Political Discussions
Bias in Cable News Outlets
Posted by anticsrocks • 8/23/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bias, lies, media, media bias, msnbc, obama, racism, town hall
A man brings a gun to a town hall meeting. It is because there is a black man in the White House. Its true! I mean they said so on MSNBC.
Check out this video, it explains the racism.
www.blogcatalog.com/blog/conservative-hideout-20
User Comments
-
The left is using the racism for everything. If you are against out of control spending and record national debt. It's because you are racist too...
One thing thats good about this is that it's going to take the power out of the term racist. Over/misuse of a term tends to have that effect.-
[oops. wrong placement] -
wrong spot
-
-
I'm not sure anyone understand the term racist as it is used in anti-racist circles (the accepted sociological definition). People with no study of it often go by the colloquial definition. The term Racist can't be used by those who have institutional power, and white men have institutional power in the USA, even when our president is not white. Though anyone can have "racial prejudice" racism is prejudice plus power., and is correctly demonstrated in much of what you are talking about here.
From Stuff White People Do, a simple explanation for everyone
"People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, based on their racial prejudices. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power."
People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist.-
You're kidding, right? Only white people can be racist? What, white people have the copyright to racism? Black people, Asians, Spaniards, Mexicans, Latin Americans or Eskimos can't be racists?
Making a judgment about someone based on their skin color or race isn't racism?
From Wikipedia:
"Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
From Dictionary. com:
"1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
From Merriam-Webster:
"1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2. racial prejudice or discrimination"
So tell us cooper, how can only white people be racists? Black people can't have a belief that their race is superior? Mexican people can't harbor hatred or intolerance of other races?
Please, don't just copy and paste something that fits your ideology; give us in your own words how only white people can be racists. -
Racial prejudice, which anyone can have is not the same thing as racism.
You obviously didn't read the comment, the accepted sociological definition, which is what people should be using when talking about politics, and history, is as given in what I wrote. If you want to troll boards with random opinions use the colloquial term, which is not used by those who want a serious discussion, but is often used by people who just want to post links to you tube videos. -
Antics gave plenty of references to reputable sources that says otherwise. How about you prove a link to something reputable that backs your point of view?
You bitch about others links and show none yourself... Kinda funny. -
The premise of the OP is silly, so I'm not even going to go there. But your own comments, Cooper, interest me. Just how widely accepted is that definition in academic circles, Cooper?
While I have no sympathy for the trollish behavior of those who attack actual thought on this board, I would have a hard time accepting the definition you offer, simply because I don't see the need to restrict the term in such a manner. If nothing else, it lays the user open to those who want to willfully misunderstand the academic distinction you are making. And what benefits does one gain from your distinction that one couldn't already reap by using the kind of English you do here when you talk about the lethal combination of racial prejudice and institutional power? -
@CSI Antics referred to everyday usage of the term and referenced English dictionaries. Cooper is referring to the term's usage in a specific academic context. Such a usage is new to me. It cannot be delegitimized by the force of ordinary (read: dictionary) usage alone, though that could be one reason to avoid it, as I indicated in my previous comment.
-
Note that Cooper's response has absolutely nothing to do with the premise. Cooper is simply quoting the cultural Marxism that they likely learned in public school or at a university. Cooper also dismisses any facts or other information that runs contrary to the construct with which he or she has been indoctrinated. Rather than actually discuss facts, which would take them off of their talking points, he or she simply dismisses the person raising a criticism, rather than actually discuss the merits of any points forwarded. Ideas can be proven or invalidated by observation. On the contrary, if the person positing an idea can be discredited, the idea presented can then be ignored. This, ironically, is exactly what the left is trying to do to the protesters, as well as anyone who disagrees with the POTUS. Come to think of it, that's pretty much what the left does in any situation.
This particular brand of cultural Marxism is designed to create and maintain victim classes, while at the same time, justifying re-distribution of wealth. Both allow the left to maintain a power base, one by creating a perpetual underclass, while at the same time, extracting taxes from other classes to "make right" the alleged injustice. I think we can see how that is working out.
So the media lied, and lefties respond by spouting cultural Marxism. This is classic misdirection and obfuscation. Thanks for playing! -
MArk,
Cooper claims that this is "accepted use" if that is so, then there will be plenty of publications that use and define it.
Or of course, there could be zero reliable sources that propagate such a use of the term. I'm just waiting for cooper to spit something out besides the obvious recap of someone elses doing.
NOthing more boring than arguing with a paraphraser sans original thoughs. -
"Spaniards" aren't white?
I mean we found out that Portuguese people weren't white in the Skip Gates thread, but come on... o_0 -
@socialsolutions: It seems to me you wouldn't recognize marxism if it bit you in the rear end. You're in good company here, though, as some others here like to throw around the term socialism just as casually and falsely as could be.
-
Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment,
while Reverse discrimination favours members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of those of a historically advantaged group.
Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people,
even though anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic differences.
According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism -
Again we are dealing with a broad definition verses a narrow definition. A better and more inclusive term would be chauvinism.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinist -
The "anti-racists" (terrible term by the way) made up a brand new definition for an already defined word. They can go ahead and make up a new word that fits their narrow and unproductive definition.
-
-
-
I think that most people opinions are formed from their education, what they learn in college, grad school and life. Anyone can post links, this is a discussion forum, and the great thing about most forums is they provide discussions, not links. I don't need proof of what I say, it is a fact of sociological study, and you can easily find it in any basic college course on the subject. It is not something I can find on You Tube, or on some other random place where you all get your information.
I spend most of my time at school, or working, so I'm not likely to do your research for you. As for me I've already done mine.
You would all would do well to get off the computer and read something. -
Of course, CSI is attacking a straw man. He's attacking what he thinks you said, not what you said.
-
No, he's attacking what he or she said. It's Marxism.
-
"People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist."
I'm attacking what cooper wrote verbatim, which is again, the dumbest shit I've heard all day.
And as always, cooper can try to hide behind, "I'm not doing your research for you", which of course is synonymous to the true meaning "I have no proof only my own diatribe."
What about South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, countries where colored people are in institutional power. It would stand to reason that in such countries whites could not be racist.
Which of course is equally dim witted to claim. -
"I don't need proof of what I say, it is a fact of sociological study, and you can easily find it in any basic college course on the subject."
In other words cooper, you made it up. Otherwise you could provide support. Funny when csi or myself state something and fail to provide a credible source, mark is the first and usually the loudest to yell "Source! We need a source!!" But since it was cooper, a far lefty, mark seems to not need her to provide source. -
So in a city that is predominately black, the blacks have more power than other races. You claim they still can't be racist. Stay blacks can't be racist because they don't have power: 1) pardons blacks for what people who live in the real word know as racism and 2.) is insulting to blacks because it strips them of the power they do have.
