National Geographic Propaganda

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deckard

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
282
Location
The deep south of the far north.
National Geographic is running a special under the guise of showing both sides of the firearms debate, but its looking to be a very thin veil. Every time they talk about the anti-gun movement they use facts, but every time they talk about people that are pro-gun they only refer to feelings, beliefs and opinions. The implication is pretty clear, that if you're against guns you are rational and safety conscious, but if your pro-gun you're irrational and reckless.

The program also tries to assert that most legally purchased firearms will wind up on the black market eventually.

Its just sad that a lot of people will buy this crap hook, line and sinker.
 
Guns in America - I saw that special. It was actually pretty good. It had a slight anti-slant and some historical inaccuracies but it didn't paint law-abiding gun owners in a bad light at all. It started out with a woman shooting a stalker ex-boyfriend and ended with a wounded cop.
The law-abiding gun owners (except for one guy) weren't the caricatures we've come to cringe at the sight of.
 
The beauty of this nation is that if you don't like what you see on TV, change the channel. Ditto the radio. If you don't like what you read in the newspaper or the magazine you picked up, turn the page or cancel your subscription. Heck, if you don't like the conversation on a particular gun board, stop visiting. There are plenty of points of view out there for everyone.
 
The beauty of this nation

The true beauty of this nation is that we are allowed to challenge lies and innacuracies with the truth and that instead of changing the channel, switching the station, cancelling the subscription or moving on to another forum, we need to become informed and make our voices heard in a rational and articulate manner to inform where there are inacuracies and downright lies. People need to be contacted, truth must be spoken on internet forums, letters must be written to editors, companies must be contacted, politicians must be phoned and e-mailed. Just shrugging and walking away is no longer an option if we are to retain what freedom we have left whether it be civil liberties related, political, or economic.
 
The beauty of this nation is that if you don't like what you see on TV, change the channel. Ditto the radio. If you don't like what you read in the newspaper or the magazine you picked up, turn the page or cancel your subscription. Heck, if you don't like the conversation on a particular gun board, stop visiting. There are plenty of points of view out there for everyone.
Click to expand...

In other words, hide your head in the sand.

That National Geographic show was more subtle in it's approch than some anti gun propaganda I have seen, but it's the same message in the end - guns are bad, ordinary, law abiding people don't need guns, we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so it's necessary to put restrictions on gun sales. All very logical. A necessary limit on our freedom to protect us. Big brother knows what's best for us.
 
Last edited:
I heard part of the program where this guy and his family were out shooting. the narrator said that if this guy's gun collection was stolen it could fall in the hands of a criminal. I changed channels at that point
 
I heard part of the program where this guy and his family were out shooting. the narrator said that if this guy's gun collection was stolen it could fall in the hands of a criminal. I changed channels at that point
Click to expand...
yes, i saw that also. what a line of cra9. so, lets see, if my truck was stolen, it could fall into the wrong hands, if my bow and arrow, my generator, etc. etc. etc. heck, IF IT is stolen, it has ALREADY fallen into the wrong hands! what a bunch of anti-gun !@#$%^&*() hogwash!
 
I think National Geographic is actually really trying to be unbiased. The thing is - no matter how hard they try, it's still going to be skewed towards the anti-gun side. That's just how they are. It's like David Duke doing a documentary on racial equality.
 
I think National Geographic is actually really trying to be unbiased. The thing is - no matter how hard they try, it's still going to be skewed towards the anti-gun side.

I agree. The show attempted to be balanced, but was slightly skewed. Nonetheless, it was called "Guns in America" and guns in America are owned by criminals, fools and nuts along with law-abiding citizens.

That special was not going to sway anyone. If anything, seeing the suburban mom become a gun owner may actually persuade a few women into getting a pistol.

The Class 3 shooting they filmed was by far the most "friendly" segment I've ever seen. The shooters were normal-looking people and their kids and one pacifist ex-hippie instead of the beer-bellied, camo-clad knuckleheads with bad grammar usually associated with guns.

I didn't like the 'into wrong hands" comments either or the comment that "assault weapons were banned from 1994-2004" but overall it wasn't that bad. Take it for what it is - a NatGeo show. It wasn't produced by Ted Nugent or Sarah Brady.
 
I dropped my subscription to National Geographic magazine many years ago when they explained to the Polish tourists who were aghast at seeing rifles in pickup truck racks that many Americans mistakenly thought the Second Amendment permitted private ownership of firearms.
 
More than a few innacurate statements. Every semi auto is an "assault weapon". "If a gun is stolen it will fall into the hands of a criminal. If you steal a gun, are you not the criminal? I thought it was leaning heavy on the anti side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top