Tonights ABC Rant Against the NRA

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ak9:
I am no fan of Jennings nor ABC news, however, I think it is important to the debate to raise issues on both sides. We hear the NRA line all the time and have come to accept it without question. Jennings did raise a few good points and I did not see LaPierre answer all the questions to my satisfaction, especailly the number of porsecutions by the states and the federal government. He was evasive when asked directly as to his participation in getting rid of the congressman and encouraging someone to run against him. I sorry, but there can not be any chinks in the armor here. Either you lie or you don't. The only way to play this game is straight up with the american people. The truth does get through, just as Gore is starting to his come uppings for his lies. Wayne should have known better then to have answered those questions in that way. It made him appear like Clinton.

[This message has been edited by ak9 (edited October 09, 2000).][/quote]

AK--

I agree with you, actually, that given the choice to do this show the particular questions you're talking about were fair. I don't think that the fact that ABC challenges certain of the NRA's claims about prosecutions, or even that ABC shows that the NRA has political power, is unfair.

But during the first twenty minutes of that show I heard Jennings say the NRA believed in a massive "conspiracy theory" to take away guns. I heard Jennings say that the NRA opposed Gore because Gore "betrayed the cause". Then I heard Jennings explain how the NRA ruthlessly punished its "former friends". Then, Jennings had that lobbyist, was it Feldman?, speak unchallenged at some length about the NRA's desire to "seize power", and how this caused the NRA to quash the manufacturers' settlement negotiations.

Jennings might as well have opened with the claim, "The NRA is a dangerous group of fanatics. They are vindictive and ruthless in their irrational attempts to cling to their guns. And they're organized! And, America, if we don't all vote for _Al Gore_ these people will get their way!"

Putting all this in an hour of prime time T.V., in a reasonably close election Gore is now losing, the day before a presidential debate?

Again, I think it's worth our while to write to ABC, and the FCC as well, letting them know what we think about this.
 
The national news media and there liberal/
socialist views well never stop until they
have killed the 2nd adm. However they will
also lose the 1st in the end. Sad but perhaps
fitting.
 
I would have loved to see a 20/20 spot with GOA's Larry Pratt or Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb. SAF has 500,000 members. GOA must be close as well. Nothing to sniff at.

It is the the media's and the gun-grabber's advantage to ignore all other pro-gunnie groups and focus on the already villified NRA. Same as they did to Ken Starr.

Rick
 
Well said RICK D-- I have on order the one time Larry is supposed to have been outgunned by anti's.
Ive watched three debate sessions with him so far and have never seen anything like that happen.
Ill never forget one time when registration was brought up and Larry just said 'its none of their business' that to me is a very hard boiled american answer.
This man gets my money and my devotion.
I hope to be at the tulsa show signing up new GOA members if my Show friend can bring the equipment.Im also a member of Gottlieb's
CCRKBA but havent seen him deabate too much but have read about a few including in USA today and loved them all.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
A notable amount of time in the story was spent bashing the NRA for claiming 0 (or maybe a couple) prosecutions of criminals caught under the Brady law for attempting to buy guns. ABC claimed there were 604 prosecutions. Both agreed that there were 250,000 detections.

Got that? ABC was bashing the NRA as liars because ABC's and NRA's numbers differed by 0.0024%.

Refusing to acknowledge that - by their own figures - there are virtually no federal prosecutions under Brady, ABC nearly libeled NRA because of a trivial difference in debatable numbers.
 
Yeah, well if I were him I'd subtly inject some positives into that segment, and then take all my salary from the job and give it to the NRA and then publicly announce doing so, lol. I mean, he's gotta be close to retirement age anyway.

My opinion is that he's a moron who's never seen a gun in his life, except maybe some blank firing props used in segments.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me

Compromising the right position only makes you more wrong.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ctdonath:
A notable amount of time in the story was spent bashing the NRA for claiming 0 (or maybe a couple) prosecutions of criminals caught under the Brady law for attempting to buy guns. ABC claimed there were 604 prosecutions. Both agreed that there were 250,000 detections.

Got that? ABC was bashing the NRA as liars because ABC's and NRA's numbers differed by 0.0024%.

Refusing to acknowledge that - by their own figures - there are virtually no federal prosecutions under Brady, ABC nearly libeled NRA because of a trivial difference in debatable numbers.[/quote]


Actually, this was a point I made in several posts, and letters to ABC News. The actual number is .0024 or .24%, but lets not split hairs. The number is significant.

Bill Clinton has used the number 500,000. That brings the number to .12% which is even better.

Why is it that we don't see 75%? I would be happy with 25%, but then, we are talking about 60,000 prosecutions, not 600.

Also, there is no question in my mind that some "Fancy" editing took place. When LaPierre is asked anything about the issue of prosecution, he is most certainly going to mention "Project Exile", but the issue NEVER came up in the Hackjob. Why is that? Could it be that Jennings, the Media, or even the gun grabbers recognize it for what it is? A very useful, and successful way of dealing with the issue of prosecution. It has been adopted by many localities, and all are very pleased with the results.
 
Special Item

ABC's Gun Fight Aims At Wrong Target

ABC News' one-hour show "The Gun Fight," which aired Oct. 9, labored to cast doubt on NRA's long-standing assertion that the Clinton-Gore Administration has failed
to enforce federal gun laws against felons and violent criminals.

Peter Jennings correctly stated that the NRA-ILA website contains reference to zero prosecutions in 1996, zero in 1997 and zero in 1998 (the zero for 1998 should be one,
as is reflected in NRA printed materials), but he failed to tell his viewers that the website clearly states those numbers refer only to prosecutions under the Brady Act's
Instant Check phase.

Jennings also failed to note that referrals for federal prosecution of firearms law violations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms—the agency charged with
enforcing federal firearms laws—have sharply declined during the Clinton-Gore Administration. BATF cases sent to federal prosecutors declined by 44% from 1992 to
1998.

Much more importantly, ABC News failed to inform viewers the Clinton-Gore Justice Department currently is being sued for denying news organizations and the general
public access to information about how it has enforced the nation's firearms laws.

Nearly a week before ABC News aired "The Gun Fight," the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a non-partisan research organization associated with
Syracuse University, announced a Freedom of Information Act suit against the Clinton-Gore Justice Department for unlawfully withholding complete records of criminal
and civil cases handled by federal prosecutors nationwide. In the past, such information always has been released as a matter of routine.

"The blocking of the flow of government data," TRAC says, "means that the public is unable to obtain information required to accurately judge how the Clinton
administration, federal prosecutors and the federal investigative agencies actually are dealing with such subjects as protecting the environment, reducing gun violence,
prosecuting pornographers and defending the American people against spies and terrorists."

While the information is withheld from the American people, TRAC notes that the Justice Department has used selected data "in carefully restricted press releases and
submissions to Congress to advance Clinton administration policies and to respond to criticism from several House and Senate committees and elsewhere."

TRAC charges that the Justice Department removed almost 50% of the criminal records and 12% of the civil records from the data it released on May 23 and June 1, 2000,
and that "while required by law to affirmatively justify any withholding, the government so far has not provided an explanation for its wholesale withholding of these
records."

The Clinton-Gore Administration now claims that gun law prosecutions are sharply up in 1999, but refuses to provide the data to support its claims. Maybe one day ABC
News will be curious enough to ask why.
Posted: 2000-10-11
http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/20001011-GeneralInfo-001.shtml
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waterdog:
When you get paid as much as they pay Jennings, you would do as your told also.

Waterdog[/quote]

Play for pay usually involves a Peter.


[This message has been edited by RAE (edited October 13, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top