The Best Comeback Line Ever!

[Alcan]

Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day
and you'll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning
guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta
love this!!!! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is
a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female
broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to
sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to
teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery,
and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the
rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIE WER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle
discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but
you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

[C.J.]

That's classic

[JJ Irani]

[Uncle-AJ]

She should have replied "It will cost you $1000 to find out."

[padi56]

classic

[Robb]

WOW!!!!

[mailman]

[President]

MAO

[Incurable]

Rarely do opportunities present themselves to actually stymy an anti-firearms proponent. This one's a gem.

[TARDIS]

That is one of the best yet!!!!

[Lol-x]

Awesome Alcan first class
It really packs a punch, and makes the point very well.

[miner]

Brilliant

However I hope General Reinwald was wearing a steel plated jock strap cos that's maybe why the radio went silent!!

Just after the interviewer delivered the kick!!

[ADISMO]

priceless

[GerardoG]

Superb!

[pinwit]

Originally Posted by Alcan

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

I applaud the Radio Station chiefs.

Such a question could easily have been anticipated (if he had not encountered the same question on numerous occasions before) and the answer is therefore rehearsed.

The interviewer's question is legitimate in any debate about guns. The answer speaks volumes about the general - none of it to his credit.

O! and I don't gotta love anything.

[ADISMO]

Kudos to the General. An informed and armed populace is the deterrent of tyranny. The western world is systematically being dumbed down and disarmed by the socialist (aka satanic) agenda, and its spreading to the US. As for the Gerneral, good on him. It may have been rehearsed but its the answer which exposes the absurdity of the anti-gun logic. Hoorah Marines!

Alarmists who cant handle weapons themselves, and fear that gun owners are just as fearful and spineless as them, will try their darndest to spread stories about kids being killed by accidental or negligent discharges, and preach gun control as the answer. Gun control is just that; be a man and secure your weapon in a safe, purchase a safety device, or remove the firing pin. be responsible, dont be a moron. If your foolishness gets someone killed, you get to spend time with Bubba and Tyrone.

Thugs will get their weapons illegaly anyways, so the answer is not outlawing guns, its outlawing thugs. Streamline capital punishment and strenghten the rule of LAW! But what do we have instead? No legitimate thug fears the castrated legal system anymore, and lack of swift severe punishment has lifted crime to appear like superstardom for these dirtbags.

If I were president: for murder suspects, no more than 1 month delay from time of capture to execution, especially when backed by DNA evidence. Appeals are allowed by first time offenders only. Personally, I favor stoning. Thus you shall exterminate evil from the land.



Here's a line for ya. From Layer Cake:

Morty: Why did you keep the gun?
Gene: I know it sounds silly now, but it was my favorite.
Morty: You better not let the other guns know you have a favorite.

[pinwit]

Originally Posted by ADISMO

Kudos to the General. An informed and armed populace is the deterrent of tyranny. The western world is systematically being dumbed down and disarmed by the socialist (aka satanic) agenda, and its spreading to the US. As for the Gerneral, good on him. It may have been rehearsed but its the answer which exposes the absurdity of the anti-gun logic. Hoorah Marines!

Alarmists who cant handle weapons themselves, and fear that gun owners are just as fearful and spineless as them, will try their darndest to spread stories about kids being killed by accidental or negligent discharges, and preach gun control as the answer. Gun control is just that; be a man and secure your weapon in a safe, purchase a safety device, or remove the firing pin. be responsible, dont be a moron. If your foolishness gets someone killed, you get to spend time with Bubba and Tyrone.

Thugs will get their weapons illegaly anyways, so the answer is not outlawing guns, its outlawing thugs. Streamline capital punishment and strenghten the rule of LAW! But what do we have instead? No legitimate thug fears the castrated legal system anymore, and lack of swift severe punishment has lifted crime to appear like superstardom for these dirtbags.

If I were president: for murder suspects, no more than 1 month delay from time of capture to execution, especially when backed by DNA evidence. Appeals are allowed by first time offenders only. Personally, I favor stoning. Thus you shall exterminate evil from the land.



