Been hearing anti-gun sentiment on airwaves

Status
Not open for further replies.
monotonous_iterancy said:
"I own a gun," the DJ says, "I think it's an intelligent decision most of the time, but gun violence in this city is getting out-of-control. Something has to change."
Click to expand...

This should be the end all, be all of any debate. There are tons of antis who have a gun, but are still in favor of gun control. Typically, people who say this mean "I have a gun because I am important, and you people shouldn't have guns so I can be safer from you because I have a gun." It is what Bloomberg, Feinstein and plenty others are subliminally saying when they have armed guards but are trying to remove our rights.
 
Plan2Live said:
What you are seeing and describing is a deliberate shift in tactics. Bloomberg discovered he has more success taking his message directly to the court of public opinion than he does by going after lawmakers. Groups like Moms Demanding Action and Everytown are infiltrating everything from online reader comments to PTAs to groups like the League of Women Voters. They can't fight the NRA head to head with politicians so they are using the propoganda angle via the air waves, online reader comments and social media. I've especially noticed what appears to be professional anti-gun trolls posting ridiculous reader comments repeatedly on online news sources like Yahoo and Reuters. Their posts go up quick and hold top tier positions turning every news story with any reference to a firearm into a second amendment bashing diatribe.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Nasal shock jocks opining about gun control are the symptom. Bloomswine is the disease.
 
The key words, that you hear over and over, are that "something must be done." Yet the people saying that, by those very words, are admitting they have no clue as to what specifically should be done, that would be both feasible and effective, to address an identifiable problem. All gun control proposals are either unworkable (in the sense of being unenforceable) or would do nothing to address the problem. When those proposals inevitably fail, there would be calls for new rounds of restrictions, until finally all guns are banned. But they would be banned in theory only, because millions of people would defy the laws. Our experience with alcohol Prohibition should be adequate warning of what happens when legislation overreaches in contravention of deep-seated cultural norms.
 
So what are you going to do about it?

Around here, a lot of gun stores advertise on the radio. I'd let them know about it, let them know where their advertising dollars go. Let them know that if it happens again, and then you continue to hear their ads on that particular station, you'll know what gun store to steer clear of.

No gun stores on the radio? Find the local companies advertising on the station. You aren't going to get anywhere with the McDonalds and the chain lube shops and such, but the local HVAC company that advertises on the radio, the local mom and pop car mechanic, anything local, just call them up, and let them know that the music radio station they are advertising on is engaging in political proselytizing, and you can't support the companies that are supporting that.

Radio stations are dependent on advertising. Maybe if a big advertiser calls them up and tells them that their DJs need to keep their opinions to themselves, they might just do that.
 
"The laws that work for hicks in [other parts of the state], don't work here. [...] This is a dangerous city. I'm not trying to take your rifle or your shotgun out of your car, I think you should be able to own a gun. But something has to be done."
Click to expand...
That's Giuliani's schtick.

My response is always, "If the 2nd Amendment means something different in New York City than it does in Phoenix City, Alabama, then does the 13th Amendment mean something different in Albany, Georgia than it does in Albany, New York?"

If so, there's no less justification for "common sense slavery" in Georgia than there is for "common sense gun control" in New York City...
 
The key words, that you hear over and over, are that "something must be done."
Click to expand...
My response is, "If the only 'something' that you can do is something STUPID, then do NOTHING."

Gun control as a "solution" to crime is as asinine as throwing virgins into volcanoes as a "solution" to earthquakes.
 
The key words, that you hear over and over, are that "something must be done." Yet the people saying that, by those very words, are admitting they have no clue as to what specifically should be done, that would be both feasible and effective, to address an identifiable problem.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention that, I remember the person at the second station floating the idea of universal background checks.

