Thread: misinformation is epidemic; the media lies to you

Very intrigueing stats, Clem.

I agree, the media stinks.

Judith Miller, and the New York Times to CNN's propaganda "The Week At War."

It goes back long before.

The American media is heavily censored.

There is a comprehensive media filtering system.

Meaning, that only those that internalize propaganda get hired to write as journalists.

And you can easily be assigned to certain topics, while not being assigned to others.

Good read.

I guess the problem with these things is that it is like preaching to the choir. The only people who will read it are the people who already agree.

I like #14 the best. I've been in a fight on another board with some dimwit from Handgun Control Inc. He's a typical gun grabber who knows absolutely nothing about guns except what HCI feeds him. It's almost comical at this point.

Guns aren't the only subject where the media misportrays information to persuade you into a certain viewpoint.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

I like #14 the best. I've been in a fight on another board with some dimwit from Handgun Control Inc. He's a typical gun grabber who knows absolutely nothing about guns except what HCI feeds him. It's almost comical at this point.

It would be comical if it weren't so dangerous.

Guns R bad.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

Guns R bad.

Astounding insight. You are a true intellectual.

#21. Does the average american citizen have a constitutional right to own a firearm?

A. No. There is no constitutional right to own a gun.

You seem to imply that the pool of people subject to compelled participation in the US militia confers the constitutional right to carry a gun by that individual. (If I'm wrong about that then discount most of what I've written below except for the final paragraph.)

That's an interesting and creative reading of the Second Amendment.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

So according to case law, it looks like the 2nd amendment addresses a state's right to own guns and not an individual's.

You mention that we are being lied to by the media. I don't follow gun news so would you show me some of this misinformation?

Originally Posted by clemson357

Astounding insight. You are a true intellectual.

"Guns R Bad."

Originally Posted by clemson357

You are a true intellectual.

How did you know about that?

Originally Posted by Decker

#21. Does the average american citizen have a constitutional right to own a firearm?

A. No. There is no constitutional right to own a gun.

You seem to imply that the pool of people subject to compelled participation in the US militia confers the constitutional right to carry a gun by that individual. (If I'm wrong about that then discount most of what I've written below except for the final paragraph.)

That's an interesting and creative reading of the Second Amendment.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

So according to case law, it looks like the 2nd amendment addresses a state's right to own guns and not an individual's.

You mention that we are being lied to by the media. I don't follow gun news so would you show me some of this misinformation?

Wrong, and I will tell you why. When the bill of rights was written, a militia was considered a voluntary group of men with no official affiliation or employment to the state. By the second amendment's portrayal of a militia, I could form one. Me and my family and buddies then become a militia and we have the right to bear arms.

Anyway, The bill of rights discuses rights to people and limitations of the government, why the fuck would they randomly throw in a right of the state. Why the hell would they have to give the state the right to bear arms when they already had it? You are misinterpreting the wording.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Wrong, and I will tell you why. When the bill of rights was written, a militia was considered a voluntary group of men with no official affiliation or employment to the state. By the second amendment's portrayal of a militia, I could form one. Me and my family and buddies then become a militia and we have the right to bear arms.

Anyway, The bill of rights discuses rights to people and limitations of the government, why the fuck would they randomly throw in a right of the state. Why the hell would they have to give the state the right to bear arms when they already had it? You are misinterpreting the wording.

Look at my post again. That is not my conclusion. That is the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Your deconstruction of the 2A of the Bill of Rights is interesting as is your historical anaylsis of the origins of US militia men. I don't agree with either but I'll comment on your opinion re the Bill of Rights.

Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:

• "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The militias are regulated by federal and state governments. They were the precursor to today's National Guard. The Founders were against standing armies so they created a system where citizens could keep arms in their homes and be called to duty on a moment's notice. In this context, the 2A authorizes these folks to bear arms. There. End of mystery.

The SP CT has always held this way that the 2A has referred to a National Guard situation and has never extended the definition to mean an individual has a constitutional right to bear arms.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Originally Posted by brogers

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, I can't argue with you.

I mean why even include the first part of that sentence b/c it means nothing to your personal prejudice and runs counter to your point.

. . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's more effective now isn't it?

It's also selectively disingenuous.

Decker, I am truly disappointed in you. A couple months back I posted an analysis with some statistics, and you responded that you hadn't made up your mind about gun control. Now it appears that you have fallen back on your default: regurgitating liberal talking points.

