Whoops she did it again Rachel states the AWB didn't prohibit sale of "extended clips"

[RSillsbee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-px-dT9V6E

She flat says that the AWB didn't prohibit the sale of existing magazines but states again and again afterward (in other videos) that the AWB would have prevented Loughner from legally purchasing an "extended magazine"

She lied , she knew it.

Why do we accept this lack of journalistic integrity from one of our own?

[cleanhippie]

1. It always amazes me how people can be so obtuse and dishonest one this one single issue.

:wtf:

[RSillsbee]

2. I know it's almost lke they had an agenda or something

Nah, couldn't be that

[cleanhippie]

3. Nah, couldn't POSSIBLY be that.

[petronius]

7. It's easy to stick to liberal principles when the topic is GLBT rights, abortion,

or racial discrimination. It's on the harder issues like firearms - where the liberal principle might conflict with your fears or biases - that people run into trouble. Sadly, a lot of DUers, as well as others, fail that test...

[bitchkitty]

4. Huh?

Where did she lie? Do you have anything to back up this statement?

[slackmaster]

5. AWB banned importing and manufacturing new ammunition feeding devices that held more than 10 rounds

It did nothing to stop sale of existing new inventory, used magazines, or magazine repair parts (from which complete magazines could be manufactured, albeit illegally.)

[RSillsbee]

9. Sure

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-px-dT9V6E&feature=related ( the same one in the OP) Rachel states "if I understand right the AWB didn't prohuibit the sale or possesion of old (existing) "extended magazines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of4f7dUaVJc In this video (posted by our very own onehandle BTW) she states emphatically that the AWB would have prevented Loughner from purchasing an "extended clips"

She makes the same statement here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2o7DLwrOWo

[beevul]

11. Her own words.

The video linked in this post contains the following quote:

"on saturday the killer in tucson was able to fire 31 before he had to stop and reload. He was able to legally buy the extended magazine that allowed him to do that because the law banning that extended magazine expired in 2004."

The law shes referring to, did not in fact ban all extended magazines. It banned only those manufactured after the date of the laws enactment. The magazine in question were available legally at retail for the entire duration of that law.

If you want me to link the pertainant part of the law, I'll have to dig a little, but I think can find it.


Rachel herself says, after saying what she did in that quote:

"The original law that expired said that you could not sell new extended clips , but you...as far as I understood it you could still trade or sell old ones.

If thats not enough, her guest then lies to the American people and claims high capacity clips were used in the long island shooting, when in fact standard capacity magazines were used.

[RSillsbee]

14. To be fair

If thats not enough, her guest then lies to the American people and claims high capacity clips were used in the long island shooting, when in fact standard capacity magazines were used.

McCarthy did state that the magazines were 15 rounders. She incorrectly identified them as "High capacity" but she got the round count right.

[krispos42]

12. It's Right there in the OP. she's saying both that the shooter would and would not

be able to buy a 10+ magazine legally. It makes no sense!

[Oneka]

13. begin

watching at the 2 minute mark. she talks about how loughner baught his extended magazine because the assault weapon ban had expired. a flat out lie, and she knows it.at the 3:10 mark she contradicts herself..

Most people wouldnt pay much attention to this crap but thats why we have so much ignorance on gun issues in this country.

[MineralMan]

6. Uh-huh...whatever you say, there...

I see what you're doing there. Forget it. It won't wash here, not even in this particular forum.

Unrecced, with prejudice.

[blue cat]

8. please

post the proof

[RSillsbee]

10. Please see post 9 NT

[rrneck]

15. Anybody can make a mistake

Rachel has a staff and a responsibility to strive for accuracy. Surely her gun owning listeners have reported the error. One mistake for somebody who runs the mouth for a living is no big deal. Repeating that mistake becomes mendacious propaganda.

She no doubt figures this position will make her the most money.

[Deep13]

16. It prohibited the sale of new magazines, but existing ones...

...were grandfathered. So in terms of buying a new magazine retail, then she is telling the truth. It did not affect private sales of old magazines, but I don't believe that is what the shooter did. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

[RSillsbee]

17. You are close

The AWB prohibited the manufacture (except for law enforcement, military and export)of magazines w/ a greater than 10 round capacity. It did not prohibit the sale or possession of existing stock.

