MSNBC News Live From a Nevada Gun Range! I SAID . . .

MSNBC reporter Harry Sanders decided to highlight the whole Second Amendment thing re: the Trump campaign from a gun range in Nevada. It’s hard to believe that the local producer, reporter, network producer and everyone else at MSNBC involved with this “news package” didn’t figure that gunfire would make the audio problematic. That’s the level of intelligence in play at the network that never met a gun safety/reform/control law they didn’t like. Just sayin’ . . .

comments

  1. avatar Paul53 says:

    Sorry, lights are off and I have trouble hearing in the dark.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      I’m blind in one ear and can’t smell out of the other…

  2. avatar JohnF says:

    That’s hilarious! Not only did the reporter and camera/sound guy(s) not think ahead about the audio issues, but it seems the anchor had no idea he was going to be reporting from a range, which means the producer probably didn’t either. What a mess.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Yep, that’s a special kind of stupid, right there…

  3. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Good thing I wasn’t eating. I didn’t feel like buying a new keyboard tonight.

  4. avatar Smoke Jensen says:

    That was the best newscast ever! I didnt hear a damn word he said.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      Now if they would have shown the guns, hell….that’s enough for me. The reporter doesn’t have anything important to say anyway.

  5. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Whut? Oh NBC I see…

  6. avatar Phil says:

    Keep in mind that Ted Cruz has done more for the second amendment while the Atty Gen of Texas than all the other guys combined….its not what they say on the campaign trail that I trust, its their long term actions that really matter to me..as a former cop and prosecutor myself I have to put Cruz far ahead of the pack on the second amendment…IMHO

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ^ This!

      Go to YouTube and watch the videos of Cruz shred civilian disarmament legislation during Senate hearings. No one else comes even remotely close to that level of knowledge, intellectual honesty, and downright commitment to our right to keep and bear arms.

      Okay, maybe Rand Paul does. Unfortunately, Rand is no longer a viable candidate and is no longer running for President.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        That’s fine, but Trump more or less has the nomination in the bag. He’s twice the delegates of all other candidates combined.

        1. avatar Eye-roller says:

          Only about 5% of the delegates have been awarded. Only four primaries have been held, and three of them were from tiny, tiny states. Cruz or Rubio winning one big state could eliminate Trump’s lead entirely.

          That said, it won’t happen, and Trump will win the nomination easily. He has such a lock on the no-information voters that there is no possibility of Cruz or Rubio overcoming him. The only thing that could happen is a brokered/contested convention, if Cruz and Rubio can amass enough delegates to keep Trump from winning an outright majority of them. But if that doesn’t happen, Trump will be the nominee. If even evangelicals in SC bought what he’s selling, and he opened up an even bigger lead in Nevada, there’s not much reason to expect it to turn out differently.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Yeah, Phil. I agree, it’s his long term actions that I would look to. From what I’ve seen, his wife is high on the board of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations which is pushing for the North American Union. And he has a number of Ex- CIA operatives managing his campaign. More like probably his handlers. What’s that saying? Once CIA, always CIA.

      Personally, that would tell me more about his real agenda, and who he is working for, than any words coming out of his mouth..

  7. avatar John Gancho says:

    I suppose he isn’t the worst option to the “gun voter” (myself included ), it is hard to say that he typifies our ideology. Sucks to be stereotyped by idiot liberal msnbc viewers. (Irony intended )

  8. avatar Steve says:

    It went exactly how they wanted: They wanted their low information voters go to “Oh noez look at how fast they can shoot! It’s so scary!”

  9. avatar Model 31 says:

    Somebody should tell the reporter about supressors…not the silencers used in crimes on TV, but the gun mufflers used at the range that make guns more interview friendly. Explain how the law as written outlaws supressors too, when it was only meant to rid us of silencers used by international criminals and organized crime. Explain that knowing the difference will demonstrate knowledge which creates a connection with the audience.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Oooh, well-played!

    2. avatar Phil LA says:

      Explain to the same reporter that, regardless of his opinion on guns, he already owns several supressors. But his supressors just happen to be welded onto his vehicles engine exhaust.

  10. avatar What about Bob says:

    That was fantastic. Best MSNBC reporting I’ve ever heard.

  11. avatar 505markf says:

    Producer explains to higher-ups, “I just don’t understand it – guns are that loud when I watch an action movie!”

    NRA and others should use a clip from this in a media blast on the bill being kicked around in Congress removing suppressors from the NFA list. Not that it would matter with the current president, but maybe set the stage for the next. If someone’s only experience with firearms is the movies, it’s easy to underestimate the assault on the senses, particularly on an indoor range.

    “Damn, those guns are LOUD!”

    “WHAT???”

  12. avatar Vincent says:

    They said “where’s the bushmaster!??”

  13. avatar Phil LA says:

    If only he’d neglected those eyes and ears for 5 more seconds…

  14. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    There must be a requirement of “Your IQ cannot be above this line” to get a job at some mainstream media organizations. Simply must be.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      I reposted on Facebook: MSNBC – too vapid to understand that gunfire makes the audio on a newscast virtually impossible.

      What a bunch of imbeciles. I’ll also credit the shooters for their steady volume of fire. I think they knew what they were doing, and probably hold MSNBC in the same “regard” as me.

  15. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    What’s funny is the genius reporter had his ears on as he should have, thus he had no idea how loud the noise was and the fact that no one could understand him. So he just keeps yapping on…

    What we really need in this country is some simple, *common sense* reporter control. Look, no one is trying to take your reporters away, no one is coming for your reporters folks. Common sense, that’s all we are asking for.

    Bwahahhhahhhaaaaa!

  16. avatar MikeyCNY says:

    So MSNBC supports suppressors?

  17. avatar Biff Baxter says:

    For MSNBC, this should be considered Peabody Award-winning journalism.

    For average Americans, this is reporting by the disabled.

  18. avatar Mark_PAV says:

    Is it me or did it seem the guys on the range line didn’t start to shot till the reporter just started to talk? 😉

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      I’m thinking it was set up that way.

      Reporter: Ok guys, remember, don’t start shooting until I start talking. We want some natural action going on behind me.

      Shooters: (While snickering) Um, sure thing.

      1. avatar Forrest M says:

        “Hold on, let me grab my AR!”

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          …and a drum magazine.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          …better yet, my AR-10.

          (another shooter) You know, I’ve been meaning to check out my .338 Lapua. But, dang it! I left it at home. Have to use the Barrett instead!

  19. avatar ted says:

    The left really are a bunch of reality-disconnected morons aren’t they?

    WTF – I don’t even know what to say here…..so much stupid.

  20. avatar Paul says:

    Now that is hilarious! Andrea doesn’t look too pleased at the end of all that, probably reamed that reporter but good! What a moron.

  21. avatar PeterK says:

    If you pretend the *BLAM*s are censoring swear words, this video becomes even more hilarious.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      They probably weren’t swear words, but they probably were words that carried no meaning and/or truth.

  22. avatar BDub says:

    Well, I can cross that off my bucket-list – seeing the blathering MSM drowned out by gun-fire.

  23. avatar John says:

    The totally dumb quality reporting you can expect from people over at MSNBC.

  24. avatar achmed says:

    Kind of undermines their narrative doesn’t it? Bunch of normal folks shooting at a range and surprise surprise nobody gets accidentally shot. It’s just sort of pedestrian and casual, which frankly gun ownership mostly is in “flyover country”.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email