BREAKING: Jim Sullivan Responds, He is NOT Anti-Civilian AR-15, HBO Selectively Edited the Interview

Jim Sullivan just emailed me with his response to the HBO interview …

[As] predicted the anti-gun HBO Sports interview misrepresented much of what I had said. They were apparently trying to make the AR15 civilian model seem too dangerous for civilian sales. They didn’t lie about what I said, they just omitted key parts which changed the meaning. The examples I most object to are:

1. When I appear to say that the civilian model AR15 is just as effective or deadly as the military M16 they omitted that I had said “when firing semi auto only and that the select fire M16 on full auto is of course more effective”

2. The interviewer pretended not to understand the relevance that due to the Hague Convention military bullets cannot be expanding hollow points like hunting bullets that give up all of their energy in the target body instead of passing through with minimum wound effect with most of the energy still in the bullet and wasted. Instead we (Armalite) went the small caliber high velocity rounds and gave the bullet the right twist 1:14 to be stable in air but unstable in tissue where it tumbled and gave up all of its energy in a few inches and complied with Hague. This gave us a small cartridge that was half the size, weight and recoil of 7.62 NATO so the soldier could carry twice the ammo, fire controllable full auto and be far more deadly out to 300 yards, the 3 characteristics that determine military rifle cartridge effect. But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets which can legally be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling and their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are. 5.56 is only half as powerful as the 7.62 NATO (.308) hunting bullet.

3. [What I said] doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see AR15s sell on the civilian market. It just means I didn’t realize they would 57 years ago.

I’m not on the wrong side of any gun issue unless someone wants to argue that an infantry rifle cartridge should kill a cavalry horse at 1,000 yards (30-06 criteria).

As I wrote in the comments of my original article, I have turned down many interview requests for TV and radio. I turn them down because I am not trained in television interview techniques, specifically how to deal with a hostile interviewer.

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • kzrkp


  • SirOliverHumperdink

    Shocking. A liberal hit piece that cuts and pastes their story to fit their predetermined conclusions?

    • hikerguy

      Yeah…..No one would have ever thought they would ever do something like that (Sarcasm x 3).

    • n0truscotsman

      wasn’t another media mouthpiece *just caught* red handed doing this, too?

      • Gene

        Yes, Katie Couric or however you spell her name and VCDL.

  • Jeremiah Slezak

    Pretty typical for the media to twist words against people or to cherrypick buzzwords or phrases that are shocking or revelatory. I think his policy not to give interviews is a good one as your’re never sure what the interviewer or programs intention with the piece is. I’m sorry to see him swindled and used, but unfortunately this is more and more common. I hope people can do their research and see the truth instead of blindly accepting what their told.

    • Tom

      Unfortunately we live in a world where most journalists/media organisations are far more interested in reporting, or rather creating a given narrative than facts and impartial reporting.

      • Trey

        And always have!

      • Kivaari

        Media types are not bound by facts.

    • Steve Skubinna

      What you need to do is bring your own camera and recording crew. If they refuse, tell them to pound sand.

      That’s how Katie Couric was so easily caught up with the deceptive editing. The raw video was available so the deceptive edit was obvious.

      • Pedro Marcos

        Katie Couric: (…)Although her mother was Jewish(…) gee, another “coincidence”…

  • ChierDuChien

    If you subscribe to HBO, cancel it.
    If they suddenly lose 5,000,000 customers, they might re-think their deceptive practices.

    • kzrkp

      they won’t, but you should anyway. circuses aren’t worth your values.

    • abecido

      I cancelled HBO in 1991.

  • Bullphrog855

    HBO is pretty notorious for being anti-gun. This isn’t surprising but it’s nice to see what he thinks on a clean slate.

    • L Cavendish

      But OK backing and showing shows with LOTS of guns…like everywhere else…

    • Billy Jack

      But I see from recent headlines HBO isn’t anti-cocaine or anti-drug overdose.

