Hand_Rifle_Guy
New member
Now, we are all familiar with anti-gun bias from the major media. They have no hesitations about putting gun ownership in a bad light in any convenient way, regardless of facts.
But last night, I saw something rather disturbing. Let's hear it for the Family channel, doing their part to uphold the standards of anti-gun propaganda, and perhaps to raise them to a new height, or a new low, depending on your viewpoint.
I was at a friend's house, watching "Any which way but loose", the movie with Clint Eastwood playing a bare-knuckle boxer who co-stars with an orangutan. Clint comes across as a man with a high set of ethical standards despite his violent method of boosting his income. What I found disturbing was a VERY subtle piece of editing around one of the only pieces of gun use in the entire movie.
It involved the revolver in the purse of the cute female co-star Clint's brother acquired on the road. After a match at a meat-packing plant where-in Clint handily defeated his opponent, the meat-packers decided to renege on their wagers with Clint and his brother. The ORIGINAL scene played as follows: when things got a bit tense, the gun-toting female breaks the tension with two shots from her snubbie. One into a side of beef, the second into the same side of beef, but right in the center of a quarter-sized stamp on the meat a few inches from the first shot. The lady delivers the line: "That's to show you that the first one wasn't an accident." A nice, pointed remark about the use of a gun to prevent a casual strong-arm robbery of a few by the many, without the neccessity of actual bloodshed.
The DEVIOUS PROPAGANDA version I watched had the same two shots. (I was looking forward to this particular scene, as I remembered it from when I'd seen the movie at a drive-in theatre when I was small, so I was paying particular attention.) The first shot sounded, but there was NO IMPACT shown. (Huh? Wait, she shot a chunk of meat, right? I remember!) The second shot goes off, and I'm looking for the bullet hole appearing in the stamp on the meat. No dice.
THE IMPACT OF THE FIRST SHOT WAS SHOWN. THE EXCELLENT MARKSMANSHIP DISPLAYED BY THE YOUNG LADY WAS EDITED OUT!
What the F#@K!?!
They didn't edit the gun use out entirely. The sound-track was unchanged. The Family channel had no qualms about showing a fairly violent, bloody-knuckle fighting movie, but they could not allow a display of the precision use of a snubby revolver by a civilian woman. :barf::barf:!!!!
I suppose, in a long-reach sort of way, that I could perhaps see how the Family channel might not want to promote the use of a gun as a solution to a violent problem. BUT TO EDIT OUT THE IDEA THAT GUNS CAN BE USED WITH SUCCESSFUL PRECISION IS REPREHENSIBLE!! Such blatant hypocrisy! To change the original presentation to deliberately discredit the concept of guns as instruments with any sort of precision. :barf:! To promote the "spray and pray" mentality that the media decries so harshly. :barf:! Here's a movie with ONE TINY USE of a handgun within the entire two-hour presentation, that didn't even involve someone being shot, and the producers feel it neccessary to completely change the presentation of such use to conform to THEIR ugly ideas of what guns ACTUALLY DO, regardless of the original intent of the film's director or the relative harmlessness of the scene. :barf:!
I suppose it might have had something to do with the subsequent scene of two bumbling cops practicing with their guns and displaying miserable marksmanship. Musn't discredit the preconceived notion of "The only people who're trained to handle guns are cops." But that's charitable thinking on my part. The characters portrayed as cops in that film are nothing to be proud of, petty, small-minded louts with nothing further on their minds but revenge for an embarassment brought on by their own low-life behavior. But no, we're supposed to forgive the cops for failing to have a higher standard of behavior. That's interesting, considering the movie itself DOESN'T do so.
Realistically, I'm not actually surprised, but I AM thoroughly disgusted by some network executive's ideas about the neccessities of the display of gun use. No incident is too small to serve the purposes of the Great Media Re-education Machine. Remember: We do the thinking, so you don't have too! And of course, WE know best, on account of we're obviously smarter than YOU!
Yeah, right. There's about 200 channels available in this country. If you're lucky, maybe two present guns in a realistic light. The Family channel has demonstrated that even non-violent precision shooting is a concept too dangerous to present to great unwashed, as it would undermine much of their hard-earned, oft-promoted LIES about gun use.
Television STINKS. Even cable fails to redeem it's counter-intuitive dumptruck loads of anti-self-defense dis-information. The idea that I should PAY MONEY for the priviledge of being sold to an advertiser galls me to no end. They should be paying ME to have to watch their propagandist drivel.
Hah! That's rich. No wonder I've completely given up television. The networks have once again proven that they are worse than useless. I think I'll just stick to books. At least no-one gets to edit my imagination.
[/Rant]
Thank you for your time and consideration. And your patience whilst I blow off steam. TV has that effect on me these days. That's why I avoid it like the plague.