Here's a line for ya. From Layer Cake:

Morty: Why did you keep the gun?
Gene: I know it sounds silly now, but it was my favorite.
Morty: You better not let the other guns know you have a favorite.

I do like a reasoned argument. It would be nice to see one.

[ADISMO]

typical liberal socialist elitism. disengage from an argument one has started in order to feign superior intelligence.

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by pinwit

O! and I don't gotta love anything.

And you ain't gotta say nuthin' neither. Yet here you are doing one thing you don't have to do while proclaiming not to do another. Someone less charitable might call that hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I do like a reasoned argument. It would be nice to see one.

If you'd like to see one, why don't you make one? Let's see ...

Originally Posted by pinwit

The interviewer's question is legitimate in any debate about guns.

Is that what you call a reasoned argument? Who died and pronounced you fit to arbitrarily declare that the question was legitimate?

If you could see just past your nose, you might just be able to see that being a violent killer is as offensive and anthetical to soldiering as prostitution is to womanhood.

You want a reasoned argument, fine. Let's go by the established rules of inductive argument presented in any Critical Thinking 101 class, shall we?

The case for women:
1) The "equipment" for women is for the higher-order purpose of creation of new life.
2) Prostitution involves the act of sex with no specific intent to produce new life and therefore constitutes misuse of the "equipment".
3) Prostitution is therefore antithetical to the purpose of women's "equipment".

The case for guns:
1) Shooting for soldiers is for the the higher-order purpose of defence (you don't see them calling it the Department of Offence Department of Killing, do you?).
2) Violent killing (which I interpret the interviewer to mean Columbine-style killings and drive-by shootings) involve the act of shooting people with no specific intent of defence and therefore constitutes misuse of shooting for soldiers.
3) Violent killing is therefore antithetical to the purpose of soldiers knowing how to shoot.

The same inductive argument applies to both women's equipment and military training in shooting, and the general therefore made an entirely valid and sound equation of the two. The general's retort was therefore entirely reasonable, and your unthinking and unfounded response, made of nothing but conjecture and invective, is entirely unreasonable.

As for premeditation of the general's answer, yes, you could reasonably theorise that it was such an answer. By the same measure, you could also theorise that, from the way the interviewer derailed the subject from the scouts' visit to a gun lobby issue, she went into that interview with an axe to grind.

Now if you weren't blinded by political correctness, you might just see that there was absolutely nothing wrong with what the general had said. He met one prepared line of argument with another and counterbalanced blind stupidity with reason. I'd say it was reciprocal except that the general was simply smarter than the talking head.

Speaking as a mod, I'll thank you not to burst in here with both barrels blazing, especially seeing as how you claim to be anti-violence.

[C.J.]

James and ADISMO, I'll be raising a couple to you boys tonight

[Flyjet601]

Interesting post Alcan......very clever retort by the General.

Please excuse my ignorance, I dont care for guns too much except for when I was a kid, but what other countries in the world, besides the North American ones, have such heated debates over guns? and feel so passionately one way or another?

[Gedanken]

Well, Larry, guns have been a big issue here in Australia, since some loser went lala with an M16 in Tasmania in 1994 - I've actually been to the site where he shot 86 people.

Now the question is whether or not curbing legal gun ownership is the answer. After all, what criminal would go out and register a gun before going out on a shooting spree when he could get one illegally?

[astcell]

In southern CA we had a guy shoot up a McDonald's with an Uzi in 1986. He owned it legally. Since then machine guns are illegal in California, unless you already bought yours.

[leopardprey]

IF you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have. Example: Cambodia. Since 1998, thanks to UN money, Cambodia has outlawed private gun ownership. Yet, there is still a lot of gun violence, as the criminals stil get guns, still have guns, and still use guns. Where as the average citizen is denied access to firearms for personal protection or sporting activities.

It is a big deal in America, as it is a Consitutional Right to won firearms, and this right is frequently under attack.

