MSN-Anti-Gun Pro-UN
- Thread starter carbiner
- Start date
Scott Conklin
New member
You mean this one?
Gun owners accuse U.N. of July 4 conspiracy
U.N.: Rumor of plan to take away weapons a ‘total misconception’
Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET June 21, 2006
UNITED NATIONS - Americans mistakenly worried the United Nations is plotting to take away their guns on July 4 — U.S. Independence Day — are flooding the world body with angry letters and postcards, the chairman of a U.N. conference on the illegal small arms trade said on Wednesday.
“I myself have received over 100,000 letters from the U.S. public, criticizing me personally, saying, ‘You are having this conference on the 4th of July, you are not going to get our guns on that day,’” said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka’s U.N. ambassador.
“That is a total misconception as far as we are concerned,” Kariyawasam told reporters ahead of the two-week meeting opening on Monday.
The Rest
Gun owners accuse U.N. of July 4 conspiracy
U.N.: Rumor of plan to take away weapons a ‘total misconception’
Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET June 21, 2006
UNITED NATIONS - Americans mistakenly worried the United Nations is plotting to take away their guns on July 4 — U.S. Independence Day — are flooding the world body with angry letters and postcards, the chairman of a U.N. conference on the illegal small arms trade said on Wednesday.
“I myself have received over 100,000 letters from the U.S. public, criticizing me personally, saying, ‘You are having this conference on the 4th of July, you are not going to get our guns on that day,’” said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka’s U.N. ambassador.
“That is a total misconception as far as we are concerned,” Kariyawasam told reporters ahead of the two-week meeting opening on Monday.
The Rest
Double Naught Spy
New member
Do we assume that any person, organization, etc. that ever broadcasts information that isn't 100% pro gun in the manner each of us favors to therefore be anti-gun?
There are many perspectives on any story. Just because they run the story does not make them anti-gun or pro-UN. So are you suggesting that the only reason they are running the story is because they are anti-gun? If so, that would be just plain silly.
First, if you want to accuse them of bias, accuse them of running a story with a fairly blatant controversy and the story is about the controversy of people being upset, not the gun issue. They are running this as a way of making money. Whether or not UN folks are upset really isn't much of a story, is it?
Second, did you notice the nice plug for the NRA and their web site about stopping the UN gun ban? I don't think I saw any web sites for the UN listed.
Third, by running the article in this manner, it seems to be doing more to piss off gun owners in a manner to rally the troops as opposed to being in opposition to gun owners. LaPierre also got free advertising for his book. Go frickin' figure!
There are many perspectives on any story. Just because they run the story does not make them anti-gun or pro-UN. So are you suggesting that the only reason they are running the story is because they are anti-gun? If so, that would be just plain silly.
First, if you want to accuse them of bias, accuse them of running a story with a fairly blatant controversy and the story is about the controversy of people being upset, not the gun issue. They are running this as a way of making money. Whether or not UN folks are upset really isn't much of a story, is it?
Second, did you notice the nice plug for the NRA and their web site about stopping the UN gun ban? I don't think I saw any web sites for the UN listed.
Third, by running the article in this manner, it seems to be doing more to piss off gun owners in a manner to rally the troops as opposed to being in opposition to gun owners. LaPierre also got free advertising for his book. Go frickin' figure!
When they write a positive pro gun story, feel free to let me know.
That article clearly tries to place us in a paranoid, dim wit view, while defending the UN. Of coarse they have to mention NRA, or they wouldn't have the other half of the story.
"You arn't getting our guns that day" What stupid and made up comment, who even knows if hes tellng the truth? like the rest of the UN, I doubt it.
Could they have placed a well stated comment? Thats just one example.
They spend the whole article makng it look like the nra and gun owners are picking on da poo un.
That article clearly tries to place us in a paranoid, dim wit view, while defending the UN. Of coarse they have to mention NRA, or they wouldn't have the other half of the story.
"You arn't getting our guns that day" What stupid and made up comment, who even knows if hes tellng the truth? like the rest of the UN, I doubt it.
Could they have placed a well stated comment? Thats just one example.
They spend the whole article makng it look like the nra and gun owners are picking on da poo un.
No, the paranoid, dim wit appearance of gun owners was caused by the NRA crowd whining about a meeting scheduled on a day when no meeting will be held.
There was no defense of the UN in that article save from the UN people themselves.
There was no defense of the UN in that article save from the UN people themselves.
This article isn't anti-gun or pro-gun. Just because a news organization doesn't cater to your particular tastes doesn't mean it's pro-UN or anti-gun. How about some examples of other anti-gun articles from that source? Or maybe some pro-gun articles from your news outlet of choice?
redworm, no need to play dumb, I know your among the first to run to the defense of an ever crumbling liberal media, or the UN for that matter. The headline it's self is demeaning.