Now, did anybody else happen to notice this?
But last night, I saw something rather disturbing. Let's hear it for the Family channel, doing their part to uphold the standards of anti-gun propaganda, and perhaps to raise them to a new height, or a new low, depending on your viewpoint.
I was at a friend's house, watching "Any which way but loose", the movie with Clint Eastwood playing a bare-knuckle boxer who co-stars with an orangutan. Clint comes across as a man with a high set of ethical standards despite his violent method of boosting his income. What I found disturbing was a VERY subtle piece of editing around one of the only pieces of gun use in the entire movie.
It involved the revolver in the purse of the cute female co-star Clint's brother acquired on the road. After a match at a meat-packing plant where-in Clint handily defeated his opponent, the meat-packers decided to renege on their wagers with Clint and his brother. The ORIGINAL scene played as follows: when things got a bit tense, the gun-toting female breaks the tension with two shots from her snubbie. One into a side of beef, the second into the same side of beef, but right in the center of a quarter-sized stamp on the meat a few inches from the first shot. The lady delivers the line: "That's to show you that the first one wasn't an accident." A nice, pointed remark about the use of a gun to prevent a casual strong-arm robbery of a few by the many, without the neccessity of actual bloodshed.
The DEVIOUS PROPAGANDA version I watched had the same two shots. (I was looking forward to this particular scene, as I remembered it from when I'd seen the movie at a drive-in theatre when I was small, so I was paying particular attention.) The first shot sounded, but there was NO IMPACT shown. (Huh? Wait, she shot a chunk of meat, right? I remember!) The second shot goes off, and I'm looking for the bullet hole appearing in the stamp on the meat. No dice.
THE IMPACT OF THE FIRST SHOT WAS SHOWN. THE EXCELLENT MARKSMANSHIP DISPLAYED BY THE YOUNG LADY WAS EDITED OUT!
What the F#@K!?! They didn't edit the gun use out entirely. The sound-track was unchanged. The Family channel had no qualms about showing a fairly violent, bloody-knuckle fighting movie, but they could not allow a display of the precision use of a snubby revolver by a civilian woman. :barf:
:barf:!!!!I suppose, in a long-reach sort of way, that I could perhaps see how the Family channel might not want to promote the use of a gun as a solution to a violent problem. BUT TO EDIT OUT THE IDEA THAT GUNS CAN BE USED WITH SUCCESSFUL PRECISION IS REPREHENSIBLE!
! Such blatant hypocrisy! To change the original presentation to deliberately discredit the concept of guns as instruments with any sort of precision. :barf:! To promote the "spray and pray" mentality that the media decries so harshly. :barf:! Here's a movie with ONE TINY USE of a handgun within the entire two-hour presentation, that didn't even involve someone being shot, and the producers feel it neccessary to completely change the presentation of such use to conform to THEIR ugly ideas of what guns ACTUALLY DO, regardless of the original intent of the film's director or the relative harmlessness of the scene. :barf:!I suppose it might have had something to do with the subsequent scene of two bumbling cops practicing with their guns and displaying miserable marksmanship. Musn't discredit the preconceived notion of "The only people who're trained to handle guns are cops." But that's charitable thinking on my part. The characters portrayed as cops in that film are nothing to be proud of, petty, small-minded louts with nothing further on their minds but revenge for an embarassment brought on by their own low-life behavior. But no, we're supposed to forgive the cops for failing to have a higher standard of behavior. That's interesting, considering the movie itself DOESN'T do so.
Realistically, I'm not actually surprised, but I AM thoroughly disgusted by some network executive's ideas about the neccessities of the display of gun use. No incident is too small to serve the purposes of the Great Media Re-education Machine. Remember: We do the thinking, so you don't have too! And of course, WE know best, on account of we're obviously smarter than YOU!
Yeah, right. There's about 200 channels available in this country. If you're lucky, maybe two present guns in a realistic light. The Family channel has demonstrated that even non-violent precision shooting is a concept too dangerous to present to great unwashed, as it would undermine much of their hard-earned, oft-promoted LIES about gun use.
Television STINKS. Even cable fails to redeem it's counter-intuitive dumptruck loads of anti-self-defense dis-information. The idea that I should PAY MONEY for the priviledge of being sold to an advertiser galls me to no end. They should be paying ME to have to watch their propagandist drivel.
Hah! That's rich. No wonder I've completely given up television. The networks have once again proven that they are worse than useless. I think I'll just stick to books. At least no-one gets to edit my imagination.
[/Rant]
Thank you for your time and consideration. And your patience whilst I blow off steam. TV has that effect on me these days. That's why I avoid it like the plague.
Now, did anybody else happen to notice this?