[garrettwc]

The local Fox affiliate does a "Point of View" editorial at regular intervals on various topics. Tonights topic? The Assault Weapons Ban.

Here is the transcript:

Shooting Down Common Sense -- 09/14/04

Last Sunday at midnight the Republican-controlled Congress allowed the 1994 ban on some semiautomatic weapons to expire. My question is: Why would we allow this to happen?

While I can support the 2nd Amendment giving us the right to bear arms, I see no need for semiautomatic weapons to be in the hands of civilians. They are designed for one purpose: to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible. Since we don’t use them for hunting -- because it wouldn’t be sporting -- what do you suppose it is that civilians would need to kill so quickly and efficiently?

A poll released last Monday showed that 68 percent of Americans say they wanted Congress to extend the assault weapons ban. Even among Republican voters, 61 percent said they wanted the ban. This seems to me to be a case where the will of the people is being ignored for the sake of politics. They simply don’t want to get crossways with the NRA. This is why I hate politics.

Have we been worse off for the past 10 years because we couldn’t legally buy the 19 kinds of military-style assault weapons that were banned? I don’t think so. Just because we have a right to bear arms doesn’t mean there aren’t limits to what is reasonable.

I’m Bill Lamb and that’s my…Point of View.

Right off the Brady talking points.:barf:

I just emailed them.

Here is the editorial staff email address:

pointofview@fox41.com

And the speaker, station manager Bill Lamb:

blamb@fox41.com

Let them know how you feel High Roaders!!

[Tamara]

While I can support the 2nd Amendment giving us the right to bear arms, I see no need for semiautomatic weapons to be in the hands of civilians. They are designed for one purpose: to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible. Since we don’t use them for hunting -- because it wouldn’t be sporting -- what do you suppose it is that civilians would need to kill so quickly and efficiently?

Tyrants.

[Ridgeway]

they ran another spot on it yesterday I think, that I thought was at least slightly less biased...though of course it had Chief White on essentially stating what you pasted above :(
yet the poll they ran, was ~90%+ in favor of ending the ban when they showed it on tv...

[garrettwc]

Here is my response.

What do you think?


I watched at first with interest, and then disappointment, your most recent editorial. There were a number of misleading statements regarding semi-automatic weapons.

You stated that they are designed to kill quickly and efficiently.

Not true.

The only feature designed into them is that the semi-automatic action will eject the empty casing from a fired round, load another round into the chamber, and reset the firing mechanism without being manually operated by the user. It must then be manually fired by the operator. This function is also present in common deer rifles, shotguns used to shoot skeet, and the pistols carried by our local police.

You asked if we were worse off in the past 10 years because we couldn't legally buy the 19 weapons that were banned.

That is another incorrect statement.

The ban prohibited the sale of "new" manufactured weapons containing more than 2 types of certain "cosmetic" features, or magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Weapons and magazines made before the ban, and weapons made after the ban that did not have those cosmetic features were legally sold and traded throughout the 10 years the ban existed. The ban was an example of feel good legislation at its best.

We were not worse off, but neither were we better either. The ban did nothing to reduce the real problem, crime. Criminals were not obeying the law before the ban, and they likely didn't obey the ban either.

You closed by stating "Just because we have a right to bear arms doesn’t mean there aren’t limits to what is reasonable."

My question to you sir, is who decides what is reasonable? The actions taken by the German government in the late 1930's and early 1940's probably seemed quite reasonable to them. I doubt members or our Jewish community would agree.

This editorial was not completely researched, and as a result only told half the story.

Sir, your viewers deserve better.

[ClonaKilty]

While I can support the 2nd Amendment giving us the right to bear arms, I see no need for semiautomatic weapons to be in the hands of civilians.

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/ups/kiss_my_ass/ouch.gif

This redefines the term "cognitive dissonance."

[schizrade]

+1

[Rawlings]

It should read, "While I can support the 2nd Amendment giving us the right to bear arms, I clearly have not read the first half of said Amendment, as I would know it says nothing at all about hunting or sporting purposes. "

[garrettwc]

The station manager's reply:

Thank you for your thoughts. You make some very good points. I appreciate you
taking the time to share them.



Not sure, but I think I just got the brush off.

[El Tejon]

Control the Media, not my guns!

[Edward429451]

This seems to me to be a case where the will of the people is being ignored for the sake of politics

Bush didn't think so! Actions speak louder than words.

[garrettwc]

Came home tonight to this email from the station manager:

Emails like yours helped me understand that there was more to this semiautomatic gun ban than I knew. I wish I had more time to do deeper research on every topic. As it is I don't and my research fell short. That shouldn't ever happen but it did this time. For that reason, I am doing another editorial tomorrow at 4:50 pm and 10:25 pm to point out my error. I hope you'll watch.

Bill Lamb


Hope springs eternal. I'll let everyone know what he says on the air Friday night.

