In a YouTube video, a Michigan man brandished an automatic rifle, saying “This is my baby. Are you going to protect my baby?”
Here's the video in question:
"Authorized journalist" Steve Terrell did get one thing right--not about his panty-wringing hysterics, or his ignorance (or intentional deception) by referring to "an automatic rifle," but in his observation that Gov. Richardson missed a great opportunity.
He should have chastised the questioner for performing an agenda-driven stunt. He should have demanded the guy's background be looked into, to see if he was really a gun rights advocate or a mole from the other side trying to make gun owners look like lunatics. He should have also chastised CNN for allowing a question designed to push so many buttons through without also allowing for a rational question about the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership to be made--it's not like the network didn't sift through all submissions to pick and reject based on their own subjective criteria.
And what the hell does "purchased under the 1994 gun ban" mean? That was a restricting, not an authorizing edict.
Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.
Gee, I wonder if CNN will do the follow-up to find out? Holding your breath, anyone?
And isn't it pathetic that potential leaders of our Republic are little more than contestants in a combination of "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" and "America's Funniest Home Videos"?
11 comments:
I don't know the guy, but I pray he was a set-up.
On the other hand, he may have made several Dems wet their pants, so if he was for real, at least we get that joy.
If you look at your built-in map of Michigan on your hand, Clio is roughly where the thumb adjoins to the palm... which means it is north of the traditional ban-everything areas of Detroit, Flint , and northeast of our capital Lansing.
So, geographically, he lives in a pro-gun, or at least neutral, area.
"And isn't it pathetic that potential leaders of our Republic are little more than contestants in a combination of "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" and "America's Funniest Home Videos"?-David.
I have always said there is something fundamentally flawed in the character of any adult who will spend his/her life in a perpetual popularity contest.
For many the flaw is simply, corruption. They want that license to steal.
That is why no matter who we elect we keep the same grievances, the flawed characters do what is beneficial to themselves and to Hell with the country and everybody in it.
Were what I said not true, we wouldn't even be having this problem or the debate that goes with it. The law is clear, the constitution is clear. Any eighth grader can read it and understand it. The debate only comes when ambition wants to violate it and they can play to enough ignorant or unconcerned people who abdicate their responsibility as citizens.
I don't get it. Even if Townsend came off as a "kook" (and I don't think so); who cares? Millions of people in this country think that we gun owners are crazy anyway. Why do we (or should we) care so much what other people think of us?
Because the forum was a set up--they hand-selected the most off-putting to the average person comment they could find--you need to know who your audience is, and appeal on their terms if you wish to persuade. A grand opportunity to allow people to see the rightness of our cause was presented, and the antis played it to their advantage.
\begin{rant}
I'm not denying that he might have been off-putting to a lot of people, but it's the CNN forum. It'
s not a TV channel that's exactly known for giving us fair treatment. So while I agree that picking this guy to represent us is scummy, it's what I have come to expect from CNN (and the big media). I wouldn't be surprised if they had shown some guy holding an AR-15 and barbecuing babies.
I understand your anger about how we are portrayed in the media. But getting angry accomplishes nothing. Presenting your argument to people who are willing to listen to you does. You have been doing this for a long time with your blog, and you have made at least this commenter see the rightness of your cause. And I'm sure there are thousands of others like me. So what I'm saying is, keep fighting the good fight, and don't worry about how some d**khead TV portrayed our side when they were rooting for the other side in the first place.
\end{rant}
Not angry, anon, just pointing out again how it is what it is, and how people who represent themselves as being on "our side" need to think before they walk into a trap.
It's a concept that needs to be repeated when the opportunity presents itself, just like many of the other recurring themes on this blog--from "only ones'" exclusivity, to "authorized journalists," to ATF abuses, to whiny religious leaders, to the irrationality of do-gooders and unceasing edicts by corrupt politicos--these are all things that have been discussed before, but we let continued incursions happen without response at our peril, because that will be the only side people hear if people like me don't call them on it--and face it--out of all the posts about this particular story, who else has brought up the points I did, and did so before me? Surely there's room in the debate for a lone voice making the observations I made?
Fair enough, David. There's enough room in the debate for everyone.
On another note, I have to admire your patience in even watching that segment on CNN. I can't watch TV for more than two minutes without having my blood pressure go through the roof.
This whole election sucks. All of the "front runners" on both sides are anti-gun.
The only candidate on either side that I would trust is Ron Paul. He's been a solid supporter of the Constitution (not just the "politically correct" parts) for more than 18 years in congress.
For my money, any gun owner that doesn't vote for him in the primaries might as well vote for Hillary.
1. mentioning the 1994 ban served no coherent purpose EXCEPT to imply that a stronger ban is "needed"
2. No honest gun owner who is actually pro second amendment would have used the idiotic phrase "my baby" when talking to known gun haters/gun banners.
3. Even the "question" from this plant "Jared Townsend" isn't much of a question (more evidence he's a fraud). He BARELY even asked the implied question "we want to know if our babies are safe." Then he said "please tell me your views." SO, he purposefully DOESN'T ask an actual question then after intentionally sounding ridiculous (with that "baby" nonsense) he asks for their "views." "Jared" essentially simply INVITED them and begged them to propagandize with anti gun rhetoric instead of asking them to ANSWER A BONA FIDE QUESTION.
David, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think he did a reasonable job.
If (and this is a big if) the Dem's did not preview the questions, his opener would have them forming a "we have to restrict guns to save your kids" answer to his question.
He then turned the question towards the RKBA issues. It was a post ban AR in his hands, proof that the ban was just more feel good legislation that hurt manufacturers and honest gun owners.
He was not "pretty". He was not dressed in a suit. He was not the "clean" case to bring before the debates.
umm... they would not have put you or I on television. Good for him in getting Biden to show how anti gun his in on national television.
Post a Comment