The only 'epic fail' is the idea that there's nothing wrong with trying to discuss something regarding guns when you dont understand the basic terminology, or that its OK to get the terminology wrong when reporting it in the news.2nd try still epic fail. ... r u on webTV?
The only 'epic fail' is the idea that there's nothing wrong with trying to discuss something regarding guns when you dont understand the basic terminology, or that its OK to get the terminology wrong when reporting it in the news.
But please -- continue to be trivial.
Ah. Nothing to say, and thus focred to pick on typos...
much better, continue using both hands.
A reporter not knowing what he's reporting isnt trivial, especially when it is systemic.This whole thread is amusing in an odd way. Report on president Obama in Phoenix at a VFW convention, a guy is outside with 2 guns, and we have 30 posts over the classification of one of the guns. How totally trivial.
Moderator's Warning: |
All of you need to stop the insulting comments. Next one earns a thread ban at the least. |
A reporter not knowing what he's reporting isnt trivial, especially when it is systemic.
Red herring.He is reporting on the president meeting with vets at a VFW. What is he ignorant of on that topic?
He is reporting on the president meeting with vets at a VFW. What is he ignorant of on that topic? The gun nut in the article barely rated a mention, and is certainly not the topic the reporter is covering.
Red herring.
The point is that he made a factual error in his reporting.
You may not care, but only because it is situationally convenient for you to do so.
What did I say?He made a trivial error. An error that about .0000000000001 % of the country would actually care about, and does not effect the meaning of any of his reporting.
The issue here is the use of dysphemisms. Similiar to the abortion debate, its inaccurate and often perpetuated by dishonest people who call pro-choicers "baby-killers" or the pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "misogynists".
If you cared about the abortion debate and heard a news reporter refer to you as a "baby killer" or a "misogynist" then the ignorance or intentional bias of the reporter might bother you. The same is true for the gun debate where dishonest terms such as "assult rifle" and "cop killer" and "gun violence" are used.
President Obama takes the stage at VFW convention in Phoenix
What the **** is a semi-automatic assault rifle?
Last time I checked, an AR-15 fired a centerfire rifle cartridge and was semi-automatic... Therefore making it a semi-automatic rifle.
****ing gun grabbing ****s and their idiocy in pushing terms that don't apply. UGH.
I wasn't aware you had a freedom from discomfort.Some libertarians see this--they get that guns make some people uncomfortable and they are respectful of that. They understand that the liberty and freedom comes with a mutual respect for others. Are you one of those libertarians?
Steven:
I don't have a problem with guns or people who want to own as many guns as they can afford within the laws of their state. That being said...
If you're carrying around a semi-automatic rifle or a semi-automatic assault riffle with the sole purpose of showing people that you can legally do so and intentionally or unintentionally intimidating those going about their business in a public area... You are a jackass. You are someone who reads the 2nd amendment without acknowledging the personal responsibility and mutual respect for the rights of others that comes with gun ownership.
Liberty and Freedom, with some pragmatic common sense.
What was the need, what was the purpose of bringing the gun? Did he feel threatened? Was his life or personal property in danger? No, not while he was carrying the gun, of course. The point is, the other people passing him or noticing him, they don't know him or what he's up to--for a brief moment he was walking on their liberty and freedom to make his little point.
Some libertarians see this--they get that guns make some people uncomfortable and they are respectful of that. They understand that the liberty and freedom comes with a mutual respect for others. Are you one of those libertarians?
What did I say?
Oh, yes:
You may not care, but only because it is situationally convenient for you to do so.
Am I surprised that I am right?
No.
I'm -sure- that's it.I don't care because it has no effect on the story. Whether he is carrying a zip gun or a bazooka, it does not matter.
The issue here is the use of dysphemisms. Similiar to the abortion debate, its inaccurate and often perpetuated by dishonest people who call pro-choicers "baby-killers" or the pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "misogynists".
If you cared about the abortion debate and heard a news reporter refer to you as a "baby killer" or a "misogynist" then the ignorance or intentional bias of the reporter might bother you. The same is true for the gun debate where dishonest terms such as "assult rifle" and "cop killer" and "gun violence" are used.
The same is true for the gun debate where dishonest terms such as "assult rifle" and "cop killer" and "gun violence" are used.
I don't care because it has no effect on the story. Whether he is carrying a zip gun or a bazooka, it does not matter.
I'll certainly agree that the press often uses loaded and dishonest terms for firearms, this isn't the case.
The original Ar-15 was in fact a full-auto assault rifle as originally named. The later civilian semi-automatic versions were not called AR-15's but had separate designations like r-15 or cr-15. I believe that changed after the Assault weapons ban in 94. Furthermore, Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, and decided to use it only on the semi-automatic versions of the rifle. However, other companies manufacture the rifle but can't use the trademarked name. Just to make it extra confusing, such rifles are commonly called AR-15s but aren't officially designated as such.
Suffice to say calling the Ar-15 a semiautomatic assault rifle is an okay definition. It covers the fact that it was originally an assault rifle, but also mentions that it was semi-automatic. Not perfect, but good enough.
It is, as the term "assault rifle" denotes a military weapon, which the AR15 is not.I'll certainly agree that the press often uses loaded and dishonest terms for firearms, this isn't the case.
Except foir the StG44 and the AK47.The original Ar-15 was in fact a full-auto assault rifle as originally named.
The Colt AR15 has been around for decades.The later civilian semi-automatic versions were not called AR-15's but had separate designations like r-15 or cr-15.
No, Colt still sold AR15s.I believe that changed after the Assault weapons ban in 94.
Except that it is factually incorrect.Suffice to say calling the Ar-15 a semiautomatic assault rifle is an okay definition.