Man Brings Assault Rifle To Obama Rally! (Even more shocking

[Silcc69]

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html

http://i.azcentral.com/i/sized/C/9/3/e298/j350/PHP4A897DB84A39C.jpg
stereotype a just flew out the window

[trish]

I believe these people bringing firearms to town-hall meetings on healthcare reform are just trying to make an essential point: gun injuries are the predominate health problem that urban ER's (the poor man's healthcare) deal with. If we could eliminate these sorts of urgent injuries, perhaps poor people would have less of a wait at the ER for their more mundane health issues. That's what I like about the ultra-right: they're always looking out for the other guy...'cause they might want to shoot him.

[Quiet Reflections]

it is a nice gun

[El Nino]

Its a plant.

[Helvis2012]

I believe these people bringing firearms to town-hall meetings on healthcare reform are just trying to make an essential point: gun injuries are the predominate health problem that urban ER's (the poor man's healthcare) deal with. If we could eliminate these sorts of urgent injuries, perhaps poor people would have less of a wait at the ER for their more mundane health issues. That's what I like about the ultra-right: they're always looking out for the other guy...'cause they might want to shoot him.



That's not why they're bring guns to town hall meetings. Where did you get that? Try watching the news or reading a paper.

[trish]

That's not why they're bring guns to town hall meetings.Sure it is. And if I say often enough it'll be true too.

[notdrunk]

Its a plant.

He was with a group that open carried to the meeting. The group contacted the police beforehand informing them that they will be coming. The individual was the only one to bring an AR-15. The others brought handguns.

[trish]

They figured that if things went from bad to worse, one assault rifle was enough to establish their first amendment right to have us hear their voice, hear their voice, hear their voice.

[soulRipp]

im tired of all the Obama hate i mean people act like dude was going to get in office and everything was going but wonderful. I think to many people think the President have more power then they do. Right now everyone talking about health care, if you have planned for getting old you wouldn't need health care. You got 401k that you could have build up to help you in old age. on top of that taking care of urself is another thing. Dont blame other people because you messed up that's America problem right now

[eddymunster90]

Weird, he has the pistol on his left hip, but the rifle over his right shoulder. So is he ambidextrious(sp?)?

[cockgobbler]

Now, I happen to be a gun guy so my opinion is obviously slanted somewhat, but I really don't see anything wrong this.

Arizona has an open carry law which allows its residents to carry firearms in the open.

As far as I'm concerned, this person is simply exercising his rights as a citizen of Arizona.

[95racer]

Arizona has open carry. Been that way for years.

What's an assualt rifle?

[loren]

Weird, he has the pistol on his left hip, but the rifle over his right shoulder. So is he ambidextrious(sp?)?He might be. I write with my right hand, but shoot with my left (unless I'm shooting Black Powder).

[trish]

Don't think your 401k is going to get you one month through a catastrophic disease or an accident that wasn't your fault. What if your kid is the one who's in the accident and needs the treatment. What if the grim reaper threatens you or your family before you've had time to accumulate the wealth you think your 401k is going to earn? The elderly already have socialized medicine, the young and middle aged don't. The hospitals, the tests, the teams of specialists and surgeons will swallow whatever you've managed to accumulate in no time flat. Don't think your insurance company isn't going to limit your options, delay payments, and drop your ass as soon as they get a chance. That's the only way to make a profit. Ultimately they exist to serve the shareholders, not you.

What's any of this got to do with the second amendment? Nothing. These people aren't toting just to exercise their second amendment right. They're intimidating the opposition. They know they don't have logic on their side, but they do have lies, scare tactics and intimidation.

[MrF]

Re: the gun -- Hey, a guy has to be able to defend himself against opinions he doesn't like !

J/K.

[giovanni_hotel]

Now, I happen to be a gun guy so my opinion is obviously slanted somewhat, but I really don't see anything wrong this.

Arizona has an open carry law which allows its residents to carry firearms in the open.

As far as I'm concerned, this person is simply exercising his rights as a citizen of Arizona.

Bringing visible firearms to a town hall meeting hosted by the POTUS is a thug move, plain and simple.

I don't care whether you have the right to carry or not.

