I'm tired of CNN and their 2A/SYG rhetoric

Status
Not open for further replies.
NPR is really biased in their reporting on Stand Your Ground laws too. They have had plenty of people talking about the law since the Zimmerman incident, and not once have they even given a basic statement of what the law says. They refer to the law in very vague terms, and state that "some oppose it because they believe it could protect an aggressor who starts a physical confrontation and then uses deadly force."
Click to expand...

Not totally correct -- I heard a very good NPR story late last week (it was either "Fresh Air" or "The Story") which had a fantastic discussion of exactly what the SYG law said, compared to simple castle doctrine and other basic laws allowing self defense.

It's actually they only place that I've heard a logical, rational discussion on the topic anywhere in the media at all.

Both of the gents who were guests felt that the SYG law was completely irrelelvant to the Martin/Zimmerman incident: either Zimmerman's case would stand on it's own with basic self defense law/doctrine (and would not have to invoke the SYG rule) based on the idea that Martin was on top of him beating him, or SYG would not apply at all (if Zimmerman initiated the scuffle or was the aggressor in any way).
 
The bad thing in this case is we will never know what happened -- the media and political opportunists have muddied the water so much that it will never be sorted out.
 
I have decided that most anti-gun, anti-SYG law, or whatever you want to call the liberals against an individual's right to defend one's self are so skewed in their way of thinking that no amount of factual data or logical thinking is gonna change their stance on guns. I think it boils down to an individual choosing whether to allow one's self to be a victim or not. A recent conversation with a coworker has led me to the conclusion that some people would rather allow themselves to be a victim than to protect themselves or their family. I felt dumber after trying to talk to him, walking away scratching my head.

An old saying came to mind, "Don't argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level an beat you with experience!" So if they don't mind being a victim, fine, just don't expect me to.

Just my thoughts
 
Many gun folks put down the "mainstream" media, and rightly so. When MSNBC comes along with its "dangerous Remington rifles" extravaganza; many of those same people act like its the equivalent of the Gospel of Mark.
 
Actually fresh air on guns from NPR is so rare it is refreshing. Usually it's the usual. If you have read anti-gunner Carl Bakal from 1959 and gun control skeptic H.L. Mencken from 1925, you can anticipate all the arguments.
 
The mainstream media is TOTALLY unwatchable and vehemently against the LEGAL use of guns. Alternative media is changing the views of many, however. Note the large number of first time gun buyers, AND women gun buyers. They aren't listening to the MSM anymore.
 
Many gun folks put down the "mainstream" media, and rightly so. When MSNBC comes along with its "dangerous Remington rifles" extravaganza; many of those same people act like its the equivalent of the Gospel of Mark.
Click to expand...

You are blurring the lines between the network and the story. The dangerous 700 series rifle story presented a lot of information that is verifiable including Remington's own internal memos on the faulty Walker fire control.
 
Well -- that warmed my heart a bit...
Click to expand...

There are more computers in American homes now which allows people to view many different news sources. Like one of our previous posters said about CBS..I too tried to never watch them again; my choice and feel like I have not missed CBS or any relevant facts about the news that affects me/mine/ or our country in any meaningful way. Not saying all their news is worthless so no reason to nit pick; just saying I would rather watch someone else at breaking a news story.

The GOP election coverage and bias reaffirmed (in my mind) how occasionally agenda outweighs the truth with many of the MSN net works. Does that mean they never report the truth of a situation....certainly they do. Seems like I remember a German Station during WW11 that pushed the Nazi agenda but was actually a psyop that every once in a while would "code word" broadcast pertinent info to the resistance.

Many people have first hand knowledge of a news event and; in their own mind think the reporting of the event contains half truths and out right lies; over time individuals decide to disregard the perceived propaganda. This is why private publishing and the web are constantly attacked by 'debunkers' that say the information was gleaned from the web, and therefore is invalid or a conspiracy.

Psyops (conditioning) is alive and well in any country, organization; starts with schools and continues through out ones life. It is up to individuals to evaluate and decide who to listen to and what to believe.
 
Last edited:
An old saying came to mind, "Don't argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level an beat you with experience!" So if they don't mind being a victim, fine, just don't expect me to.
Click to expand...

Right now, this works. We can say that. What most antis want, however, is that nobody can defend themselves. That's why I argue with them, is to prevent that from happening.

I don't take the 2A as a right, I personally take it as a responsibility. I think that every home should be required to have one.
 
youre tired of the Communist News Network? what took you so long to see the light?
 
Sky said:
Might be comforting to those who do not like the network.
Click to expand...
It's not comforting when observed in the context of the big international stories which hogged the coverage for this year, namely the Arab spring and Japanese tsunami. See http://www.businessinsider.com/thes...mericans-know-nothing-about-the-world-2011-11 for a demonstration of how print media adapted to the situation regarding domestic lack of interest in international news which hit cable news.

Explaining it as a diversification of news ingestion is overly optimistic. The availability of coverage from the net which reverses the information available on the news doesn't automatically impart credibility due to lining up better with the prejudices of the reader or not being from the "mainstream media".

Sent using Tapatalk 2
 
One thing I hope folks learn from this is to learn to read these studies.

The following is the original research article that is quoted: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=dennis_culhane

It is important to read the methods. Table 1 is a summary of all the data.

Case-Control study means that they compare those that are involved (Case) vs. placebo folks (Control). A reliable study means that they try and match the 2 groups for all variables (age, sex, etc...) except for what they are looking at. In this case, it's gun possession (hence the title: "Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault."

For all gun assaults, 5.92% of those involved (Cases) possessed guns. 7.16% of Controls possessed guns. Hmm, this is the opposite of their claim. (my bold)

For fatal gun assaults, 8.80% of Cases possessed guns & 7.85% of Controls possessed guns. Not exactly 4x/the number.