[Ridgeway]

wow I'm pretty impressed with the second response you recieved

will definitly tune in tomarrow to watch the editorial

good work, garrett

[Greg L]

Quickly reply back & ask him if he wants to run the follow up by you to see if there are any glaring problems. It can't hurt (providing that you know your stuff :D ).

Greg

[MP5]

Hope springs eternal. I'll let everyone know what he says on the air Friday night.

A great reminder to keep taking the High Road, politely educating people about guns, and not falsely assuming that all "anti's" just won't listen.

[garrettwc]

Here's the transcript of todays editorial. I haven't seen the video yet so I can't judge which point he was empasizing at the end.

Viewer Response – Assault Weapons -- 09/17/04

When I offer my point of view, I recognize that sometimes I may not express exactly what I mean and sometimes I’m just flat out wrong. Earlier this week I did an editorial opposing Congress allowing the ban on semiautomatic weapons to expire.

I received dozens of responses and none of them agreed with my position.

Let’s correct a couple things I was wrong about. David of Jeffersonville wrote, “You stated that hunters do not use semi-automatic guns for hunting. I have been using them for almost 30 years and I am not the only hunter doing so.” Carl of Mt. Washington wrote, “You are wrong. Many shotguns, perhaps 75%, are semi-auto and used for bird and rabbit hunting. At least half of the hunters use semi-auto rifles for deer hunting.”

I also referred to the 19 kinds of military-style assault weapons that were banned. Richard of Ashland wrote, “It would appear that Mr. Lamb knows little or nothing about the weapons that were banned. The ban dealt with the cosmetics of semi-auto weapons: no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor, etc. It did not stop a single semi-auto weapon from being sold.” Many viewers told me the same thing. John of Louisville said, “The assault weapons ban …only affected cosmetic changes like flash suppressors, extending stocks, bayonets, etc.”

Based on the feedback I got, this doesn’t sound like it was much of a ban to begin with.

I’m Bill Lamb and that’s your…Point of View.


What do you guys think? That last sentence could either mean he agreed with us that it was useless legislation, or that the ban could have been written more effectively.

After I view the video, I may be able to tell what he meant. If not I plan to email him.

[EBRDude]

Thanks for taking the time to write him. I also seen his editorial, and since I am not a very good "people" person, I decided to just let him to continue being ignorant.
Thanks for taking your time to educate him.

[Shanghai McCoy]

It would appear that taking the Highroad and educating this newsperson was an effective approach.It was good of him to share his new knowledge with the viewers.Well done gents...

[R.H. Lee]

I’m Bill Lamb and that’s my…totally unresearched and closed minded Point of View.
Lamb. Isn't that a baby sheep?

[wasrjoe]

It sounds to me like there is hope for him. Unfortunately, everyone cannot be an expert on everything. I am sure there is a position or two I am very incorrect on because of lack of knowledge. While, IMO, everyone should have a rudimentary knowledge of firearms, the simple fact is not everyone does.

Anyhow, I am not sure if how he approached this topic (revising his statements at least a little) is how he normally does things, but if it is... well, he's head and shoulders above much of the rest of the media.

[garrettwc]

OK, I got a chance to watch the video that goes with the transcript. It helps to be able to hear the person speak the words. You get a better feel for what he is saying. The emphasis I was questioning my earlier post was on the word "ban".

Here is what I took from the follow up editorial

He recanted his statements about the usage of semi auto weapons.

He acknowledged the ban was based on cosmetics.

He acknowledged the ban did nothing.

While I'm not sure he came over to our side, he did take the time to correct the misleading Brady Bunch statements from the first editorial. His follow up was fair and unbiased. I think that's all we can ask from the news media.

[Edward429451]

Sounds like he was walking a tightrope of 'being wrong vs. journalistic impartialism' ??

Didn't want to be slammed and lose listeners, yet didn't want to come right out and say he felt that way and maybe cause his bosses some flak leading to his possible unemployment.

I think he did a good job of recanting while maintaining policy of appeared impartiality within guidelines and saving his job.

He could now use the 'absent malice' argument to his bosses by saying he said it was "your" point of view instead of his, if called on the carpet for it.

[Cacique500]

http://1911pistolgrips.com/img/miscwebpics/happy34.gif

Well done!

[mondocomputerman]

"My question to you sir, is who decides what is reasonable? The actions taken by the German government in the late 1930's and early 1940's probably seemed quite reasonable to them. I doubt members or our Jewish community would agree."

Very good point to make!

[Hal]

I’m Bill Lamb and that’s my…Point of View.
:D
I swear someone makes this stuff up.

Bill Lamb is a baaaad little sheepole.

[garrettwc]

He could now use the 'absent malice' argument to his bosses by saying he said it was "your" point of view instead of his, if called on the carpet for it.

The "your point of view" portion of the transcript is a catch phrase. The editorial segment of the show is called "Point of View".

He always closes with "That's my point of view" and always closes the viewer responses with "That's your point of view" as if he is speaking directly to them.