Magazine manufacturers had about a year's warning before the ban took effect. Knowing that the price would rise correspondingly w/ the ban they made millions right up to the day the ban went into effect.

brand new , never used "extended" magazines were available (at inflated prices)retail up to the day the ban ended.

Similarly, the day after the Tuscon shooting you couldn't buy an "extended" GLOCK magazine online to save your life because people were snapping them up in anticipation of another ban

[beevul]

18. New magazines manufactured before the date of the ban...

New magazines manufactured before the date of the ban were available at retail for the bans entire ten year duration.

[RSillsbee]

20. She never said he couldn't buy a magazine retail

she distinctly said legally. At one point she said he would have had to gone to a gunshow. which could be construed to imply that things that couldn't be purchased legally elsewhere could be at a gun show.

[ileus]

19. The 10 round mag rule brought back the 45....that's the only good thing the AWB did

[Logical]

21. Rachel is wrong but were you as upset at the NRA when they lied about Obama? n-t

[Upton]

22. That's not the topic..

A question for you...do you give Rachel a pass to lie just because she's a progressive?

[Logical]

25. Have you seem me defend Rachel at all? n-t

[Upton]

29. You were defending her this past weekend..

when I mentioned I had lost a lot of respect for her..but that's really beside the point. Just answer the question Logical...do you give Rachel a pass to lie just because she's a progressive?

[Logical]

33. Not defending her gun stance, defending her as a real progressive. It amazes me...

the outrage over Rachel being anti-gun but no praise for her other stances.

This place is not really what I would call a haven for the progressive movement.

[Upton]

44. "This place is not really what I would call a haven for the progressive movement"

WTF is that supposed to mean...that we're supposed to overlook Rachel's lies on guns just because she shares our views on other issues? I guess we just should just cut her some slack, huh? After all, she's the mighty Rachel Maddow...and can do no wrong..

You know, IMO..real progressives don't lie to further an agenda...I don't care what it is. It's also my opinion that real progressives don't defend lying no matter who it comes from..

[rl6214]

52. this is the gun forum

i think if you wanted to find praise for Rachel you would have to look on one of the other forums.

[beevul]

54. Nobody was attacking her simply for being progressive.

So if you were defending her as a real progressive I guess you were barking up the wrong tree.

:shrug:

[RSillsbee]

32. He asked you a very specific question

Do you give rachel a pass to lie because she's a progressive

That's a pretty cut and dried yes or no question to me. Please answer specifically

[Logical]

34. Not on the gun issue. But you seem to think that is all that matters with her. disgusting. n-t

[RSillsbee]

39. So do you give her a pass to lie on other issues?

But you seem to think that is all that matters with her.

Words of wisdom from Grandma Sillsbee "If you'll lie about one thing, you'll lie about anything"

[Logical]

40. LOL....except the NRA lies. They are "different". n-t

[RSillsbee]

41. Please don't hijack my thread

The NRA is not the topic of this thread if you wish to discuss the NRA please start your own thread.

[RSillsbee]

23. The NRA was able to cite

specific evidence to back up their stance on Obama. They documented their reasoning for every accusation they made.

Can you say the same about Rachel?

[Logical]

24. How can they be correct in predicting the future????? They said Obama would use...

his 2nd term to start a gun control agenda and you are defending that??? You think that is factual?

And do you deny that they used the same shit in 2008 and turned out 100% wrong?

Wow, telling anyone the NRA is only fact based is very telling.

[RSillsbee]

27. The NRA stated that Obama had a long record of voting anti gun

They then documented every anti gun vote he cast. He never, not one time in his entire career voted in favor of any pro gun measure until he passed the credit card reform act that had the guns in parks rider on it.

Obama could put the NRA's accusations to rest in one fell swoop. All he has to do is state that he will veto any bill the restricts the rights of gun owners that crosses his desk.

I'm not holding my breath

[Logical]

36. So you defend the NRA lying about Obama in 2008 and in 2012?

[rl6214]

53. You need to read what he said:

"They documented their reasoning for every accusation they made."

And compare to what you said:

"Wow, telling anyone the NRA is only fact based is very telling."

Very different in saying they "documented their reasoning" vs "telling anyone the NRA is only fact based"

[Logical]

26. So you are saying this is a factual statement......

"“In Barack Obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history and who still believes he’ll prevail,” said conservative activist David Keene, the NRA’s incoming president. “Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could and they will if they can.”

