Gun Ban: The fight's in the vocab - Please read (Preacher).

[Craic]

The Fight's in the Vocab.
We've all seen it. The side that is able to define the words being used is the side that will win the argument. With that in mind, it's time to redefine the arguments to better reflect what the meaning really is.

Gun-Control. Biden wants to redefine this as "Gun-safety." In reality, it's Gun restrictions.

Assault Rifle. We all know that an "Assault Rife" is really a rifle with a round selector and as such, except for the few with a class III license that may have gotten one of these, no civilian owns one. To call it what it really is, an Assault Rifle that is being discussed in congress is a Civilian Defense Rifle.

High Capacity Magazines. No one has a clue what "Hi capacity" really is. Where's the limit? It needs to be labeled properly: Personal Defense Magazines.

Gun Lobby. Labeled properly, it's a Second Amendment Lobby.

Gun Ban. This should be linked specifically to what it is. (Partial) Second Amendment Ban

Federal Assault Weapons Ban needs to be exposed for what it is, a Federal Civilian Defense Rifle Ban.

Gun Reform/Gun reform bill. No gun is being "reformed." This is a Gun-Rights Reduction bill.

Post this in every forum you're on, facebook, send it to your senators and congressmen, the NRA, etc. etc. If we stop letting those who want to reduce our right to bear arms define the argument by their use of terms, we'll make a great amount of headway in a very short time.
_________________

Do you agree with this? If so, would you be willing to send a few quick notes to your legislators and others that support 2nd Amendment rights? Would you be willing to post this on facebook or other social media?

[Dwinsgames]

good post ...

I suspect in the not so distant future some of us here will be considered felons , sad thought when I believe most here are probably upstanding Citizens in the eyes of the law today and those same people will later be felons and will have done nothing different in their daily lives between now and then ...

The Government will make them felons by restricting their rights and they will not be open to such change / restrictions .... sad really

[Craic]

Stuck it on facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/2apropernames

[43Hitman]

I agree with this Preach and have copied so that I can paste wherever it needs to be. I'm not currently on FB (lawyers orders, due to car accident that led to me being injured) but when I get back on, will definitely post it up.

[GoSlash27]

This is a rhetorical argument. Not that the other side isn't engaging in the same thing, but folks here don't really need it. Trust me, we get it.

Personally, I think the best counter- argument is a better argument, not catch- phrases. People get that your argument makes a whole lot more sense.

[Craic]

This is a rhetorical argument. Not that the other side isn't engaging in the same thing, but folks here don't really need it. Trust me, we get it.

Personally, I think the best counter- argument is a better argument, not catch- phrases. People get that your argument makes a whole lot more sense.

Slash - the issue is not "folks here." It's making sure that we do not allow the other side to "define the argument" by allowing them to choose the terms and definitions. It isn't rhetorical, as much as it's foundational to the entire discussion. By using "Assault Weapon" the other side has pushed across a conection with fully automatic weapons. So much so, that now the press makes no distinction between semi-auto and full-auto. Its just automatic handguns.

My goal is to get you, me, and everyone else to combat the ignorance with good definitions. That then allows us to actually make our arguments based on truth, rather than being on the defensive combating lies and trying to diffuse emotional reactions to having "Automatic weapons just like the military."

[Wallace108]

You have to give the left credit. They're much better than the right at using language and coming up with catch phrases to sway public opinion.

A woman's right to choose: Women do not have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. If they did, then prostitution should be legal. All Roe v. Wade did was give women the right to have an abortion. But the left's constant drum beat of "woman's right to choose" has swayed the debate in their favor. As soon as you bring up abortion, you get accused of trying to take away women's rights. You lose the argument before it even begins. Pro-life advocates have nothing as powerful to combat "a woman's right to choose." ... "Choose life"? ... uh, no. That's not even close to being as effective.

Separation of church and state: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state, but I'm willing to bet a good number of Americans believe that it's in there somewhere. Why? Because the left has drummed it into people's heads. Hell, they've even gotten a lot of conservatives believing it.

Climate change: This one didn't come easy. First it was global cooling. Then acid raid. Then the hole in the ozone layer. Then global warming. Finally, they came around to climate change because that way, no matter what happens, they'll be right. Regardless of what they call it, and it really doesn't get much better than climate change, their message has been the same ... humans are destroying the Earth, and we must be stopped.

