NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Even their coverage is legitimately 50/50 (and it's not) from each side of any given issue, that still means half is Leftist agitprop.
It is important to read what is written about us
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
bdickens
Member
You must have a quite liberal* definition of "leftist agitprop."
The "Democratic Underground" might be leftist agitprop and Disney these days might be leftist agitprop, but large portions of NPR? Get real.
There's enough actually bad things in the world without having to make ludicrous stuff up .
* See what I did there....
The "Democratic Underground" might be leftist agitprop and Disney these days might be leftist agitprop, but large portions of NPR? Get real.
There's enough actually bad things in the world without having to make ludicrous stuff up .
* See what I did there....
Elkins45
Member
I'm not sure it was ever accurate even when it was unmanipulated. We just didn't have the information needed to know. Actor Michael Crichton actually described this effect a few years ago:
The Gell-Mann Effect, also called the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect describes the phenomenon of an expert believing news articles on topics outside of their field of expertise even after acknowledging that articles written in the same publication that are within the expert's field of expertise are error-ridden and full of misunderstanding. The term was coined by author and film producer Michael Crichton. He explains the irony of the term saying it came about "because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have," and describes the term in his talk "Why Speculate?" in which he says,
Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect
The Gell-Mann Effect, also called the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect describes the phenomenon of an expert believing news articles on topics outside of their field of expertise even after acknowledging that articles written in the same publication that are within the expert's field of expertise are...
Elkins45
Member
“Pipe hitter” is a slang term for someone who smokes crack. I find it pathetically amusing that the smooth brains have somehow managed to interpret it as some sort of tough-guy compliment.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Just letting my mind drift....
I would make a high estimate of, say, 150,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the US from all causes as an average.
They make and sell 8.1 Billion rounds of ammunition per year, but that probably includes government orders. Even if half that number are actually shot by civilians, that looks like a pretty good safety record.
Approximately 0.0004 % if my arithmetic is correct, and you're welcome to challenge either the numbers or the premises.
Might even be safer than bowling.
Nap time
Terry, 230RN
I would make a high estimate of, say, 150,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the US from all causes as an average.
They make and sell 8.1 Billion rounds of ammunition per year, but that probably includes government orders. Even if half that number are actually shot by civilians, that looks like a pretty good safety record.
Approximately 0.0004 % if my arithmetic is correct, and you're welcome to challenge either the numbers or the premises.
Might even be safer than bowling.
Nap time
Terry, 230RN
Ironicaintit
Member
I'm pretty sure it's a play on words. Pipe fitters unions are a thing, but "pipe hitters" in this context would refer to beating people with a pipe.
BushMaster-15
member
IF I had a nickle for every dimwitted misconstrued ill researched out right lie of an article ever written ,by lame stream media and the left loony's ;
I'd have been known as Gates Senior as in more money than !.
I'd have been known as Gates Senior as in more money than !.
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
“Pipe Hitters” is (also) a military term for special operation forces. Commonly, used among Seals, Delta Force, etc.
Old Dog
Member
Not where I'm from (Detroit).
My question to those who say they don't need to know what is written about us (gun-owners, RKBA supporters) nor read about what is written about us, nor care what is written about us...
Just how the hell can you fight for the RKBA and the Second Amendment without being informed about what the other side is saying?
If that's how some of the members here truly feel, sheesh, that's embarrassing. And a big clue as to why our side always seems to be coming from behind.
Elkins45
Member
It’s been retconned to mean that, but that’s not where it came from. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=51247
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
On the gun issue, and many other issues, NPR mostly stopped doing that a long time ago, which is why I went from avid supporter to actively avoiding them. The token pro-gun arguments they present as foils for their editorializing are more often than not the easiest to debunk, or outright straw-man arguments or caricatures. NPR is certainly more civil and well-spoken than MSNBC or CNN, yes, but they stopped trying to give both sides a fair shake a long time ago. NPR is now just advocacy journalism with a more erudite style.
Carl N. Brown
Member
What made the AR-15 into America's bestselling rifle included the efforts of the anti-gunners into demonizing it and its owners. Overblown rhetoric from the antigunners was the best sales pitch ever. Dykes and Bushmaster were the only AR-15 makers?
