It's a Hoot: Blitzer and Cafferty Display the "Professional" Media's Incompetence

     Probably everyone who is not living in Plato's Cave is quite aware of the dishonesty of the corporate-owned media.  In a CNN broadcast a few months ago, Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty displayed laughable incompetence on top of dishonesty.  (Aren't we told that the "professional media" are more reliable than people who aren't paid witnesses?)

     In the following clip, corporate shills Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty display what poor liars they are, and how little they know of the topic on which those two "professionals" are commenting: (video link)

     I see no need to comment on whether it is reasonable for a person to take a gun to a political rally.  Maybe you think it's okay; maybe not.  Regardless of your position on this issue, don't you think that you could have given a better informed and more intelligently worded rationale for your position than these two clowns did?  Never mind that the unintended comedy team of Blitzer and Cafferty can't speak English any better than Dubya Bush; they don't know any more about their  topic than a hog knows about Sunday.

     Here's a sample with my comments:

Wolf Blitzer: Those assault weapons, as you know, Jack, they have a pretty long range. You can fire them at a distance, and those—those rounds, they go pretty far [How far is that, Furface?].

Jack Cafferty: They go pretty far [Cafferty hasn’t bothered to find out the effective range either. Don’t those clowns know how easy it is for their viewers to access Wikipedia? No wonder the globalist crowd hate the Internet!], and you can fire them fully automatic [a lie often repeated by the corporate-owned media], which means they can squeeze off a whole bunch of shots [How many shots is that?  By the way, fool, guns don’t squeeze off shots—people do.] in a very short period of time [How short a period of time is that?]—and the concern that I expressed yesterday when we ran the tape the first time yesterday was, what if some Looney Tune® in the crowd spots one of these weapons and decides to take it away from this guy? Not unheard of [Oh, when did you hear of it happening?]—it’s possible [Please tell us how], and then what kind of—even if the President is not in danger, what kind of tragedy can ensue from something like that? [Probably none at all, since it’s next to impossible to snatch a rifle from someone when it’s strapped to his shoulder.  It's easier and less risky to snatch a spare rib away from a Rottweiler.] It just doesn't make any sense to me. [That’s because he hasn't thought it through; and since when should public opinion be formed on the basis of whether something makes sense to a babbling idiot?  Hasn't he heard the Roman proverb, "Amor populi praesidium regis":(“The love of the people is the king’s protection”)?  The last time a popular President was assassinated in the United States, it was an inside job orchestrated by government officials.]

     A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that most states limit AR-15s to 10-round magazines.  Since AR-15s can be fired no faster than the person handling the rifle can squeeze the trigger, it's a complete falsehood that a person (let alone a rifle) can "squeeze off a whole bunch of bullets in a very short time."  To further reveal the absurdity of Cafferty's remark, anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that you don’t hit a target by spraying a whole bunch of bullets in a very short time, hoping to hit something. You aim. As witness to the truth of this, during the Vietnam War, some 3,000 bullets were fired for each Viet Cong who was killed by gunfire.
     The average ten-year-old boy in South Carolina knows the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16, but an Emmy Award winning "news" reporter and a talking head in a suit doesn't.  It kind of makes you lose respect for Emmy Awards, doesn't it?  And to think that those buffoons actually expect us to believe that the “professional” media is more reliable than the Internet. Sheesh!  I'll stick to the Internet.