TexasCHLforum.com

I love how Newsweek has redefined a Glock 19 (most likely the most popular CCW pistol?) as a "Police Style Assault Weapon".

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggl ... dment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess my huntimg boots are now classified as Millitary style assult boots with secondary assult weapon capability

The entire Newsweek situation is insanity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01305.html

Editor Jon Meacham erred badly by transforming the newsweekly into an upscale, left-leaning opinion magazine. Meacham has said that in the face of mounting losses -- $44 million since 2007 -- he had no choice but to seek fewer subscribers who would be willing to pay more.

In other words, Meacham has culled his audience down the the few that were willing to listen to the gross distortions that he wanted to print. In other reports, the losses continue through 2010 but the new owner says that there will be no change in direction.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/newswe ... 2010-08-02

It sure looks like another case of a media outlet willing to put itself out of business because of its views. The end cannot come too soon.

webb3201 wrote:I love how Newsweek has redefined a Glock 19 (most likely the most popular CCW pistol?) as a "Police Style Assault Weapon".

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggl ... dment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should be pretty apparent by this point that this is an organized MSM campaign against gun ownership and self-defense.

That is attacking a straw man. No one has argued that gun laws were the reason Loughner carried out his attack. What they suggest is that someone who wants to carry out an attack might be less able to do so without legal access to automatic weapons.

I find it very amusing that the writer includes a blatant inaccuracy in an article whose whole point is that the conservatives are making inaccurate assertions in the debate on Gun Control laws.

Also interesting that my Glock 19 is now a "Police style assault weapon". Kind of makes you wonder why we are arming our police with "assault weapons" in the first place. Sounds like something that a totalitarian Socialist government would do.

It's also rather interesting that some of the anti's that are screaming
about bringing back the "Assault Weapons Ban" to make the country
safer, are blind to the fact that the shooter did not use an EBR,
but a regular handgun.

I guess what the anti's are after is the part of the law that bans mags
> 10 rounds. But as long as they are at, they might as well make EBR's
illegal too.

If they re-enact the Assault Weapons ban, I'm sure that the Mexican
killings will stop too. <Irony>

SIA

I was going to reply to this idiotic article, but plenty of folks have already done so in the comments section, making most of the obvious points. And I'm just really getting tired of debating close-minded liberals on this issue already. Need to take a few days off from this - then come back strong next week if this bunk is still flying around the MSM and blogs.

VMI77 wrote:It should be pretty apparent by this point that this is an organized MSM campaign against gun ownership and self-defense.

And they will follow Rep. Giffords recovery every step of the way so they can keep this story fresh on everyone's minds. Our best hope, which could happen, is that when Giffords fully recovers, she comes out for a press conference and vehemenently repudiates and denounces needless gun control measures as a response to this tragedy. She is a gun owners and has a decent NRA grade for a Democrat. She could say "we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill - but across the board bans on guns or certain gun parts are a meaningless gesture that do more harm than good and I don't support them."

But I doubt it will play out like that. Heck, she may come out swinging for the fences like Sarah Brady did.

I like the subject line. What's the diagnosis? DSM-IV 297.3?

austinrealtor wrote:

VMI77 wrote:It should be pretty apparent by this point that this is an organized MSM campaign against gun ownership and self-defense.

And they will follow Rep. Giffords recovery every step of the way so they can keep this story fresh on everyone's minds. Our best hope, which could happen, is that when Giffords fully recovers, she comes out for a press conference and vehemenently repudiates and denounces needless gun control measures as a response to this tragedy. She is a gun owners and has a decent NRA grade for a Democrat. She could say "we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill - but across the board bans on guns or certain gun parts are a meaningless gesture that do more harm than good and I don't support them."

But I doubt it will play out like that. Heck, she may come out swinging for the fences like Sarah Brady did.

If Giffords recovers and says anything like that the MSM will bury the story and Giffords will disappear from the news overnight.

I find the coverage nauseating already. Yes, it's tragic, the act was despicable, and I feel sorry for her, and even more so for the little girl this maniac killed, but why is Giffords more important than any other victim of violence? Why is her plight any more important than the plight of a woman who is the victim of an abusive husband or boyfriend who hunts her down and shoots her? If all this proposed anti-gun legislation is such a good thing why is it only on the table now? We all know the answer: it isn't compassion, it isn't concern; this is simply an event the liberals and their media allies can exploit to further their political agenda.

Newsweak predicts $4 gas. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/20/here ... offee.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That article attracts flies.

It does the same things conservatives are accused of in the article. I especially like the part “A federal ban would have a completely different effect because such weapons would have to be brought across our national borders, not merely driven across the Key Bridge from Arlington.” I suppose it is very difficult in D.C. to buy crack, meth etc. because of the federal laws, and it has to be brought across the borders.