-
-
cooper, mark - either of you want to talk about what MSNBC did in this case? What do you have to say about how they lied and purposely hid the color of the skin of the man who had the rifle so they could cry racism?
If you took the letters MSNBC away and substituted F O X, then I believe mark and cooper would have volumes to say.
Shout out to socialsolutions for the permission to link to your video.-
Why on earth would I bother to make something up?
I'm not sure what you want me to prove, it is the standard sociological definition for institutional racism. The term was coined by Stokely Carmichael and expanded upon, and when people who typically discuss racism academically use the term that is what they are talking about, they are not taking about racial prejudice. You can clearly look up institutional racism on line,as well as it's history and application, and if you have access to a uni library you can find them and read as many academic papers as you want.
Otherwise I suggest reading some of Michael Eric Dyson's work. He is a professor of sociology at Georgetown University. -
Anything to avoid talking about the OP, huh cooper? Afraid to admit that MSLSD is lying? What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
-
-
I lost interest in the video about 3 seconds in. Is there a non biased clip of the MSNBC report I can see?
Here's the deal, though (not knowing what was said/done but rather a casual observation in general). If a leftist protester had brought a gun to a protest where there were signs about Bush of the same caliber as the signs about Obama that have shown up at these tea parties, the protester would have been arrested, and charged (for carrying a weapon) and then slaughtered on the news for being a terrorist.
Now that it's the right protesting, and the signs AND conversation about Obama are racially based if not charged - when someone brings a gun to one of these rallies, that person will be slaughtered on the news for being a racist.
What goes around comes around, and I seriously hope that the far right conservatives who cheered every time a leftists protester "got what he deserved" feels the full weight of what they started while they're protesting.-
Anok, I completely agree.
If the Right demonstrators stars wearing balaclavas to hide their identities, breaking windows, throwing things at the police, they should get everything that's coming to them. Hopefully a cracked skull or two.
If they stand around breaking no laws, they should be left alone. -
Actually if we were in a topsi-turvi world, Tea-protesters would be getting cracked heads, and then the right wing press that showed up to report it would get dragged on their face by the police
www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers
www.thomhartmann.com/2008/09/03/transcript-amy-goodman-sharif-abdel-kouddou...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXG9wAILqGs&NR=1 -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn4z5Gs6bPk&feature=fvw
0.17 in this video....
Yeah, if they act like that person, they should be lucky to walk out alive. -
It aint illegal to cover your face. It IS illegal to carry a weapon to a public gathering like a protest.
An Anarchist couldn't carry a gun to a protest - with a license to carry - we get cuffed and stuffed for simply being there and NOT do anything.
The right is getting a tase of their own medicine - and they don't like it, which makes it all teh more sweet.
But I do find it odd that the liberal press and those who oppose violence at protests such as yourself didn't scream bloody murder when no less than FIVE right wing counter protesters jumped and beat up a gold star father at a protest.
Hmmm?
or how about when a 6'4" 200+ LB man beat up a 4'10" woman at a protest? Where was the liberal media then? Where was the outrage?
Why not take you gold and buy a clue, Erik. Oh, wait, you probably don't have any. -
Again, the "right" uses the "Two wrongs make a right" arguement?
Random street violence in one location justifies suppression of the free press in another. Simply, unbelievably, ABSURD! -
No, depending on the state, it is NOT illegal to carry firearms. if it was, don't you think they would have arrested these people... LMAO, delusion runs deep.
Why don't you lefties stop acting like a wannabe terrorist and show your face instead. Or are you afraid that you'll be identified committing the CRIMES that you do.. Destruction, assault.. etc?
Lefty Demonstrators are nothing but chicken crybabies/ -
It is NOT legal to carry a weapon TO A PROTEST. You do understand the difference between carrying concealed in general, and carrying concealed to outings and places of a specific nature, don't you?
And of course they didn't arrest him. They never get arrested.
Why don't you lefties stop acting like a wannabe terrorist and show your face instead.
Oh, I've never heard that one before *rolls eyes*
Not only have you gone incoherent, but stale insults too? Have you been hittin' the sauce?
But I am glad that you condone violence against people when it suits your purpose, but not when it's directed at anyone you like. Hypocrisy, it's what's for dinner at the RNC! -
I don't know about the legalities, but an armed group of people united in cause can hardly be thought of as peacefully assembled. maybe they tollerate the sans-culottes down in AZ, but they would certainly not be as well recieved if they marched on Washington DC like that... o_0
-
Not to mention the fact that if people saw the gun plain as day - it can hardly be considered "concealed" - as is required by law. That is DEFINITELY against the law.
And yet, still not arrested. We had protesters getting arrested or detained temporarily for wielding dangerous cameras and protest signs. *sigh* -
It depends on where a person is, and what they are doing. I don't know if the gun being worn outside of the clothing was necessarily illegal. It seems that if it had been so in the location that the people were standing, they would have been arrested.
Different locales are different of course. If a person yells at a cop that he is racist in Cambridge, MA, they can be arrested on your own property. If they are brandishing weapons in response to a presidential visit in AZ, that's appearently leagal:
www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/08/18/2009-08-18_guntoting_protester...
The article says AZ has "open carry" laws, so it's technically legal in that context. -
Holy crap - the man had an M-15 - in a school zone, at a political speech.
And people are pissed that two scary lookin' dudes were standing in front of a polling place - because their mere presence was "intimidation"?
WTF?!?!?!
If that had been Bush, and the protesters anti-war activists (with plastic guns, even), the national guard would have been called in - chemical spray, percussion grenades, flares and goo-guns would have been used - protesters would have been beaten to a pulp by the cops, and arrested and thrown in jail for being terrorists or plotting to kill the president.
But these guys? Meh - no problem! SO what if they have military grade weapons? -
you forgot about the one-way trip to Syria via a military cargo plane. Of course we as a nation have the moral highground to comment on civil liberties in places like Russia.
Let's face it, we have a government in which rights are determined by real or percieved ownership of property
-
@Anok...if you didn't watch the video, then why comment? The whole point of the video is to view the bias of MSNBC. Please view the video...just a few minutes, not long. Then comment on it instead of a what-if comment that just bashes Bush.
-
@Agit8r..."Again, the "right" uses the "Two wrongs make a right" arguement?"
I did no such thing. I posted the OP with the video link to promote a discussion on bias in the media. Every lib on BC seems to castigate Fox news, often confusing the commentators with the news anchors, and saying that Fox news is biased. I post a video that clearly shows MSNBC casting bias on a story and the only response I can get out of the liberals is an argument that only white people can be racists.