The rich need to pay their fair share: I really don't need to explain the absurdity behind this catch phrase. Not only do the "rich" pay most of the taxes, but they also provide the jobs. I've yet to see someone who is poor start a business and hire people. As those of us on the right are well aware of, the "rich" most certainly do "pay their fair share" when it comes to contributing to our society. But possibly more than anything else, that catch phrase helped to get Obama re-elected.

There are plenty of other examples, but the point is this ... if you come up with a good catch phrase and keep repeating it, people eventually start accepting it without question. That's how the left has swayed public opinion on most issues. They haven't won because of their ideas ... most of their ideas are a complete failure. They've won because they've mastered the art of using language to influence how people think.

Look how they're framing the gun debate:

"We're not taking away anyone's right to hunt."
"You don't need 30 bullets to kill a deer."
"You don't need an assault weapon to go hunting."

When Al Gore ran for president, he stated quite forcefully that he would NOT take away our right to hunt. When John Kerry ran for president, he went on a hunting trip in my area with some local Democrats to show that he was a friend to hunters.

Anybody with half a brain knows the Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms so we can hunt or go trap and skeet shooting. The left knows that as well, but they're using language to get people to believe that the Second Amendment means something other than what it really means. That's the same tactic they used in bastardizing the First Amendment ... they used "separation of church and state" to get people to believe that it means something other than what it really means.

I'm afraid they're going to sway public opinion on this issue just as they've swayed public opinion on other issues. That's what they do. They're good at it. Their ideas suck, but they're good with words.

If the right hopes to have any chance at all in this fight, we need to come up with some good catch phrases and some clear messages. A good place to start is constantly emphasizing the fact that the Second Amendment does NOT give us a right to bear arms so we can go hunting or trap shooting.

[NJarhead]

Done.

[GBMelBlount]

if you come up with a good catch phrase and keep repeating it, people eventually start accepting it without question. That's how the left has swayed public opinion on most issues. They haven't won because of their ideas ... most of their ideas are a complete failure. They've won because they've mastered the art of using language to influence how people think.

I'm afraid they're going to sway public opinion on this issue just as they've swayed public opinion on other issues. That's what they do. They're good at it. Their ideas suck, but they're good with words.

If the right hopes to have any chance at all in this fight, we need to come up with some good catch phrases and some clear messages. A good place to start is constantly emphasizing the fact that the Second Amendment does NOT give us a right to bear arms so we can go hunting or trap shooting.

You nailed it.

There was a time when Americans made informed decisions based on critical examination of facts.

Those days are long gone.

Now it is all about catch phrases, freebies and getevenwithemism.

[Wallace108]

There was a time when Americans made informed decisions based on critical examination of facts.

Those days are long gone.

Now it is all about catch phrases, freebies and getevenwithemism.
Yep. That's why I have to respectfully disagree with what Slash said above. The right has the better argument on most issues. Unfortunately, your average voter doesn't take the time to understand an argument. They're easily swayed by catch phrases and simple, repetitive messages. I have two good friends who are every bit as conservative as I am. They both vote Democrat every election. Why? Because Republicans care only about the rich, and Democrats take care of the working man. I've tried and tried, but there's nothing I can say to convince them that they're wrong. Even when I get them to agree with my reasoning, they end up once again regurgitating a liberal catch phrase.

[NJarhead]

Yep. That's why I have to respectfully disagree with what Slash said above. The right has the better argument on most issues. Unfortunately, your average voter doesn't take the time to understand an argument. They're easily swayed by catch phrases and simple, repetitive messages. I have two good friends who are every bit as conservative as I am. They both vote Democrat every election. Why? Because Republicans care only about the rich, and Democrats take care of the working man. I've tried and tried, but there's nothing I can say to convince them that they're wrong. Even when I get them to agree with my reasoning, they end up once again regurgitating a liberal catch phrase.

That's the sad truth right there. I think we all have those friends.

[fansince'76]

Yep. That's why I have to respectfully disagree with what Slash said above. The right has the better argument on most issues. Unfortunately, your average voter doesn't take the time to understand an argument. They're easily swayed by catch phrases and simple, repetitive messages. I have two good friends who are every bit as conservative as I am. They both vote Democrat every election. Why? Because Republicans care only about the rich, and Democrats take care of the working man. I've tried and tried, but there's nothing I can say to convince them that they're wrong. Even when I get them to agree with my reasoning, they end up once again regurgitating a liberal catch phrase.

