neutral media on gun control?

[oftheherd1]

I think there used to be newspapers who tried to keep a somewhat bias free publication, there have always been newspapers that took on "causes."

 

[K-man]

What they are identifying as a grenade launcher mount is, to my eye, the front sling swivel - bear in mind I am a non-military Englishman and have never seen one of these guns for real.

Thanks for the info. I couldn't tell from the picture what it was and thought it may have been the quaint suggestion of launching a grenade via a rifle. Just that, back in the 60s we actually had cups that fitted to the bayonet fitting of the Lee-Enfield .303 . Seven second fuse. Aah! Memory Lane.

 

[Sukerkin]

I recall reading about those bullet trap models .

 

[billc]

I didn't know where this fit in exactly but it goes to how the different sides of the debate see each other. I think the anti-gun people are wrong and aren't thinking clearly about firearms and their place in our society...many on the other side...well...here is how one of their organizations sees regular citizens...and why this fight is so heated...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...dge-of-allegiance-to-nazis-beer-hall-conduct/

I was not there when the crowd stood for the Pledge of Allegiance, as there was a delay at the door getting in, but to compare this crowd of patriotic Americans standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to a Nazi beer hall Putsch is pretty outrageous.

It was that type of demeaning rhetoric, including another speaker who compared 2nd Amendment supporters to Nazis and racists, which led the crowd to start to speak up after an hour or more of verbal insults.

In his blog post, Goodman did not stop with the Nazi analogy. Goodman accused Tully of advocating violent overthrow of the government. Goodman placed his accusations against Tully soon after the Nazi beer hall language in the blog post, obviously suggesting that Tully was one of such people (emphasis added):

So it was shocking when one man stood up, wearing what appeared to be military patches on his jacket, announced that he had served in our military, and then went on to say that the reason he needed to be allowed to own assault weapons was so that he could take over the government by force if he decided it was tyrannical.

​

As I mentioned, I was there recording, and the footage shows Goodman’s description is not accurate. Tully never mentioned “assault weapons,” or taking over the government, or force. To the contrary, Tully forcefully objected to the politics of pitting American against American, admonishing the crowd that “we are all Americans.”

Tully’s exact words (watch the video here):

Veteran: Sir, sir. While you’re standing up. I’ve sat here [inaudible] and I’d like to agree with the professor. Everyone standing in this room right now, especially the veterans in the room right now, know, that we are all Americans. The problem with this country right now is it’s us and it’s ********** them. We need to stop this crap.

Now, the thing I would like you to answer, sir. And I did go to war for this country. Whether it was for everyone in here’s ability to have oil and gas in their cars, or the banks, or whatever. I went to war for my country.

And I went to war for your ability to have the First Amendment, to say what you stood up there and said today, to write what you want to write in your newspaper, and have whatever opinion you want to have. You can practice whatever religious freedoms you want. I would like you to answer the question, since you just said that one of the rights that I went to war over to defend, that is inalienable, to every American citizen. If this discussion was going on, about your First Amendment rights, would you still have the same opinion that we don’t need that any more either.

Goodman: You didn’t hear my answer….that’s not what I said…I said it doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what matters is whether or not it’s relevant today.

Audience member: It’s an eternal truth, an eternal truth….

Goodman: When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, “what does it mean today?”

Audience: NO!

Veteran: The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700!

​

Tully made a historically accurate statement about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but never said anything about wanting to take over the government or using force. Quite the opposite.

In his blog post, Goodman also accused the crowd of engaging in racist rhetoric against people in the South Side of Chicago:

At a forum a couple of days ago in a suburb of Chicago, one guy shouted out that he needs his guns to protect himself from people who live on the south side of Chicago. I wonder who he had in mind?
​

That never happened.

I was there for all but the very start of the event, and never heard any racist comments. I also scoured the footage of the event for evidence of Goodman’s accusation and could find none.

I did find points at which the South or West sides of Chicago were mentioned, at 0:20, 0:31, 1:24, 2:02,3:49, 3:57, and a third where racism was mentioned, at 4:33. I have included those segments below, including my own exclamation, “it’s racist to defend black,it’s racist to deny black people the right to defend themselves”:

So Steve, here is a guy who has forgotten what happened to people around the world, in particular Germany.

The guy goes on to make a bigger a** of himself as he continues to insult the other side...

