Friday, May 27, 2011

The Message v The Messenger

In the discussion w/ the gun control advocate over CSGV's Twitter ban, he made the statement that he differentiates between the message and the messenger. That's a good position to hold but the question it raises is what if the messenger regularly lies and distorts? What does that say about the 'message'?

For example. The CSGV tweeted this:
Gun enthusiasts using loophole to acquire full-auto machines guns & silencers w/o background checks. ...
Problem is, that's a flat out lie. Even in the article they link to, it says this:
Tough scrutiny comes along with this classification. Unlike with other guns, for each Title II purchase, a person must submit photos and fingerprints to the federal authorities for a background check.
Another version of the story goes deeper but, as Uncle points out, is poorly written and seems to be confusing background checks and LEO approval. Speaking to a representative of the 'Gun Trust Lawyers", I was told that the purpose of this is to remove the CLEO component but that the BATFE has the authority to conduct background checks on Trusts and Corporations but generally don't. CNN has apparently been contacting them for some time trying to get some sort of 'hit piece' story out of it.

Then there's the classic example of Josh Sugarmann of the VPC and his intention to deliberately confuse the public on 'Assault Weapons':
The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons "anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun" can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
We've seen the dishonesty over and over when it comes to claims from gun control groups so when the messenger is dishonest, how can you trust the message? Shouldn't you at least look deeper into it?

Unorganized Militia GearUnorganized Militia Gear
Follow TrailerDays on Twitter
Unorganized Militia Gear


Weer'd Beard said...

Also if you want to differentiate between the message and the messenger, why publish the personal data of people who disagree with you?

Personally I've abandoned losers like Jadegold, MikeB, and Laci the soft-headed-lawyer, because they are simply nuts ranting in the darkness. They pose no more threat than the peckerwoods on the various white-supremacy message boards. Lot of nasty talk, but zero action or influence.

People like Ladd Everitt, Josh Sugarmann, Joan Peterson, et al, are public faces of organized control groups.

They don't just represent themselves they represent their organizations (and in the case of many it is plural with all the astro-turf shell-groups).

Its interesting to note that in my Job if I did half of the things that these people did I'd be fired.

That isn't about the messenger, its about the MOVEMENT as a whole. They are ALL stalkers, trolls, and liars.


Chas said...

I suppose they'd say that CCW holders use the CCW loophole to carry guns, but that would mean that drivers use the driver's license loophole to drive cars.
Expecting intellectual honesty from would-be totalitarians is not reasonable.