A complicit media helps too...

http://assets.amuniversal.com/44f81070eed3012ff102001dd8b71c47

[Mach1]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/528884_154308234721742_845503209_n.jpg

[GoSlash27]

If the Republican Party is relying on a handful of people in the SteelersUniverse soapbox forum to come up with effective rhetoric to frame the debate, then they've already lost. Just sayin'.

[Count Steeler]

If the Republican Party is relying on a handful of people in the SteelersUniverse soapbox forum to come up with effective rhetoric to frame the debate, then they've already lost. Just sayin'.

A flame starts with but a spark. If not here, where? If not now, when?

[GoSlash27]

The proper place is a think- tank where they have rigorous testing procedures and focus groups. Rhetoric can be helpful in a debate, but it can also be incredibly destructive if used improperly.
There are people who are paid to do this job for a living. I think it's better left to them.

[43Hitman]

The proper place is a think- tank where they have rigorous testing procedures and focus groups. Rhetoric can be helpful in a debate, but it can also be incredibly destructive if used improperly.
There are people who are paid to do this job for a living. I think it's better left to them.

Well excuse me if I say they have been doing a shitty job.

[Dwinsgames]

The proper place is a think- tank where they have rigorous testing procedures and focus groups. Rhetoric can be helpful in a debate, but it can also be incredibly destructive if used improperly.
There are people who are paid to do this job for a living. I think it's better left to them.



until they get busy they will not accomplish anything ... perhaps that is part of the problem ......

society of today is not like society of 20 years ago , its even less connected to society of 30 years ago ...

this Country was as rural as it was city oriented back then , now society is more city oriented and the vast majority of city folks are for the most part clueless about guns ...

I have spoken to more people than I can count in the past 3-4 months that are clueless about guns , my area where I reside you could speak to people coming in and out of the local store and 95% of them ( women included ) are fairly knowledgeable 10 miles away in the closest town or any size and it reverses and the majority is pretty much clueless

[Count Steeler]

The proper place is a think- tank where they have rigorous testing procedures and focus groups. Rhetoric can be helpful in a debate, but it can also be incredibly destructive if used improperly.
There are people who are paid to do this job for a living. I think it's better left to them.

Really? Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

[GBMelBlount]

If the Republican Party is relying on a handful of people in the SteelersUniverse soapbox forum to come up with effective rhetoric to frame the debate, then they've already lost. Just sayin'.

Pot meet Kettle.

[GoSlash27]

I've said my peace about this one. Best of luck.

[Wallace108]

If the Republican Party is relying on a handful of people in the SteelersUniverse soapbox forum to come up with effective rhetoric to frame the debate, then they've already lost. Just sayin'.

Twenty years ago, people like us couldn't affect things like this. But in the age of social media, one person sitting behind a computer can create something that spreads like wildfire and changes the debate. And I wouldn't say that the Republicans have lost, but their backs are on the canvas and the ref has started counting to 10. We'll see if they can beat the 10 count.

[steeldawg]

You have to give the left credit. They're much better than the right at using language and coming up with catch phrases to sway public opinion.

A woman's right to choose: Women do not have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. If they did, then prostitution should be legal. All Roe v. Wade did was give women the right to have an abortion. But the left's constant drum beat of "woman's right to choose" has swayed the debate in their favor. As soon as you bring up abortion, you get accused of trying to take away women's rights. You lose the argument before it even begins. Pro-life advocates have nothing as powerful to combat "a woman's right to choose." ... "Choose life"? ... uh, no. That's not even close to being as effective.

Separation of church and state: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state, but I'm willing to bet a good number of Americans believe that it's in there somewhere. Why? Because the left has drummed it into people's heads. Hell, they've even gotten a lot of conservatives believing it.

Climate change: This one didn't come easy. First it was global cooling. Then acid raid. Then the hole in the ozone layer. Then global warming. Finally, they came around to climate change because that way, no matter what happens, they'll be right. Regardless of what they call it, and it really doesn't get much better than climate change, their message has been the same ... humans are destroying the Earth, and we must be stopped.