Neither of these were of any statistical significance.

What no one is mentioning is the statistical significance:

The cases had greater alcohol & illicit drug involvement, were outdoors, black, younger, unemployed, less educated, higher risk occupations and...surprise, surprise..., had more prior arrests.

Also, a big flaw is that they didn't look at anyone under 21. I suspect a huge flaw.

Hmm, it seems societal ills are worse than gun possession.
 
Similarly, people who carry guns are more likely to be shot and killed than those who are unarmed. A University of Pennsylvania study found that people carrying guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed.
Click to expand...

The only people carrying guns who are 4.2 time more likely to be shot and killed are criminals.
 
CNN, NPR, MSNBC, etc. are just tools of the self-appointed, self-empowered Left

You can be pretty much sure everything the left-wing media puts out is beside the point. For example:
Carl N. Brown: CNN wants to make it a meme of protecting minorities against "vigilantes" with guns

henschman: NPR is really biased in their reporting on Stand Your Ground laws
Click to expand...

In fact, minorities have a strong history in the USA of protecting themselves by standing their ground with guns. Ann Coulter starts out making that point in her column today in Human Events with this arresting pitch for the NRA:
Ann Coulter:
We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.
Click to expand...
Coulter goes on to recount events in 1957 in North Carolina in which the KKK was uh... discouraged by blacks wielding guns. Writing about these events later, one of the gun rights leaders, Robert F. Williams, a World War II Marine veteran from Monroe, N.C., said, in the preface to "Negroes With Guns":
"I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense -- and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."
Click to expand...
In this world, the way it is, not the way we would have it be, some in social and political power will try to use mobs to do their violent dirty work. This ploy doesn't work if law abiding citizens are armed. So, at root, what you see in the news media reporting on the OP subject, is some in power trying to disarm us normal citizens, for the purpose of (sad to say) keeping their potential mobs from becoming uh... discouraged.
 
We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.
Click to expand...
Ann is determined not to let facts get in the way of claiming that a minor should have defended himself with a gun that he couldn't legally have. Unless she is talking about having other armed people enacting retribution on behalf of the slain youth, which is completely contrary to the civilized rule of law.

In this world, the way it is, not the way we would have it be, some in social and political power will try to use mobs to do their violent dirty work. This ploy doesn't work if law abiding citizens are armed. So, at root, what you see in the news media reporting on the OP subject, is some in power trying to disarm us normal citizens, for the purpose of (sad to say) keeping their potential mobs from becoming uh... discouraged.
Click to expand...
If there are two oft repeated facts, it's that firearms make two people equal and that law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms. This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible.
 
Hacker15E said:
Not totally correct -- I heard a very good NPR story late last week (it was either "Fresh Air" or "The Story") which had a fantastic discussion of exactly what the SYG law said, compared to simple castle doctrine and other basic laws allowing self defense.

It's actually they only place that I've heard a logical, rational discussion on the topic anywhere in the media at all.

Both of the gents who were guests felt that the SYG law was completely irrelelvant to the Martin/Zimmerman incident: either Zimmerman's case would stand on it's own with basic self defense law/doctrine (and would not have to invoke the SYG rule) based on the idea that Martin was on top of him beating him, or SYG would not apply at all (if Zimmerman initiated the scuffle or was the aggressor in any way).
Click to expand...

Yeah, NPR is a good news outlet. About the only one left that actually takes the role of journalism seriously, unlike CNN, faux news, ect.

To compare and contrast opinion articles (CNN to NPR), heres an opinion piece by NPR about the Martin shooting. Except it ends up not being a piece about the martin shooting and more about race issues and a study that found its just not white males that are more likely to shoot a black male, its everybody. I thought it was pretty interesting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...von-martin-shooting-what-if-shooter-was-black

Heres a typical NPR article about the case.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149805129/fla-cases-test-stand-your-ground-laws-limits

I'm not sure what the criticisms of NPR in this thread mean, since its apparent from that article that what you can and cant do under the law arent well defined in the first place. Sounds like more of an effort to find bias than any actual bias.
 
I'm not sure what the criticisms of NPR in this thread mean
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it means that a number of posters here on THR are just as biased in their own views of news outlets as the news outlets they criticize in their posts.

We all have natural biases and even prejudices -- that is human nature. The use of logic to evaluate information, recognize biases, and attempt to maneuver around/through those biases are where we can separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom.
 
NPR did not ennoble their brand when two of their executives were caught in a sting video, dining and laughing it up with people (the "stingers") they thought were members of the Muslim Brotherhood wanting to give them $5 million.

In the course of the video, one of the NPR executives referred to the Tea Party as "white, Middle America, gun-toting," and added, "They're seriously racist people." This executive also referred to an "anti-intellectual component of the Republican Party," and said, ""Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives." Not surprisingly, the executive also agreed with anti-Semitic comments made by the "Arab," and offered anti-Semitic observations of his own.

This video went a long way in prompting members of Congress to call for a de-funding of NPR.

With executive leadership like that, I imagine the suspicions of a leftist tilt by NPR are not unfounded.


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Skribs
  • Locked
Amazing...CNN has some pro-gun articles
Replies
9
Views
616
mope540
mope540
W
  • Locked
We is all violent gunslingers!!!!
Replies
4
Views
619
Sam1911
S
A
  • Locked
Peter Keller's case ...
Replies
1
Views
407
Justin
Justin
K
  • Locked
CNN commentator actually proposes repealing 2A!
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Kiln
K
G
  • Locked
Thought this article was interesting.
Replies
4
Views
331
yokel
yokel
Back
Top