Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
4/25/2017 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 1/24/2001 7:22:11 AM EDT
Tried to post to the original thread and I must have crashed something. I think the post was too long, so I will try it in two parts. Cible, Not sure I am fully grasping what you typed but I will try to answer and not go off on a tangent. No flames intended. I must say that I did not read the article in question and my initial reply is to the return email. Also, I have been seeing a more leftist bent on the part of the "Big 3" for years when reading the mags while in the eye doctors waiting room or at the dentist, etc. I am complaining about writers that are supposed to be hunters and shooters and therefore should know better. Maybe I am out of touch because I stopped buying the "Big 3" when I was a kid and am now 36y/o. "You are wrong with the "either they're with us or against us" argument, IMHO. We constantly bitch about the liberal rags and why they won't print our side of the issue etc. Journalists are supposed to be neutral. " In the real world there are very few neutral journalists. At least not what I have seen or read over the last 8 years. I respect the writer that can report on an issue without injecting venom into the issue. Look at what happened with Mr. Newt and his book deal or feeding dogfood to elderly people that have to live in the streets or taking free lunches away from school kids... Did Hillary have to endure this with her 8 million dollar book deal, no way. That is the difference between us and them. The Dem Left are mindless drones to their perceived notion of what is right, read total unity. We have trouble unifying behind issues because we are independent thinkers (patriots). That is what seperates them from us. But, that is going to be our downfall. The duck hunters, squirrell hunters and target shooters better get up to speed. This is not Time or Newsweek that we are discussing. Those mags will not report another side of the issue because "They" are the true fascists in this debate. They want the total and unequivocal ban on all guns, period! No quarter given is given to us at all. They won't report another side that is different and may actually be right. Part 2 follows:
Link Posted: 1/24/2001 7:24:19 AM EDT
Part 2: I will continue to complain until I see some truthful reporting for a change. (I hope that the FnS article was like that) Not sensationalizing of details that have no place in reporting of gun issues. I grow weary of the opposition painting me as an outlaw because I choose to use a certain rifle or pistol or am an NRA member, or that I advocate a Natl CCW or my many other nonPC views. In fact, I think they have rascist views toward me. Ok, maybe that is a bit extreme but I have to wonder sometimes, am I becoming an endangered species? Maybe I am a hypocrite, but you know what, I think I am right. Look at history and see the many examples of opression. Even if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, I would still be right. A people should have the means to oppose aggression! Too many people believe what they hear and read on the tube and radio. To help fight this we need to introduce younger shooters to the sport and to show responsible gun ownership. As owners of the dreaded black rifle, we need to show that we are no different than other Americans. We are the Minutemen of our time. What other group of gunowners have been hammered the way we have been. We need to get our message out and it is an uphill road it seems. My .04
Link Posted: 1/24/2001 9:19:45 AM EDT
Grundsau; I can't get to the original post either. So, going off memory, let me begin by writing that I don't think I called you a hypocrite, and I apologize if I did. Also, I agree with your post #1, that journalism is way slanted these days. I appreciate what you say in #2, but what struck me (IIRC) in the original thread was the dichotomy between advocacy and neutrality. If journalism is indeed neutral, then we have to accept others' arguments and tolerance thereof in even our magazines. If we accept advocacy in journalism, then we can't complain. Except to cancel our subscriptions, which is what I think you said you did anyways. It was just the dichotomy, the contrast, which caught my attention. Thanks for the reply.
Link Posted: 1/24/2001 9:36:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2001 9:38:20 AM EDT by Grundsau]
Thanx for the discourse. This is what gets us to expand our thoughts. Not to belabor this thread... I was calling myself a hypocrite. There is a fine line between advocacy and neutrality and I just want to see a liberal or conservative report something in a truthful manner with no slant. That means report events. Don't interject feelings or emotions into it. It is nice to hear an author tell his/her politics before you get into an article. At this stage of the game it is hard for both sides to take a breather and think facts. I am very emotional about it but I try to be cool when discussing these things with non-likeminded people. I can accept advocacy and admire a person that stands for something they believe in when that position is based on intelligent thought. Not just traveling with the herd. A rare thing I am sure. Just doesn't mean I have to agree with the others position. G'Day Mate.
Top Top