The rich need to pay their fair share: I really don't need to explain the absurdity behind this catch phrase. Not only do the "rich" pay most of the taxes, but they also provide the jobs. I've yet to see someone who is poor start a business and hire people. As those of us on the right are well aware of, the "rich" most certainly do "pay their fair share" when it comes to contributing to our society. But possibly more than anything else, that catch phrase helped to get Obama re-elected.

There are plenty of other examples, but the point is this ... if you come up with a good catch phrase and keep repeating it, people eventually start accepting it without question. That's how the left has swayed public opinion on most issues. They haven't won because of their ideas ... most of their ideas are a complete failure. They've won because they've mastered the art of using language to influence how people think.

Look how they're framing the gun debate:

"We're not taking away anyone's right to hunt."
"You don't need 30 bullets to kill a deer."
"You don't need an assault weapon to go hunting."

When Al Gore ran for president, he stated quite forcefully that he would NOT take away our right to hunt. When John Kerry ran for president, he went on a hunting trip in my area with some local Democrats to show that he was a friend to hunters.

Anybody with half a brain knows the Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms so we can hunt or go trap and skeet shooting. The left knows that as well, but they're using language to get people to believe that the Second Amendment means something other than what it really means. That's the same tactic they used in bastardizing the First Amendment ... they used "separation of church and state" to get people to believe that it means something other than what it really means.

I'm afraid they're going to sway public opinion on this issue just as they've swayed public opinion on other issues. That's what they do. They're good at it. Their ideas suck, but they're good with words.

If the right hopes to have any chance at all in this fight, we need to come up with some good catch phrases and some clear messages. A good place to start is constantly emphasizing the fact that the Second Amendment does NOT give us a right to bear arms so we can go hunting or trap shooting.

Some good points, as far as seperation of church and state the 1st amendment says " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," so while the phrase seperation of church and state is not used the concept is there. I do like guns but i think there does have to be a line, i mean really hunting a deer with an assualt rifle is a bit much and if we dont set limits people will keep getting more weapons and deadlier weapons. If you want a glock in the house or as a concealed weapon thats fine, but not having gun control would open the flood gates.

[Dwinsgames]

You have to give the left credit. They're much better than the right at using language and coming up with catch phrases to sway public opinion.

A woman's right to choose: Women do not have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. If they did, then prostitution should be legal. All Roe v. Wade did was give women the right to have an abortion. But the left's constant drum beat of "woman's right to choose" has swayed the debate in their favor. As soon as you bring up abortion, you get accused of trying to take away women's rights. You lose the argument before it even begins. Pro-life advocates have nothing as powerful to combat "a woman's right to choose." ... "Choose life"? ... uh, no. That's not even close to being as effective.
.

lets start with this one ....

Abortion is nothing more than legalized murder , 56 million kids where murdered by women with the aid of the medical community since Roe Vs Wade came into effect , those children did not have a choice in the matter they could not protect themselves they where helpless and voiceless ....

People claim a fetus is not a living thing , I ask them this ... give me one example of anything that has a heart beat that is not alive ( other than the fetus they claim is not a living thing ) and they can not name 1 because there is not one .... anything with a heart beat is alive !!

also If a woman is shot on her way to an abortion clinic and both her and the fetus die ( how does the fetus die if it was never alive ?? ) the individual who is responsible for the shooting goes on trial for double homicide ... how is this possible if the fetus is not alive ???

11,000 gun Murders per year in this Nation ( just murders no other statistics included ) hell I am willing to inflate the number to an even 20k to make the math as simplistic as possible so all can follow without a hitch , over 40 years that would be only 800k deaths .... so in other words 55 million 200k LESS deaths than caused by abortion !!!!! and Abortion is legal .... hard to figure

[Dwinsgames]

Some good points, as far as seperation of church and state the 1st amendment says " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," so while the phrase seperation of church and state is not used the concept is there. I do like guns but i think there does have to be a line, i mean really hunting a deer with an assualt rifle is a bit much and if we dont set limits people will keep getting more weapons and deadlier weapons. If you want a glock in the house or as a concealed weapon thats fine, but not having gun control would open the flood gates.


the second amendment does not claim citizens can have guns within reason ... and it clearly states in the 9th amendment they can NOT restrict us ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people )

so in other words if it has been invented we as citizens should have the right to own it , that would include a freaking tank if we so desired and could afford one ....