It is beginning to become abundantly clear that mark, ruin, poly, cooper and the other far left loons on BC have absolutely no aspirations to promote civil discussions. On my second or third day on BC, I was attacked and called a moron by a very far left blogger. (He is no longer posting on BC, thank God.) Yet I am constantly being called a bully, a troll, constantly being accused of attacking rather than debating.
Funny, I give the lib bloggers a chance to debate, and what happens? They ignore the OP and contrive an argument to avoid the discussion. How low can one get?
I challenge you mark, to speak to the OP.
Was MSNBC biased in their story, as the video purports? If so why?
I challenge you cooper, to speak to the OP.
Did MSNBC purposely lie by omission about the color of the person carrying the rifle?
If the two of you are too cowardly to debate this, discuss this or just chat about the friggin thing, then so be it. It will tell all of us here on BC that you check your morals at the door and only want to "debate" with people who agree with you. Evidently you are afraid of honest, real debate.
If that is the case, then why bother blogging? If not, then please answer my questions so we can talk about this. -
Antics, I would like to see the actual video/news clip that is being addressed so I can asses the bias for myself, not the commentary on it. So far, no one has bothered to provide it for inspection.
However I was not actually bashing Bush (for once) but rather addressing the so-called "bias" shown in favor of liberals when protesting by the administration and the media. Or shorter, I am showing that the bias swings with the selling story rather than with any party.
The media did not glorify the liberal protests in any way when the Bush admin was in place, nor were liberal's first amendment rights treated with even a modicum of respect by said administration. (relevance: more liberal protesting when Bush was in office). However now that Obama is in office, the media is all about trashing the protesters once again, who happen to be conservatives. However what you don't see is the Obama administration trampling on their rights in the same way.
If loaded weapons had appeared at a liberal protest jail time would be pending and permits revoked immediately. -
@Anok...just watch the video. It shows the MSNBC clip and then shows the same footage on CNN.
-
@antics
I was responding to csi's response to my comment, not the OP. I freely admit that there is a definite bias on both MSNBC and Fox.
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/bias-in-cable-news-outlets#comme... -
Holy crap - the man had an M-15 - in a school zone, at a political speech.
He has to be military then.
That wasn't an M-15, if you calm your feelers down a little, you'll at least take the time to get things right.
HOLY C.. someone had a Nuke at a rally..
Oh, it was a cherry bomb... my bad... -
FAIL!
That aint no cherry bomb.
Now - wanna try that again? -
It sure ain't no M-15.
Thats an AR-15... looks similar, but quite different. -
yeah, and? "looks similar but is very different" No less deadly, no less automatic, no less loaded, and no less a threat at a public gathering.
It aint no cherry bomb, kid. try again. -
Stop Lying,
It is ABSOLUTELY not an automatic, it's a semi auto, the M is a military fully automatic.
its like comparing a volvo to a ferarri... they're both cars -
AR-15 (for Armalite model 15,[9]) is the common name for the widely-owned[10] semi-automatic rifle which is derived from the selective fire M16-series assault rifle, currently in use by the United States military. ("AR-15" was the original name for the select-fire rifle before it was adopted as the M16. Today, however, "AR-15" is now used almost exclusively to refer to semi-automatic versions of the M16-series rifles.)
Semi-automatic AR-15 for sale to civilians and fully automatic versions for sale to law enforcement and military customers, though nearly identical in appearance, are quite different internally. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a slightly different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. This was done specifically to satisfy BATF requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to fully-automatic. Despite this, through use of a "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning-link," conversion to full automatic is very straightforward (sometimes requiring slight modification to the bolt carrier).[13][14] Such modifications, unless using parts made prior to 1986, are illegal. An illegally converted fully-automatic AR-15 was used in the North Hollywood shootout.
Some notable features of the AR-15 include:
* Aircraft grade aluminium receiver
* Modular design allows for a variety of accessories and makes repair easier
* Small caliber, accurate, high velocity round
* Synthetic stock and grips do not warp or splinter
* Front sight adjustable for elevation
* Rear sight adjustable for windage and elevation
* Wide array of optical devices available in addition to or as replacements of iron sights
* A direct impingement gas system
* Synthetic pistol grip (regulated in some jurisdictions)
It's a military and police grade weapon - that is highly customizable, and able to be converted to fully automatic.
It is more deadly than most guns out there.
FAIL! Try again. -
You are seroiusly lacking in reality checks.. Order a new book.
"Semi-automatic AR-15 for sale to civilians and fully automatic versions for sale to law enforcement and military customers, though nearly identical in appearance, are quite different internally."
How did I fail when you proved EVERYTHING i said?
Epic Fail, -
Ouch.
-
Because it can be converted and has - if you read beyond the first sentence. I also included what the public version can do - and it is a seriously dangerous weapon.
Beyond that it's a military and police grade weapon - you FAILED because you made my shock about the man carrying it at a rally out to be something like shock at carrying a peashooter - which it is clearly not.
Like I said - all the hubbub about how two scary lookin' dudes were "intimidating" voters - and not a word about angry protesters carrying military grade weapons to a presidential speech. Typical hypocrisy.
FAIL! -
You let me know when you actually understand a single thing of what you are talking about.
Like YOUR OWN post says...
"Semi-automatic AR-15 for sale to civilians and fully automatic versions for sale to law enforcement and military customers, though nearly identical in appearance, are quite different internally."
The "MILITARY" Grade weapons you are talking about are "QUITE DIFFERENT INTERNALLY"... Read that again....
So your protest is that it "looks" like a military grade weapon.
As always, those that don't know are happy to judge by the cover.
The civillian version is normally chambered in .223 Remington, the military in 5.56x45 NATO. Which LOOKS identical.
The .223 caliber that is normally chambered in the AR, has a much lower case pressure than the 5.56x45 Nato that is used in the M-4 (which is the designation for the Military / law enforcement version. That means that the bullets look exactly the same, but have a lot less force. The M4 can because of this fire the .223 civilian round with less force, but to load a 5.56 into a .223 chambered gun can be very dangerous because the chamber isn't strong enough for it.
Other differences include: Dual feed ramps, different bolt lock, different bolt carrier group, different impingement connector, and a score of other things, THE BIG ONE BEING a narrowing of the lower reciever that makes the Modifications you talk about much harder to do. But ANY semi automatic can be modified... IF you're a gunsmith.
So again, your lack of knowledge is understandable, most non-military / non shooters wouldn't know any of this.
The fact that you proclaim MY Failure based on your lack of knowledge however is funny.
