|
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 12:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 11:29 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote: I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very possible if nobody ever really got busted. I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't. By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look pretty hokey. I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is based in Atlanta) When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with the guy who taped his crime. Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"... The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law breaking. Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their images are blurred. They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime... What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required. What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state resident. The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy. It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did). The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him the money) he is also a straw purchaser. That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns. Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail. CNN didn't say that did they? That's kind of what I was thinking.... with my tin hat and all :) Either that or the whole sale was actors and fake guns... but no news agency would do that :O This place is hilarious. If you don't like something ... deny it exists. Simple. Don't take it so personally dick, why do all libs think having an opposing opinion is a personal attack? Is it because deep inside they have doubts??? Just wondering... |
The gun thread
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:56:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/5/2014 9:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:10:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote: I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very possible if nobody ever really got busted. I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't. By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look pretty hokey. I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is based in Atlanta) When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with the guy who taped his crime. Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"... The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law breaking. Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their images are blurred. If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out there. They do and are John. Both ineligible buyers and illegal sellers have been caught and arrested. If you Google "illegal sales at gun show arrests" it will return about 20,400,000 results for your reading pleasure. CNN makes a big deal of buying three guns, but how often are the arrests in the news? The arrests are what's newsworthy! Well, if you look for them you'll find 'em. I found 20,400,000 references to them in .39 seconds. :-) Obviously, not all are specific to arrests made but you get the idea. Seen any on NBC, CNN, etc? I haven't. I'm sure your 20m hits on Google don't dissuabe would be illegal arms sellers/buyers. |
The gun thread
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:14:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:29 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote: I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very possible if nobody ever really got busted. I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't. By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look pretty hokey. I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is based in Atlanta) When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with the guy who taped his crime. Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"... The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law breaking. Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their images are blurred. They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime... What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required. What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state resident. The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy. It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did). The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him the money) he is also a straw purchaser. That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns. Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail. CNN didn't say that did they? That's kind of what I was thinking.... with my tin hat and all :) Either that or the whole sale was actors and fake guns... but no news agency would do that :O This place is hilarious. If you don't like something ... deny it exists. Simple. Yup, everyone here but you and Harry are ****ed up. Sad. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 1:23 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:50 PM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:28:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote: The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him the money) he is also a straw purchaser. That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns. Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail. CNN didn't say that did they? Good freakin' grief Greg. See 18 U.S.C. 922 The producer "received" 3 guns in interstate commerce He transported those 3 guns across a state line He purchased them for a 3d party. 18 U.S. Code § 924 says fines up to $100,000 and 10 years in federal prison per count. I don't write the laws, I just read them. The problem is nobody even knows what the current law is because nobody gets prosecuted. They would rather throw the book at a guy with 3 joints in his sock Unenforced, what law do you think would "fix" this problem? Enforced, we already have plenty of laws. There are many people who think CNN broke the law. The guys that sold them the guns without checking an ID broke the law (at least state law). Neither CNN or the sellers were prosecuted. There is no evidence that CNN transported the guns over state lines as you "assumed" they did. At the end of the video Cooper says that the guns were turned over to CNN security. Could have been in the parking lot of the gun show. CNN security may have turned them over to the local police department. I don't know. You don't know. Again, the purpose of the report to was demonstrate how easy it is for anyone to get guns. I think if you add up both sides, and what was and wasn't said... as well as considering the source, it's probably 50/50 that it's just actors and fake guns :) Actors and fake guns. Whew. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 1:20 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:36 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/5/14 12:23 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:43 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:48:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: They didn't. They were demonstrating how easy it is for anyone to purchase guns. That is the way they presented the story but what they actually said was that they had to drive around through 3 states to find a gun show with a guy who would sell them an illegal gun. They could take a short walk from their Atlanta studio and buy some crack but that does not mean there are not enough drug laws. Holy Crap! How the story changes. They didn't "actually say" anything of the kind Greg. They said they visited five gun shows in three states to demonstrate how easily purchasing a gun was without an ID. That's all. They didn't say they "had to drive around through 3 states to find a gun show with a guy who would sell them a gun". Why the dishonest BS? i am surprised you are surprised by the behavior of greg and the other gun nuts in here and, of course, psychosnotty, who implies he cannot buy a firearm without a pardon. Normally Greg presents his views with verifiable data but twice now in less than 24 hours he has very deliberately changed or misrepresented what has been said here. The first was yesterday when, after you provided an account of your wrist injury, he changed the story and claimed that *you* approached and sucker punched the guy. Today he is re-wording what was said by the CNN investigative report on gun show sales. That's dishonest. Kinda' like someone saying they found Dana Loesh and knew all about her by googling "Dana on Fox"... :) You can call it dishonest. I call it an honest mistake which I acknowledged. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 1:26 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:29 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote: I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very possible if nobody ever really got busted. I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't. By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look pretty hokey. I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is based in Atlanta) When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with the guy who taped his crime. Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"... The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law breaking. Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their images are blurred. They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime... What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required. What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state resident. The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy. It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did). The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him the money) he is also a straw purchaser. That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns. Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail. CNN didn't say that did they? That's kind of what I was thinking.... with my tin hat and all :) Either that or the whole sale was actors and fake guns... but no news agency would do that :O This place is hilarious. If you don't like something ... deny it exists. Simple. Don't take it so personally dick, why do all libs think having an opposing opinion is a personal attack? Is it because deep inside they have doubts??? Just wondering... It has nothing to do with taking anything personally. I don't, especially in this newsgroup. When people make outrageous claims that any reasonable, sane person would question, I may exercise my right to comment. If I am proven wrong, I'll acknowledge it. You have done the same in the past and it's something I respect. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 2:29 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:14:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:29 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote: I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very possible if nobody ever really got busted. I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't. By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look pretty hokey. I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is based in Atlanta) When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with the guy who taped his crime. Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"... The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law breaking. Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their images are blurred. They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime... What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required. What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state resident. The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy. It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did). The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him the money) he is also a straw purchaser. That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns. Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail. CNN didn't say that did they? That's kind of what I was thinking.... with my tin hat and all :) Either that or the whole sale was actors and fake guns... but no news agency would do that :O This place is hilarious. If you don't like something ... deny it exists. Simple. Yup, everyone here but you and Harry are ****ed up. Sad. If that's your conclusion, thanks for the compliment. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/14 3:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 2:29 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:14:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:29 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote: I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very possible if nobody ever really got busted. I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't. By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look pretty hokey. I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is based in Atlanta) When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with the guy who taped his crime. Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"... The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law breaking. Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their images are blurred. They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime... What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required. What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state resident. The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy. It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did). The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him the money) he is also a straw purchaser. That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns. Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail. CNN didn't say that did they? That's kind of what I was thinking.... with my tin hat and all :) Either that or the whole sale was actors and fake guns... but no news agency would do that :O This place is hilarious. If you don't like something ... deny it exists. Simple. Yup, everyone here but you and Harry are ****ed up. Sad. If that's your conclusion, thanks for the compliment. There are cowards in this newsgroup who, if forced to choose between keeping their guns and the lives of their children/grandchildren, would keep their guns and claim their progeny died for "the cause." -- “There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” - Norman Mailer |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com