What relevance is it whether a citizen has a constitutional right to own a firearm unless you plan to deprive them of that firearm? In other words, if someone can show that gun control is detrimental to public safety, the presence or absence of a constitutional right shouldn't come into play.

Moreover, your interpretation of 70 year-old legal precedent has little bearing on the issue. Last week the DC appeals court held that the second amendment did apply to individuals. Spare me the talking points on this one, I am well aware that a federal appeals court is one step below the Supreme Court, and I am also well aware that when a court recognizes an unfounded "right of privacy" you and the rest of the liberals remind everyone that the Constitution is a "living document," yet when other rights that you denounce are recognized, you think it is "judicial activism." The point is that your support is seven decades old and will likely be revisited within the next year.

Finally, you don't have to follow "gun news" to know how the media portrays guns. Its on the local news every night. Have you ever wondered why a stabbing isn't categorized as "knife violence" and a hit-and-run isn't categorized as "car violence" yet every night we hear about "gun violence." Its a myth, an arbitrary distinction emphasized by the media in their attempt to get ratings.

Have you ever read a headline "Man injured by 8-cylinder, combustion engine automobile." Of course not, that is just sensationalist garbage. But how may times have you read "Man shot by semi-automatic 9mm handgun." That too is sensationalist garbage. Almost all handguns are semiautomatic, and 9mm is the most common handgun round in the world. Yet by adding the scary sounding terms, CNN gets higher ratings.

If you are truly interested, read the John Lott's book 'the bias against guns.' He details how facts related to shootings are hidden or misrepresented by the media. In one instance, a teacher ran a mile to his car to retrieve a gun. He then ran a mile back and successfully stopped a school shooting. His car wasn't parked in the parking lot because of the illogical "gun free zone" policy supported by liberals. Out of about 70 news outlets that covered the story, 0 specified that it was stopped by a professor with a gun. When asked about their selective reporting, most journalists said they were didn't want to cast gun ownership in a positive light.

Originally Posted by Decker

Well, I can't argue with you.

I mean why even include the first part of that sentence b/c it means nothing to your personal prejudice and runs counter to your point.

. . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's more effective now isn't it?

It's also selectively disingenuous.

It isn't selectively disingenuous, it's verbatim from the Bill of Rights...

Decker, I am truly disappointed in you. A couple months back I posted an analysis with some statistics, and you responded that you hadn't made up your mind about gun control. Now it appears that you have fallen back on your default: regurgitating liberal talking points.

Gosh darn it, those are great talking points I think.

What relevance is it whether a citizen has a constitutional right to own a firearm unless you plan to deprive them of that firearm? In other words, if someone can show that gun control is detrimental to public safety, the presence or absence of a constitutional right shouldn't come into play.

I don't know what you are talking about. The federal and state governments can regulate guns any way they see fit so long as it is a reasonable regulation. If an individual had a fundamental constitutional right to bear arms, the judicial review of any regulation of that right would be held to a much higher scrutiny/standard.

Moreover, your interpretation of 70 year-old legal precedent has little bearing on the issue. Last week the DC appeals court held that the second amendment did apply to individuals. Spare me the talking points on this one, I am well aware that a federal appeals court is one step below the Supreme Court, and I am also well aware that when a court recognizes an unfounded "right of privacy" you and the rest of the liberals remind everyone that the Constitution is a "living document," yet when other rights that you denounce are recognized, you think it is "judicial activism." The point is that your support is seven decades old and will likely be revisited within the next year.

Oh boy, oh boy--a challenge! The DC appeals court overturned 100+ years of decisions re the 2A. I wonder how long that will stand? One JUDICIAL ACTIVIST HOLDING and you're ready to drown stare desisis in a bath tub.

The S.CT.'s decision is about 7 decades old. So what? You speak as if I wrote the opinion. I am just stating the law as it currently exists. Nobody asks my opinion on the matter.

Until otherwise, that is the law of the land regarding your rights and gun ownership and you and all the other gun enthusiasts will bow down before it. Like it or not.

Finally, you don't have to follow "gun news" to know how the media portrays guns. Its on the local news every night. Have you ever wondered why a stabbing isn't categorized as "knife violence" and a hit-and-run isn't categorized as "car violence" yet every night we hear about "gun violence." Its a myth, an arbitrary distinction emphasized by the media in their attempt to get ratings.

I wasn't aware that a criminal shooting was really anti-gun bias inherent in the liberal media. I guess I have a lot to learn about liberal conspiracies and all american gun violence.

