C'mon Rachel Plastic guns? Cop Killa (sic) Bullets?

ANd OMG those " extended clips" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRpXgSyfc_Q&feature=related

Rachel you are not a rethugnican you can't do this girl.

Remember our Reader? The one who claims to own an ‘All Plastic Glock’ – one that in their words “is all plastic except for the 3 little metal tags imbedded that hold the serial number”. Well, let’s put to rest once and for all, the myth of the ‘All Plastic’ handgun!

http://home.myfairpoint.net/vzeo1z2a/MythPlasGun.htm

Despite the facts that "KTW" ammunition had never been available to the general public and that no police officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their body armor, the media incorrectly reported that the Teflon coated bullets were designed to defeat the body armor that law enforcement officers were beginning to use. The myth of "Cop-killer" bullets was born.

Cop Killa bullets http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html

It won't work. You're not her type.

I have owned firearms since I was 10 years old. I still do. I plan to keep them, too. Rachel Maddow is one of this countries staunchest friends. When you trash her, you're going to hear from me.

Plastic Glocks? Cop-killer bullets. Bullshit stuff. None of that has anything to do with anything.

I have to wonder about your motives, frankly. Leaving Rachel Maddow alone would be, I think, an excellent idea for you. This site isn't going to be amused, although there are others who would welcome that crap.

Nobody's right 100% of the time. She's right about a lot more than you are, I suspect.

Give it a rest, please.

is no reason to not correct her errors on this one.

The fact that you don't care if she's lying or not is not a mark in your favor.

I'm not really aiming for your approval here. You can correct her errors, but that's not what you're doing in this thread.

...but you look ridiculous defending her errors in reporting.

Heck not every one on this website likes everything that Obama does. It's ok to disagree with Rachel too.
Especially when she is wrong.

"Plastic Glocks? Cop-killer bullets. Bullshit stuff. None of that has anything to do with anything."

Sorry, but I think you're dead wrong on this one. No matter how much of a friend she is to this nation, that does not make her above reproach when she spouts ignorance and/or out right lies on national television. Honestly, the fact that so many view her as you do makes it that much more damaging for her to behave in this manner. People listen to and trust her. If they find out how wrong she was, they will doubt her in not only this but in other areas. If they don't find out, then they are now made more ignorant of the particulars of an issue that is very important to many.

As a person in the sort of position she is in she has a duty to make sure what she puts on the air is factually correct. If she fails to do this, then she does both herself and her viewers a major disservice.

"Thou shalt not disagree with, nor disparage sacred cows"...

Why would you give anyone, regardless of their political persuasion or standing, carte blanche to lie? I find that kind of thinking outrageous.

If Rachel continues to lie..it's only right she gets called on it.

Tin idols, they don't have to shine that brightly.

Sad, really.

Do you defend either?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No, it's not.

Busting Rachel Maddow's chops is best left to other venues. It won't wash here. Sorry.

Do I defend Rachel Maddow. I do, indeed. Do you attack Rachel Maddow? Then bad cess to you, sir.

Where should we point out her, at best, errors?

You can do whatever you please. When you do it here, though, you'll find some willing to push back.

If I do so, will you honestly defend with sourced facts, or are you going to blindly defend without source?

Not there's a reputable source... NOT! Who the hell are they and why should anyone care?

Care to address that?

Defending lies from any part of the political spectrum is, at best, obnoxious. At worst, it is perpetuating the lie, and makes the defender part and parcel of the lie.

I can't help but to question everything she says. very sad to be so agenda driven, on this issue, as to cloud her credibility on all others.

I'm not sure, really, but I sure do think that.

See ya around.

becuase he made a statement about Rachel that you don't like or you think is untrue but he can't question her's when she lies on this one point?

If you'll lie about one thing you'll about anything

Keep right on...

without integrity has nothing.
The trust we place in journalists is usually well deserved, but when they betray that trust, in this case multiple times, it's not easily
won back, at least from me.

Really.

I guess it doesn't really matter. despite her obvious lying, her stance on gun control is a LOSER.

AWB-- non starter.
Large Cap Magazine Ban-- doesn't have a chance with our current house and senate mix.

So, destroying her credibility with a few gun rights folks, for zero gain, shouldn't really matter.

...in this circumstance. In fact, it's precisely what I was talking about in my earlier reply to you. What interests me is that you are angry at those who question her integrity instead of at her for placing herself in a position to have her integrity questioned.

a pass on all issues because you agree with them on guns? Both heroes and Board of Directors of the NRA members. Or you just disagree with the left?