  • Darren Hruska

    Jim, it was pretty naive to accept an interview from the liberal media. Nonetheless, I VERY MUCH respect your HUGE contribution to the small arms industry! By the way, Couric is facing one hell of a crapstorm right now. So, that’s a little bit of justice served, I’d say…

    • Dan

      Cut the guy some slack, he is on the old side so he is probably a little slower at comprehending what’s going on and a little too trusting. There’s a reason scammers target the elderly.

  • n0truscotsman

    I called this a while ago. Reading into his previous statements, I didn’t get the impression that he was opposed to AR15 ownership, and my control-dar is pretty saavy.

  • Patriot Gunner

    I wholeheartedly agree with all the comments here, but doing an HBO piece on guns is like walking into the lions den. I’m not opposed to doing it but you need to plan accordingly. Shame on HBO for doing such practices, I just canceled my subscription which will be ending May 31.

  • Mike Burns

    Goes to show, always take your own camera along to any TV or radio interview.

  • Just goes to prove the point that you should always take your own camera along to any media interview.

  • lowell houser

    Really? No way. Must be a day that ends in day.


    • Trevor

      Giving the subjects of journalism editorial control significantly weakens the press, and I don’t think any respectable journalist would do it. This was a big issue with the Sean Penn / Chapo Guzman Rolling Stone piece.

      Providing unedited footage to the interviewee seems like a perfectly fine request though.

      • Tom

        In an ideal world yes but the press has already been weakened by the absolute editorial control/ownership of a few individuals/corporations and so called journalist reporting not impartial facts but rather what ever narrative helps their particular agenda.

    • rob in katy

      I would not rely on them to provide an unedited copy, I would demand to have my cameras there so they cannot edit the footage.

    • John

      AND make your own recording of the interview.

      • maxsnafu

        This post deserves 500 up votes.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Won’t matter. The general public will never see it.

  • Dan

    I cannot believe there were readers that actually thought he was. Here’s your piping hot plate of crow.

    • jamezb

      What part of the population reads this blog, though? 1% less? As far as everyone who will see the interview on HBO and other media outlets, which I assure you are a lot more people than read this and all the other gun blogs put together – it will be taken as gods truth….unless he raises loud hell and sues …win-or-lose… to ensure the truth about what he really said is known.

      • Dan

        That’s a fair point. However some of those people will already believe ARs can blow up tanks , shoot 10,000 school kids per minute. Sometimes the bias is so strong nothing will convince them otherwise. My brother is a die hard far left progressive. Loves to shoot absolutely loves it, yet still tells me there is no reason for anyone to own such firearms. My original point was certain readers of this blog jumped right on the traitor Jim train.

        I do hear what you’re saying though. And the last thing we need are people in our culture giving ammo to the the other side.

  • Anon

    Is anyone truly surprised?

    • CountryBoy

      Unfortunately, there are those that will believe the HBO story hook line and sinker…

  • gunsandrockets

    I suspected as much.

    Even so, it’s pretty ballsy for a member of the Ruling Class news-media to so blatantly edit an interviewee as to create the opposite impression of what was actually said. It must be because this year one party is running a campaign with an explicit anti-gun policy position.

    • Tassiebush

      To them he’s some obscure nobody. To us he’s a major hero of the gun design scene

  • Tassiebush

    That’s very disappointing to see Jim misrepresented like this. Glad you gave him space to set the record straight!

  • wetcorps

    Thought so.
    Maybe you could have contacted him beforehand and saved him the negative article.

  • S

    I find the bit about the 1:14 twist rate interesting. Was that with a 20″ barrel? How’s the 1:7 with 16″ compare these days?

    • Tassiebush

      Good question. Yes it was a 20″ barrel. Barrel length is part of the situation but not overly so as the current service rounds are tailored for producing higher velocity from a shorter barrel and they use a longer heavier projectile which is more so why the rifling is faster. Different aims with the twist rates. The 1:14 was all about making the bullet lose stability in the target by providing minimum necessary twist to stabilize a 55grain projectile for a target at about 300m.

