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
6/25/2017 7:35:25 PM
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 5/20/2003 6:12:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2003 6:26:39 AM EDT by Shoot1K]
I was one of a handful of South Florida shooters involved in CNN’s “revised” assault weapons story shown yesterday at 5 PM and 7:45 PM EST. Following last Thursday’s hatchet job interview with Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne, I had contacted CNN and complained vigorously. On Saturday May 17th, CNN Bureau Chief John Zarrella contacted me to seek my help in doing the follow up piece many of you saw yesterday. I thought I would take a minute to describe for you what took place and provide some background to what many of you saw.

Zarrella admitted that they had done a poor job with the original story, partly because of time pressure and because their camera was not pointed at the cinder blocks when the post-ban rifle was fired. The view conveyed to the television audience was that pre-bans are machine guns (Jenne used a full auto AK at one point) with the ability to tear down walls, while post ban guns are innocuous pea shooters (since the cinder blocks appeared intact and undamaged).

On Sunday, May 18th Zarrella brought a film crew to re-shoot the firing demonstration that had been so poorly done the week previously. We met with Zarrella to correct the original story and hammer home the fact that the “assault weapons” ban was about cosmetics; pre-bans are not more dangerous than post-ban semiautomatics or any other semi-auto weapon. We also made clear that neither pre-bans nor post-bans are machine guns.

Initially, one of our guys was filmed firing a pre-ban semi-auto AK (Hungarian Folder) with a 30 round mag (loaded with 5 rounds) followed by a post ban, milled semi-auto AK with muzzle brake and fixed stock and a short, 5 round magazine (loaded to capacity). We tried to duplicate the "cinder block" scenario used by Jenne to show where the error had occurred in the original segment aired on Thursday, May 15th.

We then re-filmed the demonstration with a different shooter using a pre-ban AR-15 (with 20 round mag loaded with 5 rounds) and a post-ban AR (with post-ban 9 round Colt mag with 5 rounds). This was done because CNN Atlanta asked for a demonstration of the AR-15 instead of the AK. The reason given was that on Saturday Zarrella had interviewed a retired chief of police named Gary Noe who, using a pre-ban AR and post-ban AR, showed the CNN crew that there was no functional difference between the two. The retired Chief argued forcefully that the ban was stupid and was nothing more than legislative hot air. As the retired chief's interview was going to be included in the new segment, they wanted the rifles to be consistent (i.e. ARs instead of AKs). As part of our AR segment, our shooter clearly emphasized that these were NOT machine guns and could not be easily converted to full-auto.

We had brought along a variety of firearms besides the pre- and post ARs and AKs. These included a 30-06 Remington semi-auto hunting rifle, a Colt M-16A1 (with A2 upper), a full auto Chinese AKM, a Winchester M-1 Garand and others. As much as we would have liked to have demonstrated the hunting rifle being shot at cinder blocks (and other weapons), time simply did not allow it. We chose not to film the machine guns being fired so that we could avoid any confusion with semiautomatic weapons. CNN asked us to stay focused on correcting their error from last Thursday, that somehow pre-ban rifles are deadlier and more powerful than the current post-ban rifles.

In yesterday’s segment, the cinder block demonstration clearly indicated that both rifles had the exact same effect when fired using the same cartridge. Pre-ban weapons are not deadlier than post-ban rifles. Flash suppressors and bayonet lugs do not magically make a rifle more powerful or lethal.

We spent approximately 3 hours with John Zarrella and his film crew. They filmed about 30 minutes worth of video and interviews. While only a tiny fraction of that made it onto the air (and we expected that), Zarrella and his crew learned a great deal about the “assault weapons” ban, its complexities, and the pro-gun perspective. He (and CNN) clearly understands that going forward, this is a subject that requires much more care and objectivity that was shown in the prior week’s report. That my friends, is a big accomplishment. Zarrella indicated that as the “assault weapons” debate moves forward, he’ll contact us to make sure the facts are correctly presented and the pro-gun side is given a fair shake. Zarrella was speaking for himself. There is no guarantee that a future story done by a different CNN reporter will be completely accurate (even though CNN Atlanta is now painfully aware that this is a controversial and complex subject).

The outcry raised by shooters throughout the country made it possible for us to get CNN to do yesterday’s segment and correct many of the errors made the week previously. It has also put them on notice that there are a number of vocal and passionate viewers who will hound them if they get the story wrong. This is a good thing. It improves the quality and fairness of reporting on this issue. Keep it up fellas. If you see a CNN story (or any other network) that does a poor job on the AWB debate, don’t hesitate to call, write, fax, and e-mail vigorously.

