The W
Views: 99416305
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.10.14 0750
The W - Current Events & Politics - A question for the gun folk
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2124 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
This comes from Timothy Noah:

In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense."

...

So, if the common NRA assertion is true, why is this war even necessary? Why haven't the Iraqis risen up against Hussein on their own?

And, if the guns really are this ineffective, isn't that just another piece of proof that the NRA is basically full of hot air, and that their arguement basically just boils down into "I likes guns"? (Hell, if they were that honest, I wouldn't hate them so much.)



"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for the winter, while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came, and the grasshopper died, and the octopus ate all his acorns. And also he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?"
-----Phillip J. Fry, Futurama
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
The fact that you saud New York Times is probably part of the problem because they're not exaclty known for accuracy in reporting. I highly doubt that Iraqis have a gun in every home just becasue of the threat that would present to Saddam and his clowns.



godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3884 days
Last activity: 3830 days
#3 Posted on
The fact that you saud New York Times is probably part of the problem because they're not exaclty known for accuracy in reporting.

Right, they're only the single most respected news source in the entire world. And most of the journalistic errors they've made over the past couple of years - and there weren't many - benefited the Bush Administration, their supposed ideological opposites.

Yeesh.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2809 days
Last activity: 2651 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
It doesn't seem to matter how many guns they have, when their dictator employs a massive spy network and is more than willing to gas whole villages. Hard to organize a revolution when your next doot neighbor reports you to party officials.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by godking
    Right, they're only the single most respected news source in the entire world. And most of the journalistic errors they've made over the past couple of years - and there weren't many - benefited the Bush Administration, their supposed ideological opposites.

    Yeesh.


Yeah...that's why in one week they managed to misquote Dick Cheney, then Lt. Gen. William Wallace, which set off the firestorm about the "generals not wargaming this enemy" business that turned out to be for naught.

The New York Times has a liberal agenda. So does CBS, CNN and the Washington. The Washington Times and Fox News go the other way. Learn to accept that.



MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 7 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
What a crock. The Village Voice has a liberal agenda. The Washington Times (you know, just because it has "Washington" in the title doesn't make it a leading paper) has a conservative agenda. The mainstream newspapers have a news agenda (no matter how "blah" the news might be). Making meainstream news into "liberal-slanted" news so that conservative propaganda can be presented as "conservative-slanted" news is the biggest (and most ingenius, to give credit) scam the right has come up with.

The editorial page in various newspapers might slant one way or the other. That's why it's the editorial page. Learn to accept that.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
No Moe, you're wrong. The New York Times has a liberal agenda. Every story I read in it, I see it. I feel it. The Baltimore Sun is the one paper that is worse than the Times. They deride Bob Ehrlich for every move he makes. You're a liberal. You probably do not address the bias because of it. However, this is the reason that I read both conservative and liberal papers; somewhere in there is the truth.

EDIT: Check out this from today's Wash. Post
Meanwhile, Democrats crushed Ehrlich's first set of policy initiatives. In addition to killing his slots plan, they rejected his proposal to stiffen penalties for gun crimes, gutted his plan to reform education at juvenile justice facilities by stripping $6.5 million for the program from the budget, and barred him from funneling more state aid to faith-based organizations without explicit legislative approval.

Don't you think that language is kind of terse?

(edited by Grimis on 8.4.03 1428)


Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 13 days
#8 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Yeah...that's why in one week they managed to misquote Dick Cheney, then Lt. Gen. William Wallace, which set off the firestorm about the "generals not wargaming this enemy" business that turned out to be for naught.

    The New York Times has a liberal agenda. So does CBS, CNN and the Washington. The Washington Times and Fox News go the other way. Learn to accept that.

I really don't how any of what you site indicates any bias, much less a liberal one. Misquoting Dick Cheney or Lt. Gen. Wallace does indicate anything other than shotty journalism (which I think is a more accurate reason).

How does your quote from the Washington Post indicates a liberal bias (by the way, the link doesn't work). How does strong language indicate any bias? Funny, I read it, and to me it made Democracts seem as though they supportive of the gun lobby and soft on education and prison reform... things that largely make up the "liberlal agenda"... or perhaps I just read the content and didn't get distracted by "terse language".

What exactly do you define as a liberal bias? While it may be too the left of where you stand, I would find it difficult to argue that CNN, CBS or the times has a "liberal" bias? Three or four reports does not define the political ideology of a media outlet.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3884 days
Last activity: 3830 days
#9 Posted on
The New York Times has a liberal agenda. So does CBS, CNN and the Washington. The Washington Times and Fox News go the other way. Learn to accept that.

