Uh Oh, looks like MSNBC got caught lying again.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Oh MSNBC, When are you going to learn?

So just when you think editing the Zimmerman police call, and editing the Romney/Ryan rally was bad enough, the good people at Left-wing Fox News Edited a video to make it look like pro-gun supporters heckled a father at a sandy hook debate.

Also, this is a side note but:
a weapons is not an 'assault weapon/rifle' unless it has select fire or is fully automatic (illegal to own in the US without a class ll license and they have only been used in 4 murders since 1934 and one of the shooters was a cop)
and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

This isn't the only news media controversy surrounding the shooting, as a lot of people are claiming the use of the AR-15 rifle was not even used in the shooting and was found in the car along with the shotgun and people are ignoring the second person apprehended at the scene.

Could this be an example of yellow journalism at its sickest?

In this posters opinion, I say:....Who the hell still watches cable news? Google News and Live Leak is where its at.

The term clip and magazine is interchangeable nowadays because you don't see modern repeating rifles using clips anymore (Not to mention semi-automatic or fully automatic). You still use clips for other firearms (such as any type of revolver or older repeating rifles), but the most common ammunition feeding mechanism nowadays is external via a magazine.

Yes, this is unreasonable. People don't understand what is an "assault rifle". The term is being rewritten nowadays to answer some of the more unreasonable cries for 'gun control' in the US. What is the point? The media is always a tool in a conflict over culture.

Jegsimmons:
and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

Why not use them interchangeably? I mean, sure, a clip isn't exactly a room in a ship with kegs of powder and cannonballs, but really it's the same kind of idea.

Glasgow:
SNIP

Seanchaidh:
SNIP

Nope, a clip is a strip of metal that helps load the cartridges into a magazine, either an external or internal magazine. These little strips of metal cut down on time spent loading magazines.

A magazine on the other hand is a metal or polymer box with a spring in it that loads the cartridges into the firearm itself.

These are not interchangeable, and if you do use them interchangeably, a gun owner who knows better is going to take you a lot less seriously and is more likely to scoff at you and your argument.

image

Smagmuck_:

Glasgow:
SNIP

Seanchaidh:
SNIP

Nope, a clip is a strip of metal that helps load the cartridges into a magazine, either an external or internal magazine. These little strips of metal cut down on time spent loading magazines.

A magazine on the other hand is a metal or polymer box with a spring in it that loads the cartridges into the firearm itself.

These are not interchangeable, and if you do use them interchangeably, a gun owner who knows better is going to take you a lot less seriously and is more likely to scoff at you and your argument.

image

I know what it looks like. Now that I think about it, a lot of privately owned guns in the US are probably simple and older designs that use clips more often.

edit: Wait a minute. I think I understand my confusion. You mean to say that people think clips are the same as magazines, but clips serve the same purpose as a magazine if it is used like I thought it would be. Clips aren't used for that today (except for some older rifles), which is why I was confused why people used to say 'clips'.

There is obviously a difference between the two.

Glasgow:
The term clip and magazine is interchangeable nowadays because you don't see modern repeating rifles using clips anymore (Not to mention semi-automatic or fully automatic). You still use clips for other firearms (such as any type of revolver or older repeating rifles), but the most common ammunition feeding mechanism nowadays is external via a magazine.

Yes, this is unreasonable. People don't understand what is an "assault weapon". The term is being rewritten nowadays to answer some of the more unreasonable cries for 'gun control' in the US. What is the point? The media is always a tool in a conflict over culture.

Seanchaidh:

Jegsimmons:
and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

Why not use them interchangeably? I mean, sure, a clip isn't exactly a room in a ship with kegs of powder and cannonballs, but really it's the same kind of idea.

Wrong, A clip feed bullets into a magazine (usually internally built)

A magazine is what feeds bullets into the gun to be fired.

they are not interchangeable.

image

NOW YOU KNOW!!!