I think he was genuine. Based on a few experiences I've had, there seem to be a number of gun owners who see nothing threatening to their rights about background checks. For instance, someone I know owns several guns (not "fudd" guns, mind you), and he thinks I'm paranoid for opposing UBC. He tells me that they can't create a registry out of it because they destroy the records after 24 hours. Basically, he trusts that decentralized record keeping and statutes forbidding federal registries will protect his rights. He seems to think that the opposition to it is a demagogic ploy by gun rights groups in order to whip up fundraising or something cynical of that nature.

f you think the anti-gun stuff is thick in the media, AGW is even more prevelant.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't know what AGW stands for. What does that mean?
 
I can't believe that this has gone on this far without a dozen people mentioning that the media has been putting out anti-gun propaganda since day one of the electronic age. I heard Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke saying maybe some day no one would be allowed to carry a gun. That was from one of the half hour shows with Chester. So it was made in the middle 50's. Progressives have been driving the media since they first learned what influence it could have.

You want the real clincher? How do you think Hitler managed to rise to power the way he did? Movies. That's how. He showed the world the power of propaganda through the modern media. The whole world has copied his techniques since then. They actually went back farther but he showed up just when talking movies did. What a coincidence. I'm telling you that Hitler was the first to use the power medium of video to alter the way people think.

Now on Law And Order SVU I just heard about how the "darknet" was a collection of sites on the web not accessible by normal means (not html) and that they carried kiddie porn, terrorist stuff and GUNS! How shocking. They talk about guns on the darknet. I guess us web surfers don't get to talk about guns at all. You don't see any discussion boards about guns anywhere except darknet. Did you know that? Wait! This is a gun board!!!! :evil:

They connected child porno, terrorism and guns. No propaganda there. If you're actually interested you can find info on that episode here:

http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Friending_Emily

It doesn't mention guns there. It only talks about live kiddie porn going out over darknet where all those gun people hang out.
 
Last edited:
Too be fair, Cee Zee, one of the most infamous of the sits on the so called dark web, the silk road, did allow people to buy and sell firearms without, shall we say, the meddlesome laws that afflict the rest of us. It was a good place for those not permitted to purchase of possess firearms to purchase them, or to purchase guns not can not be acquired through legal means.
 
Cee Zee said:
I can't believe that this has gone on this far without a dozen people mentioning that the media has been putting out anti-gun propaganda since day one of the electronic age. I heard Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke saying maybe some day no one would be allowed to carry a gun. That was from one of the half hour shows with Chester. So it was made in the middle 50's. Progressives have been driving the media since they first learned what influence it could have.

You want the real clincher? How do you think Hitler managed to rise to power the way he did? Movies. That's how. He showed the world the power of propaganda through the modern media. The whole world has copied his techniques since then. They actually went back farther but he showed up just when talking movies did. What a coincidence. I'm telling you that Hitler was the first to use the power medium of video to alter the way people think.

Now on Law And Order SVU I just heard about how the "darknet" was a collection of sites on the web not accessible by normal means (not html) and that they carried kiddie porn, terrorist stuff and GUNS! How shocking. They talk about guns on the darknet. I guess us web surfers don't get to talk about guns at all. You don't see any discussion boards about guns anywhere except darknet. Did you know that? Wait! This is a gun board!!!! :evil:

They connected child porno, terrorism and guns. No propaganda there. If you're actually interested you can find info on that episode here:

http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Friending_Emily

It doesn't mention guns there. It only talks about live kiddie porn going out over darknet where all those gun people hang out.
Click to expand...
Funny you mention that, my daughter is doing a report on Josef Goebels and the Nazi propaganda machine.

I'd have a mind to call the station that airs such anti-gun drivel but they'd never let me on the air. These people make a living running their mouths and talking over their audience. Calling the station manager and complaining would probably be a better route to take.

Cee Zee, what is darknet? Is this a real thing or just some nonsensical garbage created as a TV drama buzzword?

Last I checked, all sorts of illegal things can be found on the regular WWW, like plans for the Luty SMG.
 
