleteClients hire me to do editing work for them. I make money by expressing my opinion regarding their work. Noir is doing the same. You're free to disagree with him, and if that's the case, you don't have to give him anything.
He's using deception and lies. I've pointed them out in the past and even today in a new post.
DeleteYou guys don't like to hear it though.
I've yet to see any deception or lies in what he says.
DeleteFaulty analysis leading to unwarranted conclusions on your part don't mean someone with an opposing point of view is lying. The suggestion reeks of desperation.
DeleteYou haven't been paying attention. Maybe your bias is getting in the way.
Delete10. "There's no one in this country that can tell me that by banning assault rifles they can guarantee that no criminal can get their hands on one." This is the biggest lie of all. No one says that any law would be 100% successful. No one says "this way NO criminals will be able to get them." He says this as an aside, assigning it to the gun control folks. It's a lie.
Was that faulty analysis?
"Instead, Noir falsely claims that the U.S. federal government "hosed us down with water, attacked us with dogs,' when in reality it was the state governments of Southern states."
How about that one? More faulty analysis?
1. Since "assault rifles" are involved in a tiny percentage of gun crimes, your side would have to show a guarantee for new laws to have any justification. Otherwise, you're infringing on rights for no gain in public safety. This is why I accuse you of wanting to get rid of all guns eventually. You're following Josh Saccharine's strategy of making more and more classes of guns socially unacceptable.
Delete2. I didn't hear "Federal" in the video. Noir said that government "hosed us down." But let's say that he did mis-state that. You're case against him is pathetic if that's all you've got. Saying that it wasn't this level of government, but that level that infringed on rights only goes to show that all levels of governments have that tendency.
"If that's all I've got," are you kidding. Do I have to break down every video. He doesn't make a straight statement without spinning and twisting.
Delete"A lie is what my opponent makes when he interprets the facts. I tell the truth while doing the same thing."
DeleteI put that statement in quotation marks because it's being posed as a part of a question--is that your attitude, Mikeb?
Mike, sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this topic. Sick family members and business concerns took precedence.
DeleteI'll focus on what he actually said.
Context suggests the argument against 100% effectiveness is based on the facts you admit. That is, that no gun law will be completely effective. Therefore, the self-defense need for the weapons in question remains.
Context did not require, nor did he say, that the federal government "hosed us down".
So, yes, faulty analysis in both cases.
If the concern by conservatives is one day they will need their guns to fight our own government against oppression, then blacks should be first in line for guns.
ReplyDelete