Being, we had one convo about that and the convo was about you claiming I consistently mix them up (which is false).
Being, we had one convo about that and the convo was about you claiming I consistently mix them up (which is false).
Familiarize yourself with the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which is the bill in question, and then we can talk about arbitrary limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Doesn't seem to say one way or the other about who is meant to be armed. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Interesting analysis of this. I don't really agree, but an interesting take on it.
Quote:
January 16, 2011
After Tucson, Blanket Accusations Leave Much to Interpretation
By JEREMY W. PETERS and BRIAN STELTER
FOR every action in politics today, there’s an overwhelming and opposite reaction.
Last week, the reaction came from conservative politicians who bridled at suggestions in the media that Jared L. Loughner may have been influenced by right-wing rhetoric and talk radio when he killed six people and gravely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords in a rampage on Jan. 8 in Tucson. In her video address on Wednesday, Sarah Palin said that journalists and pundits should not manufacture “a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn.”
The question left unanswered: which journalists and pundits?
While there was plenty of debate in newspapers, and on radio and television about the effects of a toxic politic environment, most of the direct accusations against conservative talk radio and pundits were leveled by people online, not members of the mainstream media.
Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC host and reliable bête noire of conservative pundits, used the opportunity to recall his own use of a violent image when describing the candidacy of then-Senator Hillary Clinton: “It sounded as if it was a call to physical violence. It was wrong then. It is even more wrong tonight. I apologize for it again, and I urge politicians and commentators and citizens of every political conviction to use my comment as a means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery.”
But on the Web, where anonymity often reigns, the blame game was much more pointed. In The Huffington Post, Gary Hart wrote about attacks on liberals and concluded that “today we have seen the results of this rhetoric.”
On Ms. Palin’s Facebook wall, thousands of supporters and detractors argued about whether she and other right-wing voices had any culpability in the shootings. Conservatives denounced Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the liberal blog Daily Kos, for writing on Twitter, “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin” and linking to the bull’s-eye map that featured Ms. Giffords’s district.
Tim McGuire, who teaches at the Arizona State University Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said that accusations against the media result in part from confusion about how to define the media in the digital age.
“I don’t see that the mainstream media has been pointing fingers or coming to conclusions about who is to blame. I think they’ve reported,” Mr. McGuire said. “You can talk about the fact that there has been certain legislation in Arizona and that people have used vitriolic language around target practice and the like. You can talk about those things without citing a cause-and-effect relationship. But I see very few mainstream media operatives trying to draw a cause and effect.”
But, Mr. McGuire added, “I think there was some of that on social media, some were trying to do that. But that’s the nature of social media: citizens expressing their opinion.”
One of the first people to raise the issue was not even a member of the media: Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik suggested that “vitriolic rhetoric” on radio and television was hurting America. His first statement contained no references to any single political figure, cable network or radio personality.
But his subsequent remarks, in which he called Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators “irresponsible,” ignited wrath from the right. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer called Mr. Dupnik, a Democrat, and liberal pundits, “rabid partisans.” Ann Coulter, the conservative author and columnist, called him “Sheriff Dumbnik.” Mr. Limbaugh called him a fool.
Andrew Tyndall, who analyzes network newscasts for his newsletter, the Tyndall Report, said he thought Mr. Dupnik’s media critique overreached. “Of course” conservative rhetoric “should be more moderate,” he wrote Wednesday, but “linking such language to these killings, by making such over-the-top hypotheses about their influence, makes the mistake of elevating its speakers to a status of self-righteous victimhood.”
Commentators on the right were quick to condemn their perennial adversaries, including The New York Times, for drawing a cause-and-effect relationship between overheated political rhetoric and the shootings.
“Besides the senseless violence, there is another disgusting display sweeping America, and that is the exploitation of the murders by political zealots,” Bill O’Reilly opened his show on Monday night. “The merchants of hate who are peddling this stuff should be accountable. So let’s begin with The New York Times.”
Mr. O’Reilly went on to cite a column by the Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman and a Times editorial as evidence that The Times and others were blaming Sarah Palin for the killings and portraying those on the right as “accessories to murder.”