      • The discussion of the 1:14″ twist has long struck me as retroactive justification. The simplest and most likely reason it was selected was the fact that 0.224″ rifled barrels with that twist rate commonly available for the .220 Swift and other high velocity .22 centerfires.

        The original Stoner/Snow 55gr design would have been even worse in winter conditions with the 1:14″ twist. When a reversion from the Remington-designed M193 projectile was considered in 1963-64, Aberdeen concluded that the original projectile design would require a 1:9 or 1:10″ twist. This was too much for the Army to accept after they had already begun standardizing the 1:12″.

        Another thing to consider is whether the 1:14″ twist would have been adequate to stabilize tracers like the M196.

        • Tassiebush

          Wow good point! That makes a lot of sense about the barrel blanks and retroactive justification. The lower velocity .22hornet would have stabilized it’s 40grain fine too. There was no obvious need for anything different until people started using the .224 on larger things than varmints. The only thing like the. .223rem/5.56nato was the .22savage hi power and it was a .228 70grain projectile.

          • Most folks miss the fact that the typical .220 Swift and .222 Remington commercial rounds were loaded with flat base projectiles. Even the USAF noted that the 1:14″ twist would have been adequate for stabilizing a 55gr projectile if a flat base design was substituted.

            Since a great deal of the US Army’s early comparison testing of the AR-15 was conducted with the .224 Win E2 cartridge and not the .223 Remington, I have often speculated that the .224 Win E2’s short-ogive, flat-base projectile masked the cold weather accuracy issues later seen with the AR-15’s original 1:14″ rifling twist and the long-ogive, boat-tail projectiles loaded by Remington in the early batches of .223 Remington.

    • Kivaari

      It started out at 1:14 but during arctic warfare testing in Alaska, the cold dense air caused severe accuracy problems. It was quickly changed to 1:12 and remained so until the M16A2 came along. The 1:7 twist was needed for stabilizing the very long tracer bullets. Especially in the SAW. Thanks to that need, when testing the heavier bullets over 70 gr. the performance was excellent. It is why the 5.56mm has passed up the records previously held by 7.62 NATO.

  • Tritro29

    I still don’t understand…how is full auto more “deadly” or more “effective”? It’s like people do this on purpose. Holy crap. He should stop explaining, it makes it even more messy.

    • Richard

      It was considered more effective because it implies more bullets going to the target. That was the thinking back then.

      • Tritro29

        I understand the volume of fire concept, I don’t understand the effectiveness concept. I think Mr. Sullivan said something to vulgarize an idea we understand differently than “non-gun” people.
        I’m pretty sure the US armed forces wouldn’t have commissioned studies on hit ratio if more rounds send to the general direction of the target (“Spray & Pray” as you call it in the US) was a “more effective” move.

        Also I don’t understand why Mr. Sullivan tries to contest an idea that he explained pretty clearly. The AR wasn’t intended to be a civilian gun. Yet it became one. The same way, the STG 44 wasn’t intended to be a civilian gun or the AK. It’s not exactly rocket science. I’m really getting a very wrong “Politbiuro” feeling from this “rebuttal. It’s like he’s forced to say the sky isn’t exactly blue for fear “gun” people “reject” his opinions. Which is pretty weak in my view.

        I watched the thing on HBO and there was blatant steering, Mr. Sullivan doesn’t need to explain anything regarding that.

        Also while we all love guns (I suppose) a society where you’d walk around with a long gun (and I know a couple of them) is going to be a pretty special place. The best example being Israel. Not the kind of reality you face in the US and I do in Russia (except Siberia).

        • Bill

          Exactly. It’s disingenuous to claim that the AR15, or AK47, were designed as anything other than fighting guns. That doesn’t make them good or bad; they are what they are.

  • Pete Sheppard

    Second the motion to have YOUR OWN recording equipment running…that’s what nailed Couric

  • marathag

    Good to know that he wasn’t another Fudd like Bill Ruger

    • ostiariusalpha

      Ruger wasn’t actually a Fudd, he loved auto-loading firearms. It was more because he felt that self-loading guns were under threat of ban that he (and SAAMI with him) tried to appease the gun control mob with a 15-round magazine capacity limit, but they went with a 10-round limit and banned “assault weapons” anyways. It was his greatest mistake, assuming that it was better to compromise with them instead of never giving them an inch.

