It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Would A Reporter Misreport A Semiautomatic Rifle As Automatic?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
From Oakland, CA television station KTVU.

Gun Owners Wear Weapons, Politics In Plain View

Watch the video starting at 2:58. The reporter states "...open carry advocates showed up with automatic weapons."

From CNN concerning the armed man at the rally shown in the above report.

Interview with gun-toting protester at Obama rally was staged


The Phoenix-based host of "Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock" identified the bespectacled man with the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle as "Chris," saying he's known him for two years as part of a younger generation of Libertarians.


Do you think this was a 'mistake' on the part of the KTVU reporter?

And also, the KTVU reporter was speaking in the plural as to advocates carrying automatic weapons, whereas I only ever heard of one guy carrying a semi-automatic weapon at this rally. Is this another 'mistake'?

[edit on 11/20/09 by Ferris.Bueller.II]




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


looking at an assault rifle, the uneducated observer would not know if it were a fully automatic, or simply a semi-automatic.

Just like an experienced musician could tell if something is out of tune...and the rest of us could not.

There's nothing to see here...moving on.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


So, you're saying it is excusable for a reporter to not research the subject and events he is reporting on.

Interesting.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
At least they didn't take out a billbord or anything....but their competition is all over that market:

now what exactly is illegal about that revolver in that picture?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I don't see the problem, semi-automatic or full-automatic both are still automatic in some manner are they not?

She did't say FULL-automatic now did she?

Nothing wrong with what she said IMHO.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


looking at an assault rifle, the uneducated observer would not know if it were a fully automatic, or simply a semi-automatic.

Just like an experienced musician could tell if something is out of tune...and the rest of us could not.

There's nothing to see here...moving on.
An assault rifle is an automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine and in a caliber with less power than a combat rifle...... If it doesn't have the ability to fire full auto it is not an assault rifle...... I do not understand why a person would own a weapon that looks illegal but only fires a non sporting military round semi automatic and carry it around people who don't know the difference and assume the worse..... Scare everyone so they will be more inclined to want the government to seize all of the firearms.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Most reporters are hired on the basis of their looks and acting ability, not on their knowledge of the subject matter. I have heard some really funny, incorrect information come from reporters over the years. I have seen more savvy, experienced, and intelligent reporters actually act disgusted, or make fun of, other reporters stupid questions on air.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


people who are not familiar with fire arms confuse this far more than you would imagine. i wouldn't read too much into it.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paroxysm
At least they didn't take out a billbord or anything....but their competition is all over that market:

now what exactly is illegal about that revolver in that picture?


There is nothing illegal about the gun in that picture, and the billboard doesn't insinuate that there is. It is encouraging people to report gun crimes, like armed robbery, murder, assault, or carrying a stolen or unregistered gun. Nowhere does it make the statement or insinuation that hand guns are illegal.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Majiq
 



What I see is a revolver pointing at me and in BIG bold letters "Drop the Gun", and in really small hard to read text they tell you to report gun crimes.

If I was the advocate that put up the billboard for "reporting gun crimes", I think it would make more sense to have "Report Gun Crimes" in really bold, easy to read text. Not the way they have it.

For some odd reason I don't think the billboard is there to promote the "reporting of gun crimes"

Looks like a blatant threat to me. . .



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I wish I had this kinda time on my hands, posting Threads about just everything I heard on the news..



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bachfin
I don't see the problem, semi-automatic or full-automatic both are still automatic in some manner are they not?

She did't say FULL-automatic now did she?

Nothing wrong with what she said IMHO.


#1 The reporter in the video was a male, not a female.

#2 Automatic weapons generally refers to a fully automatic weapons. A semiautomatic, where you have to pull the trigger for each firing, is not referred to as an automatic weapon. Would you consider conventional explosives the same as atomic explosives because they both go boom, despite the mechanism?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I will confess this... I thought the AR-15 was semi-automatic.

FTR on wiki the AR-15 is described as semi-automatic - so, to me, when the reporter in question calls it Semi-automatic I don't find it on the level of conspiracy.

So I will say "mistake", and if it is a wrong classification you should change wiki and continue to fight ignorance - but I think it is more general ignorance and not a true conspiracy



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Landru
I will confess this... I thought the AR-15 was semi-automatic.

FTR on wiki the AR-15 is described as semi-automatic - so, to me, when the reporter in question calls it Semi-automatic I don't find it on the level of conspiracy.