[steeldawg]

the second amendment does not claim citizens can have guns within reason ... and it clearly states in the 9th amendment they can NOT restrict us ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people )

so in other words if it has been invented we as citizens should have the right to own it , that would include a freaking tank if we so desired and could afford one ....

yes clearly people need tanks, automatic weapons, hand grenades, land mines, rpgs, this is exactly my point we need gun control.

[Dwinsgames]

yes clearly people need tanks, automatic weapons, hand grenades, land mines, rpgs, this is exactly my point we need gun control.


We HAVE Gun Control now !

[Craic]

We HAVE Gun Control now !

I do, putting pretty much all my rounds in the X ring or 10 ring at this point from 10 yards. Figured out why I'm pushing left - not enough trigger finger pad on the actual trigger. I think my gun control is going to get even better next week.

[steeldawg]

We HAVE Gun Control now !

I know thats why you dont have a tank!!

[43Hitman]

Some good points, as far as seperation of church and state the 1st amendment says " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," so while the phrase seperation of church and state is not used the concept is there. I do like guns but i think there does have to be a line, i mean really hunting a deer with an assualt rifle is a bit much and if we dont set limits people will keep getting more weapons and deadlier weapons. If you want a glock in the house or as a concealed weapon thats fine, but not having gun control would open the flood gates.

You're regurgitating what the media has taught you. Assault rifles are extremely hard to get, lots of back ground checks by the FBI and BATF. An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, which is what you are probably thinking of. Stop handcuffing your brain and educate yourself on what weapons are what then jump into the debate.

[Dwinsgames]

I know thats why you dont have a tank!!


and that is the only reason to believe me ...

[GoSlash27]

Some good points, as far as seperation of church and state the 1st amendment says " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," so while the phrase seperation of church and state is not used the concept is there. I do like guns but i think there does have to be a line, i mean really hunting a deer with an assualt rifle is a bit much and if we dont set limits people will keep getting more weapons and deadlier weapons. If you want a glock in the house or as a concealed weapon thats fine, but not having gun control would open the flood gates.

The Bill of Rights doesn't exist to define what Americans can or cannot do. It exists to define what the government cannot do. Once you grasp that fact and it's implications, you will see why bringing up "deer hunting" is so laughable. Do you seriously think that the government would ever want to restrict an activity like "deer hunting"? That *that's* what they were worried about when they wrote this?
Incidentally, back at the time this was ratified, there were absolutely no limits on the types of weaponry that individual citizens could own, so long as they hadn't been convicted of any crimes or adjudged mentally incompetent. The closest thing they had to "WMDs" was warships, and not only were those *not* restricted, but rather they provided the bulk of our National defense and happened to be owned by civilians.
Now... you can argue that times have changed, and that is true. *BUT* you cannot argue (at least not rationally) that the passage of time invalidates laws. The only thing that changes the Constitution is the amendment process. That hasn't happened, so the 2nd Amendment still means what it meant when it was ratified; law- abiding Americans have the *RIGHT* to keep and bear arms of any type and quantity. *Without* restriction, interference, or harassment from the government.

This naturally results in a messy situation, but what would be even messier would be allowing the Federal government to pick and choose which rights we may have and how far they go.

[Dwinsgames]

The Bill of Rights doesn't exist to define what Americans can or cannot do. It exists to define what the government cannot do. Once you grasp that fact and it's implications, you will see why bringing up "deer hunting" is so laughable. Do you seriously think that the government would ever want to restrict an activity like "deer hunting"? That *that's* what they were worried about when they wrote this?
Incidentally, back at the time this was ratified, there were absolutely no limits on the types of weaponry that individual citizens could own, so long as they hadn't been convicted of any crimes or adjudged mentally incompetent. The closest thing they had to "WMDs" was warships, and not only were those *not* restricted, but rather they provided the bulk of our National defense and happened to be owned by civilians.
Now... you can argue that times have changed, and that is true. *BUT* you cannot argue (at least not rationally) that the passage of time invalidates laws. The only thing that changes the Constitution is the amendment process. That hasn't happened, so the 2nd Amendment still means what it meant when it was ratified; law- abiding Americans have the *RIGHT* to keep and bear arms of any type and quantity. *Without* restriction, interference, or harassment from the government.