      • n0truscotsman

        Its a very convoluted history, but I think there were many externalized pressures that compelled him to say somethings he probably didn’t agree with 100%.

        He no doubt noticed the anti-trust act being used against Smith & Wesson and the potential for this to affect Ruger adversely. It was a particularly rough time for gun rights. Something those of a certain political slant are *trying their damndest* to convince us pro-2A guys that never happened.

        • ostiariusalpha

          Ruger’s company was also experiencing some direct activist pressure, because the 1987 Palm Bay shootings had been carried out with a Mini-14.

  • Deez Nuttz

    The AR 15 is the civilian version of the M16, why would he design something for civilian use if he didn’t intend on it being sold to civilians

    • Tom

      As far as I know it was designed/sold first as a military arm and the AR15 was its designation. When the US adopted it they gave it an M designation and those sold to civilians retained the AR designation.

      There where military users before the US Air Force adopted it back in Nam.

      • Jonathan Ferguson

        Correct. Early M16s are even marked AR15 by Colt & then M16 below that for the government.

        AR15 is the pattern of weapon, M16 is a military designation. People still get this wrong despite it being the second most popular rifle in the world.

        • Yup. Technically, it’s only an M16 in the US and those countries that got them from US DoD sources.

          ATF is where the common “AR15s are semi, M16s are select fire” terminology comes from, because it was easier for ATF agents to refer to them that way.

    • ostiariusalpha

      If you had bothered to check, you would know that the first AR-15 rifles were select fire and identical in every way to the M16 adopted by the Air Force. It wasn’t until 1963 that Colt began sell semi-auto versions under the AR-15 label.

  • Bub

    I recorded and watched the interview when I heard about Jim’s interview. Total anti gun story with Gumbrel looking sad and forlorned. To hear the rest of Jim’s comments make me feel a lot better, after all the whole thing of the 5.56 round being like deadlier than any other round know to man, come on!!!

  • Gregory

    Maybe we need a new law to go along with slander and defamation. How about one that is based on intentionally editing statements or omitting statements to misrepresent their content.

    • TechnoTriticale

      Naw, people just need to learn to NEVER consent to an interview with lamestream media. They don’t want to talk to you to publish facts, much less advance YOUR advocacies.

    • DB

      I’ve always said the first Amendment is more dangerous than the Second Amendment! We have to be responsible with our actions in firearm use, which never comes up that, with the exception of criminal acts on the most part, we are probably the most responsible group out there (firearm owners.) Then all hell breaks loose, usually (always?) incorrectly reported when a firearm is properly involved in an act! Such as a Police Officer defending his very life! I’m not aware of an Officer giving up his civil rights when he puts on that badge! We are then ripped apart by incorrect, irresponsible reporting! Then have to pay the legal price for what happens if we are irresponsible! Why can the reporting, with reporters hiding behind the First Amendment, get to do and say basically whatever, with no responsibility or recourse, for their irresponsible reporting, and just go on their Merry way? When it can be proven, which is not hard to do, that their irresponsible behavior caused problems, such as making a circus out of a riot causing more reaction ( it must be true…I read it/saw it on tv) for hours on end, then just “sign off” and go home, after causing criminal action, having people drive from other cities to come join in the fun (shouldn’t that be inciting a riot?) and no one is held responsible for these actions! They should be held responsible for the truth in what happens, that they report on, with repercussions of twisted or untrue statements! There are too many “Sheeple” who believe and act on irresponsible reporting! Nothing happens to the reporting people or agency! They make money from it selling BS in newspapers, they are rewarded and don’t even have to be responsible! State the truth, even if it hurts, and be held responsible for omitting or twisting what was “really said or occurred!” Wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air!!