Epic Fail with a cherry on top. -
This argument reminds me of the '94 ban on assault weapons when Feinstein wnet through a gun catalog and picked the "scariest" looking guns to put on the list...
The AR-15 is NOT a military grade weapon. It can be ILLEGALLY modified to be full auto. However, as it is manufactured it is not a military weapon, or even an assault weapon. It is a rifle, no matter what it looks like. -
Bingo Antics,
-
Actually Antics - both versions are considered military grade and police grade. However no one knows whether this guy has the semi-auto or full auto version - both of which are sold legally in the US.
It is not an ordinary rifle by any means - I have rifles, I use them to hunt - and that is NOT "just a rifle." I would never use that for hunting. (OK, maybe if i was hunting terrorists, or rhinos or dinosaurs or something).
In any case where is the outrage of intimidation by bringing military grade assault weapons to protests? Hmm? Why on Earth would they bring these to a protest - where the president was speaking?
Are they at a presidential speech or a checkpoint in Baghdad?
Antics - you know I support 2nd amendment rights - but we should not abuse the right, either. carrying a weapon of this nature around like Rambo to protests which can get ugly and are allegedly "controlled' by the police is just plain idiocy. What, the police wanted a shoot out if it got out of control? Was the guy gonna shoot a liberal if he saw one he didn't like? The president?
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're batshitcrazy! -
I was simply pointing out that appearances don't count for everything, Anok. I applaud your support of our right to bear arms. Now, do I think that guy should have taken any weapon to a place where our President is speaking? No. I do feel that he brought it, and this is only my supposition, to protest Obama's stance on gun control. I mean if he was intending any harm, I doubt he would be walking around with it over his shoulder.
-
I guess a sign stating his opposition wasn't threatening enough?
I find the whole of it irritating, not just because what they were doing was stupid, but also the double standard applied to conservative protesters VS liberal protesters.
Just imagine had that been a Bush or McCain speech, and the protesters were liberals with guns. Just imagine - the DHS "infiltrated" and arrested groups of protesters before the RNC even took place based on nothing. (They were arrested long before the protests even took place, and long before they even had a chance to break the law if they had wanted to)
Could you imagine what they would have done if those protesters had guns or weapons?
Anyone complaining that conservatives are being treated unfairly now during protests needs only to compare the two events to see where the bias actually lies
Meh. (Although I'm glad we agree on not taking a gun to a protest what stupidity!) -
You go right ahead and try to hunt big game with it.
Most people wouldn't, the .223 is considered weak even for deer. To hunt larger game, (moose, elk, etc.) is absolutely not recommended.
It is commonly used for hunting varmint, things like Coyote, prarie dogs etc though. And is quite good at turkey for instance.
Stop trying to make something out to be what it's not, this is not a military grade weapon in any way. -
If it isn't military grade, why does the military use them? Why does the police force buy them?
I am making it out to be exactly what it is - a deadly weapon that can kill a lot of people in short order. There is NO reason to be carrying it around with you in public, much less to a presidential speech.
Now, how's about we talk ab out the bias here? I see no one wants to touch the fact that liberal protesters get arrested for simply wanting to protest, wearing an anti-president T-shirt etc and so forth, while conservative protesters get to march about like soldiers with assault rifles, clearly intimidating anyone not in their camp.
Where is the outrage about intimidation practices there? Where is the outrage like the type we saw with regards to the two black guys standing in front of a polling place? Hmmm?
The silence about the double standard is deafening. -
You think a guy standing at a rally with a gun, is worse than two guys standing at the door of a Polling place on election day with weapons?.
I don't, One was legal, the other illegal, even though Obamas gang made sure they weren't prosecuted for it. -
You think a guy standing at a rally with a gun, is worse than two guys standing at the door of a Polling place on election day with weapons?.
Since when is a gun not a weapon? And since when are several people carrying guns (deadly weapons) at the place where the president is present less of a threat than two guys with a stick?
I don't, One was legal, the other illegal, even though Obamas gang made sure they weren't prosecuted for it.
Well, let's see...the two guys at the poll were not arrested either, so apparently they weren't breaking any laws. However the greatest difference that I see is that one incident occurred with deadly weapons - where the president of the US was present, and the other did not.
Me thinks your priorities are a little messed up.... -
On the two guys to whom CSI is referring, not by coincidence, according to the two-wrongs-make-a-right school of thought: washingtonindependent.com/56918/civil-rights-commission-may-target-doj-over...
-
It amazes me that the conservatives are throwing an absolute tantrum over two guys who didn't actually do anything (and did obey the police when asked to leave), but carrying military grade weapons to a presidential speech is OK.
Since when has it ever been OK to have deadly weapons at a presidential appearance?!?!?!
No wonder people think we're nuts.
*headdesk* -
It's of a piece with their reaction to the broader militia movement as well. www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/militia-movement
-
What amazes me is the tantrum they are throwing about someone trying to fix the economy when they didn't even raise a brow regarding the hundreds of millions spent on an unjust war and the loosely regulated industries that largely contributed to the problems in the first place. -
@Anok...first of all lets look at what you said.
"It amazes me that the conservatives are throwing an absolute tantrum over two guys who didn't actually do anything (and did obey the police when asked to leave), but carrying military grade weapons to a presidential speech is OK."
Okay, you have a point. I said it was wrong, but tried to explain that the person with the gun was wearing it as a protest to what he perceived as Obama's threat to his 2nd Amendment rights.
He didn't threaten anyone. He submitted to verification by the police that it was legal for him to have and carry it. He did not try to intimidate anyone. The Black Panthers at the polling place DID intimidate people, and you keep overlooking that they violated Federal Voting Laws, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
So I could say to you, "It amazes me that the leftists are throwing an absolute tantrum over a guy who didn't actually do anything (and did obey the police), but displaying intimidating behavior, brandishing a weapon, and intimidating voters is OK."
Are there not two sides to every coin? -
Antics - I am unaware of any time after the assassination of JFK when guns or weapons were allowed on a person who was in even a remote vicinity of the president.
I don't care if the man had a note from the Pope, people marching about with guns at a presidential speech is extremely intimidating to everyone else.
The case for the two guys at the polls is closed - one person complained of intimidation, no one else was. They were given an injunction for carrying the nightstick, and asked not to carry one to a polling place again. Issue over - the guys marching around with assault weapons are FAR more intimidating than anything else I can think of.
Why?
Because they have assault weapons!
If there had been counter protesters, I'll guarantee they left in a hurry because they were terrified they might get shot for opposing the protests. Showing your gun is the same as an animal bearing it's teeth - it is a form of total intimidation.
And with the violent rhetoric from the right increasing - it amazes me that they were allowed to carry those weapons to a protest at all.
