CNN instructs America on “assault” rifles

… and once again gets it wrong. I am sometimes stunned at the media’s lack of knowledge of firearms, and the 2nd Amendment. My guess is the world in which they live this is perfectly acceptable but it not only shows their ignorance but prejudice as well.

Here’s Jack Cafferty on the Situation Room at 5 p.m. describing a weapon-carrying man at a rally in Arizona. I actually agree with Jack that bringing the weapon to a rally as a “statement” is a silly stupid idea. A weapon in public should only be carried in defense … not as a form of protest. It’s not a prop or a toy.

BUT, Jack doesn’t say this. It’s just … well … scary.

Some points to remember as you watch. An AR 15 is not, repeat, is not an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are illegal and I believe the new AR 15’s cannot be converted into automatic weapons. You can’t squeeze off shots any faster than a Baretta 45 or a S&W MP 45 or a Glock or … well you name the handgun.

Edited to add (Steve): The National Firearms Act (NFA) from 1934 rules apply when it comes to automatic weapons. You can buy a fully automatic weapon if you fill out the right forms with the federal government, go through the background check and pay a $200 stamp tax on each weapon you want to buy. Surprised? Of course, there are no “new” select-fire weapons on the market and you can’t just go out and order one either, you’re restricted to pre-ban weapons and they are not cheap, and very regulated. I’ll try to post more about this subject in the future.

Secondly, distance is irrelevant. The man is carrying open in a crowd.

But CNN is playing to an audience that will believe this crap, unfortunately.

To Jack’s credit … he got corrected … and thus he corrected the errors at the end of the hour. How many saw it? Good question. More importantly, why would Jack shoot off his mouth without checking first?  Damage done … nothing to see here … move along.

It now appears the whole thing was a setup … Rick Sanchex yesterday interviewed the “reporter”, Earnest Hancock, who talked with the man carrying the AR 15. Sanchex of course, is aghast. While Hancock does not give and inch. The “good stuff” comes about 3 minutes in.

Update: This story is picking up steam this morning … and you gun owners are the target. This from the Washington Post. To the president’s credit, he says he defends their right. But the rest of the article is filled with hysteria … or is it? (emphasis mine)

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs’s comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

“What Gibbs said is wrong,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It’s crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody.”

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans’ event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

I guess the implication here is that there should be a law. I think these folks are hurting 2nd Amendment advocates, but that’s just me. You make the call. Agree or disagree. Take the poll.

2 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    It is as big a setup as that guy with the Obama/Hitler poster that was later seen (by Democrats, no less) handing out Obamacare flyers.  The funny thing is that they were able to so easily fool the mainstream media.  That is what they are ticked off about: the fact that they were punked, and the fact that this guy made his point.  And they act like they never do it themselves!!  LOL!  Does Dan Rather ring a bell?

     

    Which is worse: the hysterically alleged Second Amendment assault by the guy with the gun that did no harm, or the First Amendment assault by the likes of Matthews seeking to use the story to get liberal's panties in (another) bind?

     

    My vote is the First Amendment assauts.  Nobody is using the Second Amendment to take away the First Amendment, but the same can not be said of the converse.  The pen is mightier than the sword, you know…

     

    The the Brady Campaign guy said “Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers."

     

    Well, is it not possible that anyone who wished harm to the president might also have to consider the presence of arms that might be directed against them?  The cops (who knew about it) and the SS didn't seem too concerned about it, and they are the professionals, not Matthews or Cafferty.  And it appears that they didn't do their homework like Sanchez did.   It makes you wonder if they are even cognizant of the fact that they are tools of the Democrats.

  2. Uconnjim
    Uconnjim says:

    Well, if this is the way the main stream media sees it, then why can't they make the same observation about large-framed union thugs pushing, shoving, and beating down people who legally want to attend an open forum with their legislator.  (remember that the congressional seat does not belong to the congressman, it belongs to us).  Those men outweigh me by at least a hundred pounds, and I am no small guy, are they not just as intimidating as a weapon?  This person in the above video legally carried the weapon over his shoulder, muzzle down.  And, lastly, let's not forget the two Black Panthers standing in front of the voting hall in Philadelphia, loitering – yes, illegal – yes, intimidating – you bet!

Comments are closed.