As far as knowing what your enemies are saying about you, I first encountered Carl Bakal's article "This Very Day a Gun May Kill You" in 1959 at the age of eleven. In high school I sought out his book "No Right to Bear Arms" in the 1960s. A few summers in high school I would go to the public library and use the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature to list articles under the subject Firearms Legislation and read and take notes. The Library Journal advised librarians that Baskal's book was full of truths, half-truths and insinuations and the author's bias was obvious.
At the same time my home county had local option prohibition of alcohol 1953-1968 when I was between 5cand 20 y.o.. The rhetoric of the Dries had an uncanny resemblance to the rhetoric of the anti-gunners. I later learned that the first group advocating a national ban on hand guns was formed in 1924 by folks who had successfully gotten the federal alcohol prohibition amendment passed. Oh the ban on alcohol the Dries fought for was so successful, in 1968 Della and I could call a certain cab company, ask them to go the Red Lee's (a bootlegger), pick up Johnny Walker, and drop him off at my address.
I have long paid attention to what anti-gunners have written and said about us. It has made me very cynical of my do-gooder betters.
As far as knowing what your enemies are saying about you, I first encountered Carl Bakal's article "This Very Day a Gun May Kill You" in 1959 at the age of eleven. In high school I sought out his book "No Right to Bear Arms" in the 1960s. A few summers in high school I would go to the public library and use the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature to list articles under the subject Firearms Legislation and read and take notes. The Library Journal advised librarians that Baskal's book was full of truths, half-truths and insinuations and the author's bias was obvious.
At the same time my home county had local option prohibition of alcohol 1953-1968 when I was between 5cand 20 y.o.. The rhetoric of the Dries had an uncanny resemblance to the rhetoric of the anti-gunners. I later learned that the first group advocating a national ban on hand guns was formed in 1924 by folks who had successfully gotten the federal alcohol prohibition amendment passed. Oh the ban on alcohol the Dries fought for was so successful, in 1968 Della and I could call a certain cab company, ask them to go the Red Lee's (a bootlegger), pick up Johnny Walker, and drop him off at my address.
I have long paid attention to what anti-gunners have written and said about us. It has made me very cynical of my do-gooder betters.
Last edited:
kmw1954
Member
Ha, I use to follow the stories on Yahoo News and then try to comment. It always turns into a useless venture. I would constantly comment of the number of anti-gun op-eds and when would the time come that yahoo would actually publish an op-ed from the other side of the issue. Crickets, even from the anti-side, zero response. They all amounted to the same story, the same narrative, the same agenda. So I quit responding to those stories, I refuse to validate their self perpetuating message. To respond and argue is to just legitimize them, empower them. They do not care what we think, feel, or even have a protected right to.
I have made a few statements over the years that they cannot and do not dispute. 1., This is a verifiable statistic. Liver Disease kills more people in this country every year than firearms of any kind or means do. Yet no one rails against that treatable disease. 2. If every law abiding gun owning citizen went on a berserk Killing spree at the same time as the antis claim is happening in the epidemic of gun violence, within 24hrs there would be no one left standing to write about it. Yet they insist that all gun owners are deranged and potential mass killers. 3. Conservative Right-wing Gun Nutz, they are the ones defending and promoting the gun craze. WRONG! I work PT at a very large outdoor public gun range as an RO. I get to meet and talk with many hundreds of people every month. I meet and talk with; men, women, trans, old, young and every age in-between. I talk with Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Reds, Mixed. I talk with Republicans, Democrats, Progressive, Green Party, Libertarians. Know what? They all own guns and believe in our country and want to protect our way of life, protect our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. None of them are willing to just freely give up their guns or the Rights. That my friends comes as a first hand observation.
So from my point of view, Quit reading all those Click Bait Op Eds. Quit Feeding the Dragon.
