Fox anchor Megyn Kelly blasts Cheney.

[layoutshooter]

"Suppressed" indicates a conspiracy. That's not likely. It's a combination of different agendas and simple editorial choices."

I agree with most of your post, I don't take total exception to you comment on stories, or fact, being suppressed, BUT, it does seem that it is taking place. IF it is NOT suppression, there is little left other than total stupidity.

Now, one could say it was due to a specific agenda, but then, if one does not print/report facts, misleads, or puts out incorrect information, to further that agenda, is that not a for of suppression?

Take the firearms issue. It is more than obvious that what we call the "Main stream", or "traditional media" is pushing an agenda aimed at, if not eliminating private firearms ownership, greatly restricting it. They, and I believe in many cases deliberately, misreport, use incorrect terms, etc, to ensure that only thing that support their agenda is set forth.

That does not serve the public good, which is exactly why the "free press" was deemed important to the framers, the it is part of the Bill of Rights. What passes for a "Free press", today and likely for a very long time, is abusing it's power to further political agendas, which may, or may not, always be in the best interest of the People.

 

[Turtle]

"Suppressed" indicates a conspiracy. That's not likely. It's a combination of different agendas and simple editorial choices."

I agree with most of your post, I don't take total exception to you comment on stories, or fact, being suppressed, BUT, it does seem that it is taking place. IF it is NOT suppression, there is little left other than total stupidity.

Now, one could say it was due to a specific agenda, but then, if one does not print/report facts, misleads, or puts out incorrect information, to further that agenda, is that not a for of suppression?

In an individual instance, yes, suppression would be accurate, or at least could be. News editors have an obvious bias that gets manifested in which stories they choose to report. This is true of the mainstream media as well as the conservative media and the liberal leftist media. (No, the mainstream media and the liberal leftist media are not the same thing.) Editors choose stories based on newsworthiness, and on what and who their primary audience is. In some cases those two things merge and it becomes what is newsworthy to their readers (or viewers, whatever). They also make decisions based on space and time (newspaper pages, columns, inches, and television and radio time available).

Media outlets will report the stories within the confines of their editorial choices, and those with the same choices will by and large present the same information (especially in this day and age of journalistic research consisting primarily of taking the press release that's handed to you and running with it). Leftist media will present their information, conservative media will present theirs, and the mainstream will present theirs. No one gets together and decides to suppress anything, it's just that certain things get suppressed as a consequence of editorial choices.

Take the firearms issue. It is more than obvious that what we call the "Main stream", or "traditional media" is pushing an agenda aimed at, if not eliminating private firearms ownership, greatly restricting it. They, and I believe in many cases deliberately, misreport, use incorrect terms, etc, to ensure that only thing that support their agenda is set forth.

Very true. But it also reflects what the viewers and readers want, and largely believe. The public at large believes anyting that looks like an automatic weapon is an automatic weapon, and anything that look menacingly assault is an assault weapon. The same percentage of the press believe the same thing, and because the members of the press are by and large liberal and believe in gun control, they have no interest in learning or reporting the facts.

That does not serve the public good, which is exactly why the "free press" was deemed important to the framers, the it is part of the Bill of Rights. What passes for a "Free press", today and likely for a very long time, is abusing it's power to further political agendas, which may, or may not, always be in the best interest of the People.

Oh, the free press has been abusing its power to further political agendas since George Washington was elected. Merciless hammering by the press is what caused Washington to not seek a third term. The same merciless hammering by the Republican press is what limited John Adams to a single term. At a White House reception during the John Quincy Adams presidency, the President publicly insulted the wife of Russell Jarvis, a staunch anti-Adams reporter for the Washington Daily Telegraph, which was in and of itself anti-Adams from the time of his inauguration. Since assaulting the President wouldn't be prudent, Jarvis attempted to initiate a duel with John Adams II (second son of the president and grandson of the original John Adams). Jarvis's effort to provoke an incident led to a highly publicized fistfight in the Capitol Rotunda with Jarvis pulling the nose of and slapping the younger Adams. John Adams II refused to fight back and was promptly accused of cowardice by newspaper editors who supported Andrew Jackson. Just like Fox News today, the press of yore used whatever nugget they could to generate negative press.