Have you ever read a headline "Man injured by 8-cylinder, combustion engine automobile." Of course not, that is just sensationalist garbage. But how may times have you read "Man shot by semi-automatic 9mm handgun." That too is sensationalist garbage. Almost all handguns are semiautomatic, and 9mm is the most common handgun round in the world. Yet by adding the scary sounding terms, CNN gets higher ratings.

As a matter of fact, I see '8-cylinder, combustion engine' accident/deaths all the time. It's just easier to say, 'car crash.' No doubt that criminal shootings are headline grabbers. I fail to see the lie though. And frankly, I recall most shootings being described as, well, shootings. Maybe I hear what I want to hear.

If you are truly interested, read the John Lott's book 'the bias against guns.' He details how facts related to shootings are hidden or misrepresented by the media. In one instance, a teacher ran a mile to his car to retrieve a gun. He then ran a mile back and successfully stopped a school shooting. His car wasn't parked in the parking lot because of the illogical "gun free zone" policy supported by liberals. Out of about 70 news outlets that covered the story, 0 specified that it was stopped by a professor with a gun. When asked about their selective reporting, most journalists said they were didn't want to cast gun ownership in a positive light.

I remember when that gun free zone case came to the supreme court--it was about how the commerce clause was not adequate justification for regulating weapons in a school zone.

You pick a case that is the most egregious ridiculous exception rather than the rule. Terrific.

Here's my opinion. I don't want to return to the old west where everybody is packing heat. I don't want some goober having a machine gun because gosh darn it, he needs one for personal protection. But most of all, I don't want to be shot to death in a bar discussion turned bad b/c some asswipe can't hold his liquour but he can sure hold his gun. That is my opinion.

But like with drugs, the genie is out of the bottle and the gun problem must be dealt with in a fair and responsible manner.

I just don't understand the fascination with guns.

Originally Posted by brogers

It isn't selectively disingenuous, it's verbatim from the Bill of Rights...

I meant your blackened emphasis. You are a liar and a thief, but you attend church regularly.

I don't mean any malice toward you.

My point was that your analysis is wrong. Assume you are correct, that the government can regulate guns "any way they want." That doesn't lead to the conclusion that the government SHOULD regulate guns any way they want. The idea that limiting the population's access to guns has a positive impact on crime is demonstrably false, plain and simple.

Liberals are all too eager to talk about broad principles of liberty and freedom from governmental interference when it comes to "a woman's right to choose." However, switch the conversation to gun ownership, and the government is free to institute arbitrary regulations, according to you.

Feel free to dance around the subject all you want. Feel free to add in some gross exaggeration. Nobody is talking about changing any law having to do with machine guns, so I don't know why you bring them up. You try to play the part of the intellectual, but when it comes to something that is painfully simple, you would rather post a bunch of nonsense than consider the possibility that your preconceived notions might actually be wrong.

My point was that your analysis is wrong. Assume you are correct, that the government can regulate guns "any way they want." That doesn't lead to the conclusion that the government SHOULD regulate guns any way they want. The idea that limiting the population's access to guns has a positive impact on crime is demonstrably false, plain and simple.

Don't assume I'm correct about governmental regulation of firearms--I am correct. Judicial scrutiny of gov. regulation (state or fed) of firearms would necessarily change to the strictest scrutiny if gun ownership were a fundamental constitutional right. Your point as to whether regulation should be done at all is not germane to the point of the government's capacity to regulate gun ownership.

Liberals are all too eager to talk about broad principles of liberty and freedom from governmental interference when it comes to "a woman's right to choose." However, switch the conversation to gun ownership, and the government is free to institute arbitrary regulations, according to you.

Only a prejudiced conservative would compare a woman's right to privacy with a lust to own a machine of destruction. Apples and oranges constitutionally speaking.

Feel free to dance around the subject all you want. Feel free to add in some gross exaggeration. Nobody is talking about changing any law having to do with machine guns, so I don't know why you bring them up. You try to play the part of the intellectual, but when it comes to something that is painfully simple, you would rather post a bunch of nonsense than consider the possibility that your preconceived notions might actually be wrong

tap a tap a tap a tap---What? you don't like tap dancing?

If you consider the Constitution and judical opinion emanating from it as a 'dance' around your concept of what the truth of gun ownership really is in this country, then you are in trouble.

I am defending 100+ years of Supreme Court decisions in deconstructing the 2A.

You are expressing wishful thinking. You have your inchoate mass of health and safety statistics which you think buttresses your prejudiced view that guns should not be regulated and are in fact a fundamental constituitonal right.