It is clear that no one shouted out they needed guns to protect themselves from people who live on the South side. To the contrary, they were defending the right of the people in the South Side to bear arms to protect themselves from gangs. No one was casting racial aspersions, and for Goodman to suggest there was some sort of racial animus coming through the crowd is wrong.
The rest of Goodman’s blog post is worth perusing to capture the tenor of his presentation, including this:

The reasons people give for owning guns have changed over time. It has been a long time since most people would say they needed guns to keep their African slaves from rebelling or fleeing, and it has been quite a while since people said they needed to be able to defend themselves from native American savages.
​

And this:

When most people think of modern armed insurrectionists they probably think of kooks living in a cult compound somewhere in the hills out west. But there they were, right in the middle of a prosperous Midwestern suburb, in a meeting that was being held in the public assembly room of the local police station.
​

Below are a few responses to the anti-gun I recorded from the so-called alleged kooks and racists in the crowd, as Goodman would characterize them:

Goodman wasn’t content to treat his audience with contempt on Sunday, but he felt the need to smear the crowd, including the veteran who stood up and went to war to protect Goodman’s 1st Amendment rights, with baseless claims.
This event shows the importance of bringing a video camera to record public events. And consider submitting your videos to Legal Insurrection.

 

[billc]

For those here on martialtalk about to watch the news cycle...you may see this lie being put out that the father of a child at Sandy Hook was heckled at some hearings on the shootings...it isn't true...the video of the testimony is in the article...

The room is silent until Mr. Heslin says that no one can answer his question...and then people try to respond and they are silenced by the guy in charge...

Go to the 15 minute mark and you will see that only after he tries to say no one can answer his question...people try to answer it...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/29/Media-Lies-About-Sandy-Hook-Victim-Being-Heckled

Tuesday morning, many in the media went all in with a sanctimonious attack against gun-rights supporters, whom they accused of heckling Neil Heslin, the parent of a six-year-old boy murdered in the Sandy Hook massacre. The only problem is that it was all a lie. Mr. Heslin was not heckled.

If you look at the full, unedited tape (which was first obtained by Twitchy), you'll see that after 15 minutes of the audience remaining respectfully silent as Mr. Heslin spoke out against assault weapons, he then turns to ask the audience a direct question:

I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.

Mr. Heslin then pauses waiting for someone in the audience to answer. His question is respectfully asked but no one says a word.

Then Mr. Heslin says:

Not one person can answer that question.

And it's only then that a few people do answer the question, and do so respectfully.

The full, unedited video proves the media is lying. This is not heckling, this is someone respectfully asking a question and receiving a respectful answer.
Here's the unedited video. The moment in question occurs at the 15-minute mark:
--

So who are those spreading this libel? Twitchy has listed all the usual suspects….
The official Twitter accounts of The Daily Beast, Slate, The Huffington Post, MSNBC, Gawker, along wth Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed Politics, CNN's Piers Morgan, David Frum of the Daily Beast, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, Michael Skolnik of the Global Grind, Democrat Congressman Jim Himes, Talking Point Memo's Josh Marshall, and Vanity Fair's Kurt Eichenwald.
And once again, NBC News has been caught red-handed maliciously editing video to further its left-wing agenda. This is how MSNBC crafted heckling where none occurred:

 

[Tgace]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xLbhWsUfE&sns=em



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sukerkin]

Well, it seems it is time to get a news media that does not think it's job is entertainment and making money for advertisers.

It has been a shameful indictment of the news since it began that it will always have the bias of the purse-master (unless special measures are taken to preclude that, like the Charter of the BBC). Bad 'journalism has always chased sensationalism at the expense of truth and a public that should know better (and does know better really) drinks it all down, reacting according to their own bias, without checking other sources first.

Then there are our own, insidious and sometimes unacknowledged biases.

An example I have seen tonight is the enquiry into the mistreatment of Iraqi's by Coalition troops - my bias is that anything that comes from the 'enemy' and seeks to undermine our objectives is a lie. So I saw this man being recorded from Skype proclaiming that this and that happened and he saw this and that and my first reaction was "Liar!". He might be telling the truth but my bias wouldn't even let me listen to him properly (mind you, in my slim defence, 'phoning' it in with absolutely no evidence is so convincing). Even when I tell myself off for it and try to give the story some credence, the knowledge that there are groups trying to undermine the stability (LOL) of the country by destroying the authority of the Coalition instantly destroys the credibility of any unsupported allegations.

 

[Sukerkin]

Just watched the video that TG posted ... broke my heart.

And I wholeheartedly agree with what the man had to say and I salute his courage in going before the cameras to say it despite his grief.

 

[Flying Crane]

Brought to you by the Chicago Tribune, who won't let facts get in the way of hysterical support for gun control.

Does anyone know on what date this was printed? I'd like to see if it was indeed published by the Chicago Tribune, or if it might be a plant.