I could go on and on and post a lot of stats, which would be more than happy to if you PM me. Such as how guns in America are used 5x more to prevent violent crime, than commit violent crime. Also, there are a lot of misconceptions about gun ownership from the media. Such as you can not own a fully automatic Machine Gun, has been illegal since the late 1930s, unless you have a special class 3 licsence that is very hard to obtain. Also the myth of anybody walking into a Gun Show and just buying a weapon. Dealers at gun shows are required, just like any dealer to call for a background check and also fill out file paperwork. Now a person can sell to another person freeley, but he can be held legally accountable.

Anyway I could go on and on and on.

Gedanken, Great post and great logical thinking! I will remember your post for future arguments I may encounter with those who want to restrict our freedoms.

[pinwit]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

And you ain't gotta say nuthin' neither.

I don't see much point in a discussion forum if nobody should make a counter-argument.

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Is that what you call a reasoned argument? Who died and pronounced you fit to arbitrarily declare that the question was legitimate?

To repeat myself, I don't see much point in a discussion forum if nobody should make a counter-argument. However, I do value your reply, as this is a discussion forum and we should be allowed to have a view.

With respect to your reasoned argument, I would take issue with idea that the general's offensive remark was in any way a serious attempt to compare prostitution with gun crime. It was surely a device aimed at evading the question.

I do like the reasoning though. It takes some effort to argue that the female reproductive organs are "equipment" in the same way that a gun is. Unfortunately an analogy often doesn't bear too much scrutiny and that is surely the case here.

My previous post raised the serious point that an offensive remark is no rebuttal of an argument (and my post being invective, I respectfully suggest not).

I think the real analysis would be better served by discussing the general's aim here. A difficult question - let's slap the women down perhaps? Let's face it, a general is both a military man and a something of a politician nowadays and as he was being interviewed, presumably has skills in this area. I find it difficult to believe that the general could not handle the question respectfully. He didn't and I simply don't find this in any way amusing.

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Now if you weren't blinded by political correctness ...

I'm sorry but I am of the generation that holds a door open for a lady and far too old for PC rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Speaking as a mod, I'll thank you not to burst in here with both barrels blazing, especially seeing as how you claim to be anti-violence.

I have never claimed to be anti-violence. I am however, decidedly free-speech. As you have raised the fact that you are a moderator, are you telling me that this discussion forum is not open to free discussion?

[Flyjet601]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

IF you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have. Example: Cambodia. Since 1998, thanks to UN money, Cambodia has outlawed private gun ownership. Yet, there is still a lot of gun violence, as the criminals stil get guns, still have guns, and still use guns. Where as the average citizen is denied access to firearms for personal protection or sporting activities.

It is a big deal in America, as it is a Consitutional Right to won firearms, and this right is frequently under attack.

I could go on and on and post a lot of stats, which would be more than happy to if you PM me. Such as how guns in America are used 5x more to prevent violent crime, than commit violent crime. Also, there are a lot of misconceptions about gun ownership from the media. Such as you can not own a fully automatic Machine Gun, has been illegal since the late 1930s, unless you have a special class 3 licsence that is very hard to obtain. Also the myth of anybody walking into a Gun Show and just buying a weapon. Dealers at gun shows are required, just like any dealer to call for a background check and also fill out file paperwork. Now a person can sell to another person freeley, but he can be held legally accountable.

Anyway I could go on and on and on.

Gedanken, Great post and great logical thinking! I will remember your post for future arguments I may encounter with those who want to restrict our freedoms.

......in many of the mass shootings, whatever country it took place in, did any of the ordinary citizens(were they are allowed to carry guns) that were caught in the crossfire, or were the targets, actually have a gun on them and fight back against the bad guys. Because I hear alot of carrying guns for self defense, so if this is the case, I think the bad guys would be taken out earlier before they had a chance to inflict mass damage because everyone would be trying to protect themselves.

