ABC News Admits Editing Out FLOTUS Gun Gaffe


ABC News Admits Editing Out FLOTUS Gun Gaffe
by John Nolte

27 Feb 2013, 8:14 AM PDT

The official excuse from ABC News is that a decision was made to edit out 10 words spoken by Michelle Obama “solely for time.” This excuse is of course absolutely ridiculous, and the chummy photo above of ABC “reporter” Robin Roberts hugging The State is a much better explanation as to why ABC News chose to protect the First lady from what was likely a gaffe and what would have been a story for the network.

Yesterday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” the First Lady said the following to Robin Roberts:

[quote]She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grow – grew – up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need. I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.

What I’ve bolded, though, was edited out of the actual broadcast. No one heard Ms. Obama claim – probably incorrectly – that Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down by “automatic weapons.”[/quote]
The same, SOP, MSM double-standard. Does anyone really believe that if Gov. Palin or Rep. Bachmann had said this the MSM wouldn’t have been all over it, trumpeting what an idiot Palin or Bachmann was for having said this?

Taking this a step further, what was Michelle Obama doing? Displaying near total ignorance of guns? Or consciously and deliberately telling an inflammatory lie, knowing ABC Skews would not call her on it, to further one of her (and many other Ds’) pet causes? Sadly, the latter seems more likely, except that ABC Skews covered for her by not broadcasting her false statement (but e-published it online).


Nothing new here…move along.


Its not just sad that this is common practice with the overly lib media, but that the majority of the people of the country still put faith in news networks actually telling the facts.


The difference between “automatic” and “semi-automatic” weapons is probably just esoterica for most people. When employed as rhetoric both suggest the exact same thing - a spray of bullets. I know with one you have to work your finger harder, but the end result is the same.

I care about the difference between “bop” and “hard-bop” jazz, but to most people it’s all the same annoying noodle-ey music.


Esoterica? Puh-lease! There’s a very practical reason the US Army arms soldiers with M16s and M4s rather than M1 Garand semiautomatics. Either Michelle Obama was displaying very fundamental ignorance or flat out lying. True assault weapons are all but illegal in the US (getting approval is difficult and expensive). The guns politicians are lyingly calling assault weapons are ordinary semiautomatic rifles with accessories that look scary to the lying politicians, but which do little or nothing to make them more deadly.


Actually, Pete, the term “assault weapon” itself is bogus. The true term for the weapons you describe is “assault rifle.” When the Stockton, CA shooting occurred in '89, banning them and as many other combat firearms as possible became all the rage, and to aid and abet that, the media coined the false term “assault weapon” to apply to any nasty-looking combat or combat-style firearm they thought they could demonize.


Pete, I said the difference is esoterica “for most people”. I understand the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon. The former is easier on the trigger finger, but to most people that’s an insignificant difference when the outcome of both types of weapons - a spray of bullets - is the same.

I agree that the term “assault weapon” is a loaded one (no pun intended). I do not support a ban on “assault weapons”; as the mayors of several crime-ridden cities have said, banning “assault weapons” won’t do a lick of good to curb gun violence, because the typical weapons used in criminal activities are handguns.