Hell, if an Anarchist has so much as a soda bottle, the police confiscate it because we're "violent" and that soda might be a bomb *rolls eyes* (true story, by the way, but it was a bottle of iced tea).
The double standard is glaring. -
pretty soon they'll prob'ly start riding around on black motorcycles, and charging "bullet fees" for "protecting themselves" from counter-protesters.
-
@Agit8r...only if it is a Rolling Stones concert and the Hells Angels are in charge of security.
@Anok..."The double standard is glaring."
Yes it is.
I said the man was wrong for doing it. I said it was a stupid, yet perfectly legal thing to do. The bottom line is the two Black Panthers were there purposely intimidating voters. That violates a Federal Law, yet that doesn't even bother you? Even back when we were discussing it, you never (if memory serves) admitted that the Black Panthers were wrong for what they did. You have absolutely no problem with two men breaking a Federal Law. Why? Why is it okay for them to break the law? Could you please explain that?
I try to show you that you can look at this situation both ways, yet you continue to overlook the men who broke the law and castigate the man who did not. -
I was thinking more along the lines of Iran than Altamont...
-
I know, but your comments brought to mind that fiasco, I couldn't resist.
-
-
@ Markstoneman...
Your response has one deficiency. Your insult is baseless, as you do not present a single shred of evidence to back it. It is a simple thing to insult someone. The point of the effort is, of course, to discredit an individual so that the underlying idea is not examined. In my earlier response, I made the point that Cooper was citing a concept known as Cultural Marxism. I stated reasoning behind that claim. Might you actually try to refute that, or will you continue to act as a petulant child?
Might you also cite and refute one single claim of socialism? Or will you just change the subject and fire off another lame insult?-
What do socialism and Marxism have to do with media bias?
Political philosophy....VS.....bias geared towards whatever controversy will sell the most papers....
Erm. -
"bias geared towards whatever controversy will sell the most papers..."
Politics really is show business now isn't it
-
Well, for the media it's a bloodsport - just what they need to stay in business. (When the celebs aren't OD'ing and whatnot).
-
yeah... but political cable news is like Fenno's Gazette vs. The National Gazette all over again.
-
-
@ Anok, "It is NOT legal to carry a weapon TO A PROTEST. You do understand the difference between carrying concealed in general, and carrying concealed to outings and places of a specific nature, don't you?"
Eh, at the protest in question, the weapon was carried in the open, which is perfectly legal in that state. Carrying concealed weapons is illegal in most states (without a permit), but since you lost interest in the video, you didn't hear that.
I think many of you are making a error in scale when discussing left vs. right protests. For example, how many cars destroyed at the teaparties? How many at the '08 RNC protests? How many buildings vandalized? The lefties at their protests cover their faces to avoid prosecution for the crimes they commit. They attack police, get their asses kicked, and then claim brutality. Classic lefty tactics- accuse the opposition of what you are doing.
If you want to claim violence from the right, do so, but document it. Post a video. Surely at these protests with thousands of people in attendance, there was a camera. If it happened, I will condemn it.-
What state was this protest in? Lets check the gun laws, because you need a license to carry a gun - and most states require the guns to be concealed, not the other way around.
Go look at my blog - post title "Hall of Shame" that's when five "Gathering of Eagles" jumped a gold star father - and there are photos. it was all over the blogosphere - not in the media.
There were several accounts of the GoE attacking protesters at events. google "Westpoint protests" and you'll find the account of the woman in NY being attacked by a 6'4" man. She and my husband - who was strangled by a GoE member with an American flag at a protest - are the reason I started blogging this stuff.
The group even had their protest permits revoked fro violence in South Carolina (I think, it may have been Georgia).
There were literally hundreds of videos on youtube from the ANSWER protests confirmed abuses by the counter protesters (people attacked, photographers cameras smashed in to the ground) and no - protesters on the left side did NOT bomb cars or set them on fire at the RNC.
Even Fox news journalists were rounded up at the RNC demonstrations - and even they complained about the police brutality. (I blogged that too "Violence at the RNC" - one of my posts was live blogged from the twitter accounts as it happened, the second post was a summation of the event)
police were NOT attacked, property was NOT damaged. People were, however, unfairly arrested, chemical sprayed, smoke bombed, percussion bombed - even journalists - with passes to be there.
On youtube look up videos of Adam Kokesh getting arrested rather brutally for legally posting a flier. Just keep following the links on Youtube, and listen to how the conservatives talk to the leftist groups/people in the comments. Listen to the violence and hatred they spew. Watch the videos of these people freaking out on photographers, young women, and people otherwise minding their own business.
A few years ago the group "counterprotested" a peace vigil in New Haven CT, where they spit on a wheelchair bound WWII vet. When his wife kicked the spitter on his ass, he turned around and pressed charges! She was 80 years old, he was about 30, and they had just spit on her husband!
Unbelievable.
How liberal can the media be if they don't report these things? Hmm?
I'm tired of hearing how liberal the media is, and how "peaceful" the conservatives are. It's bullshit. out and out Bullshit. The only thing the media reports is the stuff that makes headlines.
Oh, and only Anarchists cover their faces. I happen to be one of them, and I've never thrown a brick or destroyed property.
But I have received death threats and threats of physical harm to myself from these freaks. I have over 300 pages of threats - all printed out, and sent to appropriate groups for my protection.
Peaceful my ass. -
-
Er, Anok, I've seen stills and video of folks at the '08 RNC destroying a police car, throwing things through windows, dropping sandbags on buses full of delegates. We these all staged?
And Fox news, I saw the video of that too. They were attacked by protesters.
What is the color of the sky in your world?
At any rate, debating you people is like trying to reason with a three year old, unrewarding, impossible, and a waste of time. -
You're wrong "social solutions". Fox news was NOT attacked by protesters. They released their own statements about how the police herded them all into one area, and then began using percussion grenades etc.
Do you not watch any news?
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/09/update.html
From ABC news:
Police in riot gear swarmed the area outside the convention center, deploying tear gas and distraction devices known as "flash bangs" in an attempt to disperse the crowd.
Approximately three-hundred protesters were held on the bridge for nearly an hour over Interstate 94 in St. Paul. After hours of people protesting, police instructed demonstrators to file onto the bridge and then announced everyone would be arrested, refusing to allow anyone off the overpass. Law enforcement barricading the bridge fired pepper spray, instructing protesters to put their hands behind their heads.
ABC News' Jennifer Duck was trapped with the marchers on the bridge and observed many young children scared and crying. She spoke to several marchers who said they wanted to go home, but the police refused to allow any movement. Members of the media, and many trying to follow police direction were being pepper sprayed in the face.