I'd like to point out that if the antigunners are using radio to spread their propaganda, they're barking up the wrong tree. First of all, broadcast radio, in general, is a dying medium. Secondly, the listeners of talk radio tend to be conservative and pro-gun. Whenever liberals have tried to set up liberal radio stations (for example, Air America and Pacifica Radio), these have been dismal failures. If the antigunners want to waste their money in these channels, so much the better for us, because it prevents them from using their money more effectively.
 
I hate these people who qualify themselves by saying "I'm a gun owner, but..."
Click to expand...

I agree and you won't hear me quoting Dianne Feinstin either.
 
I have contempt for the forked tongue elitists who obviously know better, such as Mark and Gabby Guiffords, and have never really supported the 2nd A. to extend beyond themselves.

The OP seems to refer to another type for which I also have contempt. That would be the apathetic and willfully ignorant gun owner. These are the people who won't lift a phone or write an email to protect their rights, make dumb comments like "they'll never take my guns" while watching others protect HIS rights, and generally choose to stay ignorant out of apathy. If the proposed restrictions don't happen to target what specifically is in his possession, he is uninterested. He says " I just like to squirrel hunt, and I don't really get involved in all that politics" while taking it for granted that someone will always be out there fighting for his right to do so.

There used to be a large number of NRA members who did not even own firearms, but understand the importance of the right to do so. Today I think there is a lot more "I'm only concerned if it's specifically about one of mine or me".
 
I listen to the Radio for music....not to listen to some knit-whit who thinks his opinion matters......the second the DJs start yammering i find another station.
 
I listen to the Radio for music....not to listen to some knit-whit who thinks his opinion matters......the second the DJs start yammering i find another station.
Click to expand...
I listen to the radio to hear about UFOs, bigfoot, and people vanishing from national parks...
 
well the DJ is right...SOMETHING does need to be done about gun violence. To say it's not a problem is to be disingenuous.

that "SOMETHING" however, is not more legislation, but better enforcement of the laws we have on the books already.
 
Cee Zee, what is darknet? Is this a real thing or just some nonsensical garbage created as a TV drama buzzword?
Click to expand...

Darknet is real. The world wide web (or .www) is only a small part of what goes over the internet. Most things that are on the net are not easily accessible to the average user. Darknet takes advantage of protocols that are no longer popular plus other stuff that was always obscure. Many isp's won't even carry a lot of the old protocols that make up darknet like telnet for example. That's basically the old BBS system that is still alive believe it or not. It's just not on the web. They use their own protocol to communicate.

There are lots of really crappy things on darknet. It's true about the Silk Road system. They had pretty much anything on that system including child porno and the ability to buy guns illegally and from one country to another. Still that tv show didn't point out that Silk Road and others like it were not part of the mainstream gun culture. Like kiddie porn it's something the government worked hard to shut down. But it's hard because there's a lot of stuff you can do to hide your tracks if you know how. That tv show tried to connect guns with terrorism as if there was no difference between an arms smuggler and the average law abiding citizen who doesn't buy AK-47's and RPG's from the middle east over the net. It would be like linking the entire tv industry to porno because a few pay per view porno channels are available on satellite systems.

Darknet is part of a bigger phenomenon called the undernet. The undernet consists of all sorts of files and programs running on the web that are not accessible unless you know how. IRC has pretty much become part of the undernet now to the point that many people think that is the undernet. But that's only a small part of it. Think of it this way. There's an ocean of data on the internet. The world wide web only shows basically what you can see on the surface. Most of the undernet is boring crap but there are leftover files and pieces of files that made up parts of things like VPN's etc. plus the files that make networks run. If you know how you can access a lot of that stuff. Hackers use the undernet to swap warez (illegal pirated software) among other things. And yes the terrorists do use these methods.