Obama wasn't hosting a discussion about 2nd Amendment rights, so what message are they trying to send???

Man, if that shit went down when Bush was in office, no doubt in my mind those gentlemen would have been arrested for being inside the perimeter where the President was speaking.

What the hell is going on with Right wingers??

Are they seriously trying to chump Obama??

[Silcc69]

Is this the only time a situation like this has happened? Now i'm all for gun rights (within reason.) but this was out of hand and it seems like a scare tactic to me. I mean had this been something in regards to banning guns then I would understand a statement like this. And btw IDK it was legal to carry a swat/military powered rifle out in the open.

[phobun]

Its a plant.No doubt part of a conspiracy engineered by Obushama and the rest of the reptilian humanoids.

[trish]

The republicans weren't too hep on the first amendment rights when Bush was in office. You couldn't get near him with a T-shirt. If your T-shirt or sign said anything out of synch with conservative "philosophy" you got sent to the "free speech zone" half a mile away from the TV cameras. Now when you ask a republican congressman or senator about these gun toting nuts at town-meetings, all they can say is, "they're just exercising their second amendment right." Well let them exercise in a special fucking 2nd amendment gun zone.

[Deege]

They weren't inside the building that Obama was speaking in. He wasn't speaking outdoors where it would be a real threat. They would not have been allowed to take their guns inside of the building he was speaking in, because any building that the President is in automacially becomes a federal building, and it's illegal to carry on federal grounds.

[trish]

It's not just town-halls where the President is speaking, though those are the most egregious examples, but these guys are toting guns at other town-hall meetings where the agenda isn't target shooting, but discussion of health care. Have they no sense of appropriate behavior?

[loren]

It's not just town-halls where the President is speaking, though those are the most egregious examples, but these guys are toting guns at other town-hall meetings where the agenda isn't target shooting, but discussion of health care. Have they no sense of appropriate behavior?Right To Carry laws differ from state to state. Some states don't even have Right To Carry. In my state, Missouri, it's illegal to carry in any government building. Other states have less restrictions and some have more. For instance, in Missouri, you can't be arrrested for having a concealed firearm in a private buisness that does not allow concealed carry. While in Kansas, you could be arrested for that.

That being said, the Federal Government has some restrictions on where a person can't legally carry firearms: all Federal buildings, all schools, and all polling places.

[Surkis]

Arizona has open carry. Been that way for years.

What's an assualt rifle?

A gun that looks scary.

No, i'm not kidding. What the government classifies as an "assault rifle" is functionally identical (i.e. exactly the god damn same) as a regular hunting rifle, it just looks scarier.

[cockgobbler]

Arizona has open carry. Been that way for years.

What's an assualt rifle?

A gun that looks scary.

No, i'm not kidding. What the government classifies as an "assault rifle" is functionally identical (i.e. exactly the god damn same) as a regular hunting rifle, it just looks scarier.

It may be different in the States, but here in Canada IIRC, an Assault Rifle is defined as a long gun capable of firing full auto, or one that has the option of "select fire" between full auto and semi-auto.

Full auto - hold down the trigger and the gun keeps firing until the magazine is empty.

Semi-auto - the trigger must be pulled every time you want to fire a round.

Full auto and select fire firearms are illegal in Canada. People with the necessary licenses can own a semi-auto AR-15 type rifle (like the one in the picture) but the magazine must be "pinned" to prevent it from holding more than 5 rounds.

But as you said, they function the exact same way as a standard semi-auto hunting rifle, and shoot the exact same ammo. They just LOOK scary.

[cockgobbler]

It's not just town-halls where the President is speaking, though those are the most egregious examples, but these guys are toting guns at other town-hall meetings where the agenda isn't target shooting, but discussion of health care. Have they no sense of appropriate behavior?

For those who live in States where concealed carry or open carry is allowed, it is just a way of life.

They carry their guns to the grocery store, the bank, the kids soccer or football game. Why is a town hall meeting any different?

Now, I will grant you the guy in the picture with the AR-15 rifle (he wasn't the only one there carrying that type of firearm) was probably also sending a little message to the Obama administration who want to renew President Clinton's "assault weapons" ban that expired under GWB.