You're thinking in terms of the American political axis, where "liberal" equals what the rest of the world calls "centrist", "centrist" equals what the rest of the world calls "conservative" and "conservative" equals what the rest of the world calls "crazy-ass freaks".

As for the New York Times having a liberal agenda...well. Take a look at their editorial section. They have more conservative columnists (Bill Keller, William Safire, and Thomas Friedman) than they do progressive ones - Paul Krugman is their only truly progressive columnist since they dismissed Frank Rich last year. (Maureen Dowd is just an idiot.) Their editorial board has taken a distinctly non-challenging stance towards the Bush administration despite being "liberal" - the Times has been distinctly behind the curve on most of the Bush administration scandals and deliberately ignored others. (The Trent Lott scandal, for example, was forced to the top of the news by bloggers, The Daily Show, and online newspapers like Salon - eventually the Washington Post picked up on a week later. The Times didn't chime in until two weeks after the fact.)

Most of this is due to the reign of Howell Raines at executive editor. Raines is well-known in journalistic circles for being a "access whore" - someone whose greatest fear is losing "access" to important public figures, and thus Ari Fleischer's limp-dick threats of "no access to press briefings for you" are actually effective against the Times.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 7 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Once again, us liberals are done in by being pussies.

God Damn It.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on
And, as I expected, the point of the thread is completely buried in another "liberal media" arguement.



"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for the winter, while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came, and the grasshopper died, and the octopus ate all his acorns. And also he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?"
-----Phillip J. Fry, Futurama
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 524 days
Last activity: 391 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on
The Washington Post accurately reported descrepencies in the official version of the Najaf incident, while the Times did not.

The NY Times allowed official PR language to pass for reporting in several bomb strikes.

And yes, they do misquote.

The bigger problem with the news is not a liberal or a conservative bias, but the total corporatization of the news that puts profit over fairness or good reporting.

Putting American flags in your broadcasts boosts ratings, so it is done. Showing pictures of dead Americans/dead Iraqis boosts ratings, so it is done. The political agenda takes second stage to money. When General Electric owns media, you aren't going to get fairness.

(edited by messenoir on 8.4.03 1322)
Hairy Caray
Bauerwurst








Since: 28.10.02
From: Wrigley Field hot dog stand

Since last post: 3672 days
Last activity: 3670 days
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by godking
    "conservative" equals what the rest of the world calls "crazy-ass freaks".


As much as I'd like to waste my time responding to that flame, I'll click his handy little button over here and...*POOF* no more flame!

Now to get back to OlFuzzy's topic.

First, even if all Iraqis have guns and want to overthrow Saddam, remember that every person who has opened their mouth against him has seen their friends and family tortured, raped, and killed. The collective will to overcome that kind of oppression isn't there, and speaking as someone with a family, I don't think I'd be the one taking the lead and risking their lives either.

Here's my response to everyone who complains about the NRA or any other such organization. You don't feel individuals should have guns. Fine. You want to work to eliminate that right? Fine. Do it the right way. Repeal the Second Amendment. Let the various states vote and decide whether Americans will retain that right. If you get 3/4s of the states to do so and my right to possess a firearm is lawfully revoked, I'll gladly turn it over. Until then, do not have Congress passing bylaws in direct conflict with the document that gives it power.



Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Oh the hell with it. Some people will see the world through rose colored glasses and not see the bias. So the hell with it...


    Originally posted by godking
    You're thinking in terms of the American political axis, where "liberal" equals what the rest of the world calls "centrist", "centrist" equals what the rest of the world calls "conservative" and "conservative" equals what the rest of the world calls "crazy-ass freaks

(Sigh)



Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05

    Originally posted by Grimis
    The Washington Times and Fox News go the other way. Learn to accept that.


now, you know as well as i do that the washington times is a joke of a newspaper. they have gotten better over the last 10 years, but anything touched by Rev. Moon is crap...





"Grabbin your butt? That's not very lady-like."
"I'm not a lady."
"Oh. Whatever."
力堵山
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1408 days
Last activity: 316 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
I think the whole "liberal, evil media" argument is a very convenient way of the Republicans to demonize an apparatus that calls them on their bullshit.

It's just a handy way for Joe Sixpack to write off contrary information that might threaten his sheltered, safely ignorant, mainstream Republican worldview. Whereas other groups, like the police and the military, are consistently lauded as heroes, no matter what kind of atrocities they are guilty of. Any acts of wrongdoing on their part are generally treated as an isolated incident.

My big question to mainstream media haters is this: What did the media do to provoke such hatred? Kill innocent people? Massacre them? Persecute groups of minorities? You can find numerous examples of this in the NYPD, LAPD, the Army, whatever. But why do they get a free pass?

