|
The gun thread
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/3/14 12:50 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:55:28 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I live in Maryland a state many consider restrictive as to gun rights. In the 11 years I've lived here I've never found maryland's gun regulations prevented me from buying any firearm i wanted. It sounds more like you tailored your wants to what they let you buy. How many new in the box firearms have you bought in the last 15 years? 25 give or take two. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 7:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. We don't know anything about the person buying the firearms nor about the person selling the firearms. Were they individuals? Were they FFL's? Just who were the people transacting the purchase of the firearms. 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 don't receive that privilege from Eric Holder, he has tried to force many of them to reveal their sources at a minimum. He is still trying to put a Fox Reporter in prison, the one he lied directly to congress about, James Rosen... |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 8:18 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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? Good freakin' grief Greg. I thought you were trying to encourage responsible gun purchasing and ownership. Why should the press get an get out of jail free card? If the press wanted to show how easy it is to rob a convenience store and they get one of their producers to do it, should the producer be prosecuted for robbery? Have to admit. This is funny. A investigative report is done to demonstrate how easily guns can be purchased ... by anyone ... without a background check and without even having to produce an ID. It's a hot topic due to the numerous killings that occur using guns. It's aired on CNN. Some of the rec.boats crowd wants the CNN producer to be arrested, fined and put in prison for up to 90 years. Figures. |
The gun thread
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:26:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 5:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 16:11:48 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: 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." You two are getting right good at the ridicule. Shame this thread had to deteriorate to that. As someone said, "Sad." You and your gun nutzi buddies are deserving of ridicule, and you of course are in no position to whine about being ridiculed. You ain't in the "he who is without sin" group. Y'all just help yourselves. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/14 9:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:26:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/5/14 5:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 16:11:48 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: 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." You two are getting right good at the ridicule. Shame this thread had to deteriorate to that. As someone said, "Sad." You and your gun nutzi buddies are deserving of ridicule, and you of course are in no position to whine about being ridiculed. You ain't in the "he who is without sin" group. Y'all just help yourselves. Be sure to tell someone in your family to let us know when you have a gun accident. -- “There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” - Norman Mailer |
The gun thread
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:58:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Let me ask you something: If the danger exposed in an investigative report is *real* as in the case of the Chevy trucks catching fire due to the unprotected side saddle fuel tanks and as outlined in the Center For Auto Safety report cited above, is a dramatization of the danger by artificially igniting the fuel an attempt to mislead the public or provide false information? === Dramatization takes it out of the category of news and responsible journalism, and turns the story into fiction and entertainment. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 9:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:58:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Let me ask you something: If the danger exposed in an investigative report is *real* as in the case of the Chevy trucks catching fire due to the unprotected side saddle fuel tanks and as outlined in the Center For Auto Safety report cited above, is a dramatization of the danger by artificially igniting the fuel an attempt to mislead the public or provide false information? === Dramatization takes it out of the category of news and responsible journalism, and turns the story into fiction and entertainment. Fiction? It is based on verifiable data, i.e. accident reports with deaths. Is it an attempt to mislead the public or provide false information? |
The gun thread
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:55:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/5/2014 9:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:58:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Let me ask you something: If the danger exposed in an investigative report is *real* as in the case of the Chevy trucks catching fire due to the unprotected side saddle fuel tanks and as outlined in the Center For Auto Safety report cited above, is a dramatization of the danger by artificially igniting the fuel an attempt to mislead the public or provide false information? === Dramatization takes it out of the category of news and responsible journalism, and turns the story into fiction and entertainment. Fiction? It is based on verifiable data, i.e. accident reports with deaths. Is it an attempt to mislead the public or provide false information? === It's fiction if it didn't actually happen the way it was presented. The video should have had a clearly readable disclaimer stating that it was a staged re-enactment. That would have been honest journalism. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/14 9:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:58:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Let me ask you something: If the danger exposed in an investigative report is *real* as in the case of the Chevy trucks catching fire due to the unprotected side saddle fuel tanks and as outlined in the Center For Auto Safety report cited above, is a dramatization of the danger by artificially igniting the fuel an attempt to mislead the public or provide false information? === Dramatization takes it out of the category of news and responsible journalism, and turns the story into fiction and entertainment. Fiction? It is based on verifiable data, i.e. accident reports with deaths. Is it an attempt to mislead the public or provide false information? Wayne is just another hardline gunnutzi -- “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 09:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com