With a blank editorial section, because they’re speechless.
Sorry sorry ALMOST middle aged white man. I’m almost fifty and still think of anything beyond around 35 as middle aged. My mistake. I say white because although his name is Ramos one of the images of him shown on the news was a mugshot that said “non Hispanic white”. He didn’t look particularly Hispanic to me either, maybe as Hispanic as my daughter looks. Same skin, hair, and eye color.
I’ve been looking for information on the weapon used. This report says it was a 12 gauge pump.
Ammo wasn’t reported. Buckshot or slugs are the most likely.
https://www.google.com/amp/abc7.com/amp/suspect-in-capital-gazette-shooting-used-pump-action-shotgun/3674289/
It’s not a weapon typically used these days.
When I got my job at my current newspaper, I don’t think that it ever crossed my mind that, one day, we would have active shooter training. But, somehow, here we are.
This is the NRA’s “helpful” take from a few months ago regarding the action their members should take against “lying” journalists.
WTF is wrong with these people???
I didn’t hear or see anything about “the action their members should take against “lying” journalists.” Could you quote that part specifically?
Your disingenuousness is breathtaking.
For pointing out obviously false claims? I guess some people don’t like it when their ignorance is fought.
Can you tell me what “your time is running out. The clock starts now.” means to you?
You are correct in that they intentionally did not use language that crossed the line to a call for action, if that is all you are saying here, then you are correct on the technicality that they did not specifically say what actions should be taken against these networks and newspapers that are called out by name.
If that is all your point is, then congratulations on utterly useless pedantry.
If you are saying that journalists at these places that were named by her should not feel fear of action by some nutcase inspired by her diatribe, then you are just wrong.
There is a chilling effect on the press when people call them out for retribution for publishing stories that violent crazies may take exception to. If you really cannot see this, it is only because you have actively made the decision to not notice when your side is advocating for violence against its political enemies.
If you owned a small business and a couple of big guys in track suits came in and one of them said “Nice place you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it,” I can only assume your first thought would be “What good fellows, with their praise and concern for my store.”
Sometimes that threat is less effective than it could be.
I read somewhere that it’s the oldest still published newspaper in the world. What a tragedy. My heart goes out to the relatives of the victims.
Without digging into it, that might have been a tribute to Editorial Page Editor Gerald Fischman, my aforementioned former co-worker.
I took it to mean: “my new show is starting and now the mainstream media won’t be able to get away with their lies. We’re going to make sure the truth is heard” or something along those lines. I wouldn’t quibble with someone who felt it was a tad intimidating or if some snowflake felt threatened by it, but to claim it says anything about “the action their members should take against “lying” journalists” when it plainly does not is just simply wrong.
Whatever his intent was, what matters is what interpretation his followers – at least the wingnut ones – put on it, like that guy who assaulted a DC pizza shop with an AR-15 to rescue victims of a child sex-ring being run by Hillary. Besides that, the place received hundreds of harassing phone calls from Yrue Believers. Do you think they should pass that off as “simply wrong?”
Words have consequences, especially when you’re POTUS, something Trump as yet to learn.
I think you’re confused about the topic of conversation. k9bfriender and I (and ftg, who brought it up originally in post #65) were discussing a video by Dana Loesch, an NRA spokesperson, not anything said by President Trump.
Cite.
Of course, those were all during his campaign. Since then he’s become the voice of reason. :rolleyes:
It’s like I’m talking to a brick wall
Sure. You really believe that the intent of the words and intonation was not to intimidate and cast a chilling effect?
I get that you would defend this sort of speech. It is carefully tailored to not actually cross lines to call to action, but it is a very thin disguise, one that NRA members see through quite clearly. What is odd is that they think that they are being oh so very clever, when they are only fooling themselves and their defenders.
Now, if there were just defense of this inflammatory speech, then I could grant that naivety enough to think that there was no implied threats there, except that there also seems to criticism of Maxine waters for telling people to use their first amendment rights to protest member’s of the trump admin, to the point of trump blatantly lying about what she said, and his supporters believing every bit of it.
Your massively overused insult of “snowflake” shows your hand, that you know that the reason for this was to upset people, while giggling and hiding behind what you think others recognized as a pedantic civility.
I suppose you also would like to defend her “curb stomping” comments as not violent imagery, but simply flowery prose, too.