The worst examples I've personally seen of the national media fucking up a story is when they get ahold of a local story and it becomes a big game of "telephone." And they will do that, and it sucks, I'll be the first to admit. Sometimes, details get twisted and just flat-out wrong. But I don't see any malicious intent.

Most journalists I know go out of their way not to show any particular bias, especially a liberal one. Of course, I may be getting left out of the daily "How do we promote the liberal agenda today?" meetings at my paper.





-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport."
"Was he no-selling?"
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1294 days
Last activity: 60 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on
I have started to come away from the "Media Liberal Bias" idea.

No, this does not mean I have a newfound RESPECT for them, but I am starting to get the feeling that their lack of competency has nothing to do with political bias. It has to do with money.

It is all about the "Human Interest" stories, nowadays. Real newspapers back in the day put the hard, big news up front, and mentioned the human interest later, in a seperate section. The hard news is what SOLD the paper. Nowadays Hard news does not sell, because you can get it for free anywhere. So what gets pimped? The human interest. You see the tragic stories of "TWO CIVILIANS KILLED!" right on the front page, while detailed accounts of the military successes are buried elsewhere. In the grand scheme of things, the civilian casualties, while terrible, are really not news. It is war, and if anything, I think it can be demonstrated that we have gone out of our way to prevent the deaths of civilians. Nothing out of ordinary is happening, so that headline certainly does not belong on the front page.

Outside of war, it is the same sort of thing. Sob stories- the poor, things to appeal to the heartstrings... I mean, when I accidentally catch the beginning of the news, I am AMAZED when the top story is some inside look at hip-hugger jeans, rather than an important debate in the Congress over a judicial nomination, or andother inside look, this time "Inside the Playboy Mansion!" rather than a major arrest of some big corperate CEO. Even the legitimate news stories are peppered with "human interest," as a means of making people interested. The problem is that news was never supposed to entertain, rather inform.

I think we can all agree that the Democrats have firmly etched out a nich in the American Political system as being the party that "Cares about the downtrodden." I am not going to debate the validity of this, but there is no doubt that it is how they are percieved by the populace in general. And since practically all news nowadays is peppered with the human interest, and the stories of the downtrodden, and the plight of the people we simply MUST help, there is no doubt in my mind why the Democrats seem to benifit from the so-called "Liberal Media."

If you ask me, the solution is not making everything have an equal balance of Conservative or Liberal, nor is it coming out with "Conservative news stations" to balance everything out. I think it is time we all just started calling a Spade a Spade- CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc are not news channels. Most of the major newspapers in this country stopped dealing primarily in news a long time ago. It is all entertainment.

Sadly, that being the case, I cannot think of a single solid source of "news" out there today.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 9.4.03 1525)




Still on the Shelf #3
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1408 days
Last activity: 316 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
Agreed. They're the most interested in "reporting" what people want to read. That means celebrity journalism and puff pieces. Why do you think you see so many pictures of little kittens, or exhaustive features about dieting tips?

And when you let the public dictate your coverage, you're fucked. By far, the biggest response I've gotten to a war story was a piece about deployed soldiers who were looking for homes for their pets. That friggin' story went national, and it had no news value whatsoever. But it was about animals, so people just went ga-ga. I was flooded with calls from people wanting to help out.

Not to say that there's not a place for that. But don't change your whole news direction to accommodate the public's whims.

I also think that people confuse bias with laziness. I've seen waaaay more fuckups due to lazy reporting than any sort of bias.



-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport."
"Was he no-selling?"
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3680 days
Last activity: 3339 days
#19 Posted on
I just love how politics in this country is justified with such blanket terms as "conservative" and "liberal."

You people do know that millions of people in this country give less than 2 monkey craps for what is "liberal" or "conservative."

I say, quit using such outdated generalizations to justify or dismantle everything.

How about just "good ideas" and "bad ideas." We can learn a lot from the Animaniacs. :D



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3884 days
Last activity: 3853 days
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    And, as I expected, the point of the thread is completely buried in another "liberal media" arguement.


To get on point of your question somewhat Fuzzy, my belief in the whole "Guns can save us from our own government if they get evil" belief was much more applicable during the revolutinary war. Back then, if the government tried to surpress a town, they would do it with muskets, and you would fight back with muskets, equal power. In today's world guns may work aganist a small force or corrupt local politican, but to suggest a milita using small arms can stand up aganist any army is ludicrious. People with rifles in olden days could stand up to the army, but today a rifle versus a tank isn't fair.



Rorschach: "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Prepare for the Fat Police
Next thread: Sedition
Previous thread: So whose the "Best Dictator" now?
(2124 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
It probably sets the whole of Stem Cell research back about 3-8 years from where everybody thought it was.
The W - Current Events & Politics - A question for the gun folkRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.167 seconds.