Jegsimmons:

Glasgow:
The term clip and magazine is interchangeable nowadays because you don't see modern repeating rifles using clips anymore (Not to mention semi-automatic or fully automatic). You still use clips for other firearms (such as any type of revolver or older repeating rifles), but the most common ammunition feeding mechanism nowadays is external via a magazine.

Yes, this is unreasonable. People don't understand what is an "assault weapon". The term is being rewritten nowadays to answer some of the more unreasonable cries for 'gun control' in the US. What is the point? The media is always a tool in a conflict over culture.

Seanchaidh:

Jegsimmons:
and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

Why not use them interchangeably? I mean, sure, a clip isn't exactly a room in a ship with kegs of powder and cannonballs, but really it's the same kind of idea.

Wrong, A clip feed bullets into a magazine (usually internally built)

A magazine is what feeds bullets into the gun to be fired.

they are not interchangeable.

image

NOW YOU KNOW!!!

Is this parade of smugness going to continue? You're the second one to do this to me and I imagine it won't stop in the near future.

Glasgow:
I know what it looks like. It's barely used in modern weapons in the field. Now that I think about it, a lot of privately owned guns in the US are probably simple and older designs that use clips more often.

Nope, most modern rifles are magazine fed. Like the AR-15, AK and FAL pattern rifles. It would take me hours to list all of the Civilian legal, magazine fed firearms in the US.

Smagmuck_:

Glasgow:
I know what it looks like. It's barely used in modern weapons in the field. Now that I think about it, a lot of privately owned guns in the US are probably simple and older designs that use clips more often.

Nope, most modern rifles are magazine fed. Like the AR-15, AK and FAL pattern rifles. It would take me hours to list all of the Civilian legal, magazine fed firearms in the US.

No need for that, I see where I was wrong. I thought he meant that the clip was used to feed the firearm the same way that a magazine was, which is true for some older rifles. Which is why I was confused because it is not widely used today in this way.

Now I get it and yes they are obviously different.

So basically it's a vague video from a conservative blog, and in between the usualy 99% nonsense, they found one bit of semantics to attacks MSNBC over?

Wow, yep, slightly mislabeling two terms which mean the same for most people is really going to damage their credibility...

Breaking news, MSM is shit. Has been and always will be straight unfiltered shit.

In not so breaking news, it's almost like I'm on /k/...

Ok, am I the only one who watched the video? Did the OP even watch the video? What they edited out was a long pause, and the guy asking a rhetorical question that a bunch of morons started yelling out answers to which is A) considered inappropriate when someone is making a statement like the man in the video was, which does reflect poorly on those who started yelling and could be considered heckling, and B) just makes them look like fools for not realizing the guy was asking a rhetorical question. And no, there was no implied opening of the floor for comments from the audience.

Also, who the fuck cares about the difference between a clip and a magazine.

This thread disappoints. You guys wasted the first 10 posts over a definition, and the whole time I kept scrolling down waiting for someone to actually comment on the video- where clearly the liberal use of editing is abused to design these feigned outrages that we've come to expect by now.

When somebody does mention the video, of course, it's blahblah, casually dismissing it as 99% vague nonsense. Which is hilarious coming from him. Another Non-American who knows what's best for America. Self defense with guns is a myth and people who kill themselves with guns are victims of gun violence.

Anyway...

I think we've done it. Last nail in the coffin. RIP, R&P.

Why would it matter to the gun control debate whether he was heckled or not?

Someone could dig up the corpses of all the children killed and have horrifying sex with them, and still have the better argument in this unrelated general debate. The MSNBC should be criticized for bringing up irrelevant things with no bearing on the debate, to smear opponents in it, to begin with.

GrimTuesday:
Ok, am I the only one who watched the video? Did the OP even watch the video? What they edited out was a long pause, and the guy asking a rhetorical question that a bunch of morons started yelling out answers to which is A) considered inappropriate when someone is making a statement like the man in the video was, which does reflect poorly on those who started yelling and could be considered heckling, and B) just makes them look like fools for not realizing the guy was asking a rhetorical question. And no, there was no implied opening of the floor for comments from the audience.