[cockgobbler]

It's not just town-halls where the President is speaking, though those are the most egregious examples, but these guys are toting guns at other town-hall meetings where the agenda isn't target shooting, but discussion of health care. Have they no sense of appropriate behavior?Right To Carry laws differ from state to state. Some states don't even have Right To Carry. In my state, Missouri, it's illegal to carry in any government building. Other states have less restrictions and some have more. For instance, in Missouri, you can't be arrrested for having a concealed firearm in a private buisness that does not allow concealed carry. While in Kansas, you could be arrested for that.

That being said, the Federal Government has some restrictions on where a person can't legally carry firearms: all Federal buildings, all schools, and all polling places.

Not all schools. Some in Texas are going to allow teachers to bring their firearms to school.

[trish]

Why intimidate a crowd with just a hunting rifle when you can do a better job with a rifle that looks scary? The message is clearly, "If you argue with me you may be in for a world of hurt." These cowards claim to love democracy! What they would really love is to have bigger dicks and potent political arguments. Barring that they carry phallic symbols instead.

[Silcc69]

See Plexico Burress should've been in Arizona. He's about to serve bout a year or 2 in jail for shooting himself.

[95racer]

Arizona has open carry. Been that way for years.

What's an assualt rifle?

A gun that looks scary.

No, i'm not kidding. What the government classifies as an "assault rifle" is functionally identical (i.e. exactly the god damn same) as a regular hunting rifle, it just looks scarier.

I understand that. That is why I always ask the question. The news media/ anti-gunners generated the name 'assualt rifle.'

[trish]

Actually the name is "assault rifle." There are two understandings of the term, one military and the other commercial. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it's not produced with the capacity to switch to fully automatic fire. The manufacturer, however, is happy to classify it as an assault rifle because it can then be sold as a penis compensator. The news media is only picking up on the lingo of the manufacturers and the owners. It may be your right to take one to a debate, a wedding, a funeral or a baptism, but it does betray a certain social inadequacy to do so.

[notdrunk]

The news media is only picking up on the lingo of the manufacturers and the owners.

The news media is not picking up the lingo from the manufactures and the owners. They are getting the lingo from the state and the gun control advocates. The owners and the manufactures know that the AR-15 is not really an assault rifle. It is the state labeling those firearms as assualt rifles through laws. The gun control advocates label it as an assualt rifle trying to make it an "evil" rifle.

Anti-gun politics created the commercial term.



Why intimidate a crowd with just a hunting rifle when you can do a better job with a rifle that looks scary? The message is clearly, "If you argue with me you may be in for a world of hurt." These cowards claim to love democracy! What they would really love is to have bigger dicks and potent political arguments. Barring that they carry phallic symbols instead.


Or, it could be "You cannot intimidate me through your yelling and etc." I lost the link to a Youtube video in which a reform supporter was trying to be hostile to some people against reform; however, he did not pick on the dude that was open carrying (it was the guy that was interviewed by Chris Matthews a week or so ago). He skipped the guy and he focused his rage on someone else. The supporter yelled and spit on a guy's camera.

[trish]

Anti-gun politics created the commercial term. Oh that makes sense. :lol:

[notdrunk]

Anti-gun politics created the commercial term. Oh that makes sense. :lol:

It is called vilification. The dreaded assualt rifle that can mow down tons of people and it can be fired from the hip!

[trish]

Anti-gun politics created the commercial term.
Look up the word "commercial." It's called marketing. The dreaded assault rifle is a penis compensator. You don't need a combat designed stock to shoot target or hunt. On the other hand, if you want to impress your fellow sportsmen with your big scary gun, the AR-15 assault rifle is the model for you.

[pantybulge69]

Now, I happen to be a gun guy so my opinion is obviously slanted somewhat, but I really don't see anything wrong this.

Arizona has an open carry law which allows its residents to carry firearms in the open.

As far as I'm concerned, this person is simply exercising his rights as a citizen of Arizona.

Bringing visible firearms to a town hall meeting hosted by the POTUS is a thug move, plain and simple.

I don't care whether you have the right to carry or not.

Obama wasn't hosting a discussion about 2nd Amendment rights, so what message are they trying to send???