But unlike Fox News' efforts to prevent Obama from a second term, John Quincy Adams lost his bid for a second term to Andrew Jackson by a whopper of a margin. The press loyal to Adams had their own "birther" nugget, though. They accused his wife, Rachel Donelson Adams, of bigamy. But unlike the birther mess, that particular accusation was actually correct, as she had never finalized the divorce with her first husband (who planted a fake news article in his own newspaper saying they had finalized the divorce, knowing it would come back to haunt her later, which it did). Six years after she and Jackson married, she officially finalized the divorce and then remarried Jackson. Despite all that negative press, which was true, Jackson won by a decisive margin, because people dismissed the whole bigamy thing in deference to Jackson being a military hero at the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

No matter how wrapped up people get in the liberal or conservative press, no matter how outraged they think they are about anything they read or watch, there is nothing new under the sun. I read that somewhere.

 

[layoutshooter]

I kinda believe that the public's perception of "assault weapons" is EXACTLY what the "press", and this government, WANT it to be.

There is no attempt even made to use proper terms, which IS important, as we both know it is. There is little done, other than a total play on emotion, just to further the agenda.

Now, I can understand being opposed to an issue, but when presents lies, wrong terms, and little more that raw emotion, but, one would think that if that is ALL that is presented that credibility would be lost, which I believe is begging to show.

 

[Turtle]

It's a chicken and egg thing. And the press has been playing on emotions over guns ever since we've had guns and the press. The other side of the story has been the same all along, as well. The pro-gun and anti-gun deal is just as entrenched as is the unrest in the Middle East.

Here's a snipped from the Chicago Tribune editorial page from 1934, in wake of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre:

In the revolutionary war the people were able to gain their liberties because when they tried for them possession of firearms was common and many of the citizens knew how to use them. A disarmed population of people familiar with weapons would not have had much chance. In 1789 the weapons in general use would be long rifles, muskets, and clumsy pistols. The people were entitled to have the best weapons they could make or purchase. Now the best weapons for individuals are machine guns and automatic rifles. Use which can be made of these is indicated by law, but it is not the possession of which is properly an offense under the constitution.
[snip]
It is notorious that when restrictions are put upon the possession of firearms or any particular kind of weapon they never are effective against the criminal classes but only put the peaceable man at a disadvantage or in a false position before the law. The prohibition does not bother the enemy of society but it makes a technical offender of the decent citizen. The man who would not misuse a weapon is the man who is injured. The drive for public security is thus given the wrong direction.

Right after that Illinois had passed a law banning the private use of machine guns, and the National Firearms Act of 1934 did the same thing. Only the NFA wasn’t a strict ban - it was a tax, slipped through like Obamacare as a revenue act and adding a $200 tax (about $3,500 today) on “banned” weapons, effectively doubling the price of a machine gun and adding expensive annual license taxes as well.

Hey! Let's tax ammunition! Yeah, that's the ticket!

 

[layoutshooter]

Pretty sure it's still $200 today, it is for sure on a sound suppressor. I should should look into it one day, twins '50's would be fun at Knob Creek! Nothing like dumping hundreds of rounds per minute down range, at $5 a bang! I could not BELIEVE the money I saw spent there in one afternoon, amazing, just amazing.

There are NFA dealers everywhere and they do a LOT of business, $3500, per toy, would have a major impact on their business. I could be wrong, but that number seem very high.

 

[layoutshooter]

Here you go.

[h=2]Own a NFA Weapon[/h]You Too Can Own An NFA Weapon!






"Under the NFA rules, ATF Form 4 is required to be completed in duplicate to start the process of acquiring most NFA weapons. Also, fingerprint cards, recent photos of the applicant, and Form 5330.20 certifying US Citizenship are required and a $200 Tax Stamp is to be bought for each weapon transaction submitted."


http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mediapages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

 

[Unclebob]

Right after that Illinois had passed a law banning the private use of machine guns, and the National Firearms Act of 1934 did the same thing. Only the NFA wasn’t a strict ban - it was a tax, slipped through like Obamacare as a revenue act and adding a $200 tax (about $3,500 today) on “banned” weapons, effectively doubling the price of a machine gun and adding expensive annual license taxes as well.

The $3,500 would be what the $200 in 1934 dollars would equal in today's dollars. So $200 today is a real bargain. Which is good since a NFA compliant m16 will cost you around $15,000 - $25,000. I'm afraid to look up the price for a 50 caliber BMG.

 

[RLENT]

I kinda believe that the public's perception of "assault weapons" is EXACTLY what the "press", and this government, WANT it to be.

There is no attempt even made to use proper terms, which IS important, as we both know it is. There is little done, other than a total play on emotion, just to further the agenda.

Now, I can understand being opposed to an issue, but when presents lies, wrong terms, and little more that raw emotion, but, one would think that if that is ALL that is presented that credibility would be lost, which I believe is begging to show.

Too funny ...