The Times editorial did not actually blame the right for Mr. Loughner’s actions, saying, “It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.” Mr. O’Reilly, who did not read that sentence on the air, did read the section of the editorial that said “But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger” that has produced an increase in the number of threats toward members of Congress and the judiciary.
On his program Wednesday, Mr. Limbaugh said he was home alone watching a football game Saturday afternoon when the shooting took place.
“I hadn’t been to Tucson, Ariz., in 20 years, and all of a sudden, I read it’s my fault, and I’m hearing people say it’s my fault and that it’s inspired by me and what I do,” he said.
Mr. Limbaugh’s name was uttered only twice on cable television over the weekend, according to a search of the closed-captioning records of the channels. Those two times came on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” a media criticism program. Google Blog Search shows no blog posts over the weekend directly blaming Mr. Limbaugh, either.
Liberal Web sites lighted up later in the week when a photo turned up of a billboard in Tucson promoting Mr. Limbaugh’s show with the tagline “straight shooter” and an array of illustrated bullet holes. The billboard was quickly taken down, and Mr. Limbaugh had a field day with it on his show Friday. The illustration, he said, made it look like “somebody had been shooting at the billboard, meaning angry liberals.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/bu...a/17media.html
Convo? Really? Convo? Your hands tired or what? :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Considering how close the phrasing is to the Constitution, it's pretty clear that the onlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
relevance of arms is their relationship with a state militia. It also doesn't really make sense to view the second amendment as granting people the right to do something, as all other amendments are negative (i.e. the government's ability to act is restricted). Why have an amendment just to give people a certain right when the 10th amendment already does that?
Boy, you really are sensitive about your college days being mentioned, you've already started with the subtle attempts at ad hominem discrediting. I don't recall that you've ever actually tried to pull that on me before. Did you put your moderating activities on Atari or here in a resume or something, is that why you're so intent on pretending your past never happened? I suppose then that we shouldn't bring up the hip flask and the themed party(s) either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The way you've reacted I'm quite sure it literally doesn't exist anymore, if you hadn't deleted it from any and all photo collections before, you've certainly done so now. We've already seen that a number of people do remember it existing at one point, though, since it has been several years as you pointed out, some details of the photo you posted have been forgotten or conflated with other photos you shared from that trip or another one.Quote:
Except I've never a riffle in front of my groin. Or been photographed with a riffle like that. Or even a handgun in front of my groin. You are literally imagining this. . . it's to describe a picture of me you claim you saw over half a decade ago that quite literally doesn't exist.
edit: You know, if you'd shown some basic courtesy and told me via PM at the beginning that you did not care to have stuff from the last decade of forum-activities brought up on here again, I would have gone along. But you decided to treat me like I was lying or crazy.
Ok, I'm going to admit, I did not foresee the discussion going into this direction when I revisited this thread.
Ah, right. So the National Firearms Act is more legal than the assault weapons ban simply because it's older or what? Using your logic, it also imposes a restriction on gun ownership upon the citizens. And regulations would also be evil in your book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Also: Why are you not allowed to possess a nuclear bomb?
Let me point out that painting such laws as "evil" just because they impose certain restrictions is a very, very dumb move.
This metadiscussion of "But it takes away our freeeeeeeedom!" is not very smart, an old hat and makes absolutely no sense.
Of the few hundred photos I took of my assignment in Israel, that photo you describe was never taken. I was never in such a photo and there was never a photo like that in my personal collection (or anyone else's).Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm not trying to hide anything, but I can't prove a negative here. I don't know why you're so intent on this fabrication/memory glitch you're having. However it's healthy for you to simply admit that your memory isn't perfect sometimes. I have no problem admitting when I forget things.
If I seem annoyed it's because I'm sick of people (GGT in particular) filling in their own blanks about my life. But I have nothing to hide in this, the photograph you're describing of me was never taken.
PS- Part of me wonders if you're conflating my posts about Israel with that guy "OldMan" or whatever his name was. He was the one who claimed to be a former defense contractor sleeping with tons of Israeli soldiers, I'm beginning to suspect he posted a picture and you're thinking of him.
I would like to declare here that in my life I have only once touched an actual gun, IIRC a Glock this or that or another type, that the security was on and that at no point did I pull the trigger or hold the gun in any position to cover any parts of my naked body.
Just for the record.