Twin City Indy Media:
Fortunately for decent folk, it appears they went way too far: even Tom Lyden on Fox9 said that it was like a police state, and after playing clips of massive, unwarranted pepper spraying, he concluded his segment by saying that they'd be looking into a blue ribbon panel to see what the hell happened. When you've lost Fox News on the final night of the RNC.... well, some things just can't be spun.
Legal observers on-scene were incensed that they were directed to move to safety in one direction, then they themselves got arrested.
Kare11's cameraman got arrested (has been released), WCCO's cameraman Tom Aviles got arrested, Pioneer Press' Ben Garvin got detained for two hours and shot one hell of a video. In particular, the WCCO footage is possibly the strongest we've yet seen from a corporate source!
Chris Hermes of the National Lawyers Guild said he was shocked that riot police showed up.
On the Capitol grounds, Wylie Stecklow, a New York City attorney, said he witnessed police arresting a couple nearby without cause. About 70 police officers in riot gear arrived on the scene with another 16 on horses.
"This is just poor decision-making by the police," Stecklow said. "The rally was incredibly peaceful."
So you are faced with violence from the right, and revert to calling me childish and unreasonable.
riiight. When confronted with facts, resort to willful ignorance.
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/09/sign-of-things-to-come.html
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/09/rnc-protests-riots.html (Live blogging of the RNC)
You want photos of the Eagles beating up Carlos Arredondo? Here ya go:
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2007/10/hall-of-shame.html
and here: identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2007/10/this-is-patriotism-bush-style.html
New report abotu teh small woman who was attacked by a alrge man. If I can findthe photo (which is no longer on Yahoo news) I will post it:
www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4134&Itemid...
A small woman, Kathy Devlin was simply walking by when someone punched her in the kidney area as police would not allow her husband or son to come to her defense. These deviates topped it off with an obscenity directed to her that I will not repeat because of its repulsive nature.
nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/05/86666.shtml
At one point I crossed the street and was immediately surrounded by their angry mob. I am 4' 11" tall. A large man who was standing behind me got great pleasure out of punching me in my left kidney 3 times. There was a cop standing in front of me when this was happening and I told him I was being assaulted, he did nothing to help me. In fact, the police held back my husband and others who crossed the street to help me. Lucky for me one of the organizers made it through and helped me out. I am ok today, sore and bruised on my lower left back area.. I'm thinking of calling the Highland Falls police Dept and filing a complaint that the man who hit me was not arrested.
Now, how about YOU addressing the people who were violent enough without weapons carrying LOADED FIREARMS to protests?
Hmm? -
You've got to remember Anok, Police are union goons too
-
Just because you have had nebative experiences with the police in your area Agit8r, it doesn't mean all police are bad. Painting with a broad brush there, aren't you? Careful, that comes close to bigotry...
-
belongs to a union + engages in coercive tactics that violate the Rule of Law = Union Goon
just sayin' -
Gah! I meant negative, not nebative. It was late, lol.
@Agit8r...I know, but disparaging an entire segment like that... -
well, no, right... only that portion that belongs to unions of course... a few small towns out there have no public service unions, right?
-
I'm just saying that not all cops are bad and it is not a good thing to cast them all in the same light. You are usually more open minded than that.
Unions are like anything else. There are good ones, and bad ones. And within those unions, there are good people and bad people. In our society, the bad ones get all the press.
-
-
Frankly a country that has civilians carrying guns in public places is only the blinking of an eye from a failed state. That is the story.-
Yeah. That is the story. /sarcasm
Sorry bud, but we have something in America called the right to bear arms. You wouldn't know anything about that, so hush. -
You know you are right, polybore lives in a civilised country, so sorry for the intrusion, polybore knows nothing of a country where the only way to feel safe is if you are carrying a weapon.
Polybore knows nothing of a country were yo can only feel like you are free if you can carry a weapon.
Polybore will hush now and let you get on with killing one another, how quaint. -
Civilized??? I thought you lived in G.B.
-
-
relative bias
this morning on MSNBC - multi-hour focus on Teddy Kennedy
this morning on Fox - does Fan Can make college students binge drink-
I'm watching them discuss Ted Kennedy right now.
Are you saying that they should devote the whole morning to it, or are you saying that MSNBC Are biased because they apparently think the world needs to know about that and nothing else.
It's a news channel, more things happened / are happening than the passing of senator Kennedy. -
during my six-o'clock break, all channels were covering him, and his accomplishments... including Fox.
-
After Senators Thurmond and Byrd, Senator Kennedy was the longest-serving senator in our country. Think about it. He's been in the Senate since 1962 and done a lot. His contributions are part of American history and very newsworthy. Or do we only leave such honors to the Michael Jacksons of this world?
-
I don't agree with almost anything he stands for. But I have a tremendous respect for someone who can both be described as the most partisan, and the one that would get deals made across the Isle.
He has stood up for what he believes for the better part of 47 years, Whether we agree or not, one has to respect that kind of record. -
When he passed last night/early, early AM - Fox interrupted programming to talk about Sen. Kennedy.
-
Seemed interesting bias on both channels.
I bet if one counted the minutes dedicated to Kennedy on MSNBC and Fox for today, MSNBE would have significantly more.
-
-
Bringing a rifle to a town hall meeting is a stupid thing regardless of what the media reads into it.
Yes... MSNBC displays left bias, but it still has a long way to go before it reaches extreme bias and misinformation found on Fox News.
www.ruinousright.com/the_fixed_news_channel.html-
Long way to go?
Guess you haven't been watching Rachel Madcow...
-
-
During an interview with NPR in March the senior vice president for programming at Fox News, Bill Shine called his network the voice of opposition to the Obama administration. So much for the fair and balanced slogan, but at least FNC is now being honest about its intentions.
What Fox is doing here is mirroring the shift in the Republican Party. The GOP is moving more to the right, and FNC sees ratings in appealing to disgruntled Republicans who hate Obama. The angrier FNC gets with Obama, the happier their base viewership will be with the network.
www.politicususa.com/en/Fox-News-Voice-of-Opposition -
Well Fox News is dominating cable news now so that should tell you where the people are shifting their opinion too. Most people are generally conservative minded.-
Yes, absolutely.
Not to mention the talk on the street. Every single right oriented grassroots group I've been in touch with is growing like crazy.
"Astroturf" growing, must be some miracle. -
hmmm. So fox has higher ratings than the three "left-wing" news networks combined (CNN, HLN, MSNBC)?