You forgot C) it's not actually possible to open the floor for comments during a legislative hearing since audible feedback from the observers is strictly against the rules. It's a testimony, not a pantomine. The full video also shows the Chairman telling people to shut up because they're not supposed to be commenting at this time.

OP, I think there is already a thread on this subject.

Jegsimmons:
Oh MSNBC, When are you going to learn?

Uh...

For starters, what the fuck is all this dick-waving about clips and magazines? You didn't need to put that in your OP. No-one cares. Stop waving your ego in others' faces. This is not the forum for that.

Anyway:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After Edit:

"Why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons."
*Cut*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

Before Edit:

"I ask that anybody in this room can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips... Not one person can answer that question."
*General murmuring*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bold is post-edit.
"I ask that anybody in this room can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips... *Pause* Not one person can answer that question."
*General murmuring*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether or not it's heckling depends on the proceedings of the hearing. If it's like a court, which it looks like it is, I don't think anyone can actually address the audience directly. If that is the case and that is known, then, yes, the audience shouldn't have said anything and it is heckling. If not, then no, he asked a question and got an answer.

Jegsimmons:
and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

Smagmuck_:

These are not interchangeable, and if you do use them interchangeably, a gun owner who knows better is going to take you a lot less seriously and is more likely to scoff at you and your argument.

It depends.

If you're writing a technical manual or a law about how bullets feed into guns, the difference between a clip and a magazine is quite important. If you're using common parlance, they are interchangeable.

Such is language. Meanings of words may differ in different situations such as technical jargon and everyday conversation. Trying to impose technical specifics over common parlance in a common parlance situation is usually nothing more than trying to ridicule your opponent.

Jegsimmons:

and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

Has someone been reading /k/? I mean, really, most people who care, know. And, even amongst people practiced with firearms, police officers, soldiers, etc, using the word clip as slang for magazine is common.

Count out the amount of clips that you see with modern firearms. We'll wait.

Oh? You mean, speedloaders for revolvers, and some extremely esoteric rifles are pretty much it? You mean that the use of internal magazines has mostly gone the way of the dodo, and that most use detachable box magazines? You mean that, there's no difference in common parlance between the two, since they both perform essentially the same function (Though different in form), and that it makes no fucking difference? Really, the only thing I'm suprised by is the fact that the word clip became more ubiquitous, rather than magazine.

As Agema put so succintly:

Agema:

If you're writing a technical manual or a law about how bullets feed into guns, the difference between a clip and a magazine is quite important. If you're using common parlance, they are interchangeable.

Loonyyy:

Jegsimmons:

and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

Has someone been reading /k/? I mean, really, most people who care, know. And, even amongst people practiced with firearms, police officers, soldiers, etc, using the word clip as slang for magazine is common.

Count out the amount of clips that you see with modern firearms. We'll wait.

Oh? You mean, speedloaders for revolvers, and some extremely esoteric rifles are pretty much it? You mean that the use of internal magazines has mostly gone the way of the dodo, and that most use detachable box magazines? You mean that, there's no difference in common parlance between the two, since they both perform essentially the same function (Though different in form), and that it makes no fucking difference? Really, the only thing I'm suprised by is the fact that the word clip became more ubiquitous, rather than magazine.

As Agema put so succintly:

Agema:

If you're writing a technical manual or a law about how bullets feed into guns, the difference between a clip and a magazine is quite important. If you're using common parlance, they are interchangeable.

There, this is exactly what I said. Nowadays there are very few modern firearms that use clips when firing rounds. This is why I asked if there is a certain prevalence of old styled repeating rifles in the US (Like the M1 Garand, or a Russian Mosin-Nagat variant) because otherwise there really isn't that much of a difference between the two. Instead I was talked down to by these two users.

