CNN rapped over gun segment

The Washington Times ^ | 5/19/2003 | Robert Stacy McCain

[Redcloak]

CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers about the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next year.

Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true.

[Shooter 2.5]

No, what the NRA implied perfectly is if you want to know about weapons and legislation, the last place you would get your information is CNN.

What was said in the broadcast or what gun did what is now immaterial.

CNN got busted. They were exposed finally as the liberal liars they are. One of the "call ins" said he doesn't have a gun, won't own one, isn't a member of the NRA but he's making sure all of his friends are watching this controvery unfold. It's a major disaster for CNN and in my opinion, much worse than a writer not knowing which way a house points to a field such as what was written in the New York Times.

[sharktrager]

Even some M-16's are not truly fully automatic in the traditional sense. Some used by national guard units are limited to 3 round bursts.

This is not what most people think of when they hear "machine gun".

[IncPen]

We should talk about this...

[joesnuffy]

The head law enforcement offical...an officer of the court....lied
He Lied....without a second thought
What kind of law enforcement goes on in his county....Broward County?
The people he is sworn to protect and serve....are being sorely misrepresented imo
Its amazing to me how these people do not give a second thought to lying to get what they want...
Satan is the father of all liars according to the bible...this guy is a danger to others imo

[Hugin]

You can't let these people get away with any of their lies.

I know. It just irks me when other pro-gun groups take the NRA's refutation of the gunophobes lies and twist that to mean that the NRA supports gun control. Or when the NRA successfully gets some of the worst parts of a gun control bill removed, they assert that they support the rest of the bill. For example, this bill would not be expiring at all if the NRA hadn't lobbied to have a time limit included, but that was twisted to mean that they supported the bill.

[in the Arena]

His stance is evident in the last paragraph of the article...

In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, supported a bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee.

[familyofman]

"You are being deliberately obtuse. CNN lied (deliberately or otherwise) in indicating that fully automatic weapons were being prohibited by the 1994 ban."
No I'm not being obtuse, deliberate or not. My question/point was simply one for clarity purposes - to define what CNN lied about. If they misled/lied about the comparative lethality/power of banned vs non-banned weapons, and overstated the differences between the two - is that good or bad?
The AWB should receive a roll call vote either way. I can't get too excited about CNN's great lie at this point in time.

[Shooter 2.5]

"I can't get too excited about CNN's great lie at this point in time.

Did you ever get so wrapped up in watching the news, you felt like tossing something into your own TV? This may signal a reduction to that feeling. This may be a huge victory for us or just business as usual for CNN. It's up to us.

[Sender]

Sheriff Ken Jenne's Website

[geedee]

This is about confiscation of ALL guns!

Spoken like a true Texan! Atta boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sender]

Sheriff Ken Jenne's Email

[Redcloak]

It just irks me when other pro-gun groups take the NRA's refutation of the gunophobes lies and twist that to mean that the NRA supports gun control... this bill would not be expiring at all if the NRA hadn't lobbied to have a time limit included, but that was twisted to mean that they supported the bill.

There are a lot of people on the RKBA side who have an all-or-nothing attitude. There's a time and place for such thinking, but at other times, you have to compromise. It was better to lose our rights for 10 years rather than permenantly.

Fighting every last jot and tittle of the law would have cost us everything. Politically, killing the bill off just wasn't going to happen. Clinton had done a good job of whipping up public sentiment to pass a law. The NRA could have had a part in writing the law, as they did, or they could have left that task to Feinstein and Schumer. Some of the purists act as though they'd have prefered the latter.

[longtermmemmory]

after several failed efforts at elected office this was a political payoff appointment. (of course the not-so liked interim predicessor did not do too well with all the sudden prison breaks under their watch)

He ran for gov. and lost
He ran of insurance commisioner and lost.

he is and was an insider. He knows how to play the media for PR.

[AnAmericanMother]

CNN lied about three separate issues:

1. They passed off a completely unrelated firearm (a full auto or machine gun) as one of the "evil guns" banned by the "AW"B when it is not even banned - it is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

2. The no 'count sheriff cheated on the "comparison" - not satisfied with putting in a ringer machine gun that has nothing to do with the AWB - by completely missing the concrete block with the semi-auto rifle.

3. The "assault weapons" ban is a fraud in and of itself. This is the Big Lie. There is no functional difference between the banned firearms and legal firearms. They operate in the same way (either gas or mechanical recoil operated semi-auto), the technology has been around since 1898, and the same technology is used in many popular sporting rifles. In fact, the AK/SKS family of rifles uses a smaller, less powerful cartridge and with its shorter barrel develops less velocity than most ordinary deer rifles. They were banned because they look "ugly" and "threatening" to soccer moms and the ignorant.

Props to Wayne and the NRA for calling 'em on it. The liberals' goal is to remove the ordinary citizen's means of self defense, so that Nanny Government (run of course by the liberals aided by CNN) can consolidate its power. "Ugly guns" was just a convenient place to start.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

"If they misled/lied about the comparative lethality/power of banned vs non-banned weapons, and overstated the differences between the two - is that good or bad?"

O.K. I'll try this as though you're serious.

It is bad. Scaring CNN's less-than-brilliant usual audience into beleiving that machine guns will be legal if the 1994 ban is allowed to sunset is manipulative and dishonest.

How could it be good?

"The AWB should receive a roll call vote either way."

The 1994 AWB should be allowed to sunset. No extension or alternative implementation of it should even reach the floor of either house. It was wrong legislation then, and it is still wrong today.

"I can't get too excited about CNN's great lie at this point in time."

Is this because you do not mind being lied to? Or is it because you agree with the deception and hope that it will persuade to public to support extending or enhancing the ban?

In either case, I hope you do not vote.

[AnAmericanMother]

. . . great minds.

I don't know if familyofman is serious or if he's a gun-hating liberal troll. I guess it depends on whether he really knows nothing about firearms. In that case, he's just one of the people that CNN is trying to dupe.

Which is why I keep throwing the facts out there in the hope that some folks who are totally ignorant of firearms will get un-ignorant. Before it's too late.

[The Old Hoosier]

LOL! What balls! I love it!

[728b]

Perhaps you might remember the question from Kati Couric during the sniper shooting last summer.

"We know the bullet used was a .223, but we don't know if it came from a hunting rifle or some high powered rifle."

They really do think the platform makes a difference in the projectile.

[Redcloak]

You left out a lie. They also showed an AK defeating body armor. Any rifle will defeat the body armor they used! Rifles that weren't banned will defeat body armor as readily as any of the banned guns. Body armor is designed to protect against handguns; not rifles.

[longtermmemmory]

sarcasm on

they also believe if you declare peace all the worlds nations will form a league that will end all war.

sarcasm off