You are welcome to your opinion. It just does not reflect the law or the Constitution. Maybe it will someday, but I hope not.

I grow weary of trying to talk reason to people who are consumed with an irrational fear. You talk in circles, and you are too unintelligent to know it.

You are correct, I concede. A gun is a "machine of destruction," not at all comparable to a procedure which pulls a developing fetus from its mother and smashes its skull to stop its beating heart. I am sure the 2.5 million people who use a gun legally to preserve their own life every year consider their gun a "machine of destruction." Why even consider an argument that makes such an analogy??? Such an academic venture may actually lead to more informed opinion, and you wouldn't want that.

By the way, the Supreme Court hasn't addressed the second amendment since 1939. That doesn't constitute "100+ years of Supreme Court decisions." It constitutes ONE Supreme Court decision. Its on the table again. I wonder what Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas will think. I am sure your vague appeals to "stare decisis" will prevail.

As far as I'm concerned the government needs to get their noses out of Americans business and just do the job they are supposed to do...

I'm sick of liberties being stripped away from the American people....

I'm sick of gun control, I'm sick of anti-abortionists, jailing journalists, regulations on what prescriptions doctors can prescribe their patients, the FBI can look into anyone private records without the proper warranting procedures....my beefs oscillate over both sides of the party lines I have no set agenda except for True Freedom....

Originally Posted by Decker

Only a prejudiced conservative would compare a woman's right to privacy with a lust to own a machine of destruction. Apples and oranges constitutionally speaking.

Wrong. I am neither liberal or conservative and I see a right as a right as a right. There is no difference. I think a woman has a right to choose and I have a right to bear a "tool" not a machine of destruction, but nice spin on that by the way.
A gun has no intention. A gun has no decision making ability. If a gun saved your families life, I sure bet you wouldn't say to the reporters "thank god I had a machine of destruction locked in my closet to protect my family with".

You are obviously biased.

Originally Posted by maniclion

As far as I'm concerned the government needs to get their noses out of Americans business and just do the job they are supposed to do...

I'm sick of liberties being stripped away from the American people....

I'm sick of gun control, I'm sick of anti-abortionists, jailing journalists, regulations on what prescriptions doctors can prescribe their patients, the FBI can look into anyone private records without the proper warranting procedures....my beefs oscillate over both sides of the party lines I have no set agenda except for True Freedom....

God damn it manic, start a new party. I'll join.

Originally Posted by clemson357

I grow weary of trying to talk reason to people who are consumed with an irrational fear. You talk in circles, and you are too unintelligent to know it.

You are correct, I concede. A gun is a "machine of destruction," not at all comparable to a procedure which pulls a developing fetus from its mother and smashes its skull to stop its beating heart. I am sure the 2.5 million people who use a gun legally to preserve their own life every year consider their gun a "machine of destruction." Why even consider an argument that makes such an analogy??? Such an academic venture may actually lead to more informed opinion, and you wouldn't want that.

By the way, the Supreme Court hasn't addressed the second amendment since 1939. That doesn't constitute "100+ years of Supreme Court decisions." It constitutes ONE Supreme Court decision. Its on the table again. I wonder what Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas will think. I am sure your vague appeals to "stare decisis" will prevail.

Boom! Clemson0wned!

Originally Posted by KelJu

God damn it manic, start a new party. I'll join.

I'm pretty sure that the Libertarian Party is blowing the same trumpet for freedom....of course when Hunter Thompson was running under the same thinking he called it the Freak Party Ticket, take the ticket take the ride! So many people I know feel the same way yet come election time they suddenly drift to the left or right, I say while so many are covering the left and right flank we should run straight up the middle for a touchdown!

The problem with people like Decker is that he is too consumed with his own bias to consider anything else.

A couple months ago he quoted me some statistics, and I considered them. I then responded with why I didn't think they supported his conclusion. At the time, he considered what I had to say and said that he was undecided. Somewhere between now and then his views have gotten a lot more radical.

If anyone has statistics or arguments that support the idea that gun control reduces crime, I would be happy to consider them and discuss them. What I can't tolerate is people who want to restrict people's liberty for no apparent reason, or because of some irrational fear. Relying on legal authority with no policy is equivalent to saying "I want to because I can." The correct argument is "I want to because it works, because its the best thing to do."

Moreover, 70 year old precedent is extremely weak, especially when it hasn't been revisited since. I can quote you old precedent stating that the government can forcibly neuter chicken thieves.