TexasCHLforum.com

Andy,
I wasn't asking for you to spoon feed me the context or fact check for me. I was in the process of checking a few myself when I found what I found.... I AM suggesting if someone is going to promote this sort of thing, that you the quotes used shouldn't be taken out of context. It seems to me that removing the context on these significantly expands the scope of the statement. Just comes off as disingenuous.

But hey, it works, right? You're right, people should check... But people don't. And that includes people on this forum.

I do understand fellow forum members indications (above) that even in context, the point of view is unappreciated. IE even if the context was a much more limited weapons ban, they consider it to be the same thing. I consider them to be very different things... As a politician that wants to remove the 2nd amendment probably wouldn't be a politician for very long. I have no defense of any of the referenced politicians, other than to say what is implied isn't what was being said...

Jaguar wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Amendment

Nope, they don't want to ban guns.

I have zero objection to quotes like this - in context - with full meaning, which came from your reference:

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amendment the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This guy... He's a columnist, not a politician, who wrote that stuff in his editorial, which can be referenced: http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinio ... /19426029/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is a guy who wants to ban all guns. It's an extreme view, but it's presented correctly, in the appropriate context. No objection to quoting this sort of madness quite correctly. Course, some people might recognize that it's a divisive opinion and might really be about making a name for himself or internet popularity - I'd have to research what else he's written.

I object to the out-of-context quotes that significantly broaden the meaning of statements and use them in a manner to influence the sheep who won't bother to fact check... I guess I object that half-truths are so effective.

There's a great example here: viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75111&start=90" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Of a pro-gun group (OCTC) doing even worse - they don't even bother to quote someone out of context, they just make up a fictional point of view... And some of us buy it... For reference, here's what they posted:
http://tinyurl.com/oyy28nb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I don't like that stuff. It just means that you can't trust *any* group with a political agenda. That includes our side.

anygunanywhere wrote: They mean what they say.

I agree that they mean what they say, but the context is very important... Perhaps more important than a single sentence. That goes for anything that you're going to quote.
None of these people get kudos for being pro-2nd amendment, but none of them are actively seeking to ban all firearm ownership openly.. We can all guess what's going on behind the scenes, but none of these cases were calls to take all firearms from all persons.

If you think that wanting to ban AR-15s during a period of political pressure - or heck any period - is the same as wanting to confiscate all guns, then we'll have to disagree... We could agree that it's bad.. We could agree that it's a first step toward something more substantial, but I can't call it what it isn't.

To be fair here, we could probably find some examples of some pretty extreme pro-gun views in the last 14 years or so.. Some of these quotes go back to 2001... Perhaps earlier.

How many of you take one sentence quotes, completely out of context, and form an opinion on them? Because that's what this article has quite successfully done... To me, this is nothing but a testament to how well misinformation spreads.. Because this thing has been passed around for over a decade, which a surprising lack of any amount of critical thinking attached....

As near as I can tell most of these were taken out of context and are meant to apply to "assault weapons" - back during that scare-fest. And I certainly don't defend the parties quoted as pro-gun advocates, but there is a HUGE difference (to me) in suggesting that it's time to ban all weapons (which is what we are lead to believe) and suggesting that we ban certain types of assault weapons during a period of public outcry and polit-pandering reaction. Note, I don't support "assault weapon" bans either, but that's not what we're lead to believe is being suggested here.

When people on our side spin and bend the truth, I think that's much more offensive than actually making statements like this - in context. I'm not a sheep. I don't want to choose a side based on misinformation and I'm quite intolerant of this sort of thing... I find is disgusting that both sides use it and I think it reflects on the intelligence of the American people very poorly.