WTF, JUST HAPPENED!!!

[St Michael]

This is great, ya'll want to attack someone for exercising their First Amendment rights at a Second Amendment rally? Are you fucking serious?

I see, so the Bill of Rights is important, but only when it applies to things YOU like/enjoy/support/desire and only when it positively affects you or your aims? I mean, if a gun owner speaking their mind in a non-criminal way somehow makes you look bad as a gun owner, then apparently your image or feelings are more important than their rights?

Give me a break. I'm sorry, I normally try to be polite, but you hypocrites really piss me off. The Bill of Rights is a package deal, you're either for liberty or not; there is no such thing as half-way free.

This sounds eerily similar to the points raised in defense of Jim Zumbo's column

[Siobhra]

My State Senator just called me on my cell phone to thank me for coming to the rally. Senator Wonderling. He wanted to make sure I know he is a supporter of gun rights.

[dgg9]

Do we, as readers, viewers subscribers of this crap try to accomodate it by saying "Well, I have a good point to make but I won't make it because the media might try to sensationalize it." or should we say "Fuck the media and their yellow, cherry-picking of an event, journalism and make our point anyways."

....

We shouldn't self-censor for the sake of being portrayed in the media poorly.

...

Don't change yourselves, views or agenda's for the sake of looking good to the media.

If you put together a rally, you are doing it for publicity, in order to reach a larger audience via the media -- otherwise you're kidding yourselves. You can't have it both ways. You can't stage an event whose sole purpose is to be seen by the media -- and then feign indifference to how the media portrays you.

A rally of this kind IS A MEDIA EVENT. If you're going to do it in such a media-ignorant way that the MSM can easily dismiss and caricature you, don't bother doing it in the first place.

If you willingly play the game, don't afterwards whine about the rules. If you're unwilling to do it right, don't waste time at rallies.

[fultonCoShooter]

They were ATF agents posing a gun nuts LOL i dunno

[D-FENS]

If you put together a rally, you are doing it for publicity, in order to reach a larger audience via the media -- otherwise you're kidding yourselves. You can't have it both ways. You can't stage an event whose sole purpose is to be seen by the media -- and then feign indifference to how the media portrays you.

A rally of this kind IS A MEDIA EVENT. If you're going to do it in such a media-ignorant way that the MSM can easily dismiss and caricature you, don't bother doing it in the first place.

If you willingly play the game, don't afterwards whine about the rules. If you're unwilling to do it right, don't waste time at rallies.

Gee I guess we WERE kidding ourselves? What about this event was for the media outside of the Reps posing for pictures? If we were there for publicity, we would have blocked off the streets and had a march/protest. We were there en masse to show our reps that we can collect ourselves and give their secretaries our thoughts.

You can go back to posing now. kkthxbye

[dgg9]

Gee I guess we WERE kidding ourselves? What about this event was for the media outside of the Reps posing for pictures? If we were there for publicity, we would have blocked off the streets and had a march/protest. We were there en masse to show our reps that we can collect ourselves and give their secretaries our thoughts.

You can go back to posing now. kkthxbye

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, so I'll simply repeat: if you're going to show up at a media-covered event carrying a sign, you willingly become part of the media event. So any talk of "censoring yourself" is silly. By carrying a sign at a rally, you went out of your way to seek the media's attention. To do that, and then say "don't change yourselves, views or agenda's for the sake of looking good to the media" -- well, don't complain when you do look bad, courtesy of the media.

If you willingly step foot on the media's home court, know the rules, else don't complain about the outcome.

[Emptymag]

Pro-Gun News Conference to be Held In Harrisburg—April 24th

(News Conference)
The above is taken directly from the The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League website.

http://www.acslpa.org/

From the beginning, I was under the impression it was a media event.

[billamj]

Pro-Gun News Conference to be Held In Harrisburg—April 24th

(News Conference)
The above is taken directly from the The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League website.

http://www.acslpa.org/

From the beginning, I was under the impression it was a media event.

Jeez, imagine that. You read that it was a "Pro-Gun News Conference" and inferred that it was a media event.

As others have said, if you're going to play the media's game don't be surprised when the rules are defined by the media. Thanks to a few idiots all gun owners in the state got a black eye in the minds of the general public, the exact folks that we need to bring to our side. If people can't see that then they are just plain blind.

[NineseveN]

This sounds eerily similar to the points raised in defense of Jim Zumbo's column

Actually, those that are attacking the guy with the sign are more like Zumbo that I bet they'd care to admit.


Zumbo's premise was that hunters need to distance themselves from those owning "terrorist rifles" because of the negative image they portray. Their image as hunters and sportsmen was more important than a fellow gun owner's exercise of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Those attacking the guy with the sign are saying essentially the same thing; we need to distance ourselves from the guy with the sign because of the negative image it portrays. Their image as gun owners is more important than a fellow gun owner's exercise of the Freedom of Speech as a Second Amendment rally.


And for the record, I contacted Zumbo's sponsors, not to remove his right to free speech, but to sever the privilege of being paid by the gun community because he directly attacked US. The banner-bearer wasn't attacking us, by his own words, it was "a figure of speech" in the frame of the famous quote from one of our founding fathers that gave the message that Cruz is guilty of treason for infringing on our rights.

[Johannes_Paulsen]

Those attacking the guy with the sign are saying essentially the same thing; we need to distance ourselves from the guy with the sign because of the negative image it portrays. Their image as gun owners is more important than a fellow gun owner's exercise of the Freedom of Speech as a Second Amendment rally.

It is not undermining the First Amendment to question the wisdom of anything said under its protection.