Also, I will admit that a majority of people are conservative in some manner of speaking. This however doesn't mean that they are minarchists, or believe in unregulated capitalism. For instance, JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Carter were all pretty socially conservative, but they would not be considered "conservative" by modern standards. -
Yes, they have larger ratings than the other three combined.
www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
Prime: FNC: 810 | CNN: 279 | MSNBC: 272 | HLN: 229 (combined 780)
Total day: FNC: 454 | CNN: 165 | MSNBC: 132 | HLN: 133 (combined (430)
So thats
Fox 810 v. The rest 780 Primetime
Fox 454 v. The Rest 430 Total day.
And WHO has ever said that you'd have to be totally against regulation to not like What's going on right now? -
I didn't say that. i just said that there are different sorts of people that tend to LEAN toward the conservative side. For instance Pat Buchanan is for subsidizing automakers and other manufacturers. Barry Goldwater was an advocate of gay rights. John McCain favors changing Americorps from a neofederalist entity into a nationalist one. Rick Perry favors interstate protectionism even though the elimination of such was one of the two most basic reasons for forming a constitution.
All, however fall somewhere right of center. -
So what's your point?
-
I'm saying that not all people who might prefer Fox News are necesarily Feudalists
-
OH i agree on that. (Depending on what your definitionof feudalism would be). I think we can say that there will be many that like FOX for different reasons.
But considering their stance, you can pretty much guarantee that no Strong Obama Supporter is going to stay on that channel long. -
i would define a feudalist as one who defends debt slavery
-
Ah, or as i would put it, someone who thinks people should keep their hands out of other peoples pockets and pay their own way.
-
You're just now figuring out there's bias in the cable news outlets (both left wing bias and right wing bias)?
I believe the pejorative term is: "Duh".-
Just now? No. But am I showing that the left wants to play the race card so bad that they will lie about the news? Yes.
Duh.
-
-
pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-tells/comment-pa...
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: I’m going to be telling you about a story that we just learned about. This is amazing, this e-mail I received moments ago. It is an e-mail that came from a pastor who recently in a sermon said that he wants Sasha and Malia to be fatherless and that he wants Michelle Obama to be a widow.
A CNN source with very close to the U.S. Secret Service confirmed to me today that threats on the life of the president of the United States have now risen by as much as 400 percent since his inauguration, 400 percent death threats against Barack Obama — quote — “in this environment” go far beyond anything the Secret Service has seen with any other president.
Now, I need to have you keep in mind today as we add details to this story of what we’re going to share with you here. I want to take you back 11 days ago, when Mr. Obama visited Phoenix, Arizona. Do you remember this man? He’s one of a dozen or so people who carried guns to that presidential event that we have been checking on.
You may remember that we heard him say on camera that he is prepared to resort to forceful resistance against the Obama administration. Now, today, I want to tell you about the church that that man attends. And, in particular, I am going to play for you parts of the sermon that were delivered from the pulpit on the very day before the president arrived in Phoenix, Arizona.
This is important. This, my friends, I believe you will agree, is chilling.
PASTOR STEVEN ANDERSON, FAITHFUL WORD BAPTIST CHURCH: Tonight, I want to preach this sermon. And you have probably never heard a sermon like this before. Actually, you probably have if you have been coming to church here for a while. But you know what? Here is my sermon, why I hate Barack Obama. That’s my sermon tonight, because Barack Obama is coming to town tomorrow morning.
Yeah - great. Like I said - carrying assault weapons to a speech not a form of intimidation MY ASS.
Liberal protesters would already be cuffed and stuffed before they even made it to the picket line.-
ITS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON!!!! It's a semi automatic rifle.
My god... Do you think repeating a lie makes it true? -
Would the point be any less relevant had she said semi automatic rifle?
-
Would any point be less relevant if we call Obama a socialist and communist?
Or what if we call doctor counseling sessions "death panels"... -
And people like Anok say the opponents are the violent ones...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZe8vQvOgbU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgatewaypundit.blogspo... -
Uhmmmm . . . yes. Assualt rifles and semi automatic rifles are both lethal weapsons.
Death panels, for example, are not even remotely close to doctor counseling sessions
surely you can see the difference -
Uhmmmm . . . yes. Assualt rifles and semi automatic rifles are both lethal weapsons.
Death panels, for example, are not even remotely close to doctor counseling sessions
surely you can see the difference
I wouldn't bet on it. -
What do you use it for? Assaulting people with bullets - in rapid fashion.
It is lethal, it is deadly, it is an assault weapon.
This man wishes that Obama would die and go to hell - so he brings an ASSAULT WEAPON to one of Obama's speeches and promises to use deadly force if necessary.
No....he's not violent!!
RR - yep you got that right.
-
-
An ASSAULT weapon is a select fire weapon. A bulldozer is a vehicle, doesn't mean that my car is a bulldozer.
Clubs are lethal weapons too, so are knitting needles.
And no I don't get it. Quite frankly because you don't get it.
An assault weapon is about as close to a semi rifle as a death panel is to a doctor counseling session.
It's a name, something that sounds scary, so the ones that oppose it use it to make a point> which makes the point moot.
The fact that people insist on using the wrong terms shows that they are more interested in making points than arguing the truth. OR that they simply can't understand distinction between two things that are dramatically different.
As someone who has been shot at by both assault rifles, and semi automatics, i can GUARANTEE You that your view on the difference between the two will change should that ever happen to you.-
[edit] Assault weapons vs. Automatic weapons
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following featurers:
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Barrel shroud -
"As someone who has been shot at by both assault rifles, and semi automatics, i can GUARANTEE You that your view on the difference between the two will change should that ever happen to you."
only if the assult rifle was not on semi automatic -
Denial - it aint just a river. An AR-15 is listed as an assault rifle and is BANNED in my state.
Thanks XMarks - it just goes to show - Erik was certainly NOT in the military in any capacity otherwise he'd know that. Just another lie about his life.
Nice dodging of the real issue though - I've cited and backed up my claims of violence from the right up to and including the most recent DEATH THREATS against Obama where people show up to his speeches with ASSAULT WEAPONS and threats of using deadly force against him.
And they're NOT being arrested.
Now - how's about you start accepting the fact that the right is extremely violent, is doing more to destroy this country - and is NOT being "oppressed" by what they deem an "oppressive" government?
How about you start addressing facts, or is that too much for you to handle?
I'm good and God-damn tired of all this bullshit being spewed. I've had it, and I don't give a shit if I get banned for losing my patience with moronic racist idiotic pieces of shit who can't be bothered to read, and are terrified of facts and generosity.
ASSAULT WEAPONS AT PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES? Oh, that's OK.
TWO BLACK GUYS AT A POLLING PLACE? Terrorism! Intimidation!!! They've got Weapons arghhh!!!! Be scared of the black people ARGHH run away run away lock them up in jail WAAAAAAA.
