Posted on 08/21/2014 12:18:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Via our colleagues at Twitchy, here’s a demonstration of why the national media is so bad at covering Second Amendment issues. CNN’s Don Lemon is normally not a bad anchor, but he’s clearly out of his depth in this debate — and what’s worse, refuses to recognize that he’s out of his depth even when it’s being made painfully clear to him by Ben Ferguson. Lemon himself all but declares his ignorance of firearms while delivering an indictment of the US based on the supposed free availability of a commodity that’s actually so tightly controlled it’s impossible to acquire without government intervention.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
FERGUSON: The law says that you and I can’t just randomly go out and buy an automatic weapon, so let’s deal with the facts here. A semiautomatic weapon is gun that you and I are allowed to own, and in different places they have different rules. But to imply that anyone can walk out and buy an automatic weapon is just not true, Don.
LEMON: What do you mean anyone can’t wa— Listen, during the theater shooting in Colorado, I was able to go and buy an automatic weapon, and I, you know, have maybe shot a gun, three, four times in my life. I don’t even live in Colorado. I think most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon. I don’t understand your argument there.
Lemon doesn’t understand the argument because Lemon hasn’t bothered to do even basic research into the classes of firearms before lecturing viewers and Ferguson on them. The point, to the extent that Lemon has one here, is that he thinks anyone can walk off the street and get military weapons at any time, which is preposterous — and a strange argument indeed for the story in Ferguson, Missouri, where most of the concern has been about the militarization of police, not the citizenry. The kind of weapons that Americans can buy today are the same kind of weapons they could buy thirty years ago and even sixty years ago. Access to semiautomatic weapons is neither novel or significant.
Ferguson tried to explain that, but Lemon felt the need to urgently communicate his complete ignorance on the topic, claiming that the difference is “semantics” (via The Blaze):
“Let me finish, Ben. But listen. I think you are getting into semantics. Regardless of what you want to call it, an automatic or a semi-automatic weapon.”
“It’s a big deal,” Ferguson interrupted. “It’s the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law.”
The difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons is hardly semantic. As Ben tried to explain, semi-automatic weapons and revolvers have one important commonality: only one shot gets fired for every trigger pull. In fact, one can shoot a double-action revolver at the same rate as a semi-automatic pistol, although the latter will have magazines with larger capacities. Even that can be mitigated with quick-loaders and some practice for owners of revolvers. Automatic weapons, on the other hand, can fire multiple rounds with just one trigger pull, which makes them so dangerous that it takes a special license from the federal government to own one, and those are rarely granted. They really are much more dangerous and have the potential to cause a lot more damage in a short period of time … which is why the law severely restricts access to them.
The third person in this conversation, Van Jones, knew enough to mostly keep his mouth shut. Lemon should have followed his lead. This problem of ignorance on firearms and weapons laws is not limited to Lemon, though, which is why defending gun rights takes so much effort. Lemon’s irresponsible and uninformed rhetoric does not belong on a news broadcast, but unfortunately all too commonly appears on them, and not just at CNN.
Other than the Army and my time as civilian security at an Air Guard base, I’ve had no access to one.
If they can, the MSM will start selling a myth that the hundreds of young black men killed in Chicago each year are murdered by white Chicago police officers.
Sound crazy? You know better.
If they can “set the table,” they’ll try to sell this story at some point.
He probably thinks that any rifle that isn’t bolt action is “automatic”.
Actually, most people can buy an automatic weapon. Just requires more paperwork and an extra $200 tax and some extra time.
I think you mean 1986, when New Full Auto Transferable guns stopped being approved by the BATF. They are still made, but can not be sold to non dealers or gov’t agencies.
While there are a few models that can be had for about 5 grand, most cost as much as a small house or more these days.
Anyone with a mindset of defending their rights is a criminal to a liberal.
1986, with the Firearm Owners' Protection Act.
I think even Van Jones knew the clown was wrong.
Lemon always has his agenda when giving his “version” of facts and “news”.
Truth always proves this goofball wrong.
They only shoot black youts when they don’t have a rope and hood in the trunk. You should hate America.
Pray America wakes up
Oh, and did I mention having lots of money?
Bolt Actions are now called "Sniper Rifles".
Oh yeah?
But he does know the difference between high capacity magazines vs. clips, no?
/cnn viewers, all 10 of them, ‘He’s an expert’
He’s on par with Katie Couric.
During the Washington, D.C. sniping murders. she was interviewing a BATF guy. When they got around to AR-16s, she said, “I understand what makes these guns so dangerous is that they have spirals in the barrel.”
The BATF guy, to his credit, didn’t burst into hysterical laughter, but he gave he one of those “You’ve GOT to be kidding” looks, kept calm and just said “Yes, Ma’am”.
I was ROTFLMAO all over the place. In this day and age, and she didn’t know about rifling? Mother of God. From then on, even though she had nice legs, I looked u[on her as a clueless clown in all things.
I can just go to youtube & watch any model of automatic weapon I can think of being fired.
Lots of vids too of AR & AK’s with slidefire stocks. Thumb in the belt loop bumpfiring, too. Even a Garand can go rock & roll (not for very long)
In those vids, somebody’s got money to burn on all that ammo.
I prefer to squeeze off off aimed shots from my M1A.
Okay, 1986.
That still means there is lots of demand chasing only a few, slowly wearing out, automatic weapons, that can only be owned under pretty restrictive conditions.
Tell Don it’s true. That down here in Texas they’re sold at walmart and white people get to go to the front of the check out line. He will likely believe it.
“Actually, most people can buy an automatic weapon. Just requires more paperwork and an extra $200 tax and some extra time.”
Not really, because the 1986 law “froze” the number of legal automatics in the country. There are only a few hundred thousand allowed for “most people” in the whole country. In order for “most people” to buy them, they would have to take turns to own them for a day then sell them to someone else. That way, over the course of a year, “most people” would get a chance...
But the actual processing time is in the months, perhaps one hundred to two hundred days... so it would take over a hundred years for “most people” to own one for a day.
Yes. Even the crap guns are worth several thousand. That makes two things Reagan signed as president that I disagree with. This act, and the amnesty. He should have never agreed to it, since the Dems have never lived up to their part of the bargain.
And that demand is what really keeps “most people” from being able to buy a machine gun. “Most people” simply do not have that kind of money and can not afford the price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.