• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Women N Black Riffles on MS NBC

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Other then the typical BS of calling a semi-autiAR an "assault weapon", I generally liked it. They did pick a great woman to represent our side!
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

cato wrote:
Other then the typical BS of calling a semi-autiAR an "assault weapon", I generally liked it. They did pick a great woman to represent our side!

Excellent and even-handed piece. I was kind of shocked. It might even be evaluated as a pro-EBR piece because of the Ferns woman's persuasiveness as a role model and the lack of incendiary language and conclusions in the reporting.

Very well done.

I'll bet the Brady Campaign is not pleased this morning...

Also, the introducing announcer did not call it an "assault weapon." Theterm he did useseems to have been a carefully chosen one. And it waspretty reasonable use of language in referring to the rifle.With one exception by the reporter (and that was understandable, given the reference to the 1994 law), the references to the rifle were proper and unbiased.

There was nothing wrong with thelanguage usedin the piece that I could discern.

We should alll drop NBC News a line thanking them for a (surprise) well done video report on these kinds of rifles and the relevant issues. It was both very well done and fair to gun/rights advocates.

I did notice the continuity error in one of thefiring scenes. Kind of odd they stuck that in there. Easy to spot the difference. I guess the filmeditor figured nobody would notice...
 

.40 Cal

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
1,379
Location
COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Why do they assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip? I would much rather see an attacker aiming at me from that angle than drawing to a shoulder firing position where he could actually aim the damn thing. An AR 15 aimed from the hip would probably do little more than give me time to slowly bring my firearm to a presentation stance, with enough time to empty the magazine before even being grazed.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

HankT wrote:
.40 Cal wrote:
Why do they assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip?
Who is "they?"



.40 Cal wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. They refers to the producers/ writersof the piece...

They did not "assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip"

Furthermore, they did not say that.

Maybe, take another look at the video and see if you change your view.
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

Maybe I am just paranoid, but it seems to me this is the way to start another push to get "assault" weapons banned once again. It all starts with an "unbiased" source asking an "innocent" question, or trying to encourage a "debate", or trying to answer "America's" question on something that a majority of Americans don't have any questions about. It then turns into, "Through our research and polls, we have found that many Americans are concerned about the safety of ordinary people possessing such dangerous weapons. Why would you need a gun like this unless you are a cop killer?" Finally the media will show their true colors and mount an all out fight against gun owners once again.

Am I crazy, or is this really the way it will probably happen? (Please tell me I'm crazy, because I really hate this scenario) :X
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

You're crazy.

I don't see the gun laws changing any time soon, despite this perennial blather about "assault weapons."

-ljp
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

I don't even really get how "assault weapons" have been so demonized. They were designed to be weaker cousins of proper rifles, which have never been banned. Give me a .30-cal bolt job any day, and nobody with an AK will get within 500 yards of me.

Misunderstanding the "problem" is the trademark of a toad whose "solution" won't work.

-ljp
 

ScottNH

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
140
Location
Live Free or Die, ,
imported post

HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
.40 Cal wrote:
Why do they assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip?
Who is "they?"



.40 Cal wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. They refers to the producers/ writersof the piece...

They did not "assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip"

Furthermore, they did not say that.

Maybe, take another look at the video and see if you change your view.

They certainly did. In the portion where she was describing the objectionable "evil features," the lead reporter stated the pistol grip makes the weapon easier to shoot from the hip. (She then complained about the "high capacity magazine.")

While the word "grip" was omitted from .40 Cal's post, it was pretty clear which portion of the report he was referring to.

That being said, I thought the piece was actually positive overall, and the pro-gun advocate certainly came across much more reasonably than the screed from VPC. I'll have to count, but I think the term "black rifles" was used more often than the term "assault weapon." IMHO, the more often they're referred to as "black rifles," the more socialized they become.
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
imported post

I like how the title of the video storyreads "Should U.S. civilianscarry M-16 rifles?"
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
imported post

I've actually been starting to watch MSNBC over Faux news and KNN....

It's still pretty hokey, but there is one anchor that actually asks provocative and logical questions from his guests. I can't remember his name unfortunately :(
 

.40 Cal

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
1,379
Location
COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
.40 Cal wrote:
Why do they assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip?
Who is "they?"



.40 Cal wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. They refers to the producers/ writersof the piece...

They did not "assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip"

Furthermore, they did not say that.

Maybe, take another look at the video and see if you change your view.
Lisa Meyers at 1:35.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

.40 Cal wrote:
HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
.40 Cal wrote:
Why do they assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip?
Who is "they?"



.40 Cal wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. They refers to the producers/ writersof the piece...

They did not "assume that a pistol makes the weapon more dealy due to the idea that it can be shot from the hip"

Furthermore, they did not say that.

Maybe, take another look at the video and see if you change your view.
Lisa Meyers at 1:35.

What do you think she said, .40cal?

In the meantime, I'll be watching this other video that YouTube prompted me with: a shooting display of an AR-15 conversion to M-16. Pretty, um, neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=OJBgZHcSa6A
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:
I like how the title of the video storyreads "Should U.S. civilianscarry M-16 rifles?"

Yeah, that's bogus. I just noticed that (I had watched the YouTube version earlier). That's an msnbc or msn.com error. A bad one too.

Did that legend appear on the NBC broadcast?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

T-RaV wrote:
In the meantime, I'll be watching this other video that YouTube prompted me with: a shooting display of an AR-15 conversion to M-16. Pretty, um, neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=OJBgZHcSa6A
Wow. Looks like she's having a hard time keeping her footing with those shoes.

So, what's it like to shoot in heals HankT?

hehe j/k :p

I dunno T-RaV. I usually doit, um, elsewhere...

rotfl.gif
 
Top