I have made a few statements over the years that they cannot and do not dispute. 1., This is a verifiable statistic. Liver Disease kills more people in this country every year than firearms of any kind or means do. Yet no one rails against that treatable disease. 2. If every law abiding gun owning citizen went on a berserk Killing spree at the same time as the antis claim is happening in the epidemic of gun violence, within 24hrs there would be no one left standing to write about it. Yet they insist that all gun owners are deranged and potential mass killers. 3. Conservative Right-wing Gun Nutz, they are the ones defending and promoting the gun craze. WRONG! I work PT at a very large outdoor public gun range as an RO. I get to meet and talk with many hundreds of people every month. I meet and talk with; men, women, trans, old, young and every age in-between. I talk with Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Reds, Mixed. I talk with Republicans, Democrats, Progressive, Green Party, Libertarians. Know what? They all own guns and believe in our country and want to protect our way of life, protect our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. None of them are willing to just freely give up their guns or the Rights. That my friends comes as a first hand observation.
So from my point of view, Quit reading all those Click Bait Op Eds. Quit Feeding the Dragon.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,079
While I agree we need to keep ourselves informed and have knowledge of what is being said about us, we also need to read and think about what we are saying about the other side. We tend to try and describe the "other side" as a bunch of dim-witted, lying Karens that walk around with the heads up their backsides with no way of seeing reality. This is no different than a few of them describing all of us as beer drinkin', overweight, trigger happy Bubbas, who spend all of their spare time cutting Xs into their ammo like the Taxi Driver or drilling holes in their bullets and filling them with sodium cyanide like Sheriff Brodie, walking thru WalMart open carrying our AR, while dressed as Speial Ops. Truth is, most are just like us, intelligent, hard working folks that have positively contributed to society for all of their life. Sorry, but trying to instill nothing but negative images of them, by belittling and condescending, instead of using intelligent arguments, does nothing but lower ourselves to the level we are trying to instill on those others. Trashing them does not make them want to listen to intelligent arguments, but just turns them off. As a lifelong gun owner and supporter of the RKBA, it makes me shake my head when I read some of the comments made here. Maybe we are all just beer drinkin', overweight, trigger happy Bubbas.
Necessary_Nutrient
Member
I would be happier if guns weren’t marketed as tools of civil war to impressionable or radicalized elements that are attracted to anarchy and yearn for situations that society should abhor- such as shooting Americans in the streets in open combat. While an interesting marketing tactic, a bunch of 20 year olds with sleeve tats, cool militia insignia t-shirts, backwards hats and spikes tactical AR’s are NOT law enforcement, which is an important distinction.
The ad is despicable.
Last edited:
The storys being told about gun owners by the anti-gunner leftist is mostly a lie.
I had a buddy that was hanging around the group of us gun owners & his wife was a very staunch Democrat. She would argue with us every time we started talking to each other about guns. The group was having dinner at a restaurant & I had just come from the range & had my newest AR build in the trunk, so when I started to tell everyone about it she started in on how bad the AR was. After the meal as everyone was leaving I got the AR out of the trunk & let the others look at it, her husband was interested in owning one but she said she would never let one of those killer guns in her house.
So I told her if I proved that the AR is not what the anti gunners say it is would you consider having one in your home?
She said yes while rolling her eyes. So I took them back to the range after stopping at the grocery store to pick up a watermelon.
I put the watermelon up on top of a plastic barrel & after everyone got their hearing protection on, I loaded one round of 5.56 fmj and shot a hole in the middle of the melon. We walked out & took a look at the damage. There was a small hole in the front of the melon & a slightly larger hole in the back.
Then I ask her if she thought a wound like this would be survivable as long as it wasn't though a vital area. She said most likely.
Then I pulled out my shot gun with a slug barrel since the anti gunners say the shotgun is good for personal protection & she had said before that she would probably get a shotgun if she needed protection because it's not as deadly.
I got everyone back behind the shooting line & I loaded one slug round in the shotgun. After making sure everyone had their hearing protection on I shot the watermelon, as you would think it exploded.
It was right then she realized what she was being told by the left was a lie & after that she started to believe some of the things we were telling her.
The truth of the story is if you disprove even a few of the lies being told by the leftist anti gunners the whole house of cards that they have built comes tumbling down.
I don't know if she ever allowed her husband to own an AR but I sure changed her mind about guns & the lies she was being told.
I had a buddy that was hanging around the group of us gun owners & his wife was a very staunch Democrat. She would argue with us every time we started talking to each other about guns. The group was having dinner at a restaurant & I had just come from the range & had my newest AR build in the trunk, so when I started to tell everyone about it she started in on how bad the AR was. After the meal as everyone was leaving I got the AR out of the trunk & let the others look at it, her husband was interested in owning one but she said she would never let one of those killer guns in her house.
