On CNBC, Thursday 4/25
James Yeager is one of the interviews
EFF.
Of course, we couldn’t have guys like Haley or LAV be interviews…
I remember back when Travis turned down an interview opportunity with Piers Morgan. WTF man?
Someone already started a thread on it.
Probably the smartest move to make. To cant argue with stupidity. Willingly putting yourself into a lose-lose situation is not a good idea. The best thing the gun community can do is shun that piece of vile excrement and his sponsors.
A few months ago, wasn’t the Glock America’s gun?:rolleyes:
Because they don’t want to be a pawn of Piers and his stupid agenda. Nothing reasonable people will say will be processed by those dipshits.
If Travis turned down an interview with that whining socialist fucktard then I respect him even more than I did. Anyone that would go on his show is a moron, probably with an oversized ego, or else they have something to sell. Jeremy Clarkson knows how to deal with him. That’s the approach I’ll take if I ever meet him.
This.
The old saying about not getting into a fight with idiots comes to mind: They’ll drag you down to their level and bludgeon you with their experience.
Strongly disagree with not engaging with our adversaries. There are only two modes of discourse: conversation and force. Force, for the anti-gun lobby, is new legislation. And they are using it. We have no recourse to force at this time, so the anti crowd currently holds a monopoly on force (even when we lobby our elected officials, it is to vote against new legislation – a reaction). Persuasive argumentation and conversation is our only tool for making forward progress. Stopping the conversation equals giving the antis a monopoly on both force and conversation. Not a good plan.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a conversation about it.
I (and I’m sure most of us who agree that Haley should not have gone on Morgan’s show) are simply arguing against walking into a trap.
One of the ways of defeating an ambush is to fight through it, of course. But that isn’t always the most brilliant thing to do. Often it’s better to simply go around.
Right but the problem is that yahoos like Yeager will not go around. So when a well-spoken, rational soldier-scholar-almost-philosopher like Travis Haley comes to the decision point of whether to do something like this or not, here’s what the decision tree looks like:
Decline: You’ve declined, so someone like Yeager goes on and does a terrible job. It’s a losing struggle anyway but our side could have not lost as bad.
Accept: You’ve entered into a losing battle and volunteered yourself to be on the wrong side of an ambush. But you’ll still do better than Yeager, so despite the futility of the whole thing, it’s not as bad as if you declined.
Unless you could somehow control the actions of others and prevent people like Yeager from accepting, the rational choice is to accept and do the best you can even though it’s a setup.