Danny Ocean:

Jegsimmons:
Oh MSNBC, When are you going to learn?

Uh...

For starters, what the fuck is all this dick-waving about clips and magazines? You didn't need to put that in your OP. No-one cares. Stop waving your ego in others' faces. This is not the forum for that.

Anyway:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After Edit:

"Why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons."
*Cut*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

Before Edit:

"I ask that anybody in this room can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips... Not one person can answer that question."
*General murmuring*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bold is post-edit.
"I ask that anybody in this room can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips... *Pause* Not one person can answer that question."
*General murmuring*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether or not it's heckling depends on the proceedings of the hearing. If it's like a court, which it looks like it is, I don't think anyone can actually address the audience directly. If that is the case and that is known, then, yes, the audience shouldn't have said anything and it is heckling. If not, then no, he asked a question and got an answer.

Oh, that's cute. So the edit which supposedly is faking it is basically just trimming down for time? Priceless.

Oh, that's cute. So the edit which supposedly is faking it is basically just trimming down for time? Priceless.

To be fair, trimming down for time might be relevant, since an immediate response would be closer to trying to shout somebody down, closer to heckling. Of course, to me it sounds like that person was out of order regardless of the timeframe, but the editing may make it sound like a more... active, more immediate response, more of a heckling. Honestly, I don't really care and I don't think it really counts as lying, but may it count as improper reporting? I guess. Comparing that to Fox News is way out there, though. The essential part (the responder being out of order during the guy's testimony and the judge calling them on it) is true, after all.

As for the whole magazine/clip thing? Who the hell cares? English isn't my first language and even I know how much the words are used interchangeably in the media, rightly or wrongly. Gangster movies? Over-the-top action? "Pass me another clip!" Oh, but it's actually a magazine when you look closely. Well, presumably "clip" is often used because it's shorter and more to the point and frankly nobody gives a toss about the technical details.

Danny Ocean:

Jegsimmons:
Oh MSNBC, When are you going to learn?

Uh...

For starters, what the fuck is all this dick-waving about clips and magazines? You didn't need to put that in your OP. No-one cares. Stop waving your ego in others' faces. This is not the forum for that.

Anyway:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After Edit:

"Why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons."
*Cut*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

Before Edit:

"I ask that anybody in this room can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips... Not one person can answer that question."
*General murmuring*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bold is post-edit.
"I ask that anybody in this room can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips... *Pause* Not one person can answer that question."
*General murmuring*
"The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!"
"Alright."
*Judge calls to order*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether or not it's heckling depends on the proceedings of the hearing. If it's like a court, which it looks like it is, I don't think anyone can actually address the audience directly. If that is the case and that is known, then, yes, the audience shouldn't have said anything and it is heckling. If not, then no, he asked a question and got an answer.

Actually, in neither case is it a question. The man was making a statement of his opinion, and did so by asking and answering a rhetorical question; it's a valid and common mechanism of debate and conversation.

For example; Why are American gun owners such self-righteous arseholes that they feel it their right to try and shout down a grieving father at an official proceeding....nobody can answer that.

Jegsimmons:
Also, this is a side note but:
a weapons is not an 'assault weapon/rifle' unless it has select fire or is fully automatic (illegal to own in the US without a class ll license and they have only been used in 4 murders since 1934 and one of the shooters was a cop)
and most irritating of all, a 'clip' is not the same as a Magazine....please don't use these interchangeably.

"Assault weapon/rifle"?

An "assault rifle" has selective fire capacity, allowing the user to fire it as a semi-automatic weapon, or on burst or fully automatic mode.

An "assault weapon" only exists in US law, and is only capable of semi-automatic fire.

Correct about the mag/clip thing, of course, but I don't think that's as annoying, as it's not a focus of proposed gun laws, the way calls for bans on assault rifles or assault weapons are.

Skeleon:

Oh, that's cute. So the edit which supposedly is faking it is basically just trimming down for time? Priceless.