This naturally results in a messy situation, but what would be even messier would be allowing the Federal government to pick and choose which rights we may have and how far they go.


excellent post

http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/utheman.gif

[GoSlash27]

Twenty years ago, people like us couldn't affect things like this. But in the age of social media, one person sitting behind a computer can create something that spreads like wildfire and changes the debate. And I wouldn't say that the Republicans have lost, but their backs are on the canvas and the ref has started counting to 10. We'll see if they can beat the 10 count.

Yeah... but you have no idea whether what you create will change the debate in a good way or a bad way. A well- meaning turn of phrase can do more harm than good if it hasn't been properly tested. You see how much damage the NRA did to themselves with their "President's children" ad campaign. Good concept and even a valid point, but they expected it to go over better than it did because they didn't test it with focus groups first.

I've already stated my opinion on this matter; I think this is a "Really Bad Idea ™", but all I can do is hope that it turns out well.

[stillers4me]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/295392_370349986396867_536888776_n.png

[Dwinsgames]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/295392_370349986396867_536888776_n.png


Sam Elliot ( one of my favorite actors ) !!

[Craic]

Well, this is interesting. Here's what I said:



Assault Rifle. We all know that an "Assault Rife" is really a rifle with a round selector and as such, except for the few with a class III license that may have gotten one of these, no civilian owns one. To call it what it really is, an Assault Rifle that is being discussed in congress is a Civilian Defense Rifle.




As it turns out, here's what the Department of Homeland Security calls it when THEY order it:


The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

"Personal Defense Weapons"? Sure, I can go with that. Only ONE problem . . .

These are REAL assault weapons. The 7000 ordered are actual "select-fire" weapons.

[zulater]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbc-airs-sandy-hook-fathers-416977

On Monday, MSNBC's Martin Bashir aired a video that seemed to show grief-stricken Neil Heslin being heckled by pro-gun lobbyists as he talked about his 6-year-old son, who was killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. While making a plea for gun control at a legislative hearing, Heslin at one point he turned to the audience and said: “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.”

When the audience remains silent, Heslin adds, “Not one person can answer that question.” And that’s when a few people recited the Second Amendment in response.
The video that host Martin Bashir aired, though, clipped out Heslin's question and pause in the audience's direction. The resulting edit made it look like boisterous audience members interrupted Heslin's testimony. After the edited video aired, Bashir set up pundits with: “A father’s grief, interrupted by the cries of a heckler. That was the scene today in Hartford, Conn., where the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary testified before an audience that wasn’t always friendly.”
A spokeswoman for MSNBC has declined comment. Although the edited segment is not available on MSNBC’s website, and the unedited version eventually was aired on a subsequent Martin Bashir show and other shows on the networks, conservative activists have pounced. One version, uploaded to YouTube and embedded below, shows Bashir’s version followed by Heslin’s unedited testimony.

his week's incident has been the subject of talk radio and other conservative media, which has used it to boost assertions that NBC, MSNBC and much of the mainstream media is biased in favor of liberalism. Indeed, several journalists took MSNBC’s reporting at face value and echoed it, including reporters at The Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Slate, Media Matters for America and many others collected at the right-wing site, Twitchy.
“The full, unedited video proves the media is lying,” wrote John Nolte at Breitbart.com. "This is not heckling, this is someone respectfully asking a question and receiving a respectful answer."
National radio host Cam Edwards of NRA News spent nearly 20 minutes ripping MSNBC for “as egregious an edit as you can possibly get.” The conservative Media Research Center wrote that “MSNBC’s disgusting lack of journalistic standards have hit a new low.”
It wasn't just conservative media that disagreed with MSNBC's interpretation. CNN's Anderson Cooper, for example, originally tweeted that Heslin was "shouted down," but after seeing the full video, he tweeted: "#SandyHook parent wasn't 'shouted down' as I said in previous tweet. He asked for response and audiences members gave it and were admonished."
MSNBC has declined comment, but the network seems to be standing its ground for now, beginning with Lawrence O’Donnell defending the edited video Tuesday on his show, The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell. “Here is what led to a grieving father being heckled by the gun-worshipping fanatics in the audience,” O’Donnell said before playing the unedited portion of Heslin’s testimony. Then he said, “Some right-wing websites sprung to the defense of the hecklers, insisting that they were simply answering Mr. Heslin’s question, but of course they weren't."