Man, if that shit went down when Bush was in office, no doubt in my mind those gentlemen would have been arrested for being inside the perimeter where the President was speaking.

What the hell is going on with Right wingers??

Are they seriously trying to chump Obama??

right to arms or not, i wouldn't feel comfortable with a non-security,
non-law enforcement officer near me with in open sight with a
firearm much less an assault rifle. My initial thought would be this is
a nut who might go shooting- spree nuts. i would like the idea of going
to a public place with a look of a safe, non-intimidating atmosphere.

[notdrunk]

Anti-gun politics created the commercial term.
Look up the word "commercial." It's called marketing. The dreaded assault rifle is a penis compensator. You don't need a combat designed stock to shoot target or hunt. On the other hand, if you want to impress your fellow sportsmen with your big scary gun, the AR-15 assault rifle is the model for you.

It is not marketing. Bushmaster, one of the main manufacturers of the AR-15 and its variants, does not use the term "assualt rifle" in its marketing. Numerous other manufactures do not use that term too.

It is not a penis compensator. It is called the evolution of firearms.

[trish]

Bushmaster, one of the main manufacturers of the AR-15...
Good point; the very name of the manufacturer, Bushmaster, is designed to bolster the egos of insecure males. Here’s a link to what they call “home defense & recreational models”. ( http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_defense_recreation_index.asp ) Just that lumping is designed to sell guns as penis compensators; there’s no stand alone category for recreation and sports because excluding the insecure is just poor marketing practice. Moreover, I was remiss not to mention the terminology “assault rifle” is also used pervasively by dealers and middle men. You know those guys who sell weapons at gun shows and in parking lots from the trunks of their cars.


It is not a penis compensator.
TRANSLATION: “NOOOOOOooooo my gun doesn’t compensate for my penis.”

But what you call it and what it compensates for, balls, penis, bruised ego or other insecurity, the real point is they don’t belong in town-hall meetings. Sure, you have a second amendment right to bear arms. But those meeting are not about the second amendment. Bringing guns to these meetings is like wearing a side iron to your daughter’s wedding, your grandson’s baptism or to the bank where you plan to get a balance.

[cockgobbler]

Anti-gun politics created the commercial term.
Look up the word "commercial." It's called marketing. The dreaded assault rifle is a penis compensator. You don't need a combat designed stock to shoot target or hunt. On the other hand, if you want to impress your fellow sportsmen with your big scary gun, the AR-15 assault rifle is the model for you.

There are several shooting competitions where the AR-15 type rifle are specifically used, and they CAN be used for hunting.

Do people NEED them? It's not up to me to say. Do people NEED 65 inch flat screen T.V.'s?

All I'm saying is the AR-15 type rifles are legal to own, so if someone wants one, even if is just because they look "cool", who are we to tell them they can't?

[Silcc69]

LOL at MSNBC blatant editing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&feature=player_embedded

[SarahG]

You don't need a combat designed stock to shoot target or hunt.

Virtually all firearms are somehow "combat designed stock." Many of the guns used in hunting are war surplus.

That said the concept of "military grade" weapons; as in, military specific/not for civilians, is a modern fiction. For most of our country's existence there was no distinction separating military firearms from civilian firearms.

Go back a hundred years and civilians could buy practically anything, provided they can afford it. Not just guns either; but cannons, artillery, heavy ordnance, explosives, you name it; and this wasn't a problem. Where are all the early 20th century massacres using automatics or machine guns? The only ones I can think of involved gangsters, who wouldn't have given a shit about firearm regulations anyway. A normal civilian "mowing down a dozen or two people with a chicago typewriter" simply did not happen. Where are all the stories of civilians using heavy artillery/ordnance against other civilians in our history?

[trish]

All I'm saying is the AR-15 type rifles are legal to own, so if someone wants one, even if is just because they look "cool", who are we to tell them they can't?

I'm cool with that. I didn’t say that if you need one to supplement your masculinity you can’t have one. I’m not even saying you don’t or shouldn’t have a right to it. I’m just saying it’s stupid and threatening to bring a weapon to a town-hall meeting on a completely different issue.