They could have written it a thousand ways.
How about: "American Gunowners Concerned over UNs involvment in small arms ownership".
They could have written it a thousand ways.
How about: "American Gunowners Concerned over UNs involvment in small arms ownership".
No, I just have the sense to realize that not every article is some vast left wing conspiracy. I'm not so blinded by polar thinking to believe everything that doesn't agree with my hardcore stance should be wiped off the face of the earth. I also have no love for the UN so where you got the idea that I'm defending anything they do is beyond me.
The bottom line is that gun owners did accuse the UN of an anti-gun conspiracy. According to the article there can't possibly be a meeting scheduled on 7/4 to take our guns away yet LaPierre and the NRA cheerleaders decided to act on whatever false information they may have recieved regarding said mythical meeting.
Yes, they could have written it a thousand ways but the chosen title remains accurate and correct.
Perhaps focusing energy on things that actually matter as opposed to the wording of an article title would be more effective in supporting your cause. Then again if you wrote those letters like the NRA suggested it seems you wasted your time anyways.
I don't see how it's very politically correct. In fact it's the contrary considering it seems to have offended a gun owner. That's the whole idea behind politicial correctness: "Let's not say anything that will offend anyone."
It seems you've been offended and would have preferred the more PC verbage. How very liberal of you.
It seems you've been offended and would have preferred the more PC verbage.
How very liberal of you.OK red, how about you start a thread on: Rightwing Media and how they are biased against freedom
I don't want to turn this thread into a silly back and forth bickering session.
I have laid out a good example of the liberal media showing intolerance of gun owners challanging the un.
I don't want to turn this thread into a silly back and forth bickering session.
I have laid out a good example of the liberal media showing intolerance of gun owners challanging the un.
What we disagree on is how good of an example this is. I think it's a pretty lackluster one considering the facts:
1. NRA did indeed accuse the UN of a conspiracy to ban guns.
2. The UN is not holding a meeting on July 4th to ban guns. They're not holding any meetings on July 4th regardless of what Mr LaPierre's erroneous letters claim.
3. The article did nothing more than state the above.
How you see that as an intolerance of gun owners is baffling. At best it shows an ignorance of the ideals and concepts behind the right to bear arms but an intolerance? Please; nowhere in that article does it imply that gun owners are evil, stupid, dangerous or crazy. It simply points out that a lot of gun owners mistakingly followed the NRA's lead in sending a bunch of letter to a bunch of people about something that wasn't going to happen in the first place.
I just think you're overreacting to this. I think focusing on something a bit more important, some threat to your freedom a bit more tangible than a poorly worded title to an article, would be a good idea.
red you simply know nothing about the NRA, you only parrot what the gun hating media reports.
The UN or MSN are hardly credible sources as far as truth in reporting on American gun owners, NRA , or any kind of truthful news is concerned.
MSN was one of first to run to the UNs side when we found them stealing billions from American tax payers, or raping kids.
It's disgusting they are allowed in this great country to begin with, let alone on America's birthday
Now were is that thread about conservative media bias against freedom?
The UN or MSN are hardly credible sources as far as truth in reporting on American gun owners, NRA , or any kind of truthful news is concerned.
MSN was one of first to run to the UNs side when we found them stealing billions from American tax payers, or raping kids.
It's disgusting they are allowed in this great country to begin with, let alone on America's birthday
Now were is that thread about conservative media bias against freedom?
OK, carbiner, you want to revive the liberal bias in the media topic ...
Give me some examples of MSN reporting that directly supports the claim you just made, as follows:
Or are we going to go round and round again like the Patrick Kennedy thing in the other thread? Here's your chance - put your money where your mouth is and offer some actual evidence for a change. Citations, links, etc., not your ruminations about liberals.
Cards on the table ... your bluff is being called.
Give me some examples of MSN reporting that directly supports the claim you just made, as follows:
Or are we going to go round and round again like the Patrick Kennedy thing in the other thread? Here's your chance - put your money where your mouth is and offer some actual evidence for a change. Citations, links, etc., not your ruminations about liberals.
Cards on the table ... your bluff is being called.
I know they keep sending me requests for money. I have no beef with them - at least no more so than any other lobbying group - but my lack of indepth knowledge of the organization does not change a thing of what I said.
Here we go again. Any source that doesn't agree with your view is not credible. Same thing the liberals say. Y'all seem to have much in common.
Show me.
Definately show me some proof of that.
Did you completely ignore the multiple references to the fact that no meetings are being held on that day because of the holiday?
Oh and while we're on the subject of loaded sentences, "allowed into this great country" is a prime example. America is one of the founding members of the organization. Stop playing it off like it's some evil consortium of hostile nations blasting their way onto our shores with intent on taking over the US.
There are too many Coulter threads already, no need for me to add to the pile.