How about let's ditch the ad hominems, watch the video and address the OP and feel free to support either side.

on a major network. I don't think most people know what they say or when they say it. Rachel is a different story. She is watched every night and many people get their news and form their opinions based upon what she says. She has stated how she has such a large research group that helps her with her show. Are they doing her a disservice by not giving her the correct information or is her agenda so strong that she will say anything to get her agenda out there?

Wow.

She did.


Someone needs to sit down with her provide her with the facts where things like this are concerned.


And she states again, at around the 8 minute and 20 second mark, that :

"up until 6 years ago, it would not have been legal for jared loughner to have bought the 30 round magazine he had in his glock when he allegedly went to this congress on your corner event on saturday morning in tucson"


Thats factually untrue.

"If this attack had happened 6 years ago instead of this past weekend, unless mr loughner had the wherewithall to obtain his weaponry illegally, it is unlikely that he would have had the killing capacity that he did, he would have been able to fire half as many rounds as he allegedly fired before stopping to reload, which means
in all likelyhood some of his victims would still be dead, some of them would still be wounded, but the death toll and the toll of the wounded would be less."

Good grief.

Fuck no! It. Is. Not. OK! We are not fucking republicans, we don't lie about this shit! We are supposed to be better than that!

Some don't take it too well when you point out their role models have feet of clay.

Me, I'm just disappointed....

I was really impressed with her and I considered one of the best, if not the best, talking heads on 24/7 cable news (which is a low standard).

Unfortunately, I now will have to take everything she says with a grain of salt.

Firearms are not rocket science. If she can't get the basic information right about firearms, how can I trust anything she says about far more complicated subjects?

That is weaksauce.

It was painful to watch. Yes, she's generally a great friend to democrats and progressives. However, these comments...I actually have a hard time believing that those were mistakes; and that leaves willful ignorance at best, and outright lies at worst.

How do people who are so clearly intelligent and well spoken go so loony when the subject is firearms?? I guess the distortion field really is that strong....


:shrug:

simply this uninformed about firearms?

Have any of us attempted to contact her and provide her with additional SOURCED information? Is she actually discounting facts, or did she just not discover the truth while researching the issue?

In the oldest while interviewing Carolyn McCarthy Rachel states that her understanding of the 94 AWB was that is didn't ban the sale of existing 10+ magazines just the manufacture of new ones. She then clarifies that McCarthy's new ban would block manufacture, sale , and transfer of all 10+ magazines.

Yet in every video since then she has unequivocally stated that under the expireed 94 ban jared Loughner would not have been able to legally buy 10+ round magazines.

You tell me Is she actually discounting facts, or did she just not discover the truth while researching the issue?

I am not privy to the contents of her head.

Is it discounting facts if she reported it correctly ONCE, and then maybe got ahold of some VPC propaganda or whatever, and has been since misled?

There's only a few conclusions to be drawn, and the most charitable one is she slacked off on research.

Not a good thing if you have a rep as one of the brighter bulbs on the lighting aisle.

but when you add the obvious falsehoods about Cop Killas and plastic glocks (I mean c'monn she states she's a shooter she doesn't know bullets are metal?) amd her statements that "no one should have a gun in their home" And her willingness to give illegal mayors Against Guns a bully pulpit on her show the odds aren't in her favor

I have not detected similar weaknesses in her arguments for other issues I am intimately familiar with.

because it's just the one issue? (and coincidently one that she's very passionately anti about?
What ,exactly, are you saying?

She, in my estimation, consistently seeks the truth on other issues. I am especially concerned after her caution against using Google to 'form your own opinion'. She may be honestly mistaken in her understanding of this issue, and may have surrounded herself with, or been surrounded by people with an agenda that she is not responsible for. (Aside from, possibly, being duped)

Her statements are consistent with pop culture and academic understanding of firearms. A condition not of her creation.

But on this one I don't trust anything she says

It's all just a big misunderstanding .

how is it she doesn't get caught out in other areas?

I don't see this as a valid excuse.

No response, and still the same old, tired, false schtick.

Quite disheartening.

her research staff is so I find it hard to believe that she or her research staff made a mistake. I think she is so agenda driven when it comes to firearms that she will say anything to advance her agenda.

:hide:

I'm not aware of one.

and had plenty of time to shoot it up you could take one out.

It was one of the design requirements, but they were never really used in that manner, because 7.62x51mm sucks at it.

...if you are lucky enough to shoot the pilot? :silly:

Actualy the P40C Kitty Hawk had 2 .30 cal machinguns and 2 50 cals does that count?

(lots had browning 7.62mm in aircraft. Unusual was attempts to use 7.62 from the ground to shoot at planes. Basically not effective. Quickly supplanted by 20mm and larger.