[Incurable]

There was a case of just that in our area not so long ago... A shooter armed with multiple weapons wandered through a mall shooting people randomly. An armed citizen confronted him and ended up getting shot up himself. Story has it, rather than just dropping the shooter, he first attracted the shooters attention by issuing a verbal warning. He's now paralyzed and heralded a hero. Some part of me thinks he really deserved a Darwin award instead...

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by pinwit

As you have raised the fact that you are a moderator, are you telling me that this discussion forum is not open to free discussion?

As a moderator, I'm telling you to keep your hypocrisy off my forum. You've waded right into this without thinking through what you're writing, and yet you claim to want reasoned argument.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I don't see much point in a discussion forum if nobody should make a counter-argument.

Counterargument? What counterargument? All you've come up with are a whole lot of unsubstantiated pontifications and accusations.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I would take issue with idea that the general's offensive remark was in any way a serious attempt to compare prostitution with gun crime. It was surely a device aimed at evading the question.

Evading the question? Sorry, what thread did you read before making this post? I've already shown how the general's remark had logically addressed the question head-on. Assuming that people who know how to shoot are automatically violent killers is like assuming that women are automatically prostitutes. If you don't see how that addresses the plain stupidity of the track that the interviewer was going down, don't talk about argument because you lack even the most tenuous grasp of logic.

Originally Posted by pinwit

It takes some effort to argue that the female reproductive organs are "equipment" in the same way that a gun is.

No it doesn't. It's pretty straightforward and obvious.

Originally Posted by pinwit

Unfortunately an analogy often doesn't bear too much scrutiny and that is surely the case here.

Substantiate that. I've already demonstrated how the same inductive reasoning has been applied to show how equating knowledge of shooting with violent killers is precisely as flawed as equating women with prositutuion. Don't come in here claiming that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and expect me to take your word for it - scutinise it and show how the comparison fails. If you can't substantiate it, you're the one who's not making a reasoned argument - after all, you haven't shown your reason.

Originally Posted by pinwit

My previous post raised the serious point that an offensive remark is no rebuttal of an argument

Again, substantiate that. I've already shown how it is a rebuttal - it's your turn to show how it isn't.

Originally Posted by pinwit

(and my post being invective, I respectfully suggest not).

Again, substantiate that. Thus far you've given me no reason to take your word for anything.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I think the real analysis would be better served by discussing the general's aim here. A difficult question - let's slap the women down perhaps? Let's face it, a general is both a military man and a something of a politician nowadays and as he was being interviewed, presumably has skills in this area. I find it difficult to believe that the general could not handle the question respectfully. He didn't and I simply don't find this in any way amusing.

I see no reason for the general to be respectful after the interviewer was offensive enough to charge that he was turning the scouts into violent killers - that's just outright rude. He made a very apt response in terms of reason and offensiveness, and it's damned funny how he shut that mindless, sanctimonious peahen up.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I'm sorry but I am of the generation that holds a door open for a lady and far too old for PC rhetoric.

Fine then, you're not PC. You just don't think deeply enough to understand how the reasoning behind the general's retort was valid and sound. Mind you, you're the one who made the call for reasoned argument, but when it's presented to you, you simply evade the issue by claiming without substantiation that analogies don't stand up to scrutiny. Yet you accuse the general of evading the question - that's outright hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I have never claimed to be anti-violence. I am however, decidedly free-speech.

Free speech is fine by me. The general was free to respond the way he did, and he made more sense than the interviewer.

Now if you're going to make claims, substantiate your conclusions with reason instead of hiding behind rhetoric.

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Gedanken, Great post and great logical thinking! I will remember your post for future arguments I may encounter with those who want to restrict our freedoms.

Thanks, Chad, but it's General Reinwald who deserves the credit for the argument - all I did was highlight the reasoning behind it. It's a damned elegant argument once you identify the underlying logic.

[pinwit]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

As a moderator, I'm telling you to keep your hypocrisy off my forum. ... <other snide remarks snipped>

How extraordinarily rude you are.

If you wish to terminate my membership, then do so. However, taking the ball away when your losing the game will do you no credit.

As this moderator has clearly lost the plot, maybe the other moderators might like to comment.