So I will say "mistake", and if it is a wrong classification you should change wiki and continue to fight ignorance - but I think it is more general ignorance and not a true conspiracy


Problem is the reporter in question says there were advocates carrying automatic weapons, when in reality it was one man with an AR-15 semiautomatic weapon. Wiki has it right.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bachfin
 


There is a big difference between automatic guns and semi-automatic. An automatic will continue to fire as long as you hold down the trigger. You can fire 30 bullets in about 2 to 3 seconds. A semi-automatic only fires once for every squeeze of the trigger. I think that is a considerable difference. The law is also very specific on what constitutes an automatic weapon and they require having a class III federal firearms license to own. I'm also pretty darn shure they are not legal to carry in public.

I have seen the MSM falsely report in this fashion many times. When not mistaking fully automatic weapons for semi-automatic they love to call various firearms ASSAULT WEAPONS. Put a black synthetic stock on any long gun and voila! instant assault weapon because it looks "more dangerous". I wish they would teach firearms history and safety in schools, it is both our right and heritage. I'm not proud that we had to shoot some native americans to acquire the land we now live on but it is what it is and I cannot change history. Teaching firearm safety might actually help stop accidental shootings.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
From the reports I've seen over the past few decades I have come to the conclusion that news reporting personnel and agencies have absolutely no desire to research or check anything related to firearms. Nor do they feel compelled to apologize or correct their misinformation.

The worst part is when they do bother to ask an "expert" they always that cop who has no idea what he's talking about. That cop who only ever touches a gun for his quals and has never owned one personally or fired one for personal reasons and in his heart hates guns as much as the reporter.

I lost all faith on the media and guns (and the NRA for that matter) during the whole "teflon armor piecing" debacle. I'm still waiting for an admission of gross stupidity and an apology for that.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
"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."

There is nothing in the language of the 2nd Amendment that distinguishes between semi-automatic or automatic weapons. There is nothing about the language of the 2nd Amendment that reduces the right of the people to keep and bear Arms down to hand guns or hunting rifles. Congress has been prohibited from infringing upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms and the only authority they have been allowed is the right to regulate militias.

It is acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment that militias and indeed the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state. The equivocation of Congress' ability to regulate and even more astonishingly ban certain weapons comes from the dubious interpretation of the language "A well regulated militia..."

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit the government from keeping arms out of the peoples hands so that they are capable of protecting their own rights including to right to alter or abolish their own government. Given that, reducing the right to keep and bear arms down to guns misses the point. Since the federal government and even state governments are heavily armed with much more than just guns it stands to reason that the people have the same right to possess those weapons as well.

In order for the people to have the best possible abilities to defend themselves against tyrannical governments, theoretically speaking, they have as much right to park a Harrier jet in their back yard as the government has to park them on their bases. And, of course, taking that thought to its logical conclusion, one could argue that the people have as much right to keep grenades, rockets and missiles as well. The horrifying notion of that lies in the fact that the Federal government has stockpiled an arsenal of nuclear weapons and given the nature of the 2nd Amendment it could be argued that the people then also have the right to do so.

Such a notion, that the people have the right to keep nuclear weapons, is extremely terrifying but no less terrifying than the notion that any government has that right. If, when developing the atom bomb, those politicians involved in its development, fully understood the meaning of the 2nd Amendment perhaps they would have shown more restraint...or perhaps not.

No person being of sound mind and body, would advocate the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear weapons and no sane person should advocate their governments possess that right either. However, this thread is not about whether people have the right to own nuclear weapons, it is about making a distinction between sem-automatic rifles and automatic rifles and according to the 2nd Amendment, the people have the right to keep and bear both if they so choose. That Congress has deemed otherwise is unconstitutional and a problem that must be corrected.

Von Clausewitz, in his seminal book, On War; stated that the first thing that must be done when confronting the enemy is to disarm them. When the government of any people engage in efforts to disarm their own citizenry then, at least from a military standpoint, they are necessarily viewing the people as the enemy.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


im saying that you're trying to find something that isnt there.

The term "assault rifle" is used, in the public, as a generic term to describe "mean looking guns"

The true definition of an assault rifle is a gun that can switch back and forth between fully automatic and semi-automatic. Simply looking at a gun, to the average, inexperienced person, one would say "thats an assault rifle"


There is no difference between your incoherent nitpicking and if a reporter had accidentally called a bandage a band-aid

So to answer your question - it was a mistake. But not a gigantic, over the top, earth shatter, topic changing, oops-i-did-it-again kind of thing.

Like i said.

Nothing to see here. Moving on.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


So a professional reporter reporting on a past event with plenty of printed material on it is an "average, inexperienced person"? Sad indeed.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
okay - lets play it your way for a second:

Since your question in the OP was obviously rhetorical....why do YOU think the reporter would have said they were assault rifles when they were just regular rifles?


What would the motivation be?




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join