CNN rapped over gun segment

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

[Redcloak]

Her statement was a little like "We don't know if it came from a gun or a firearm."


...actually, it was a lot like it!

[AnAmericanMother]

OMG, you're right.

Even the NATO body armor is touch-and-go on .308 Win/7.62 NATO. And it's got steel plates in it and weighs a good 12 pounds.

I know some standard pistols (e.g. .44 Mag) will defeat standard Class II body armor. Even Class III is not proof against some custom pistols and protects against very few rifles. (Do you know which one they used? Class I junk would be par for the course with CNN.)

[Dan from Michigan]

So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns - why is this a good thing in trying to get the AWB reversed? In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them? I wonder if that is what the NRA was trying to prove - strange thought.

If you want to see a firearm that is very powerful, take a took at your grandfather's hunting rifle(long distance) or a 12 gauge shotgun(short distance)

They've been around for over 100 years.

[Dan from Michigan]

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

We know how biased the media is and it's leftward slant. They are particulary bad on 2nd Amendment issues. 60 Minutes had a similar type of segment 6 or 7 years ago that still gets talked about today. CNN did the same thing.

The bottom line though is this. I don't like being lied to, especially from the media. Period. Because of this stuff, I can't believe a word they say, especially on 2a issues.

[Dan from Michigan]

More in CNN's DAMN LIES

[cruiserman]

Not as a basis for refuting the ban, since it sets up the straw man of letting the choice of criminals determine our rights.

[familyofman]

"In either case, I hope you do not vote."
I hate to disappoint, but I have voted in every election; local, state, federal that I've been eligible to vote in - and will continue to do so. I feel it is an obligation of citizenship.
On other related matters: I broke one of my own rules today & made on comment on a thread dealing with the 2nd ammendment - since my beleifs are not in the majority here it is truly senseless for me to get involved in these discussions. I am not going to change any minds & you will not change mine on this subject. I read the 2nd ammendment to include the little qualifier dealing with "need for a well-regulated militia" to mean that the RTKABA can be restricted. There are certain weapons that can/should be outside any protection they have from the 2nd ammendment - something like the restrictions on free speech that makes it criminal to yell fire in a crowded theater.
Anyone that wants to reply, that's fine by me, but I will post on this thread no more, forever.
I am familiar with guns, for those that care to know - an expert marksman with a rifle & not too bad with handguns, I have also been a hunter (deer in PA with my uncles using a 30.06). Not that that really matters. Not all conservatives read the constitution the same way - that's why the courts have been anything but unanimous in their opinions on guns & 2nd ammendment.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

NO DOUBT THE LIE WAS INTENTIONAL!

[AnAmericanMother]

If you are an expert marksman, surely you know that this whole "assault weapons" thing is a lie . . . don't you? Your Remington rifle is no different from the "evil" semi-autos. That should worry you, even if it doesn't.

Even if we disagree, I would like you to disagree on knowledgeable grounds. And I won't argue with you about the meaning of "well regulated", which doesn't mean what you think. So, assuming without deciding (as they say) that your take on the 2nd Am is correct, two questions:

1. What is "the militia"? (hint: check the U.S. Code)

2. What is an appropriate "militia arm"?

Also, consider that the "fire in a crowded theater" has to do with punishment after the fact for misuse of freedom of speech - not "prior restraint" which is strictly forbidden under the First Amendment.

An analogy to your "fire in the crowded theater" argument would be severe punishment for crimes committed with a firearm, not taking away the rights before the fact of persons who have never committed a crime or indicated any intention to do so. That is forbidden as prior restraint (or if you prefer, punishment of the innocent.)

[frodolives]

I'm shocked that I can't believe everything on television. Shocked.

[zip]

ping

[Trailerpark Badass]

There are certain weapons that can/should be outside any protection they have from the 2nd ammendment - something like the restrictions on free speech that makes it criminal to yell fire in a crowded theater.

What if the theater's on fire?

[Old Professer]

Wait until you're outside and then yell, less chance of being trampled.

[Rome2000]

CNN lies

[Rome2000]

Fire John Zarella Blair!!!!!!!

[Rome2000]

Freeland and Mostow said they hope the judge's ruling will encourage Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne and State Attorney Mike Satz to devote the resources of their offices to prosecuting what they said are "real crimes" that affect people's lives.

"The taxpayers should be absolutely astounded that this is how their money is being spent," Freeland said. At least 23 police officers took part in the sting on his club, he said, and prosecutors have spent hours researching and arguing the case in numerous court hearings and an appeal.

Jenne declined to comment on the case, but sheriff's spokesman Jim Leljedal rejected suggestions by the defense that the stings were a publicity stunt or designed to win votes for Jenne.

"Any time you take an action against an adult club like this, the accusation is made that it's for politics or for elections, but that isn't fair, because we take action in election and non-election years," Leljedal said.

Freeland said he was extremely relieved by his acquittal. If he had been convicted of the three misdemeanors, he would have faced up to 180 days in jail and $1,500 in fines. But he said there has been one advantage to the otherwise stressful experience of being prosecuted.

[Jesse]

"It was better to lose our rights for 10 years rather than permenantly."

Oh, brother. Hard to remember a more inane statement made by a freeper with a straight face. With friends like you, who needs liberals?

[Jesse]

"restrictions on free speech that makes it criminal to yell fire in a crowded theater."

Well, to take your logic to its conclusion, you would rip out the tongues of people who might yell fire in a crowded theater. Until a firearm is used unlawfully, there should be no penalty for its possession.

Try again.

[PhilDragoo]

Good for Wayne LaPierre nailing another CNN liar. I'll renew my NRA registration at the appropriate time.

CNN lied to create its hoax of Operation Tailwind, its hoax of the "massacre" at No Gun Ri (its main witness was not even present), lied to create its hoax of the Jenin "massacre" and the looting of 30,000 items (or thirty, whatever) from the Baghdad museum.

CNN spawned the maggot Peter Arnett who felated Saddam Hussein while swinging his purse at our president.

The only person who may legally import AK-47s into the U.S. is Bill Clinton's partner in perversion Wang Jun.

Among those sipping White House coffee with the president was Wang Jun, a guest of Charlie Trie. Wang Jun heads a Chinese government company that was later charged with smuggling 2,000 AK-47 automatic rifles into the U.S.

Reported by CNN.

[Redcloak]

Oh, brother. Hard to remember a more inane statement made by a freeper with a straight face. With friends like you, who needs liberals?

Cheer up. Perhaps your side will pull through and win a permanent extension of the ban. You'd be happy then, wouldn't you? I doubt it will happen though. You gun grabbers will be crying in your beer. Crawl back under your rock, troll.