Dread, I need some advice on how to make a percentage of people on a forum turn on me - can you help?
You seem so fucking good at it! ;)
For starters, the NFA didn't outright ban firearms for looking 'evil,' and instead required that stamps be acquired and the firearms in question be registered. Do I find that particularly palatable? Not really, but I do think it's head and shoulders above the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. Secondly, I never questioned the legality of the Assault Weapons ban, I questioned the motivation behind passing it, and it's efficacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I'm not painting any laws as "evil," (I don't think I've said evil so I don't know why it's in quotes) I'm painting them as stupid.Quote:
Let me point out that painting such laws as "evil" just because they impose certain restrictions is a very, very dumb move.
For someone talking about old hats, you and others seem quite content at dismissing arguments with the trite and tired "freeeeeeedom" nonsense. People in glass houses and all that.Quote:
This metadiscussion of "But it takes away our freeeeeeeedom!" is not very smart, an old hat and makes absolutely no sense.
They key is to not do something, then deny when people say that you did that thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lor
Do i also have to ask for investment advice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Heh. Can you handle the heat that will come from that kind of trolling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lor
A copy of your PM. Or your PM was a copy of this. Either way I just wrote the reply and it didn't get saved to Sent Messages, and I'm not going to type it again. Other people remember it, your own old post cites it, and your repeated attacks against me *or hell, maybe deliberate semantic games at this point over what "like that" might mean since you did briefly dredge up memory of posing with the gun* in an attempt to discredit me are just making me want to counterattack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
edit: The ginger mop it had on top kinda speaks against thinking of a photo with someone else.
I replied to you with a summary of a photo I did post half a decade ago and how it was different in every single way. You are wrong, Fuzzy. Welcome to mortality.
I don't recall any photo with a police officer showing you a handgun, but you posted a decent number of pictures and it sounds fairly uninteresting. It's certainly not the photo 5 people are recalling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Maybe time for a poll?
No, this is an echo chamber. You suggested something, GGT weighed in with some remark about remembering "boobage" and then Rand said he recalled something familiar.
I would be willing to post the actual photo, but you're so dead-set on not admitting that you don't totally recall a photo of someone else you saw five years ago that you're backpedalling by saying "well there could have been other photos."
Bull, Fuzzy. In 2005 I posted on photo of me holding a gun and it's nothing like you or GGT have described. Nothing about it matches anything described here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And you conveniently excluded my post about the M16/AR15. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Ah yes. GGT chimed in, so everyone must just be in an echo chamber. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Indeed, how certain are you of this? I wish I had even an inkling of what you all were referring to, at least I could try and point it out. It must have been a post I never saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Haven't you considered that I am getting to agitated about this because I know exactly what photo I posted and how dramatically dissimilar it is to whatever photo you're talking about?
Either that or I'm the third Dreadnaught to occupy this name and I'm struggling to bridge the gaps between me and my predecessors.
Yes, I already mentioned that possibilty. Care for a little ID test...what account did you unban for me on Atari?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If I post the actual photo sequence with obscured faces of when I was actually photographed with a gun in the Zionist entity, will I get...an apology? A recognition that your memories are not perfect?
Being- Zuchov.
Right, I'm Kane...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I remember the action, but I don't remember the account. You had several as I recall.
As did Kane, coincidentally.
If I guess and get it right, what do I get?
Never mind, as far as I'm concerned this "convo" is over. Dread is dead, long live the Dreadnaught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:haha: This is nutty.
I don't know what the devil this alleged photo has to do with anything, but Dreadnaught-gate has been fun to watch.
:)
You and me both, baby
Apparently five years ago some people saw a photo of me, an automatic riffle in front of my crotch and Israeli girl. This photo doesn't actually exist, but now this has opened the door to the truth that I'm actually not the person who was posting with my name in 2005.
Am I missing anything?
Do you even know what a riffle is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Obviously not, because I've never posted a photo of me with a riffle or a rifle.
Your sanity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It went away when I killed the real Dreadnaught two years ago and ate his brains.
That's weird, you're weird
Being, I consulted my sources and the account I unlocked was eithre Derr or Human.
Neither of those accounts were ever banned...the email accounts were gone and I forgot the passwords.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The plot thickens.