Go back a hundred years and civilians could buy practically anything, provided they can afford it. Not just guns either; but cannons, artillery, heavy ordnance, explosives, you name it; and this wasn't a problem. Where are all the early 20th century massacres using automatics or machine guns?

Look at the world around you. You only need to look south to Mexico. There are plenty of massacres fueled by U.S. arms smugglers. What laws are used predominately to prosecute those dealers when caught? Illegal weapons charges.

But there is no dispute that the second amendment gives you some rights to own, carry and use firearms. However, even if your state allows you to carry them into a town-hall meeting where people are gathered to discuss a heated issue, bringing your firearm can only have one message: “If you don’t fuckin’ agree with me, I’m going to shoot you.” It’s an outright attempt to intimidate, take over the meeting and garner media coverage.

The real issue before us is healthcare, not guns. Thousands of Americans are being dropped from the rolls of insurance companies everyday. As medicine becomes more advanced and more high tech it’s costs skyrocket. No middle class person can trust that he’s saved enough or has bought sufficient coverage to guard his family against catastrophic illness or accident. Many people have agreed to compromise a single payer system for the possibility of having at least a public option. What to the Limbaugh listening, Fox watching hoodlums do when faced with these issues? Strap on their side arms and their AR-15’s.

[SarahG]

However, even if your state allows you to carry them into a town-hall meeting where people are gathered to discuss a heated issue, bringing your firearm can only have one message: “If you don’t fuckin’ agree with me, I’m going to shoot you.”

If people are interpreting it that way, its only culture shock from not being used to it. People are so used to never seeing civilians with guns in our gun-control happy society that they don't know what to make of it when they do enter into an environment where civilians can openly possess firearms.

The democratic process worked no more or less efficiently when gun possession was a non-issue in our town halls.

[trish]

I've been to Kenya, Ecuador, Peru, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, England, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Canada and the U.S. Not every where, but it's a reasonably wide experience of cultures. And I'm happy to report in none of the above countries is it commonplace to walk down the street or attend a public meeting wearing a firearm. But calling it culture shock presumes that the customs have already changed, or about to change from civilized norms to the norms of the unsettled country we were more than a century ago. It's not shock at all. It's outrage at a BLATANT attempt to INTIMIDATE with a SHOW OF FORCE.

[loren]

You don't need a combat designed stock to shoot target or hunt.
In all honestly, I didn't get my combat S designed K rifle S to go hunting with. I got it to defend myself (if needed).

Virtually all firearms are somehow "combat designed stock." Many of the guns used in hunting are war surplus.

That said the concept of "military grade" weapons; as in, military specific/not for civilians, is a modern fiction. For most of our country's existence there was no distinction separating military firearms from civilian firearms.

Go back a hundred years and civilians could buy practically anything, provided they can afford it. Not just guns either; but cannons, artillery, heavy ordnance, explosives, you name it; and this wasn't a problem. Where are all the early 20th century massacres using automatics or machine guns? The only ones I can think of involved gangsters, who wouldn't have given a shit about firearm regulations anyway. A normal civilian "mowing down a dozen or two people with a chicago typewriter" simply did not happen. Where are all the stories of civilians using heavy artillery/ordnance against other civilians in our history?I agree with what yousaid. :rock2 I've got a Black Powder rifle, that 150 years ago would've been the top-line military rifle.

[trish]

Shotguns, twenty-two calibers, handguns etc. are often not combat designed. So it's not literally true that ALL firearms are "somehow" combat designed (unless you very loosely define "somehow") and since shotguns, twenty-twos and and handguns are a significant portion of the market it's not virtually true either.

But fine. If you think you need a weapon to defend yourself against a communist uprising, or a zombie plague, that's your second amendment right. If defense is your issue, you don't need to bring your rifle or your handgun to a town-meeting convened to discuss healthcare reform.

[cockgobbler]

Shotguns, twenty-two calibers, handguns etc. are often not combat designed. So it's not literally true that ALL firearms are "somehow" combat designed (unless you very loosely define "somehow") and since shotguns, twenty-twos and and handguns are a significant portion of the market it's not virtually true either.

