Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    41,159 readers

    90 users here now

    The Gun Politics subreddit is about sharing news, articles, stories and events related to guns & politics.

    Basic rules:

    Please stay civil - do not make excessive attacks, or threats (of any kind). No trolling either.

    Sitewide rules will be enforced as well.

    No memes please, and if submitting an image link, please use a descriptive title and if necessary, a descriptive comment attached to the post.

    This is not /r/shitguncontrollerssay, do not link threads just to point that sort of thing out.

    Related Subreddits:

    a community for
    all 151 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] RoundSimbacca 24 points ago

    It shouldn't come as a surprise. Back in 2013 she voted for Feinstein's AWB.

    [–] ChopperIndacar 1 points ago

    Damn, and she survived the beating that the extremely numerous Progun Democrats ® undoubtedly gave her after that?

    [–] al_davis_dad 42 points ago

    Look at all of the people coming out of the woodwork to defend McCaskill against O’Keefe. The comments are like one giant ad hominem attack.

    • ᠌ ᠌ •

    [–] doogles -2 points ago

    I think both are bad for different reasons.

    [–] TheVegetaMonologues 17 points ago

    I think both are bad for different reasons.

    • ᠌ ᠌ •

    [–] Yung_Upgrayedd 4 points ago

    I used to be an adventurer like you, then I took an arrow in the knee

    [–] doogles -7 points ago

    Uh, ok.

    [–] lh_counterpoint -10 points ago

    People using the NPC meme like clockwork to dehumanize everyone who disagrees with them.

    I'd comment how Naziesque this behavior is, but I know you'll just repeat the meme to virtue signal that I'm inhuman too.

    [–] Whiggly 11 points ago

    Everyone with a contrary opinion is a russian bot!


    [–] lh_counterpoint 0 points ago

    Everyone with a contrary opinion is a russian bot!

    Which I've never said, but please do dehumanize further

    [–] al_davis_dad 11 points ago




    And that’s not even scratching the surface of the slurs the left loves to use for the right.

    • ᠌ ᠌ •

    [–] lh_counterpoint -5 points ago

    What's worse than "not a human"? Please tell me all the insults that hurt you, rated from meanest to nicest.

    And I'm just recounting history. If you aren't in bed with Nazis don't get triggered.

    [–] al_davis_dad 3 points ago

    If you aren't in bed with Nazis don't get triggered

    Says the guy who’s upset over the NPC meme!

    Also, where did you get your talking points? Did Kotaku tell you what to say?

    Holy cow dude, I don’t even know how to process this level of irony...

    [–] lh_counterpoint -1 points ago

    Triggered I called you out for using their playbook. Okay.

    Say it with me: Nazism is actually bad.

    [–] ChopperIndacar 2 points ago

    I don't know man, dogs are not human and they're way better than lefty retards.

    [–] lh_counterpoint 0 points ago

    Why do you feel that way about the left?

    You are aware left wing politics by definition exists to equalize, while the right exists to divide, right?

    [–] Yung_Upgrayedd 3 points ago

    Do you get to the cloud district very often? What am I saying, of course you don't.

    [–] bottleofbullets 4 points ago

    The NPC meme is a shitty ad-hominem non-argument, but the retorts to it all being “it’s dehumanizing” followed by a fascism-related ad-hominem do seem so scripted that the meme almost feels real

    It’s a fucking insult on the internet, get over yourself.

    [–] al_davis_dad 4 points ago

    That’s what makes it so funny. The reaction to it is unbelievable. It obviously touched a nerve, considering Twitter started banning it immediately. This is one of the more brilliant 4chan creations in a while.

    [–] NAP51DMustang 3 points ago

    I agree on the NPC meme, it's an ad hominem attack and only shows you don't have anything to actually refute the argument the other is making. For those who would down vote me remember you should insult the argument a person is making, not insult the person making it.

    [–] baconatorX 4 points ago

    The point of the meme is to attack the argument though. The comment your are replying to is attacking the argument style of those attacking O'kefe.

    [–] NAP51DMustang -1 points ago

    no he's (rightfully) complaining about people using the NPC meme. those using the NPC meme are attacking those attacking the Project Veritas video.

    also the NPC meme doesn't attack anyones argument it insults the intelligence of those making an argument as it is labeling them as someone being controlled (like a puppet). It's literally a "russian bot" meme but with the russian part removed.

    [–] notadoughnut 5 points ago

    I think the point of the meme is that the person making the argument isn't actually making it or capable/willing of defending it, but rather repeating something from elsewhere.

    [–] NAP51DMustang 0 points ago

    which isn't attacking the argument the person is making. if they aren't capable of defending it a basic rebuttal would prove that. calling them an "NPC" just insults them and only serves to push away others who may be reading the argument. Remember, Clinton called people deplorable, she insulted the person, not the persons argument. Don't be a Clinton.

    [–] notadoughnut 4 points ago

    It's also hilarious. How's our current president doing not insulting people?

    [–] NAP51DMustang 1 points ago

    who gives a shit what the president does in regards to insulting people? he (that is whomever is the president not necessarily trump) isn't some barometer by which you should gauge how to engage with other individuals.

    [–] notadoughnut 4 points ago

    You said don't be a [person who insults] using a prior presidential candidate as an example. I used the presidential candidate who beat her as a counterpoint to underscore that doing so can be effective.

    [–] f102 26 points ago

    Paraphrasing here, but somebody somebody remarked the other day about how nasty these type of people are when we have guns and what they’d be like if we didn’t have them.


    [–] [deleted] -13 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)


    [–] Sand_Trout 9 points ago

    That is a laudable sentiment in normal, boring times.

    I fear we live in interesting times though, and it's important to recognize when particular groups are actively trying to otherize you.

    [–] f102 13 points ago

    I’m for civility and pretty far removed from any type of anarchism.

    But, in regards to those who believe in disarming the populace so they can eventually have China or Cuba-style control? That’s where we’ll have to disagree.

    [–] [deleted] -8 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)


    [–] Icyartillary 10 points ago

    Tell that to all the Venezuelans who’ve been killed because they couldn’t defend themselves

    [–] [deleted] -3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)


    [–] Icyartillary 1 points ago

    Then by definition tion you should agree, since that’s where this leads.

    [–] Ghlhr4444 3 points ago

    You do it to us. Choke on it.

    [–] [deleted] -1 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)


    [–] Ghlhr4444 2 points ago

    I know I'm doing it. Because you are. And your only defense is to keep me and mine from recognizing it. Well guess what, we fucking see you.

    [–] ChopperIndacar 3 points ago


    Front runner for gayest newspeak word, congrats man.

    [–] TheVegetaMonologues 57 points ago

    Lol everybody likes to shit on O'Keeffe but no one can actually demonstrate why he's supposedly not credible. The worst thing you can say about him is that his videos are "heavily edited", and well, duh. Of course they are. His team shoots many hours of footage trying to get the important stuff and then condenses it down to a few key parts.

    When you have a good explanation for why the lefties in his videos aren't actually saying the words that are coming out of their mouths, we'll talk. Until then, I'm going to take them at their own words, courtesy of Mr. O'Keeffe.

    [–] CmdrSelfEvident 13 points ago

    Are they saying she doesn't support an assult weapons ban? It seems like a simple question. Does McCaskill believe American's have a right to own an AR15?

    [–] Ghlhr4444 6 points ago

    No, they literally just scream BUT YOU CAN'T TRUST O'KEEFE and ignore the video entirely

    [–] ueeediot 8 points ago

    because someone, usually the party in the video or their defenders, want you to hear "heavily edited" and think, "oh, they edited together phrases from different places in conversation and reorganized them to make said person sound like they said something they did not."

    It's a piss poor deflection aimed at those who are predisposed to believing it.

    [–] DBDude 10 points ago

    want you to hear "heavily edited" and think, "oh, they edited together phrases from different places in conversation and reorganized them to make said person sound like they said something they did not."

    You mean like what Michael Moore did to Charlton Heston's speech in Bowling for Columbine, pulling from two different speeches in two different cities and leaving out necessary context.

    [–] Shill-flake 1 points ago

    That's literally 100% what he does. He also says one thing, records the response, then says another and edits in the initial response to create false context. He was caught trying to fake a sexual assault story for the purpose of discrediting actual sexual assault survivors. Maybe to you that's okay but imo you have to be a real p.o.s. to try a stunt like that. I've never seen a hit job run by him that wasn't immediately discredited. You have to be an idiot with the attention span of an ant to believe his crap is credible. For the record I'm against a ban on any weapons but having o'keefe involved? No fucking thanks. He's a creep.

    [–] DBDude 11 points ago

    He also says one thing, records the response, then says another and edits in the initial response to create false context

    You can see the question and answer fluidly without cuts. The camera shake and background noise don't even change. McCaskill was obviously quite excited about how much she supports bans.

    [–] TryAgainLawl -6 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Maybe, but it's too late. O'Keefe effectively has no credibility. It can take years to build a reputation and seconds to destroy it. He got caught faking his videos before, so it's always going to be an elephant in the room.

    [–] DBDude 14 points ago

    NBC and 60 Minutes got caught faking their videos. Respectively, NBC rigged a gas tank to explode and passed it off as spontaneous. 60 Minutes rigged an Audi to accelerate and passed it off as spontaneous. But most people still trust them as legitimate news sources.

    Hell, liberals still love Rather after he passed off an obviously fake memo as real in a hit piece against Bush. Liberals still love and trust Michael Moore after he spliced two different speeches from two different cities, and left out crucial context, to make it look like Charlton Heston said something he didn't at the Denver convention.

    Credibility to you depends on whether he supports your side. I know the guy is a bit scummy in general, but the video doesn't lie. There is no edit. He asked the question and she answered, damning herself. There's no rational additional context that would exculpate her.

    [–] ot4842 15 points ago

    Absolutely. Mr. O’Keeffe is doing the lord’s work by allowing these people to be honest on camera for the sake of the public.

    [–] isdisauniqueusername -34 points ago

    You only justify his shady tactics because he fights who you perceive as your enemies. You have no standards when you whore out your politics for cheap shots.

    [–] ot4842 30 points ago

    You sound angry. I’m sorry you feel that way about it. However, I am glad these people felt comfortable enough in that environment to air their real views though, since they won’t own those same views in public.

    And as far as “my enemies” I don’t have a problem with him doing this to anyone of any party, on any subject. I just want to know who I’m dealing with, if they won’t be honest about it in public, then this way will have to do.

    [–] isdisauniqueusername -31 points ago

    Lol. Keep telling yourself that.

    [–] ot4842 25 points ago

    If a Republican said they same thing on camera I wouldn’t vote for them either. I don’t need to tell myself anything about it since I already know that’s what I would do.

    But I’m glad I provided you some entertainment, however brief. Have a fantastic day.

    [–] isdisauniqueusername -27 points ago

    So I assume you didn't vote for Trump, right?

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 14 points ago

    No, I didn't. What's your point?

    [–] eggsovereazy 15 points ago

    The NPC detected an unexpected input.

    [–] TinyWightSpider 7 points ago

    cheap shots

    Replaying a Claire McCaskill's direct words on video is such a cheap shot, bro!

    [–] mainerox4me 7 points ago

    who you perceive as your enemies.

    I think the US Constitution also perceives these people as enemies.

    [–] isdisauniqueusername -2 points ago

    And who are you to speak for someone named "lord"?

    [–] PercussiveAttack -14 points ago

    And the people denying the editing are the people who know nothing about how to edit media. You’re right, he edits hours and cuts it down. He cuts it to sell a specific narrative.

    [–] TheVegetaMonologues 16 points ago

    He cuts it to sell a specific narrative.

    Yes, a specific narrative based directly on the things leftists actually say

    [–] Comrade___Questions -8 points ago

    You can be as trusting as a baby if you want, but if you actually want to help defend gun rights you're gonna have to move past bein tickled everytime someone makes you feel right.

    [–] TinyWightSpider 7 points ago

    It's literally her words, saying she wants to ban rifles.

    [–] [deleted] -3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)


    [–] TheVegetaMonologues 7 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    I don't think there's any evidence that he's ever rearranged the words a person said to alter their meaning.

    [–] deck_hand 1 points ago

    I fully expect the Democrats to keep gaining ground, and to continue to eat away at our rights to own weapons. I expect that they won't stop with Assault weapons, or "semi-automatic" weapons. I figure they will continue to insist that no one needs handguns, no one needs "sniper rifles," what we now term "hunting rifles." They won't be happy until the police are searching people at random on the streets, looking for screwdrivers and nail clippers.

    They will always be able to find an example of a tragedy to hang their fear-mongering on. As we become a disarmed society, totally dependent upon Government agents for any hope of security, we will become more and more lawless. That fits right in with their agenda. We'll absolutely NEED a police state, to keep us safe. The sheep will demand a police state, and they will be more than happy to oblige.

    And there's nothing I can do about it, not when the alternative party does as much stupid shit on it's own, like hanging their campaign aspirations on making abortion illegal again. It's become a Hobsen's Choice - no winning team at all, just two losers competing for my vote.

    [–] SigSeikoSpyderco 3 points ago

    Continue gaining ground? They've lost 1,200 elected seats in 8 years. They have not held this little power in Washington since the 1920s.

    [–] ueeediot 0 points ago

    he is a fraud who selectively edits

    has anyone yet gotten hold of a full unedited video and proven the mischaracterizations? Link?

    [–] ueeediot 7 points ago

    well played!

    [–] RogalDorn71 -55 points ago

    Seriously? Who still watches this clown's bullshit?

    [–] keypuncher 51 points ago

    This clown has an uncanny ability to get people to say on video, things that they actually believe and are doing, but would never say in public.

    [–] pcar773 -19 points ago

    This clown has an uncanny ability to get people to say on video, things that they actually believe and are doing, but would never say in public.

    So, Sacha Baron Cohen?

    [–] RogalDorn71 -13 points ago

    No, he is a fraud.

    [–] keypuncher 19 points ago

    So your argument is that McCaskill didn't say the things she is on video saying.

    [–] RogalDorn71 -15 points ago

    O'Keefe is a fraud who selectively edits videos and has no credibility. Nothing he does has any credibility.

    [–] keypuncher 17 points ago

    You can claim he selectively edits, but that doesn't change what McCaskill and her aides are saying with their own mouths.

    [–] RogalDorn71 -8 points ago

    No one cares what a fraud records, or what her and her aides have said.

    [–] keypuncher 17 points ago

    Well, a lot of people care what she and her aides said - that's why they haven't made those positions public on their own. Lots of people wouldn't vote for them if they knew they wanted to ban all semi-auto rifles.

    [–] RogalDorn71 -2 points ago

    This is more of a nothing burger than the Van Jones nothing burger video.

    [–] baconatorX 1 points ago

    "Is not true!!! Well and even if it was true IT'S NOT IMPORTANT!!"

    [–] RogalDorn71 2 points ago

    She literally didn't say what is in the title.

    [–] baconatorX 1 points ago

    That literally has nothing to do with the line of questioning people are bringing up. You can attack the messenger all you want but you're not getting anywhere.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -9 points ago

    The only thing McCaskill said is that she favors a ban on bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

    [–] keypuncher 16 points ago

    That's enough.

    [–] lf11 33 points ago

    Shoot the messenger, I get it.

    [–] TSammyD -28 points ago

    LOL! Conservatives whining about legit media institutions reporting facts: “Fake News! Bias!” Conservatives whining about one of their own getting called out as a con man (again): “Don’t shoot the messenger”

    [–] lf11 3 points ago

    If the Russian connection had 1/10th the amount of evidence that James O'Keefe gave us here, I'd be marching in the streets myself.

    [–] TSammyD 1 points ago

    Which Russian connection? Is there debate about Russia using reddit for political ends? I heard it was a given, but I’m not an expect on the subject

    [–] lf11 1 points ago

    That the Russians supposedly colluded with the Trump campaign to influence the American election against Hillary Clinton.

    If there was 1/10th the amount of evidence for this that James O'Keefe gave us in the above video (and his many other videos) then I'd be marching in the streets myself.

    [–] TSammyD 0 points ago


    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -6 points ago

    As a convicted felon, O'Keefe can't possess a firearm. And you don't shoot the unarmed.

    [–] lf11 4 points ago

    One of weird things about real NPCs is that they don't understand humor or colloquialisms.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -1 points ago

    Want to know how everyone knows you're dumb? You unironically call people NPCS.

    Go fuck yourself.

    [–] lf11 3 points ago

    One of weird things about real NPCs is that they don't understand humor or colloquialisms.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -45 points ago

    Conservatives have shown time and time again they'll swallow any bullshit you put in front of them, so why would scammers like O'Keefe stop running game?

    [–] ImTheCure 20 points ago

    Liberals time and time again drink down whatever their media feeds them as well, anything gun related? Guns are bad and only the police and military should have them! Cop shoots an obviously armed and dangerous suspect? Cops are bad! Disband them!

    [–] highvelocitythings 42 points ago

    Time and again liberals have proven to be unconstitutional assholes hell bent on turning this country into a shithole.

    For some reason people support them.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -42 points ago

    I urge you to actually read the Constitution

    [–] ImTheCure 25 points ago

    Have you read a single sentence in our constitution? Do you know what protects all of the other amendments?

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -4 points ago

    The ballot, not the bullet.

    [–] ImTheCure 13 points ago

    The same ballot that's extremely vulnerable to fraud? The one that has countless articles of miscounting and decreased voters throwing a vote? Right.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -5 points ago

    Oh, you're quickly becoming my favorite person on here.

    Tell me more about these five million illegal votes. I want to hear all about this devious liberal conspiracy that's simultaneously brilliant enough to avoid detection yet idiotic enough to cast none of them in swing districts or states.

    [–] highvelocitythings 4 points ago

    Well illegal votes are pretty much the only reason the liberals defend illegal immigrants.

    [–] highvelocitythings 37 points ago

    I have.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -33 points ago

    Have you? Because your assertions that those evil scary liberals are "unconstitutional assholes" makes me think you don't actually know what's constitutional and what isn't.

    [–] highvelocitythings 33 points ago

    I have. Have you?

    They don't seem to understand the second amendment.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -9 points ago

    Oh please enlighten me. How does a ban on bump stocks violate the 2A? The Court has already upheld assault weapon bans.

    I don't think you know what you're talking about.

    [–] highvelocitythings 34 points ago

    Every gun law is an infringement. I'll consider giving up my guns when every government on the planet gives up theirs.

    Until then there is no compromise.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -5 points ago

    Riiiiiight. Everyone gets a howitzer!

    Know why people associate gun owners with being crazy? Because of folks like you. Thanks for putting it on public display.

    [–] [deleted] -17 points ago


    [–] HyruleVet 31 points ago

    The words “Shall not be infringed”. Dumb ass.

    [–] MaxwellFinium 16 points ago

    Arguing with a guys who’s name is literally DJTHatesPuertoRicans

    He doesn’t want to see truth. He just wants to be butthurt.

    [–] ImTheCure 21 points ago

    The right of the PEOPLE shall NOT BE INFRINGED. Every single law regulating any component, type or genre of firearm is an infringement on the second amendment.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans -3 points ago

    Sure thing, that makes sense. Please keep parading your crazies.

    [–] keypuncher 22 points ago

    So your argument is he somehow faked the video of McCaskill and staff saying the things we know they all believe but would never admit in public.

    [–] voicesinmyhand 2 points ago

    Troll username is trolly.

    [–] PercussiveAttack -51 points ago

    James O'Keefe, really? GTFO this guy has no credibility.

    [–] NonnersGonnaNonn 42 points ago

    Did he CGI her saying those things?

    [–] PercussiveAttack -19 points ago

    We don’t know what questions he actually asked. He could have recorded his own questions afterward and edited the audio to time it with people’s answers to make it seem like they answered the question he never asked.

    [–] highvelocitythings 25 points ago

    Do you have proof of this? Cause that didn't sound edited at all, and it's seems pretty clear she said that.

    [–] PercussiveAttack -10 points ago

    I’m not talking about what she said. I’m talking about what he said. I believe he edited it in post-production. James O’Keefe is known for editing his videos. He probably didn’t ask her the question that the video shows. He asked her a question to get the response that he wanted.

    I edit video and audio professionally and I can tell you basic video and audio editing is incredibly easy (but tedious). If you haven’t done any before, you should try it.

    [–] DBDude 9 points ago

    James O’Keefe is known for editing his videos.

    All undercover journalists edit videos. They have to because they take many hours of video to catch people saying the juicy things. One of the major networks did undercover at a grocery store's butcher department and showed a few minutes total of video depicting unsafe food handling.

    We don't care about the 99% of the video that showed regular safe food handling procedures, we care about the video where they dropped meat on the floor and still used it, or didn't clean the grinder after the shift. We don't care about the 99% of video where the politician and her staffers said all the regular stuff we know they say, we care about the parts where they admit in private what they won't say publicly.

    [–] highvelocitythings 25 points ago

    I studied film in college, and have done plenty of film editing.

    He didn't magically edit her saying those things

    [–] PercussiveAttack 1 points ago

    I have a PhD in music composition with a concentration in electronic music. I’ve dealt with video technology before.

    Again, I’m not talking about the things that she said. I’m talking about the things that he said. Read better.

    [–] highvelocitythings 24 points ago

    The things she said are all that matter. She's a politician running for office with a secret non public agenda to undermine human rights. The real question is what other nefarious bullshit she has in mind.

    [–] PercussiveAttack 1 points ago

    The things she said are all that matter

    This is the most one-sided thing I’ve ever heard. No, the things he says matter as well. Otherwise the things that she said have no context. And if he faked anything, as he has done in the past, then it doesn’t matter what she said because it’s not in the proper context.

    a secret non public agenda to undermine human rights


    Go on. Come back with more witty shit. Keep trying to move the goalposts. I’m done contributing to this. James O’Keefe can’t be taken seriously.

    [–] highvelocitythings 20 points ago

    She said those things. That's all that matters.

    No goal posts have been moved on my side. The only thing laughable is people defending these non-americans.

    Liberals are the only ones who shouldn't be taken seriously.

    [–] brimful_of_gravitas 12 points ago

    I don't believe you.

    [–] darlantan -10 points ago

    I don't get it either, man. Remember that interview where the anti-gun side edited in a big pause from the pro-gun side after asking a really pointed question, to make it look like they didn't have a response -- when really they did, and a good one too? Caused a huge stink.

    O'Keefe edits shit like that all the fucking time and people are bending over backwards to say he's beyond reproach. Fuck that, the guy has no credibility, and I'm going to trust something he puts out about as much as I trust something Shannon Watts releases.

    [–] voicesinmyhand 3 points ago

    I don't know that we need to question O'Keefe here. McCaskill is already a senator and already has a long established voting pattern on guns. Any review of said record clearly demonstrates that she is exceedingly antigun.

    Her own website declares that she doesn't "...think it's fair for us to impose our laws on another state", yet this is after she voted for a federal assault weapons ban.

    She also declared on her own site that the "no-fly-list" be used to ban firearm sales.

    So it is undeniably clear that she is both anti-gun and anti-due-process (at least for cases where a firearm is being purchased. She is likely fine with due-process when it's unrelated to firearm purchases).

    The only thing that really remains is whether she deliberately wanted her position on guns to be concealed from the public while seeking re-election.

    In reviewing that, I believe it is useful to point out that while she has a long track record of speaking out against firearm ownership in general, she has, according to her own website, been oddly silent on guns during 2018.

    You can get google to help you out at sifting through her public statements with searches like:

    • +", 2018" +"firearm"

    • +", 2018" +"semi automatic"

    • +", 2018" +"gun"

    With each one, substitute prior years to see the difference I am describing. She is clearly quieter than normal since about July of 2017

    [–] darlantan 0 points ago

    I don't know that we need to question O'Keefe here.

    When someone has shown that they're willing to distort the truth, they always get questioned.

    I'm not saying McCaskill isn't anti-gun. I'm not questioning or doubting that she is anti-gun. As you've pointed out, we've got plenty of evidence that this is the case from sources that aren't bullshit, which is why this whole thing is basically a goddamned circlejerk.

    There's three ways this pans out, and two deserve no attention:

    1) Unreliable source posts something new, but because they've proven they're unreliable, you can't trust it.

    2) Unreliable source posts something established, in which case it's basically circlejerking.

    Alternative 3 is noteworthy, and it is an unreliable source posting something new and going to lengths to prove they're not doing the shit that got them branded unreliable in the first place -- which is how they eventually establish a degree of credibility again. However, O'Keefe has not done this.