So you are agreeing that Obama would take our guns away if he could?

[RSillsbee]

30. How about we get back on topic

If you want to talk about Obama's record start your own thread. This one's about Rachel's erroneous
(at best) statements about the AWB and Jared Loughner

[Logical]

31. You started defending the NRA. Not me. Answer the question. n-t

[RSillsbee]

35. As soon as you start a thread about it

If you want to talk about Obama's record start your own thread. This one's about Rachel's erroneous
(at best) statements about the AWB and Jared Loughner

[Logical]

37. That is the answer I expected. Carry on. n-t

[Oneka]

28. I never gave the NRA the same credence

to begin with and don't pay nearly as much attention to their rhetoric.

Rachel should be better then that.

[Logical]

38. You should at least be as outraged as you are with Rachel. n-t

[Oneka]

42. i know exacty

what the NRA is, and i expect them to use inflamatory rhetoric , they do this to make money. I don't put much credence into what they say for this
very reason. i also don't support them financially or in any other way.

With Rachel Maddow i expect better.



OR to put a finer point on it.. consider the source.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Exactly. There is a fundamental difference between NEWS and the NRA.

[Oneka]

55. NRA is

A single issue advocacy group.

Rachel is a political commentator / journalist...

Very big difference.

Not sure why topics in the gudgeon always seem to have to include the NRA.
It's a rather tiresome deflection.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. That's exactly what it is.

Since the NRA leans heavily toward Republicans in election donations, campaign ads, etc (being a single-issue advocacy group), it is apparently fair game to try and associate the NRA and it's political stance with Democratic/Progressive gun owners, in order to dismiss them for various reasons.

[RSillsbee]

43. Please do not allow her to derail this thread

into an anti NRA screed. The topic at hand is Rachel's disingenuous statements in the video

[WatsonT]

49. Since you made the comparison: do you feel we should consider the two to be equally objective?

[TPaine7]

45. Wow, the lack of interest in truth in certain quarters is disturbing.

America is really in decline when all that matters is which team the speaker is on.

"Don't say things I don't like or else (never mind whether they're true or not)"? Wow.

[spin]

46. Why honesty in the media is so important ...

First I wish to rant on the main stream media and their constant exaggeration of the facts on firearms and gun control. Then I will address the video clip by Rachel.

There are at least 40 million gun owners in our nation and most are fairly knowledgeable about the subject of firearms. It's not rocket science.

Many of those gun owners follow news closely. They often listen to commentators on TV and while they are not familiar with macroeconomics, corporate law or the political realities of the Middle East they are familiar with firearms.

When a talking head makes a foolish and blatantly false statement about firearms, gun owners immediately notice this and any comment about other subjects is viewed with a great deal of suspicion and distrust. If a media person with all the resources that the main stream media has available can't understand a simple topic like firearms, why should he/she be trusted to have any understanding of other far more complicated issues?

Perhaps that is why the main stream media has such a low rating. People are not as stupid as the well educated intellectual elite believes. Perhaps because the media operates out of areas that are basically gun unfriendly and unfamiliar with firearms such as New York City or Washington D.C. and California they fail to realize that the "fly over" areas of our nation notice their distortions of truth on the issue of gun control or firearms. A person in New York city may not understand the difference between a semi-auto rifle and a fully automatic assault rifle used by the military. Such a person may see a video of a fully automatic rifle firing and believe that it is indeed the same weapon that can be bought in the average local gun store in the United States. A person who lives in an area of the country that is gun friendly immediately sees the difference and is angered because he feels he is being treated as a simpleton.

They might learn a lot if they honestly considered this map. All their anti-firearm and concealed carry propaganda has failed miserably.

[rrneck]

47. Wish I could rec a post. nt

[Oneka]

48. Very well written post.

Thank you.

[X_Digger]

50. One thing that really chaps my ass?

In the coverage just after the Rep Giffords shooting, she encouraged people to AVOID researching the topic, because what she perceived as bias in google results. It's as though she were saying, "Don't look it up, just trust me when I say.."

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2011/01/13/plastic-guns-anti-aircraft-weapons-clips-and-cop-killer-bullets-on-rachel-maddow/ (10:00 in)