Jesus effing Christ. -
Ah, the famous "assault weapons ban" Do you REALLY Want to use the name of legislation as an accurate description of what something is?
The assault weapons ban, as you said, was based on limiting weapons that LOOK like military weapons. For instance. "conspicious pistol grips".. Bayonet mounts (yeah, because bayonettings are so common and dangerous)
Now, since we are using the names of legislations to make accurate descriptions of things.
What would you say that the "Patriot act" describes. Who is a patriot?
Many assault rifles (using the right designation) do not HAVE a semi automatic switch, for instance the most common one, the original AK-47 is a fully automatic only.
And I'll take a semi only over a select fire when being shot at. For the simple reason of that last notch being available to the shooter. -
Definitions
A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.
www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html -
Oh, so a semi-automatic is preferable, then? What better way to take aim at the president with the preferred semi-auto weapon!
It is a deadly - lethal - assault weapon being carried to presidential appearances by people who wish to use deadly force against the president if necessary - and people who wish that the president would die and go to hell.
And then they wonder why people are fighting to restrict 2nd amendment rights...
What morons, just like the loons I dealt with last night - thank the Gods they weren't allowed to carry weapons into the meeting! -
"A rose by any other name would kill so effectively"
W.S. -
If it was just as effective, why do you suppose the military uses fully automatic rifles?
-
The quote is actually a twist of "a rose by any other name would smell so sweet". The idea here is that a rose, no matter what you called it would still smell like a rose. It is not comparing a rose to a daisy for example. Therefore, you're question, which seems to compare the semi automatic rifle (rose) with a fullly automatic rifle (daisy) doesn't actually follow the logic.
Further, the most common rifle for western military is the M16 and its varients. These rifles are actually select fire, not fullly auotmatic. Although you could argue that fully automatic is an option. The military actually teaches semi auto or, better yet, burst selection for many types of engagements. Too many bullets waisted in fully auto for an attack were burst is more appropriate. The infantry would spend too much time reloading and might miss the shot. -
I know "a rose" thank you.
You see, you are attributing the wrong word to the meaning.
Lets take the bike and the bulldozer. Quite difference yet both vehicles.
Now, you want to attribute "Assault" to the term vehicle.. when it really should be the word "Rifle" that is the word associated with the word vehicle.
A construction Vehicle, or a Pedal Powered Vehicle. are indeed both vehicles.
Assault rifles are by definiton capable of full auto, (the ones with 3 rd burt limits are considered in this class as well, albeit not "fully" automatic)
In terms of your rose, the analogy is wrong, they would still both LOOK Like roses, but have very different characteristics. And since scent is besides look the most commonly referred to determinant of "rose" that makes your simile just not accurate.
And the army teaches lots of things, both single shot, Short burst, and fully automatic engagement. They choose fully automatic rifles because they are more effective since they can employ more firepower in the same timeframe.
And you are correct the Stanag family, (which the m16/m4/ and a bunch of others belong to are the most common rifles in the west.
You can see a reasonably accurate list of STANAG compatibles here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG_magazine.
Now, just by looking at that list, you'll see that a huge variety exists, and pretty much all of these are available in both military assault weapons configurations, as well as civilian semi automatics.
The AK 47 is the most common military rifle overall and has been for decades. -
You are missing the the meaning of the analogy. The rose is going to smell the same regardless of what you call it. In our discussion, the semi automatic rifle will kill just as readily if you call it a "semi automatic rifle" an "assualt rifle" or "a butter cup".
Similarly, a bulldozer will move just as much dirt if you call it a "bulldozer" or if you call it a "tricycle".
The second item; daisy, assualt weapon, truck; is something you are incorrectly reading into the analogy. Of course it is going to appear inaccurate if you don't understand it.
Agreed on the AK 47. That is why I stated "western military". U.S. and most of NATO, I believe, have selected the M16 over the AK 47. -
Naturally the semi automatic will not be any more effective just because you claim it is an assault rifle. It simply doesn't become one.
Just like calling a cherry bomb a Nuke doesn't make it a city destroyer.
The point i was illustrating is that Anok, and those like her, use a term that already belongs to something else, which confuses people as to what is really in discussion. -
I wonder whether full or semi-auto would be more effective for picking off an elected official?
-
at the ranges you'd get from ground level and the middle of a crowd. Full auto without doubt.
-
so quantity over accuracy...
*gets crushed under DHS officers barging through the door* -
CSI: My point was more that a semi automatic isn't any less lethal by being called an incorrect name but less call it close enough.
-
-
How about letting someone like a police officer explain it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvi...
If you really want to argue facts, lets use the real terminology, the video should settle it.-
Please at least spend 10 minutes educating yourself. It makes you look less reactive and uneducated when you make claims that aren't true.
Also, for Anok that claims they can be so "easily converted" please look at the last 90 seconds of the video and you'll get quite a different statement from someone who actually knows. -
They can be and have been converted and used in violent crimes. All one needs to do is spend some time at home converting it, and no one would be the wiser.....
They are ASSAULT WEAPONS.
Just because YOU don't like the term doesn't mean it doesn't apply!
Why are you so supportive of people carrying assault weapons to presidential appearances, are you hoping he'll get shot? -
I guess you ddin't see the last 90 seconds. Guess how often THAT happens. I guess we should Ban everything that can be converted by a skilled mechanic to something else....
A cuban converted an old Chevy Pickup to a boat.
I guess that means we should call all pickups boats from now on.
I Urge you to try, and then go out and shoot it. Pretty please. -
I urge to get your head out of the sand, and start answering my questions.
Why is it OK to b ring ASSAULT WEAPONS to presidential speeches, carried by people who have openly admitted to hating him, wishing his death, and threats of force if necessary? Are you hoping he gets shot?
-
-
1.
If it's an assault weapon, then it's most likely brought there by Police. So yes, in that case I think it's perfectly ok.
2. Why is it ok to bring a rifle when you go out? Because the law and the constitution says it is. If he had been given a lawful command to leave the area, and not complied, then i would not support him. As it was, he broke now laws. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make you right and him wrong. Quite the opposite.
If the law said differently, he and those that were with him and armed would have been arrested.
3. no i don't hope Obama gets shot, i think that would be the worst thing that could happen right now. I don't think this country would survive the rift that would cause.
Use of force if NECESSARY is something I agree with. I would have loved the German Jews to have had their guns and fought back. Not have been disarmed and then led to slaughter.
What constitutes NECESSARY in my book probably doesn't match his or your opinion of it though. But what i DO know, is that disarming the public is always one of the first steps of a would be dictator.
And the fact that you keep using AW as a definition when facts are against you just shows that you are more into fear mongering than fact.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