    • Porty1119

      It’s gotten to the point where I would start encouraging serious jail time for much of the MSM. You could probably nail many of them on conspiracy-against-rights charges.

  • GreginVA

    HBO wins the Katie Couric award for deceptive journalism. No lie to small, no lie to big for the liberal media

    • RealitiCzech

      It’s sad that the media has become nothing more than a propaganda organ.

  • Michael Bane

    Steve, I applaud your unwillingness to not do interview with our blood enemies…it is exactly the right decision! As someone who has represented the firearms industry in national interviews and who has “prepped” executives for national interviews, I have strongly urged my clients to avoid interviews with national media with a history of antigun propaganda. I have said repeatedly, and as Mr. Sullivan unfortunately found out, that you can “win the interview,” but you will “lose the edit.”

    When I worked with NSSF on the Media Education Program, we spent a lot of time working with our instructors BEFORE we “threw them into the fire” with hostile media.

    For anyone who agrees to an interview, it is CRITICAL to run your own recorder, preferably video. I would, in fact, suggest having someone with you to run the recording device, there’s no “surprise malfunction” of the device. That duplicate recording device was instrumental in discrediting the Katie Couric antigun fake documentary.

    Michael B

  • David P.

    The media isn’t known as the “Fifth Column” for nothing…

    • bucherm

      No one calls it that.

      • Norm Glitz

        Not since the ’50s anyway.

      • David P.

        Well, when you get out of high school, you might actually hear it then.

        • bucherm

          15 years so far, what’s the wait time on it?

          You might hear it on the High Road and similar crucibles of intellect on the Internet, but it coming up in between conversations about birth certificates and the melting point of steel doesn’t exactly make it “known as” to the general public.

          • David P.

            Do you always deflect with red herring?

    • Billy Jack

      Fourth Estate

      The Fifth Column is Hillary’s signature line of sexual aids.

      • David P.

        Even better.

  • Ted Hatfield

    I long ago started surreptitiously carrying my own date- and time-stamped recording device, just to ensure that the ‘record’ (sorry!) can be set straight if need be. Highly recommended practice, Steve!

  • iowaclass

    This selective editing for documentaries has become way counter-productive for its practitioners. At the speed of light, the victims are all over social media and the editing is a bigger story than the documentary itself.

    • jamezb

      Problem is, anti-gun and undecided folks don’t read pro-gun social media pages.
      They watch HBO. -Which we could do worse than to BOYCOTT..

  • abecido

    All journalists should be presumed hostile until proven otherwise. And even then, never trust them.

  • jamezb

    It is sad to think that we have reached a point where we need to always realize that in mainstream media interviews, they will attempt to twist anything you say, -but we have.
    You have to deny them any twisting room..
    Making the interview conditional, as in ;
    “If my comments are used out of context, you agree to be sued. Sign here. ”
    – might be the best way to go about it.
    If they won’t sign, it’s pretty clear they only want your words to twist.
    Oh well, hindsight is 20-20.
    Even without a “agree to be sued” statement If you did not mean the comments to be used as they have been, the time to raise legal and “friendly media” hell is NOW –
    If you can head this off – perhaps the HBO version of your words will NOT be used as-is for decades by anti gun proponents.
    If every GOOGLE search for them leads to your lawsuit, and not their transcript, then they are foiled. I think there are a lot of companies, organizations, and shooters who would help fund legal action.
    I thank you for the clarification of your statements. Bless you and thank you for some great guns.

  • jamezb


  • Trey

    What is this HBO you speak of? Didn’t they used to show second-run movies and late night adult Fair I haven’t had it on my TV and 25 years except when it’s provided free is a trial which in the last two times that I watched one movie Total and that was Pacific Rim

    • ostiariusalpha

      That was more Cinemax, HBO always snatched up most of the big box office movies.

      • Trey

        But well after they’d finished their first run

  • TheGreens

    Looks like I was right, and tfb was being a bunch of arrogant kiddies in their proceeding post.

    • Norm Glitz

      As I read it, TFB gave Jim the benefit of the doubt. At the time of the first post, the HBO version was all they had.

      You are doing precisely what you’re accusing TFB of doing.

  • Hoplopfheil

    I’m shocked! Shocked I say!

    Well not that shocked.

  • Joe Schmo

    I wonder if they can be forced to pull the segment due to the malicious edit. I judged Jim wrong when the first story hit, but now all of our worries have been addressed, and it was HBO all along.

    Hopefully things get settled.

  • HSR47

    “I’m not trained in how to deal with a hostile interviewer…”

    It’s fairly simple, and it involves two steps:

    First, you need to know your talking points forwards, backwards, upside-down, and inside-out. This also includes knowing the type of questions they’re likely to ask, and how to answer them in the way that is most favorable to making a pro-rights approach seem most reasonable to the general public. Keeping your answers as short as possible helps here too.

    Second, as was demonstrated recently by VAOC with regard to the group of their members interviewed by Katie Couric, you need to make a separate recording of the interview that only you control. This way, when the antis try to twist your words, you can prove that they lack any semblance of journalistic integrity. This is a critical step, so it pays to plan ahead to ensure that your audio and/or video records are intelligible.

  • RealitiCzech

    Sullivan is now on my PNG list. How are we supposed to defend ourselves if the Mongol hordes come pouring over the horizon when we have mere 5.56? We should be upgunning to 300 winmag semis at the least.
    We’re dead for sure when the war elephants make a comeback.

    • Tassiebush

      Shhh we’ve been breeding them in the outback as part of the 2nd British Empire. Most of the Commonwealth has secretly reversed independence. There is nothing like the thrill of using a Nordenfelt from the howdah of a Kevlar clad pachyderm!

      • RealitiCzech

        Blasted redcoats. Up to your old tricks again, I see!

        • Tassiebush

          We’re even reverting to imperial measurements!

  • Kivaari

    Good. He’s right. The anti-gun media will lie, cheat and steal everything including facts.

  • Kivaari

    I’ve done a couple TV interviews and some live radio. In one TV news report they took 20 minutes of chat and reduced it to 20 seconds. There was no nuanced speak that made my point. Just enough to make theirs. Radio was always a friendlier ear. When we went out live, it was hard for them to edit anything.

  • Broz

    HBO, MSNBC, NBC, ABC & CBS (and others) deserve the Josef Goebbels Journalism Award for their blatant lies, misrepresentations, omissions and (as Huckleberry Finn said) “gappin’ an’ stretchin’ the truth”…Thank you Jim Sullivan for setting the record straight…I knew immediately that this was a hatchet job by HBO, but you’ve laid it out in black & white…Thank both you and the late Eugene Stoner for creating what has become my favorite rifle (system).

  • Jim_Macklin

    Home Box Office, HBO, should be remembered that HBO produced STRAPPED a few years ago. Purportedly a documentary. I have never subscribed to HBO or other “special, extra cost “premium channels.””
    Maybe HBO really means Human Body Odor!

  • David Harmon

    I’m not surprised. There isn’t a single honest voice in hollywood or the media.

  • RicoSuave

    I would expect more such “documentaries” appearing in the months leading to Nov 2016. HBO has been churning a steady stream with “Confirmation” etc. Note that even their “Game of Thrones” series had an episode with a fake decapitated head prop of GWB . They claimed it wasn’t intentional.

    • Cmex

      Considering that people put little jokes and easter eggs into shows and movies all the time, it’s probably just an accident or a joke. I sure never noticed it and I’ve seen it more than once. Now if Joffrey started speaking in Bush quotes, that would’ve been different…

      • RicoSuave

        When you put that “easter egg” in the context of their other shows and documentaries, it is obvious that it was intentional. They edited it out after protests.

  • Simcha M.

    “HBO selectively edited the interview”

    Did anybody expect anything different from Home Box Office??? Since we can’t talk politics here, I won’t say anything more.


    This government REALLY wants to get away with outlawing our AR15 type semi-automatic rifles! To do so not only EFFECTIVELY repeals the second amendment, but LITERALLY repeals the second amendment. The world over, nobody needs a second amendment to own whatever limited, low capacity sporting arms a politician feels comfortable “allowing” you!

  • Friend of Tibet

    That’s how Media abusing freedom of speech, You think this is bad? as a firearm owner who also speak Chinese,you guys have no idea how CNN/BBC have been twisting news Report/interviews on anything related to China 95% of the time.

    When you explain to anti’s that HBO’s interview is edited, guess what they gonna say:”nan you are brainwashed….”

  • john4637

    Typical of the yellow rag journalists in their quest to assist in the disarming of the American patriots.

  • Mystick

    This is what fascism looks like. Manipulation of the truth for propaganda purposes.

    • marathag

      ‘Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.’
      — George Orwell

  • ostiariusalpha

    He was absolutely aware at that time. His comment the he “never even considered that – it had any civilian application” refers to back in 1959, when he was creating the select-fire AR-15 for military applications; that is 9 years before Pat bought his first AR-15. He certainly knew (and approved) of Colt’s sale of the AR-15 to civilians beginning in 1963, but HBO Sports chose not to include that, as it didn’t fit their agenda for the segment.

    • AntiCitzenOne

      “He certainly knew (and approved) of Colt’s sale of the AR-15 to civilians beginning in 1963”

      I didn’t hear Mr. Sullivan say that, you’re saying that for him. I’d rather hear it directly from the horse’s mouth.

      • ostiariusalpha

        I’m hardly putting words in his mouth:
        “[What I said] doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see AR15s sell on the civilian market. It just means I didn’t realize they would 57 years ago.

  • maxsnafu

    Anyone interviewed by the media should make their own recording of the event. Also, unless the story is about a natural event (storm, earthquake, etc.) which is difficult to fake, just assume it’s a lie and ya can’t go wrong.

  • El Duderino

    So, both you and John Lott have learned to just not play ball with these turds. Don’t work with your ideological enemy when they get to produce the final copy for distribution.

  • Cory C

    It’s hard for me to really hate HBO for taking the easy path. Let’s face it, most Americans can’t be bothered to understand not just what the Bill of Rights is but the underlying logic behind it. Ours is an unpopular position, and one that takes some reflection to rationalize (in any way that just isn’t mindless proselytizing) and share why we feel way we feel about gun control. With that in mind, sure, HBO is anti-gun, because it’s very easy to be anti-gun; it doesn’t require any thought or accepting harsh realities about our country. It’s no different than that epiphany that every middle school kid has when they think, “Hey, if money didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be any poor people.” It takes higher level thought and accepting some harsh realities to understand why free markets are more fair than taking from the rich to make everyone “equal.” I can analyze HBO with all of that in mind, and I totally get what they’re thinking, or at least why they’re thinking it. I disagree with them, but I’m not beside myself with shock that they’ve taken the position they have.

    But, goddamn, does it not rustle my jimmies that they are such blatant hypocrites by profiting so richly from depicting violence (especially gun violence: The Wire, Deadwood, Sopranos, Band of Brothers, etc.) only to turn around and denounce it.

    And, of course, it’s appalling that they would so willfully bend the narrative of the interview in question.

  • Fred

    I am your grassroots political activist arm because this is something I
    know. I am believer on the LORD and know enough history to know what
    happens when they get the guns. Because these people claim America by
    citizenship is IRRELEVANT to the facts of what they actually are.
    Because some still think that we can vote our way out this, as to not
    offend, I will create a hypothetical. Pretend that your government no
    longer has your best interest at heart. Pretend that your government, at
    every level, has been taken over by statist control freaks including
    commies, fascists, national socialists, and imperialists. Pretend that
    the media is complicit and has been made their propaganda arm under
    threat of livelihood even to feed their families and destruction of
    reputation (and probably their very life in some cases).
    Here is
    where TFB made their mistake. They waltzed into Soviet Pravda and guess
    what, they took fire, got wounded and now have to play defense. At least
    require of them, to allow you your own recording device or better yet
    person with a device and best yet don’t engage them at all.
    Know it
    all gun guy is not meant to be disrespectful. I have an embarrassingly
    low level weapons knowledge and need the professional know it all gun
    guys to educate me. But please let the professional political activists
    to do their job. They will ask for help if needed. And the grassroots
    (that’s me) must to do our job, of getting one person at a time,
    interested in self defense and getting in the politicians faces. NEVER
    engage the enemy directly! They are illegitimate! Stay on offense,
    always! This is not a game. If they get the guns they will kill you and
    your children as they plunge the rest into a dystopian nightmare.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    However, the 1:14 is stable in air and tumbles in flesh is a myth that will not die.

    • Well, they believed it at the time. Despite the US Army Ordnance guys actually *having test reports* that debunked it well before the SCHV development.

      But those reports were probably gathering dust in a file cabinet. People under a certain age have a difficult time really understanding how hard it was to keep a bunch of stuff organized in your head when you had no key word computer searching of *tons* of dry reports.

  • Charles Newman

    People, such as Jim Sullivan and others, need to realize that almost every single news organization will patronize the interviewee and twist a story to their, or their organization’s political stances. Do NOT trust these people! It’s like talking to cops without an attorney present. Just plain stupid! The best solution is to ignore these Cretans and there will no work for them and they’ll be back to spreading mulch for a living.

  • L Cavendish

    Wow…this is sounding pretty familiar…
    where was Katy Couric and her editing team?

  • Herman Johnson

    Well, I’m glad to hear that this fellow didn’t lose his mind.

    Between EPIX Network’s Katy Coric hit piece, and the typical lying left wing (yes, I know, that’s redundant) pus sacks at HBO….

    Wouldn’t we all figure out by now that these people are lying scumbags, and that whatever we say will be distorted and warped to meet their America-destroying agenda?

    Moderator, I DO believe this comment is “on topic”.

  • KyKPH

    Anyone that think media doesn’t have an agenda are fool! They prove it every day.

  • Asgard928

    Yep. The media has made itself into the most untrusted entity in the world thanks to their arrogance and blatant lying.

  • CountryBoy

    Dang corrupt Pravda West Media …. just following the democrat agenda…

    Stalin would be so PROUD !!!!!

  • Court Spotts

    We have lost our free speech rights and are being fed propoganda….we can not let them take our guns,,,,

  • Rocketman

    What! The media sometimes misrepresents the truth? I am shocked, shocked I say! I’m also shocked that gambling is going on in the back room at Rick’s Casino in Casablanca!

  • Jeff Edwards

    This. This is why I am not a subscriber to HBO. I try to deal with organizations that have integrity, and crap like this is a smoking gun in their hand. (Irony intended.)

  • janklow

    i do have to eat a little crow on this if Sullivan was totally caught out by selective editing. not that i am surprised that that’d be the case these days.

  • Jaime Lynn

    Sure seems he’s still on the wrong side if the bill of rights, even with his clarifications.

  • Scott Jones

    To the author, I am curious, how are we to know he said what you wrote? I’d rather see him say it on video to show proof of what he said. Only that way can we prove what he said to those who would doubt it. Thank you

  • Scott Jones

    Look I’m not surprised things he said were not included in the story. Anyone with half a brain knew that was going to happen. But here is one for all of you conspiracy people. Everyone knows when people are sitting down talking and you answer a question your first answer is usually the truth, when you have nothing to hide. Mr. Sullivan’s statement, which was on video and not coerced was, “that was never the intended purpose. Civilian sales was never the intended purpose.” Now he takes that back and says differently. Sounds to me like his bosses, shareholders, NRA got to him. I mean having someone like this say what he said could harm sales. Naw, it couldn’t be that could it? Just playing devils advocate.

  • Richard Voss

    This article is bullshit, I am a friend of Jim’s and THIS is the twisted article. He never intended or thought they would be selling these guns to the public.

  • Yes we all know what the media reported by twisting and some creative editing. We followed up with Sullivan and he confirmed his interview was manipulated.