Loosely related so I posted it here.

[NJarhead]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbc-airs-sandy-hook-fathers-416977

On Monday, MSNBC's Martin Bashir aired a video that seemed to show grief-stricken Neil Heslin being heckled by pro-gun lobbyists as he talked about his 6-year-old son, who was killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. While making a plea for gun control at a legislative hearing, Heslin at one point he turned to the audience and said: “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.”

When the audience remains silent, Heslin adds, “Not one person can answer that question.” And that’s when a few people recited the Second Amendment in response.
The video that host Martin Bashir aired, though, clipped out Heslin's question and pause in the audience's direction. The resulting edit made it look like boisterous audience members interrupted Heslin's testimony. After the edited video aired, Bashir set up pundits with: “A father’s grief, interrupted by the cries of a heckler. That was the scene today in Hartford, Conn., where the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary testified before an audience that wasn’t always friendly.”
A spokeswoman for MSNBC has declined comment. Although the edited segment is not available on MSNBC’s website, and the unedited version eventually was aired on a subsequent Martin Bashir show and other shows on the networks, conservative activists have pounced. One version, uploaded to YouTube and embedded below, shows Bashir’s version followed by Heslin’s unedited testimony.

his week's incident has been the subject of talk radio and other conservative media, which has used it to boost assertions that NBC, MSNBC and much of the mainstream media is biased in favor of liberalism. Indeed, several journalists took MSNBC’s reporting at face value and echoed it, including reporters at The Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Slate, Media Matters for America and many others collected at the right-wing site, Twitchy.
“The full, unedited video proves the media is lying,” wrote John Nolte at Breitbart.com. "This is not heckling, this is someone respectfully asking a question and receiving a respectful answer."
National radio host Cam Edwards of NRA News spent nearly 20 minutes ripping MSNBC for “as egregious an edit as you can possibly get.” The conservative Media Research Center wrote that “MSNBC’s disgusting lack of journalistic standards have hit a new low.”
It wasn't just conservative media that disagreed with MSNBC's interpretation. CNN's Anderson Cooper, for example, originally tweeted that Heslin was "shouted down," but after seeing the full video, he tweeted: "#SandyHook parent wasn't 'shouted down' as I said in previous tweet. He asked for response and audiences members gave it and were admonished."
MSNBC has declined comment, but the network seems to be standing its ground for now, beginning with Lawrence O’Donnell defending the edited video Tuesday on his show, The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell. “Here is what led to a grieving father being heckled by the gun-worshipping fanatics in the audience,” O’Donnell said before playing the unedited portion of Heslin’s testimony. Then he said, “Some right-wing websites sprung to the defense of the hecklers, insisting that they were simply answering Mr. Heslin’s question, but of course they weren't."

Loosely related so I posted it here.

Caught the tail end of it yesterday and wasn't sure what was going on. Thanks for sharing.

NBC is every bit left as the left claims Fox is to the right.

[Mach1]

MSDNC hard at work again.

MSNBC caught faking video of Sandy Hook father being heckled
MSNBC is taking criticism after it was revealed that a video they aired today was deceptively edited to make it appear as if gun advocates had heckled the father of a Sandy Hook victim


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R_wKQaWUMGE

[SCSTILLER]

Kind of the same thing USAToday did in an article on the Connecticut Gun Control hearings.

Douglas Fuchs, a Newtown resident who is police chief in neighboring Redding, Conn., called for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips. "No one has ever made a cogent argument" as to why public citizens should have access to assault weapons, he said

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/30/newtown-gun-control-school-safety/1878169/

To give USAToday credit though they did have some pro gun statements in there, but none that could contradict Mr. Fuch's statement.

[silver & black]

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/02/White-House-Warns-Don-t-Photoshop-Obama-Gun-Pic

[Mach1]

Can you say Photoshopped. I've never seen a shotgun vent out the side like that one, much less with that much smoke. Maybe if it was black powder.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/150820_471746786212642_699776556_n.jpg

[silver & black]

Can you say Photoshopped. I've never seen a shotgun vent out the side like that one, much less with that much smoke. Maybe if it was black powder.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/150820_471746786212642_699776556_n.jpg

I don't know much about guns, so you would know more than I would. You mentioned photoshop, and ironically, that is what is being warned against doing with this pic...lol.