But fine. If you think you need a weapon to defend yourself against a communist uprising, or a zombie plague, that's your second amendment right. If defense is your issue, you don't need to bring your rifle or your handgun to a town-meeting convened to discuss healthcare reform.

Actually handguns were designed as a military firearm for defensive purposes. Pretty much all firearms used today have their origins in military use.

That simple bolt action rifle millions of people use for hunting? That has its origins as a military sniper rifle.

Again, I'm not trying to change your opinion or anything like that. Just pointing things out. We just see the situation differently, and that's all good. Some people like chocolate, and some like vanilla. :)

[trish]

You’re confusing origins of design and function with actual design and function. A lady’s pearl handled gun with engraved filigree may have essential features in common with weapons designed for combat, but is not itself designed for combat. A sportsman's shotgun may also share features with combat weapons, but most shotguns that hunter’s use are specifically designed for hunters__complete with engravings of little ducks flying across the buttstock. Guns that are not intended for military use, but designed to look like combat weapons are designed that way for one reason only: to appeal to the male ego. They are toys for men. All I’m saying is there’s no reason to bring your toys to a town-hall meeting, unless you’re twelve years old and expect to be bored.

[SarahG]

And I'm happy to report in none of the above countries is it commonplace to walk down the street or attend a public meeting wearing a firearm.

Then you obviously haven't been everywhere in the US (most people haven't). I've been places in the US where it was perfectly normal for people to walk around in public with exposed firearms.

Of course its a culture clash, you have a group of people who go "omgwtf, that person has a gun!" everytime they see someone out of a uniform with a firearm because they're so phobic of people having guns, to the point where they've lost all rationality on the subject. On the other and, you have an undeniable subculture in the US that revolves around firearms where it really is not a big deal whatsoever for someone to have a firearm.

Easiest way to talk about this culture shock/clash is when you have a member of the two groups living side by side. You'd be shocked how many gun owners have been carrying their guns from their house to their car to go to the shooting range or hunting only to have the gun-phobic next door neighbor do something crazy like call 911 going "omg my next door neighbor is walking around outside... WITH A GUN!"

What next, you're going to say you've never seen a pickup truck with a gun rack on it in public? I can't speak to the other countries, but I can certainly speak to stuff like that being common place in some parts of the US.... and that doesn't even touch on the private paramilitary, bodyguards, and PI's that carry firearms in the US.

[SarahG]

But fine. If you think you need a weapon to defend yourself against a communist uprising, or a zombie plague, that's your second amendment right. If defense is your issue, you don't need to bring your rifle or your handgun to a town-meeting convened to discuss healthcare reform.

That's a cop out argument, if someone can have guns to defend themself, if they can have guns to defend themself in public, then they can have them on governmental property.

If someone has a stalker and carries in case they have to defend themself, saying they should be barred from having that protection on governmental facilities effectively bars them from governmental facilities because they still have to go from their home TO the town hall meeting, from the town hall meeting TO their home again. That would mean two trips where they would be exposed to whatever problem they carry to defend against.

[trish]

Talk about cop out arguments. Are you suggesting all these people with guns at town-hall meetings have stalkers? Have I said guns should be barred or outlawed from town-hall meetings? I’m just saying they’re not needed there, and their presence there isn’t a matter of custom and culture. This is a new phenomenon. Conservative talk radio is instructing its listeners to bring guns to town-hall meetings. It’s a message of intimidation.

[deee757]

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound." The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifles

[trish]

"The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s"

__from the same wikipedia article deee links to above.

Of course when a wikipedia article refers to the “political reasons” behind the common usage of an English word, one must be aware the author of the article may not be reporting from a detached perspective. The point that we may take from this quote is that there is a technical definition of the phrase “assault rifle” which is somewhat distinct from the common usage of the phrase. When is the media expected to adhere to the exact meaning of technical jargon and when is it expected to adhere to the tenants of common usage? I would suggest that media should always be careful to adhere to technical usage when it comes to legal jargon. Simply because so much of what they report is directly concerned with a technical understanding of the legal issues surrounding their stories. On the other hand, if one always opts for the technical usage of all jargon and against common usage, most listeners will be lost.

[russtafa]

you americans are a crazy bunch ha ha ha