Isn't this video like two years old?

For what its worth, John Stossel isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity. He has an agenda to sell, and he's been in trouble for it:
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,6900,00.html

 

Yeah, things have totally changed. Those cons in the video would not even think about buying and using a gun in a crime now, they were rehabilatated and set for release in 2006.

 

:lmfao:



________

Yes, that video is two years old... it has the date on it when it plays, genius.

 

Thanks for that biting commentary, Captain Miss-the-point.

Manincamo was trying to say something about the state of media bias, and a single video thats two years old and features editorial commentary really doesn't do anything to help his case.

 

If I am going to attempt a response to a something, I typically read it first, so I am only Commander Miss the point. I don't think it really matters that the video is old, if his position on gun control is what I think it is, age of the video does not weaken it. I would interpret him more to be saying this stands out becaus it is not biased against our constitutional rights. It is rare when I see any media reporting that does not contain some editorial tilt. Are you saying the media is less corrupt now, because I think the entire world tends toward corruption and would disagree.

 

1 story, 2 years ago, vs a hundred other anti-gun stories/'news' articles in the same time frame - I'd say it does help my case. One reporter reported the truth, and not on Fox - b/c I know you liberals don't like Fox.


Think about it... REAL reports state that gun control doesn't work. REAL criminals say the same. But amazingly, all you even hear about in the media, save this one report, is how evil guns are and how gun control works and saves lives.

And, Supreme Allied Commander Miss-The-Point, my point was just that guns aren't bad, and that there is a media bias. Hell, the video even says that. You take away the ability for law abiding citizens to carry a gun for self defense, and then only the Criminals will have guns, and they will KNOW you are disarmed.

look at the amaizingly steller low crime rates of D.C., NYC, Detroit, etc. and how effective their gun control laws are.

Now look at Vermont, Alaska, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, and how their lack of excess gun control laws have made those places a slaughterhouse to live in, where nobody wants to go outside.

Thats my point.

 

and a very solid one

 

You hit on a handful of separate issues here, so lets take 'em one at a time.

The age of the video is relevent in the context of ManInCamo's assertion that the mainstream media is out to get him and every other Republican. If I whipped out some anti-communist propaganda and said that the US Government were out to get communists, wouldn't you think age of the material weakens the argument? Yeah, you would, and so would I.

With regard to the video not being "biased against our constitutional rights." Well, its an editorial. Its supposed to be biased about something. I don't think you can infer anything about the media at large from an editorial. If you only read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, you might get the impression that the entire paper was incredibly pro-Republican and anti-Democrat, but that is simply not the case.

Additionally, the second amendment only specifies the right to bear arms as a member of a militia for the defense of the state. Read it:

"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."

So, I will say this for the hundreth time: I do believe that individuals should be allowed the priviledge of gun ownership, but that the argument that the second amendment guarantees it is untenable. Its like arguing that each black person should be counted as three-fifths of a person because it says so in the constitution.

The constitution is a living document that should be considered by the present-day state of affairs, and some parts are simply outdated.

I'm glad the assault weapons ban ended; it makes room for legislation that might actually reduce crime instead of wasting time and restricting a gun enthusiast's freedom to enjoy their hobby.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "corruption" in the media, but my guess would be the decline of journalistic integrity and honesty. I do think that has happened, to some degree, in the US media, particularly television news. There are many, many execeptions.

 

If you're going to do a scientific study of pro- and anti-gun media coverage over the last two years, thats fine. Otherwise, you're not actually making a "case," you're just making a bunch of assumptions and accusations. Maybe its because you're pissed off that people have an opinion thats different than yours. I don't know.

You have a tendency to lump everyone who disagrees with you into the category "liberal." It makes you sound like an idiot, and you should stop doing it.

I don't think thats true. I think its more likely that you wish there were only pro-gun coverage in the media, and anything less makes you really pissed off.

Uh, the video is somebody's opinion. You can't say "my opinion is x, and that guy agrees with me, so it MUST be right."

I agree that guns aren't bad, but criminals are.

I don't understand. Are you saying that excessive gun ownership in Vermont et al is bad?

 

[quote]

two years, over the spand of our counrty, its gun laws, etc is NOT a significant amount of time. I beleive you're misinformed and don't see the big picture. second amendment refers to an ongoing issue of illegal gun laws. Communism - as it were - was pretty much contained to the middle of the 20th century.
Thats the problem that the anti-gun people have, they don't think Its an individual right. It simply comes down to: You're wrong. THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms... not the right of the militia or the government. The second amendment is one of the few to SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZE, not give, a right to the people.

Most constitutional scholars, and the Department Of Justice think you're wrong also.

A well regulated Militia - as per 18th century refers to all able bodied men, who are proficient with their firearms, and hence is an individual right.
see: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


Think about it, at the time we were breaking away from an repressive Gov't. Do we really mean for the Gov't to control our arms? Also, people say the militia has turned into the National Gaurd. Well by definition, the Gaurd answers to the POTUS. A militia doesn't. As soon as the POTUS is the head, its the army/navy etc. So either way it horsehockey.
So, I will say this for the hundreth time: I do believe that individuals should be allowed the priviledge of gun ownership, but that the argument that the second amendment guarantees it is untenable. Its like arguing that each black person should be counted as three-fifths of a person because it says so in the constitution.

The constitution is a living document that should be considered by the present-day state of affairs, and some parts are simply outdated.
I agree... Like arresting criminals who use guns
We agree for the most part