Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Justin, Apr 12, 2011.
In case there is any confusion:
MSNBC showed this over and over yesterday and every pudit (all liberals) were very impressed with this very well done ad. Lawrence O'Donnell was his usual angry self. I think it is illegal in MA to shoot at targets that look like people. I wonder if Brady gets any complaints from that States lefties about that? NO won't happen. Disgusting.
All these cute little jabs because they don't use our proper nomenclature, wake up and understand that this is one of those Rahm Emanuel moments and they don't want it wasted.
The party that most favors gun rights is in a deal making mood and after the soaking they got last week it wouldn't surprise me at all to see some type of mag restriction language in some future budget bill.
If you have any to spare send it to the Pro 2a group of your choice but don't be lulled into this silliness and be complacent.
Heck just tying them and their money up in court would have some value. Even if we lost.
Stop getting hung up on the semantics...it gets us nowhere. I can't believe the thousands of posts on here about mag vs clip. Let's stop re-hashing that for a while, please.
I saw this add on the Huffpost already. There's usually a lot of pro gun people on this Lefty site but it wouldn't hurt for a few more to join just for the anti gun articles (propaganda). There's usually one or so per week.
I built some of those "assault clips" when I was a kid. Bent them into a bow and strung them with a rubber band. I used small straws or coffee stirrers as arrows. They could be quite accurate and have a far greater effective range than a paper football.
Thanks Axel, sometimes utter stupidity deserves a good laugh and public mocking.
Without semantics, there can be no meaningful debate, full stop. Semantics are everything. Frame the definitions, frame the debate, win the debate.
The pro-gun side has always had logic in its corner, and a logical argument begins with agreed-upon and well-founded definitions for everything being argued. I don't want to see our side's argument devolve into the emotional drivel that we fight so hard against.
I am going to warn my wife about this as I have seen these around the house. I hear the can really mess your hair up if you limp wrist them.
same old story from the brady campaign, a psycho shoots a person/persons, the other 60,000,000 million of us responsible gun owners get punished for it. every time i see one of these commercials i invest a few $'s into magazines, ammunition, and the occasional addition to my collection.
Can you imagine what would happen if some conservative group made an ad using a silhouette target of a little girl? The outcry from the left would be deafening. They might even suggest that the ad was responsible for a shooting somewhere.
Anyway, I found this Brady video unacceptable on several levels, the least of which was the confusion between clips and magazines. I teach a course on safety/injury issues at the college level. On Wednesday we were discussing the role of legislation in safety and I showed them this video. They all readily grasped the aspects of the video that were designed to work on an emotional, rather than a rational, level.
This is why I don't let people call magazines 'clips'. No, I could care less is shooters say it. When THESE MONKEYS say it, we need credibility.
I am sorry but this is not the case. Look at this thread. It is full of irrational emotional responses which have no basis in logic.
Semantics do not matter in this context. Again they could call it a dodad and it will not change the message or its effect on people. :banghead:
Send them over to that "just facts" website and let them see how many lives have been saved, crimes prevented ,rapes stopped and crime satistics gone down in every case. How do you argue with hard facts. The over a million would be victims must be slowlly influincing the war between the politicians who seem to think they are saving us from ouselves, and the normal clear thiking responsible hard working American, who lives in the "real" world.
Politicians are like parrotts, you give them a party line and they just keep repeating themselves without thinking. My old parrot could talk allday, but he had no idea what he was saying, if he were around now I would call him Mr President.
I flagged it for promoting terrorism.
Damn, I thought that video must be some kind of satire... I never watched any of that "brady campaign" stuff before because it doesn't really concern me, but I gotta change that in the future to have a good laugh from time to time
I would make a comment on the snake oil sales tatics of the Brady campaign but this is a family forum.
Yea look back at some of the factual Right to Life adds that brought down huge criticism from the left.
As far as Clip vs. Magazine, I'm sure they could care less and the public in general don't care either. (kind of a boot and bonnet, trunk and hood difference to most)
The main point needs to be combating the restriction based on capacity, if tommorow all media and politicians called them magazines the fight will still remain.
I beg to differ. There's a reason they picked the exact two words 'assault' and 'clip'. There's people whose whole job is to find the specific language that will work in sound bites (http://www.luntzglobal.com). There's a reason why back in the late 80s Josh Sugermann picked the exact two words 'assault' and 'weapon' (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm).
When more people are murdered by being beaten to death using no weapon at all than are murdered by rifles of any type (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html), the anti-gunner's arguments against "assault rifles" pretty much rests on scare tactics. Semantics and framing the debate are essential to those tactics.
So geek, are you going to get them to call them magazines and play nice?
I doubt it. We will frame no debate by trying to instruct the non shooting members of society what to call our tools and equipment, they could care less. Framing the debate will entail convincing them that we are not a danger to them nor are our tools or equipment.
The bad and crazy guys will always be bad and crazy.
I'm not saying that calling them by their correct name will change the Brady Campaign's mind, I'm not sure that anything would change the dedicated anti-gunner's mind. What I am saying is that there is a reason they choose to use the words they do. I suppose the Brady's consultant decided that 'magazine' or even 'high-capacity magazine' didn't sound as scary as 'assault clip'.
There is a place for questioning an anti-gunner on their choice of terminology, for example I'd start off any debate on whether 'assault rifles' should be legal by simply asking the anti-gunner what exactly constitutes an 'assault rifle'. Ditto for 'sniper rifles' (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf).
One of the few times a reporter actually called an anti-gunner on their use of terminology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
. Much more emotional than factual, just like the brady ad. When you use provocation to frame the discussion, it becomes harder to make rational decisions. If a side is mired in ignorance or bad faith, that may be all they have.
Sent from a van down by the river
They must be getting ad advice from PETA
if that is the case......it is SERIOUSLY not enforced.......
in any event......im amazed they could bear the sight of a gun, much less actually shoot one for long enough to film that commercial.........i hope they all wore bullet proof vests while filming....that guy with the gun could have shot them all, because apparently thats what happens when you load one of those "assault clips" into a gun......
perhaps we should all send our condolences to the Brady campaign to the cast and crew of that commercial who must have inevitably died during the filming.
Separate names with a comma.