One final note: Zarrella and CNN checked this discussion board to gauge the reaction to their story yesterday. AR-15.com is now a source of information for CNN. I don’t know if that’s good or bad but it tells you that AR-15.com is now on the radar screen of a major television news network.

Link Posted: 5/20/2003 6:49:22 AM EDT
It's incredible - but nice to see journalists still ensuring they're delivering a quality story. Anything less and you might as well be reporting for the Enquirer... but I digress. I am a gun owner, my personal collection is quite limited but does include one of the 'black guns', which I made myself from custom components and a numbered post-ban lower reciever. I'm frequently asked about my gun, what gives me the right to own it, why I think I need it etc. The question of rights can be found in the 2nd, 9th and 10th Ammendments to the US Constitution, and therein answered. The question of need is one that has always tickled me. I'm asked why I need such a gun. Why do people need fast cars? Surely they're inherently more dangerous than your average Toyota? But they really aren't, are they? For one, I haven't seen a car yet I'd let someone run me over with. One will kill as surely as the other. A sports car might actually have advantages in maneuvering, brakes etc. It's perception. I just watched Lethal Weapon 3 last night. I find it amazing what Hollywood has done to us. Note that all the bad guys had full-autos, and about nothing else. I have to be honest with you, full auto is really not the way to go in CQB, long range engagements and certainly not in a hunting environment. One thing I've heard said, about bullets spraying everyplace - that's true. They do, typically everywhere but your target. Also - please note that the Assault Weapons Ban has NOTHING to do with full-auto as an option. It was a terrible mistake to include full-auto weapons in a demonstration intended to display the varying effectiveness of AWB weapons vs Post-bans. The question really should be: 1. Does a bayonet lug make my gun more dangerous in a crime situation? 2. Does a detatchable box magazine result in rounds which are any less deadly than, say those fired from a tube, like a lever-action rifle? 3. Does a pistol grip change the effect of bullets impacting the target? 4. Does a flash hider make it more likely that a weapon will be used in a crime? Does it make bullets hit harder? 5. Does a synthetic stock (plastic) make my gun deadlier than if I were to replace it with wooden parts? There are others, but one that I feel must be considered is this: Is it more likely that the Assault Weapons Ban is simply feel-good legislation, poorly implemented and designed to play on the fears of 'black guns' so popularized in our culture? How does it make you feel that polititians use the deaths of people to forward political adgendas that they themselves often scarcely believe in? All you have to do is read the laws to realize that full-auto weapons have been illegal since '34, and that events like the "LA SHOOTOUT" will happen whether the law says my weapon can have a flash hider or not. So, why do I own an AR-15? Simple. It's reliable, it shoots well when I remember to do what my instructor in the USAF taught me, felt recoil is very light, the synthetic stock and (on mine) stainless barrel assembly resist the elements quite well and finally because it gave me some pride while I built it up.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:03:12 AM EDT
This place is amazing. Thank you for your efforts on ALL our behalf to get good information into the hands of the public. QS
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:05:11 AM EDT
Shoot1K, great work guys and our thanks !!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:12:52 AM EDT
Thank you for taking your time to educate them and help clear this mess up!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:15:51 AM EDT
Does anyone have a digitized version of this clip with a high speed internet connection that I can get it from them?
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:25:45 AM EDT
Just to clarify one thing: while we brought full auto guns along, CNN didn't film them being fired for their story yesterday. We made it crystal clear to John Zarrella and his crew that machine guns have nothing to do with the AWB ban of 1994 and that anytime someone tells him differently it is a bald-faced lie. He also understood that machine guns have been tightly regulated since the 1930s and are not even an issue. Towards the end of our meeting--- and WITHOUT the cameras rolling--- Zarrella and his crew were invited to shoot a full auto Colt M-16A1 at the cinder blocks. As usually happens, they all had shit-eating grins afterwards.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:53:36 AM EDT
Someone should really put him in an H-53 gunship with a GAU-2 in the back. "Ole painless is waitin'" Thanks for the clarification - it's something frequently missed. Also, thanks for the legwork on the issue. I'd be happy to make the clip downloadable if the proper agreements and authorizations could be made. My site's not incredibly fast, but I could put it up... Again, I won't unless it's totally legit.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 9:46:40 AM EDT
Good job Shoot1K. I am someone who only recently started purchasing and shooting guns, and previously didn't pay much attention when the topic of gun control was discussed - other than having the same reaction I do to most efforts by government to regulate our individual liberties. However, now that I've become someone with a growing interest in collecting and shooting firearms, I've developed a more personal interest in this issue. What continues to surprise me is the amount of incorrect information that is out there and the serious misperceptions held by many members of the general public. There will always be a small and vocal minority who believe that guns are evil and that no individual should ever be permitted to own a firearm under any circumstances. However, I believe a significant number of people who support the AWB and other restrictions placed on the ownership of firearms do so only because they simply do not understand the laws themselves. Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I continue to believe that most people are intelligent enough to differentiate between a rational and an irrational position. Since it is ultimately irrational to believe that a weapon with a flash suppressor or a folding stock is more dangerous than one without these features, I believe if more people understood the AWB it would be easier to make sure it is not renewed. Ignorance is our greatest enemy and therefore it is critical that we continue to hold the media accountable for erroneous stories that perpetuate the public's misunderstanding. Although much of the media does suffer from an anti-gun bias, I think it is more dangerous to isolate ourselves by refusing to participate in their stories, than to insist that we are given equal time and to hold them accountable for their inaccuracies. I appreciate you're taking the time to pursue this Shoot1K.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 10:25:23 AM EDT
Wow, has this been posted in GD yet?
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:04:25 AM EDT
Nice job Shoot1k, mis-information is a bitch!!! [devils advocate mode] I'm just concerned about one thing. (please correct me if I'm mistaken). I can understand the importance of clarifying that a pre-ban and post-ban are essentially the same firearm, and that the AWB is "cosmetic". But wont this further motivate the anti's to come up with more restrictive legislation??? I mean if post-bans are just as deadly and destructive as pre-bans... They'll want to ban ALL guns!!! [/devils advocate mode] Again, I understand the issue at hand. But I could see an anti reading information like this and pushing to outlaw post-ban too!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:27:34 AM EDT
A pre-ban rifle is MORE deadlier than a post-ban. Some kiddie could accidentaly swallow a flash hider. [rolleyes] Seriously, CNN checked on AR15.com for info and opinions? WOW! Oh wait they won't use them.... CRC
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:58:38 AM EDT
Alkoe, To answer your question: the anti-gunners are already saying that post bans should be banned as well. It's a natural extension of their desire to ban all semi-automatics. When confronted with that argument, the response should be that our so-called "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than a regular hunting rifle, shotgun or any other weapon. Laws should focus on criminal behavior not innate objects. At the demo we did for Zarrella, we brought along a 30-06 Remington semi-auto and its ammo. We also had a H&K Model 940 in 30-06. We showed Zarrella the difference between .223, 7.62mmx39mm, and 30-06 cartridges. We offered to shoot the same cinder blocks with the 30-06 if he wanted to see (or film) how a 30-06 "hunting" cartridge compared with a .223 or 7.62mm Russian. He chose not to film it (to avoid adding a third weapon and more confusion) but he understood our point completely. Zarrella will likely be called upon to do future "assault weapon" stories. At the appropriate time, we'll hopefully demonstrate to him how a .223 AR style rifle is no more powerful than a .223 "hunting rifle" (e.g. a blued, wood stocked Mini-14, or maybe a H&K SL6). We could also bring in the 30-06 at that point. Of course, the risk exists that the antis will use this as fodder to argue that all semi-automatics should be banned. Our plan should be to show them (and everyone) how foolish it is to ban guns on the basis of a "sinister" appearance. If they then want to attack "hunting rifles" too, they'll then incur the wrath of a lot more people (and congressman) than they've already alienated. If they try that approach, the fur will really start flying. As for "large capacity" magazines, we demonstrated for Zarrella how two "restricted capacity" post ban mags (in this case AR mags) could be duct-taped end-to-end to create an improvised "large capacity" magazine. The point made was that duct-tape could easily be used to "defeat" the ban.....and what are you going to then? Ban duct tape? Declare duct tape to be pre-ban? And if you ban duct tape how then will we handle homeland security? (Zarrella got a laugh from that one). What we should all keep in mind is that for every argument made by the gun-banners, we have solid, well-reasoned and "common sense" counter-arguments. Common sense is key here. If Joe Q. Public can be made to realize that the AWB was a farce, then we've got a good chance of making sure it sunsets in 2004.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:07:59 PM EDT
For everyone's reading pleasure: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:35:13 PM EDT
EXCELLENT! Great work Shoot1K!! It's about time CNN paid attention. They might just be shocked into reality that the current, majority representation is pro-gun. They might also learn that the Internet, not the one-eyed idiot box, is now the primary news/media source for educated activists who work to unearth legislation that is seen by the majority of the population as unconstitutional and anti-freedom. They will also learn that conservative gun owners everywhere prefer FoxNews.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:52:15 PM EDT
Great work! Thanks for providing this "behind the scenes" look at this story. And because of the education you and your people provided (as well as the retired LEO interviewed), future reports by Mr. Zarrella will hopefully be more accurate and objective.
Zarrella will likely be called upon to do future "assault weapon" stories. At the appropriate time, we'll hopefully demonstrate to him how a .223 AR style rifle is no more powerful than a .223 "hunting rifle" (e.g. a blued, wood stocked Mini-14, or maybe a H&K SL6). We could also bring in the 30-06 at that point.
View Quote
So, what would a 30-06 do to the cinder block? Would it shatter with one shot? Now THAT would be worth its weight in gold. --Mike
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:03:27 PM EDT
When we base our argument that post-ban and pre-ban is only a matter of cosmetics, I believe we are missing the point of the Anti-assault weapon crowd ten years ago. These people were and are anti-military! During their arguments over a decade ago they outright stated their purpose was to remove all "military" accoutrements from these firearms. While they would rather ban ALL firearms, they knew a piece-meal attack was necessary. The military parts..pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, high capacity magazine, etc. were considered "politically incorrect" as these were what separated a military style weapon from a "politically correct for the purpose" firearm. These people just hate the military and they didn't like citizens taking their "military like" firearms out to the range and enjoying themselves. The AWB served many purposes not addressed here. It wasted valuable Congressional time which could have been spent on real problems. It gave otherwise unknown politicos press-face time and recognition. It was a valuable PR tool. In todays pro-military climate they're going to have to choose their words carefully. They have less an argument than they did ten years ago, so prepare for emotional illogic and B.S. Our best argument is to expose the Assault Weapon Ban for what it is...anti-military, anti-American, anti- freedom! It has to go. Its sponsors have to go. America has to wise up!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:07:16 PM EDT
Shoot1K For President! ^..^
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:38:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:45:53 PM EDT
Thanks...to everyone. I hope all of the emails that I sent out helped, I know everyone else's sure did. Did Zarella happen to mention anything else about the Sheriff's point of view or was it all a "mistake" type of thing?
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:51:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr: [b]Shoot1K,[/b] Thanks to you and your group's effort in educating the news media. A lot of things would be different if we were allowed to explain the truth about firearms to the general public. On behalf of AR15.com and all our members,thank you very much for your work!
View Quote
[b]Shoot, Ed won't say it but the Avila family owns this board and Ed and his son Juan are BOTH our number one people.[/b] Again, our thanks to all of you - Ruben for sure - as you folks did what most of us only think of doing. [beer]
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:52:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2003 1:54:43 PM EDT by W-W]
From Instapundit.com IS THE GLASS HALF-EMPTY? OR HALF-FULL? I guess that depends on whether you're pouring, or drinking. But to its credit, CNN has admitted it was wrong, and run a correction regarding an assault-weapon related story that falsely suggested that "assault weapons" are more powerful than other guns (they're not), and that the assault weapon ban had to do with machine guns (it doesn't). On the other hand, the errors fall into the "unforgivable" category. So was CNN incredibly ignorant and gullible here, or was it deliberately passing along anti-gun propaganda that it knew to be false? I'm going with explanation one -- if journalists can go to cover a war without knowing that there's no such thing as a 300 millimeter pistol then they can make this kind of idiotic mistake honestly, I suppose, though it is a bit suspicious that these mistakes tend to wind up supporting gun control every time. And this part is harder to explain away: In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no apparent damage. On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the cinder block. Didn't an L.A. Times photographer lose his job over misleading images? Why is this different? Was it just an accident? Conceivably, I suppose, but why is someone who can make that sort of a mistake working for CNN? But if they really are that sloppy and ignorant, maybe they shouldn't do gun stories without knowing enough to get it right. And parroting the latest press release from the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center doesn't count as research. The big victim here isn't gun rights, though. It's CNN's already damaged credibility. Because if they make mistakes like this, why should we trust them on anything else? CNN's final comment was this: "we all stick by John Zarrella and how credible of a reporter he is." Uh huh. UPDATE: A reader who says he used to work at CNN writes: I've worked in news research at CNN. I'm certainly no gun expert, or even a gun fan, having fired weapons only a handful of times in my life. But I can say with absolute certainty that I know more about guns than 99.9% of people working in the newsroom, so it's not surprising that a reporter or bureau chief would fall into the "incredibly ignorant" category. However, the cinder block "demonstration" strikes me as nothing more than a willful intent to deceive - by Zarella, by his producer and by the producers of the shows the segments ran on. Someone should have caught this, and Zarella should be asked to step down from his position as bureau chief. Won't happen, but it should. CNN's credibility has taken a well-deserved beating this year, and this particular instance isn't even explainable by the need to "maintain access" in a closed nation -- it looks to be an effort to influence domestic politics, pure and simple. ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Hugh Myers emails: I guess it's the better part of valor to credit CNN with ignorance of basic firearms terchnology. However, as one who has been following this issue very closely for decades I can tell you that every time I've seen or heard the "major media" talk about "assault" rifles, they distort facts. The most egregious cases occurred during the debates in the mid-nineties when EVERY major media outlet ran stories about semi-automatics accompanied by films of rifles firing in full automatic mode. It is disingenuous in the extreme for CNN to claim ignorance at this late date. Well, even if it's true, it's no excuse. With CNN, it seems that the question is becoming "are they lying, on the take, or just stupid?" far too often. And while "stupid" is the best of those three, that the question keeps being raised is devastating. posted at 10:42 AM by Glenn Reynolds
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:06:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2003 2:06:55 PM EDT by SMGLee]
flame on, but don't you think with this piece about pre-ban and post ban, it will give the anti more ammo to ban even the post ban?? it showed that they have not done enough to curb the assault weapon problem. they will use this as an example to show any semi auto weapon is dangerous and it should be ban, I hope I am wrong, but I really really think we are cheering to early and there is still lot more fighting to come.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:07:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2003 2:16:21 PM EDT by alkoe]
Zarrella and his crew were invited to shoot a full auto Colt M-16A1 at the cinder blocks. As usually happens, they all had shit-eating grins afterwards.
View Quote
It's too bad more "ignorant" people aren't given this opportunity. If they could only see that you can get enjoyment out of owning, building, maintaining, and shooting guns... Instead of all this nonsense about the sole purpose of a gun is to KILL! *edited to add* SMGLee- That's kinda what I was thinking. I know the anti's couldn't be happier if all guns were banned. But now the general public will assume that since there's no difference, why not make it illegal to own a post ban too. I know this is preaching to the choir... Shoot1k- I agree completely with your reply. It's just unfortunate that the anti's dont process thoughts along the same line as the rest of us.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:21:18 PM EDT
Gents I appreciate the accolades but this was hardly a one-man show. Thousands of gun-owners throughout the country got off their duffs and lit up the switchboards at CNN and the NRA. NRA's Wayne LaPierre fought back like a bulldog. Here in South Florida we tracked down John Zarrella and asked him to correct the story. I was but one link in a powerful chain that tightened itself around CNN....and kept squeezing. This is the way it should be all the time. Whenever you see a slanted story, don't hesitate to call, complain, and make yourself heard. Contact others so that they'll complain. Post word of the slanted story on gun-related websites. Call other media sources and complain there too. Rock the boat. The liberal democrats aren't gonna roll over and let the AWB expire without a fight. Whenever and wherever they appear, we need to counter-attack forcefully. If we do that consistently, then by golly this AWB might just fade into history.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 3:19:30 PM EDT
Chen Lee, Your comments about stirring a hornet's nest on pre-bans vs. post-bans is well taken. The antis could very well argue that the AWB should be expanded....in fact, they have already done so. We could have done a PERFECT demonstration to CNN covering every single possible issue and discussing every possible argument the antis could launch at us. As it was, we covered a great many of them with Zarrella and crew. But at the end of the day, CNN takes all the video and interviews and compresses it into short little sound and video bites that you hope are accurate. They can do almost anything after the fact and you're powerless to stop them--- unless you avoid the interview altogether. My point is: what is the alternative? Do we not discuss pre-bans vs. post-bans for fear of giving the other side arguments they could use against us? Do we let them get away with doctored or distorted stories showing one "powerful" gun and one "harmless" gun? When we see a blatantly errorneous story do we just let it slide? I'm a firm believer in speaking the truth. The truth shall set you free. We have common sense AND the Second Amendment on our side. That is a powerful combination. Don't fear CNN, or the antis, or what they'll say or not say. Confront them head on--- all the time. Zarrella now knows that he can count on our group for the truth and a well thought response to anything the anti-gunners put out. If he screws us, we'll drop him like a hot potato....and offer our services to FOX News instead. Anyway, that's just one guy's opinion. I value all your input and advice...we're all in this together.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 3:20:20 PM EDT
Shoot1K, May I also extend my sincere thank-you for your efforts and those of all the others involved in your attempts to hold CNN accountable.Unfortunately, all those who treasure and covet the Second Amendment, not to mention The Bill of Rights do not have access to the information you have presented herein.While it is true many do, I am afraid there are many more who do not seek out forums like this, and thus are sadly uninformed or misinformed. There is, however, hope in the form of people like you who are willing to press for the truth and also for those of us who read these posts. At least the government has not taken our ability to share info. and ideas...yet, Again, thank-you.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 4:08:52 PM EDT
FYI to Javven: Sports cars ARE more dangerous than other cars. If you check any actuarial data you will find the the number 1 factor correlating to deadly auto crashes is horsepower. That is why insurance companies charge more for insurance on sports cars. (but it's the HORSEPOWER that is correlated to accidents not the "sporty" cosmetics...)
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 4:23:12 PM EDT
If this issue is allowed to die and won't be continued further at CNN than maybe Fox News wouldn't mind picking it up and running with it? Seems that FoxNews likes to take issue with CNN from time to time and present things in a different light. We could mount a movement to put on the mother of educational stories if we were just given the opportunity. How many times have we watched as the antigun groups like Handgun Control Inc or Violence Policy Center have been able to pretty much dominate a segment on guncontrol? In far too many debates have those antigunner represenatives been allowed to go off on emotional rants and try to totally steam roll any points that the progun side might try to make. Seen it happen WAY too often, when the anti's do it the rational is that they must really care for all those innocent victims and helpless children. If the progun represenative does it though we are cruel hearted insensitive bastards. I for one am pretty happy that the NRA really raised hell. Maybe if we keep it up we will get more of a voice this time around than we have gotten in the past?
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 5:12:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Shoot1K: Chen Lee, Your comments about stirring a hornet's nest on pre-bans vs. post-bans is well taken. The antis could very well argue that the AWB should be expanded....in fact, they have already done so. We could have done a PERFECT demonstration to CNN covering every single possible issue and discussing every possible argument the antis could launch at us. As it was, we covered a great many of them with Zarrella and crew. But at the end of the day, CNN takes all the video and interviews and compresses it into short little sound and video bites that you hope are accurate. They can do almost anything after the fact and you're powerless to stop them--- unless you avoid the interview altogether. My point is: what is the alternative? Do we not discuss pre-bans vs. post-bans for fear of giving the other side arguments they could use against us? Do we let them get away with doctored or distorted stories showing one "powerful" gun and one "harmless" gun? When we see a blatantly errorneous story do we just let it slide? I'm a firm believer in speaking the truth. The truth shall set you free. We have common sense AND the Second Amendment on our side. That is a powerful combination. Don't fear CNN, or the antis, or what they'll say or not say. Confront them head on--- all the time. Zarrella now knows that he can count on our group for the truth and a well thought response to anything the anti-gunners put out. If he screws us, we'll drop him like a hot potato....and offer our services to FOX News instead. Anyway, that's just one guy's opinion. I value all your input and advice...we're all in this together.
View Quote
Great reply, I agree with you in general, but you have to see my point, I hail from Kalifornia, I have seen types of media twisting good folks' best intention to hell. I worry, but I fight on just like you. I salute your effort. This is our fight no matte what type of gun we own, it should be fought down to the end with the antis. good job brother.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 7:45:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2003 7:47:08 PM EDT by 73wcf4440]
Originally Posted By Shoot1K: Zarrella admitted that they had done a poor job with the original story, partly because of time pressure and because their camera was not pointed at the cinder blocks when the post-ban rifle was fired. The view conveyed to the television audience was that pre-bans are machine guns (Jenne used a full auto AK at one point) with the ability to tear down walls, while post ban guns are innocuous pea shooters (since the cinder blocks appeared intact and undamaged).
View Quote
Ridiculous! Furthermore, the WashTimes article (for those who didn't read it) says:
In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons." In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban. After the detective fired six shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic." The detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. ... Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference." Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the semiautomatic guns prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
View Quote
[url]http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm[/url] Now we got the sheriff either willfully misleading Zarrella or showing his total ignorance of the AWB and NFA. Just makes me sick! Thanks for setting them straight Shoot1K.
Top Top