Gun Grabbing Group hires actors to fake video, violates NY guns laws in process

Is this typical of Gun Grabbers?


  • Total voters
    16
Criticize the message, absolutely.
But silence it?

I am not trying to silence it. I am pointing out that they are lying. I have no ability to silence them.

"Mislead" is entirely subjective.

Not when they lie to Washington Post Reporter and say that the persons in the ad were real 1st time gun buyers. That is a lie-- it is not open to interpretation. Further, it demonstrates their subjective intent to mislead the public with their ad... otherwise why would they lie to the WAPO reporter? For the fun of it?
And what exactly do you propose be 'done' about this lie.

Certainly you're not so stupid and ignorant as to attempt to propagate the fallacy that these few individuals are somehow 'representative' of all persons who advocate for lawful, Constitutional firearm measures that comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And certainly you're not so stupid and ignorant as to attempt to propagate the lie that the group's lie in any way 'undermines' or 'mitigates' the factual validity of necessary, proper, and Constitutional gun control regulations authorized by the Second Amendment.

To do so would render you just as ignorant and ridiculous as the OP, and his moronic myth of 'gun grabbers.'
 
Criticize the message, absolutely.
But silence it?

I am not trying to silence it. I am pointing out that they are lying. I have no ability to silence them.

"Mislead" is entirely subjective.

Not when they lie to Washington Post Reporter and say that the persons in the ad were real 1st time gun buyers. That is a lie-- it is not open to interpretation. Further, it demonstrates their subjective intent to mislead the public with their ad... otherwise why would they lie to the WAPO reporter? For the fun of it?
And what exactly do you propose be 'done' about this lie.

Certainly you're not so stupid and ignorant as to attempt to propagate the fallacy that these few individuals are somehow 'representative' of all persons who advocate for lawful, Constitutional firearm measures that comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And certainly you're not so stupid and ignorant as to attempt to propagate the lie that the group's lie in any way 'undermines' or 'mitigates' the factual validity of necessary, proper, and Constitutional gun control regulations authorized by the Second Amendment.

To do so would render you just as ignorant and ridiculous as the OP, and his moronic myth of 'gun grabbers.'

Actually he hasn't (they haven't) demonstrated that it is a "lie" in the first place. They're going on a single word "actors" in a permit document and choosing to interpret that that means "actor -- the profession".... rather than "actor -- the technical term".

Far as I can tell, that's their entire argument here.
 
Gun grabbers invent their own facts to make up for the utter lacks of actual facts.
A gun control group filmed a fake clerk of a fake gun store obtaining fake reactions from fake customers and then presented the video as genuine to the public.

That’s the anti-gun movement in a nutshell; unlike pro-gun activists who volunteer their free time to organize public rallies to promote the Second Amendment, authoritarians hire paid actors to deceive the public into surrendering their gun rights.

Gun Control Group Deceives Public by Hiring Paid Actors for Hidden Camera Experiment Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind


Too bad there weren't people with guns in those incidents to stop the active shooters.

If I am in a situation with an active shooter I don't want to be the case that gets shot and killed because I am defenseless, I want to be the case that stops the shooter.
 


Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?

Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.

Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.

The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.



Oh my GOD. The basstids!

Oh wait....









Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.


Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?
Really?

Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.

---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??

Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?

Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?

Do you honestly expect a straight answer when you are being so fucking dishonest?

Of course you do – you expect me to swallow the BS that those are comparable when they clearly are not. Try again Pogo – without being so dishonest – or continue to be ignored.


Just answer the question --- are people (the general public) so completely powerless that they'll simply follow whatever orders the Telescreen gives them, like androids? Because if that's the case, there should be some major head explosions as soon as that Telescreen gives them contradictory info, should there not? In other words do you actually believe potential first-time gun buyers are going to make their decision (either way) based on what some stranger on a TV set decided?

I'm assuming here that your issue with the PSA is that the reactions of the "gun buyers" are scripted rather than personal. If that's not your issue then please clarify.

No. People do tend to believe that what they are told is at leased based on truth and the 'commercial' in this case is a bald faced lie.

That is utterly irrelevant though. Weather or not the commercial is effective has nothing to do with the fact that it is utterly dishonest. Why do you feel the need to defend a political ad that is inherently dishonest in its presentation? I find the tactic distasteful. An outright lie should not be acceptable - period.
 


Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?

Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.

Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.

The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.



Oh my GOD. The basstids!

Oh wait....









Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.


More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?
Really?

Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.

---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??

Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?

Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?

Do you honestly expect a straight answer when you are being so fucking dishonest?

Of course you do – you expect me to swallow the BS that those are comparable when they clearly are not. Try again Pogo – without being so dishonest – or continue to be ignored.


Just answer the question --- are people (the general public) so completely powerless that they'll simply follow whatever orders the Telescreen gives them, like androids? Because if that's the case, there should be some major head explosions as soon as that Telescreen gives them contradictory info, should there not? In other words do you actually believe potential first-time gun buyers are going to make their decision (either way) based on what some stranger on a TV set decided?

I'm assuming here that your issue with the PSA is that the reactions of the "gun buyers" are scripted rather than personal. If that's not your issue then please clarify.


No. People do tend to believe that what they are told is at leased based on truth and the 'commercial' in this case is a bald faced lie.

That is utterly irrelevant though. Weather or not the commercial is effective has nothing to do with the fact that it is utterly dishonest. Why do you feel the need to defend a political ad that is inherently dishonest in its presentation? I find the tactic distasteful. An outright lie should not be acceptable - period.


Still waiting for some kind of proof that it even IS an "outright lie"... and still not seeing it.

And back to the top -- if "people tend to believe what they are told" then how do you explain the entrenched positions on this thread .... let alone this entire political discussion forum? It would seem to shoot that theory right in the proverbial foot.

So no, it's not at all irrelevant -- if we stipulate that "people believe what they're told", then obviously there must be some entity that enforces what that is. If people do not necessarily believe what they're told, then we have free speech. You have to pick one or the other.

Weather or not the commercial is effective has nothing to do with the fact that it is utterly dishonest.

If the point persuaded has nothing to do with whether it's "authentic" ----- then why does it matter how "authentic" it is?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top