 

[Flying Crane]

Does anyone know on what date this was printed? I'd like to see if it was indeed published by the Chicago Tribune, or if it might be a plant.

already found it, thanks to my excellence in Google-fu. Here is the Tribune's acknowledgement and correction: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...n-fully-automatic-weapons-semi-automatic-guns

 

[celtic_crippler]

More proof that the Mainstream Media is the lapdog of the Establishment:

The FBI raids the offices of a doctor suspected of providing "free" trips & underage prostitutes to prominent Senator Menendez[D] and there was not one peep about it mentioned on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC,or CNN.

 

[billc]

Another example of media bias...from the left..again...and a clinton acolyte running the show...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/03/krugman-nra-insane-organization

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Sunday once again perfectly illustrated the intolerance of America's liberal media.
Appearing on ABC's This Week, he said the National Rifle Association is - and I quote! - "an insane organization" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

Wow! A New York Times columnist said on national television Sunday that the NRA is "an insane organization," and the only person that pushed back was Fiorina.
Why didn't host George Stephanopoulos step in a challenge Krugman for going so far?
Likely, it's because Stephanopoulos agreed with him.
Says a lot about today's media, doesn't it?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/03/krugman-nra-insane-organization#ixzz2JrSJ6QLw

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/03/krugman-nra-insane-organization#ixzz2JrSBD2na

 

[celtic_crippler]

"Network" was released in 1976... nobody listened.

 

[ballen0351]

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/geof...-cbs-nbc-slant-8-1-obamas-gun-control-crusade

MRC analysts reviewed all 216 gun policy stories on the Big Three networks’ evening (ABC’s World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning show programs (ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, NBC’s Today), beginning with the evening of the shooting through January 17, the morning after Obama made his speech surrounded by children who had sent him letters pushing for more gun control.

The results show staggering imbalance: (full report with chart and video after the jump)

*** ■ Stories advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 99 to 12, or a ratio of 8 to 1.
** *
** *■ Anti-gun soundbites were aired almost twice as frequently than pro-gun ones (228 to 134).
** *
** *■ Gun control advocates appeared as guests on 26 occasions, compared to 7 times for gun rights advocates.

 

[billc]

This goes to the non-stop anti-gun messages you will begin to see on every t.v. show and movie...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/02/04/Hawaii-Five-O-s-Anti-Gun-Homily

Last night's episode of Hawaii Five-O featured one of the show's characters going on a rant against "gun nuts" and the lack of both strict gun regulations and a pervasive, privacy-invading registration process.

Later in the same episode, the character apologized for lacking a warrant to review records of owners of post office boxes because it is an invasion of their right to privacy.
The episode, titled Hookman, is a remake of the 1973 fan favorite from the original Jack Lord series. The story featured a double amputee who lost his hands in the commission of a crime decades ago who later takes revenge against members of the Hawaii Police Department that put him in jail.
But this year's model was not a carbon copy of the original. Unlike the 1973 episode, this version let one of the characters go on a tirade against guns, gun laws and gun owners.

Anti-gun messages go back a long way...I remember episodes of E.R. with an anti-gun message, which didn't make sense in the circumstances, and on Chicago Hope, both hospital shows.

Officer Danny "Danno" Williams (Scott Caan) accompanied Officer McGarrett (Alex O'Loughlin) to the gun shop and, as McGarrett questioned the proprietor of the gun shop, Williams began to harass, dismiss and ridicule the shop owner as a "gun nut."
McGarrett asked the shop owner if he kept records of all the ammunition he sold and, of course, the shop owner said no. The fact is there are no regulations anywhere in the USA--continental or otherwise--for ammunition sales to be so thoroughly recorded. A real cop would know this, so a real "McGarrett" would never have asked the question in the first place. But "real" wasn't of interest here. The goal was to set Williams up for an anti-gun tirade.
After the shop owner said he didn't have the asked-for records and didn't want to keep such records to add to the mountain of federal forms he already had to fill out, Williams snidely said, "why would we want that?" Why would we want to be able to have enough records to track "gun nuts," he barked.
"Idiots with guns kill people," Williams said before wrapping his anti-Second Amendment sermon: "No guns, no killing it's that simple."
Yeah. Simple.
Who cares about privacy of gun owners? And that Constitution? Bah!
Yet, a little later in the same episode, the same character was apologetic to the owner of a storefront P.O. Box rental shop about violating the privacy of owners of post office boxes when, without a warrant, his partner broke into a file box with addresses and names of renters trying to find the killer. That was apparently an invasion of privacy as far as "Danno" was concerned.
So, privacy and civil rights for post office box renters, but none for gun owners? Picking and choosing which rights they want to allow people to have, that's the liberal way.

[/QUOTE]