It's much harder to trace stuff on the undernet but it isn't impossible. You generally run into a lot of gateways that were installed on network computers around the world that don't even host web sites. That's where the infamous DOS attacks (denial of service) originate mostly. Gateways are basically relays that bounce your data around the world before it gets to the intended target making it far harder to trace but not impossible. The people who spread malware (like a really bad virus) will use undernet to do it generally. It takes a big effort but they have managed to track down people even when they used a bunch of gateways etc.. Same goes for child porn. They catch those scum buckets eventually. Not all of them obviously but a few years ago the FBI put the hammer down on a bunch of that stuff world wide. They worked on tracing the sources for a very long time and they arrested everyone connected. At one time kiddie diddlers were brazen about their hobbies on the net. Most of those people ended up being caught when they did the big undernet sweep. Good. But stopping it all is like sticking your finger in the hole of a dam. It only holds back the tide for a while.

There are lots of ways to access darknet and the undernet. I used to dabble in those protocols a long, long time ago when it was about the old BBS boards and accessing them. And I was on IRC for a while because it was pretty mainstream in the early days of the internet. But I wouldn't go there for anything now. Remember those are hackers that populate those areas and they will hack your system if you don't know what you're doing. I could provide links to accessing the undernet but I won't for this reason. It's best to leave it alone unless you're working for ISIS or something. Or the FBI. People talk about the FBI doing surveillance - this is the reason they need to do it. Same goes for the NSA. I know it's a touchy subject but they have to be able to fight back. We can't just give terrorists and child molesters a place to practice their hobby and learn about it and help each other do it.

And I still think the Silk Road was only partially about guns and that there are far worse things they could have mentioned on that tv show. They did mention the occupy movement BTW. That's another group that might use undernet to communicate. There are many others. Anyone who doesn't want the world to see what they're up to will try to use undernet. And darknet is an even harder place to crack. You quickly find yourself treading on the domain of some serious hackers and they are often very territorial.
 
Last edited:
well the DJ is right...SOMETHING does need to be done about gun violence. To say it's not a problem is to be disingenuous.
Click to expand...

This kind of accepts the premise that whatever the media decides they want to sensationalize on a given day is growing epidemic crisis in need of an immediate solution.

Violent crime has continuously been in decline for decades. Maybe instead of "doing something about gun violence" we should acknowledge that something has already been done that is obviously working in some places, and try to expand it into other places that have also "done something" that is NOT working.

The greatest advances are in areas where freedom has been restored, not by goverments "doing something about gun violence" but rather where governments have rolled back their previous "doings of something about gun violence".
 
These incidents don't scream anti-gun sentiment to me, more just concern over gun violence.

"Something must be done" doesn't mean necessarily that guns need to be taken away. Nothing they said is directly "anti-gun" unless I'm really missing something here.

No one has come forward with a really solid idea of what that "something" really is (if anyone ever can), but we can all agree it shouldn't be banning firearms. That will just lead to more firearms being obtained like bootleg liquor - through who knows who, from who knows where. That won't make ANYTHING better for America.

Anyways, I read these statements as just people concerned because of a local event that brings the difficulties of reducing gun violence to the forefront, and nobody has a good answer except "something must be done." That doesn't solve anything, but hey it fills airspace on the radio, right?
 
Last edited:
CaseyRyback said:
well the DJ is right...SOMETHING does need to be done about gun violence. To say it's not a problem is to be disingenuous.

that "SOMETHING" however, is not more legislation, but better enforcement of the laws we have on the books already.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. Enough is already being done and gun crimes are on the decline.
Nothing new needs to be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Has Paul Harvey always been anti-gun and ...
Replies
23
Views
1K
Justin
Justin
G
  • Locked
I've concluded that all sports radio is anti gun
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Golden Hound
G
S
  • Locked
Trauma; Life in the ER
Replies
8
Views
1K
who me
W
C
  • Locked
Views on Guns Changing in Philly?
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
230RN
230RN
coloradokevin
  • Locked
Anti-gun banks?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Steel Horse Rider
S
Back
Top