To be fair, trimming down for time might be relevant, since an immediate response would be closer to trying to shout somebody down, closer to heckling. Of course, to me it sounds like that person was out of order regardless of the timeframe, but the editing may make it sound like a more... active, more immediate response, more of a heckling. Honestly, I don't really care and I don't think it really counts as lying, but may it count as improper reporting? I guess. Comparing that to Fox News is way out there, though. The essential part (the responder being out of order during the guy's testimony and the judge calling them on it) is true, after all.

Fair call. It does make it seem more immediate, but that's hardly a lie. It doesn't change the substance of the statement, and yes, the guy did call out to him, which yes, would be heckling. And the comparisons to Fox News (Banned in Canada as news shows there are prohibited from lying to the audience) are indeed completely insane. MSNBC isn't unbiased. It's left leaning, we all know it. But it's not a see saw where there has to be an equally crazy pundit crew on each side.

As for the whole magazine/clip thing? Who the hell cares? English isn't my first language and even I know how much the words are used interchangeably in the media, rightly or wrongly. Gangster movies? Over-the-top action? "Pass me another clip!" Oh, but it's actually a magazine when you look closely. Well, presumably "clip" is often used because it's shorter and more to the point and frankly nobody gives a toss about the technical details.

If I recall correctly, I was reading an Andy McNab (An ex-22nd SAS member) novel, and I noticed at one point he did it too. I mean, really, it's a ridiculous bit of epeenery run off mostly by gun-nuts who's knowledge stems from /k/, and little to no actual knowledge of firearms (For instance, the distinct lack of modern clip based loading).

Jegsimmons:
Could this be an example of yellow journalism at its sickest?

Absolutely not. This is far above the quality of most tabloid newspapers, for instance. If this were in the Sun or the Daily Mail, they'd probably have hinted that the guy who was heckled also had sex with his dead son and that the "loony left" encouraged paedophilia because benefit scroungers.

Compared to that kind of "journalism", this minor editing is tame.

Jegsimmons:
Also, this is a side note but:
a weapons is not an 'assault weapon/rifle' unless it has select fire or is fully automatic (illegal to own in the US without a class ll license and they have only been used in 4 murders since 1934 and one of the shooters was a cop)

Is that your definition of an assault weapon, because I've been seeing a lot of people around here do that? This is what I found under the "Assault Weapons Ban":

Will admit this is from Wikipedia, but I found the same exact list with a few words changed on a government website, just can't find that link right now. It says nothing about select fire or full auto (since those are classified as machine guns - plus if they were made before '86, you can own one with just a tax stamp for it, as long as it is legal in the state you live in). Everything on an "assault weapon" is cosmetic.

Jegsimmons:

This isn't the only news media controversy surrounding the shooting, as a lot of people are claiming the use of the AR-15 rifle was not even used in the shooting and was found in the car along with the shotgun and people are ignoring the second person apprehended at the scene.

Could this be an example of yellow journalism at its sickest?

In this posters opinion, I say:....Who the hell still watches cable news? Google News and Live Leak is where its at.

The only people that say the ar15 was found in the car where early news shows that mis-spoke and conspiracy theorists that think the government actually planned the massacre. According to the coroner everyone was shot by the AR 15 except for the gunman who shot himself with one of his handguns. The second man arrested was actually an off duty swat guy from a neighboring city/county, which might explain why he was screaming it wasn't me to the families he passed as he was being put in the police car.

Smagmuck_:

Glasgow:
SNIP

Seanchaidh:
SNIP

Nope, a clip is a strip of metal that helps load the cartridges into a magazine, either an external or internal magazine. These little strips of metal cut down on time spent loading magazines.

A magazine on the other hand is a metal or polymer box with a spring in it that loads the cartridges into the firearm itself.

These are not interchangeable, and if you do use them interchangeably, a gun owner who knows better is going to take you a lot less seriously and is more likely to scoff at you and your argument.