So I told her if I proved that the AR is not what the anti gunners say it is would you consider having one in your home?
She said yes while rolling her eyes. So I took them back to the range after stopping at the grocery store to pick up a watermelon.
I put the watermelon up on top of a plastic barrel & after everyone got their hearing protection on, I loaded one round of 5.56 fmj and shot a hole in the middle of the melon. We walked out & took a look at the damage. There was a small hole in the front of the melon & a slightly larger hole in the back.
Then I ask her if she thought a wound like this would be survivable as long as it wasn't though a vital area. She said most likely.
Then I pulled out my shot gun with a slug barrel since the anti gunners say the shotgun is good for personal protection & she had said before that she would probably get a shotgun if she needed protection because it's not as deadly.
I got everyone back behind the shooting line & I loaded one slug round in the shotgun. After making sure everyone had their hearing protection on I shot the watermelon, as you would think it exploded.
It was right then she realized what she was being told by the left was a lie & after that she started to believe some of the things we were telling her.
The truth of the story is if you disprove even a few of the lies being told by the leftist anti gunners the whole house of cards that they have built comes tumbling down.
I don't know if she ever allowed her husband to own an AR but I sure changed her mind about guns & the lies she was being told.
Outlaw75
Member
Which is who founded the Pipe Hitters Union lifestyle company.
About Us
Pipe Hitters Union No better friend, no worse enemy. Pipe Hitters Union (PHU) was founded in 2004 by a small group of special operations combat veterans that shared a common belief in the unity of cause, the willingness to face extreme obstacles head on and the absolute refusal to backdown in...
www.pipehittersunion.com
I certainly agree with your sentiment, but so doing is quite like hiding one's head in the sand. Those unpleasant realities are NOT going away and for one I far prefer to know my enemy's position and tactics............it hurts, but it is reality!
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
I always find it bitterly ironic when I see ANTIFA-types running around with bats. Apparently they are too ignorant/stupid to realize that a bat can fit the definition of a "fascia."
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
I am not sure what NPR you are listening to, but they are rabidly anti-gun. Just for kicks I went to their website and searched "firearm." I scrolled through 3 pages of results and not a single article was pro-gun.
This article even goes to state that firearm ownership in America has a racial basis against slaves and natives. If that isn't an anti-gun mouthpiece, I am not sure what qualifies.
'The Gun Machine' Ep. 2: Tracing the roots of the culture of fear used to sell guns
Gun advertising sows seeds of mistrust and the promotes need to carry a gun for self-protection. But protection from whom?
Old Dog
Member
Ironic, considering the racist origins of gun-control in the USA.
bdickens
Member
I am not sure what NPR you are listening to, but they are rabidly anti-gun. Just for kicks I went to their website and searched "firearm." I scrolled through 3 pages of results and not a single article was pro-gun.
This article even goes to state that firearm ownership in America has a racial basis against slaves and natives. If that isn't an anti-gun mouthpiece, I am not sure what qualifies.
'The Gun Machine' Ep. 2: Tracing the roots of the culture of fear used to sell guns
Gun advertising sows seeds of mistrust and the promotes need to carry a gun for self-protection. But protection from whom?www.wbur.org
First off, that is not a news article. Your example is one from a talk show podcast series from a local station in Boston which is quoting one of their guests: alleged historian Carol Anderson. It took me all of a minute and a half to discover what her biases are.
Even so, that's not NPR's reporting. That's NPR's reporting of what someone else said. Big difference.
Cherry-picking one podcast segment to prop up your bias is intellctually dishonest and hardly counts as "listening with a critical ear." On the same page you linked is this story, which is typical of NPR's actual reporting. Unbiased and strictly factual. I think Walter Lippmann would approve.
Secondly, I clearly acknowledged the editorial bias that NPR has. "Editorial bias" does not equate to "agitprop."
We are supposed to be better than that. We are supposed to be the ones exhibiting intellectual honesty and critical thinking. We are supposed to be the ones not letting our emotions and biases get in the way of truth.
Last edited:
