90 replies to this topic

[acidhead]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 03:08 AM, said:

If you're going to call that brainwashing, then you may as well call everything brainwashing. Infact, all those "mothers against drunk driving" commercials are then just anti-drink and drive brainwashing and should be removed, right?

Why is portraying violence and guns as cool, exciting and necessary considered ok, not propaganda, but portraying them as uncool is considered anti-gun propaganda worthy of fighting against?

Eonwe just proved Holder said brainwashing when you accused him of making it up and now you change your argument to justify using the word?

[acidhead]

Tiggs, on 17 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

The police confirmed fairly early on that a shotgun had been retrieved from the car.


Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance, speaking at an afternoon news conference, said "the weapon that was utilized most of the time during the crime was a [.223 caliber] Bushmaster rifle."

Lanza also carried a 9mm Sig Sauer and a 10mm Glock, both handguns, he said, adding that one of the handguns had been used by the assailant to take his own life.

Vance said the death of the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, had officially been ruled a homicide. She was shot and killed by her son at her suburban home before his rampage at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Earlier Sunday, Connecticut Medical Examiner Wayne Carver said that Ms. Lanza had been shot multiple times in the head.

Vance said "all weapons had multiple magazines and ammunition," adding that each of the magazines had a capacity of approximately 30 rounds. Asked by reporters how many rounds there were in total, he replied: "hundreds."

Vance said a fourth weapon, a shotgun, had been recovered in the vehicle Lanza drove to the school on the day of the attack. Earlier, officials had suggested that weapon was recovered from the home the assailant shared with his mother.

Source: NPR

So where is the Ar-15 Piers Morgan and others have said was used in Connecticut?

Was Piers lying?

[Kafkaesque]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 03:08 AM, said:

If you're going to call that brainwashing, then you may as well call everything brainwashing. Infact, all those "mothers against drunk driving" commercials are then just anti-drink and drive brainwashing and should be removed, right?

Why is portraying violence and guns as cool, exciting and necessary considered ok, not propaganda, but portraying them as uncool is considered anti-gun propaganda worthy of fighting against?

"And what we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people. And make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, that it's not hip to carry a gun anymore." - Eric Holder

"One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. It's not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - Eric Holder

So, when he says the word brainwashing, and says the definition of brainwashing, "thinking about guns in a vastly different away", after he says brainwashing, that's not enough evidence to prove to you that he intends on brainwashing people about guns. And now that there is a national campaign federally mandated about guns, you don't think they might try to "make it into something that's not acceptable"?

Edited by Eonwe, 17 January 2013 - 03:20 AM.

[Stellar]

acidhead, on 17 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Eonwe just proved Holder said brainwashing when you accused him of making it up and now you change your argument to justify using the word?

What he's proposing isn't considered brainwashing any more than MADD is brainwashing. That's exactly why I asked him for proof of his claim, because as I thought, it was a vast exaggeration of what he actually said.

[acidhead]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

What he's proposing isn't considered brainwashing any more than MADD is brainwashing. That's exactly why I asked him for proof of his claim, because as I thought, it was a vast exaggeration of what he actually said.

Read Holders quote s-l-o-w-l-y to yourself.

[Kafkaesque]

Tiggs, on 17 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

The police confirmed fairly early on that a shotgun had been retrieved from the car.


Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance, speaking at an afternoon news conference, said "the weapon that was utilized most of the time during the crime was a [.223 caliber] Bushmaster rifle."

Lanza also carried a 9mm Sig Sauer and a 10mm Glock, both handguns, he said, adding that one of the handguns had been used by the assailant to take his own life.

Vance said the death of the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, had officially been ruled a homicide. She was shot and killed by her son at her suburban home before his rampage at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Earlier Sunday, Connecticut Medical Examiner Wayne Carver said that Ms. Lanza had been shot multiple times in the head.

Vance said "all weapons had multiple magazines and ammunition," adding that each of the magazines had a capacity of approximately 30 rounds. Asked by reporters how many rounds there were in total, he replied: "hundreds."

Vance said a fourth weapon, a shotgun, had been recovered in the vehicle Lanza drove to the school on the day of the attack. Earlier, officials had suggested that weapon was recovered from the home the assailant shared with his mother.

Source: NPR

I can see clearly now that it's a shotgun in the video; I can vaguely see the shells being unloaded.

Thanks.

[Tiggs]

acidhead, on 17 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

So where is the Ar-15 Piers Morgan and others have said was used in Connecticut?

The Bushmaster AR-15 firing .223 ammo? Seems to be pretty much covered in the NPR report.

[Stellar]

Eonwe, on 17 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

"And what we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people. And make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, that it's not hip to carry a gun anymore." - Eric Holder

"One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. It's not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - Eric Holder

So, when he says the word brainwashing, and says the definition of brainwashing, "thinking about guns in a vastly different away", after he says brainwashing, that's not enough evidence to prove to you that he intends on brainwashing people about guns. And now that there is a national campaign federally mandated about guns, you don't think they might try to "make it into something that's not acceptable"?

I apologize, it took me a third listen to catch those words. What I'd like to ask you is what's the difference between what he is proposing, and what the film industry is doing?

[ChewiesArmy]

acidhead, on 17 January 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

Okay Piers.

Should, as history has proven, the GOV becomes tyrannical and the citizens decide to take up arms over the GOV the fight will become a guerilla style warfare.... urban warfare.  Those who do not have a military assault style weapon will wish they had because the GOV will be using them.

Maybe you don't see the need for them right now.  But when it does matter you'll wish they had.  Use recent history of Libya or Syria for example.... The so-called rebels have been given assault style weapons to fight their GOVs... And who sent them there?  Our own western GOV's.

Only an ignorant individual brings a knife to a sword fight.............DUH

What's your assault weapon gonna do against a tank, a missile, armed drones, or even a F-22?

Honestly, I think the gov't wouldn't use force until they knew they would easily win. I think they would attack us other ways. But in reality, the US will never become a total gov't state. People are trying to justify keeping obscene weapons by creating a highly improbable boogeyman.

[ChewiesArmy]

Tiggs, on 17 January 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

The Bushmaster AR-15 firing .223 ammo? Seems to be pretty much covered in the NPR report.

My mistake. I said the AR-15 in post. Thought about it after and never editied.

[Kafkaesque]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

I apologize, it took me a third listen to catch those words. What I'd like to ask you is what's the difference between what he is proposing, and what the film industry is doing?

The film industry doesn't really care, in my opinion. They just want money. Violence will continue to be glorified until all the bleeding-heart liberals want to ban violence in movies too; Obama mentioned in his Executive Orders that they'd investigate the role of media in relation to violence. What Holder wants to do is promote the mentality that owning a gun is not acceptable and bad - and he's willing to repeatedly slam that message into people's heads to get that result.

[acidhead]

acidhead, on 17 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

So where is the Ar-15 Piers Morgan and others have said was used in Connecticut?

Was Piers lying?

Just reviewed Piers interview with Alex Jones.... He didn't say an AR-15 was used in Connecticut.... He said an assault rifle.  Alex confirmed it was a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle.

My mistake.

[acidhead]

Eonwe, on 17 January 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

The film industry doesn't really care, in my opinion. They just want money. Violence will continue to be glorified until all the bleeding-heart liberals want to ban violence in movies too; Obama mentioned in his Executive Orders that they'd investigate the role of media in relation to violence. What Holder wants to do is promote the mentality that owning a gun is not acceptable and bad - and he's willing to repeatedly slam that message into people's heads to get that result.

I think the big wigs funding the film industry do care about politics.  While the MSM is great at inserting popular opinion into the public I believe, like many others, that it's the film industry which inserts the most propaganda into the brains of the viewer.  Movies manipulate public opinion to a great degree and nothing comes close... not even cable TV.

How?  All they gotta do at the start of a movie is run the title:  Based on real life events...... or a message similar.

Take for instance the new bin laden/seal team 6 movie already being released.  I for one still have questions unanswered and there is already a bloody movie made about it and it hasn't even been a year since the event yet!!!!  WTF

The movie industry glorifies death and destruction, all the while wars and occupations are occurring and half the general public is taking some form of anti-depressants or suffering from some sort of doctor supervised mental illness.  

Of course the movie industry is going to switch to future movies which de-glorify gun violence.  Just wait and see.  I'd bet on it.

Edited by acidhead, 17 January 2013 - 03:47 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

acidhead, on 17 January 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

Of course the movie industry is going to switch to future movies which de-glorify gun violence.  Just wait and see.  I'd bet on it.

Nah, just make a Doctor Who film - explosions galore, but guns are useless against Daleks and Weeping Angels

[RavenHawk]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

And this is why you can't have any progress. When something reasonable gets proposed such as a campaign to encourage safe and responsible ownership, it's immediately vilified as propaganda.

That’s not it.  When you impose this *AND* 22 other orders is what makes it propaganda and an attempt to steal away our Rights.  You don’t need an EO to get the MSM (which is in Obama’s back pocket anyway) to produce a series of creative PSAs.  We already have firearm classes and live fire combat training that are available.  But the criminal isn’t going to really worry about taking them.  Now if Obama had just issued one EO, say to close the gun show loophole and left it at that, then that would be reasonable.  But when you throw 23 out there altogether, it’s reminiscent (eerily similar) to the 1928 German laws.  But the bottom line is that none of these 23 EOs will stop the criminal from acquiring a weapon.  Even Simon Phoenix was able to “get a gun”.

So if none of these are going to reduce gun crime then why impose them?  Even common sense screams of some ulterior motive.  If this is so divisive then let’s not go there when we need to deal with the debt and economy.  Unless of course, someone is not worried about controlling that the way he wants.