Clip: a collection of bullets that load into a firearm
Magazine: a collection of bullets that load into a firearm

To "empty a magazine" or "empty a clip" is to say essentially the same thing: that you've gone and shot all your bullets (or all but one in some cases) and may want to reload. In many usages the particulars of the actual operation are entirely inconsequential. The only reason to give a shit is if one wants to act like a douche about it.

I see a lot of people in this thread going "No big deal, it was a rhetorical question anyway so the guy was still out-of-line."

To me, it doesn't seem like the question was rhetorical at all once he brought up the whole "See? No-one in this room can answer that" bit. As soon as he said that, I would have assumed that his question wasn't rhetorical, and that he wanted an answer. And there certainly wasn't heckling involved: the pause between his asking the question and then providing the follow-up which elicited the response was long.

The trimming didn't change the context of what was said. The answer also has nothing to do with the question asked, which makes me think it wasn't an answer at all, but rather a declaration out of frustration.

Glasgow:

Jegsimmons:

Glasgow:
The term clip and magazine is interchangeable nowadays because you don't see modern repeating rifles using clips anymore (Not to mention semi-automatic or fully automatic). You still use clips for other firearms (such as any type of revolver or older repeating rifles), but the most common ammunition feeding mechanism nowadays is external via a magazine.

Yes, this is unreasonable. People don't understand what is an "assault weapon". The term is being rewritten nowadays to answer some of the more unreasonable cries for 'gun control' in the US. What is the point? The media is always a tool in a conflict over culture.

Seanchaidh:

Why not use them interchangeably? I mean, sure, a clip isn't exactly a room in a ship with kegs of powder and cannonballs, but really it's the same kind of idea.

Wrong, A clip feed bullets into a magazine (usually internally built)

A magazine is what feeds bullets into the gun to be fired.

they are not interchangeable.

image

NOW YOU KNOW!!!

Is this parade of smugness going to continue? You're the second one to do this to me and I imagine it won't stop in the near future.

it isnt smugness, its just a confusion that gets on gun owners tits.

Like if someone said Spoc was in Star Wars....you just...HAVE to correct them.

Smagmuck_:
snip

When it comes to common parlance these terms are interchangeable - they are just the thing that gets more than one bullet from your pocket into the gun. Beyond that what do you actually need to know? It's arguing a technicality that nobody besides people interested in the object cares about. There are dozens of examples for cars, computers, etc. that we don't spend ages arguing about how two very similar things that do exactly the same thing are actually different, we just nod and let them use the term (if you've ever tried to explain astrophysics to someone you quickly realise it's this or a murder charge)

Blablahb:
So basically it's a vague video from a conservative blog, and in between the usualy 99% nonsense, they found one bit of semantics to attacks MSNBC over?

Wow, yep, slightly mislabeling two terms which mean the same for most people is really going to damage their credibility...

if you check up on google you get other reports of them EDITING the video to make it look like gun supporters were heckleing as opposed to answering his question...you did watch the video right?

Karma168:

Smagmuck_:
snip

When it comes to common parlance these terms are interchangeable -

thats never been true, they mean 2 completely different things.

they are just the thing that gets more than one bullet from your pocket into the gun. Beyond that what do you actually need to know? It's arguing a technicality that nobody besides people interested in the object cares about. There are dozens of examples for cars, computers, etc. that we don't spend ages arguing about how two very similar things that do exactly the same thing are actually different, we just nod and let them use the term (if you've ever tried to explain astrophysics to someone you quickly realism it's this or a murder charge)

doesnt mean the useage is anymore correct and knowledge of this does actually make your argument sound more credible because it makes you sound as if you actually researched your side and no enough about the item before making a final decision on what side you take.

You dont make a debate about gay marriage (just as an example, no debate please) and use the term 'queers' to make your argument sound more intelligent...even if people use it as a common usage with no offense intended.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked