|
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
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. -- “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 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. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/14 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. You've got the gun nutzis on the ropes. He's a gun nutzi. Gun nutzis are opposed to firearms regulations. -- “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 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. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:32:52 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: no shortage of hits on "gun show loophole." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-ztawuh98 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...Unanimous-Vote many hits for virginia...here is one: http://tinyurl.com/mywfmo6 I can get thousands of hits on "the Mossad blew up the world trade center" too but that does not make it true. The fact is that these guys on MSNBC broke federal laws to make their little movie. Would more laws make it more illegal? Dick produced a stat that says less than one percent of crime guns came from a gun show. CNN. Not MSNBC. Let's keep the stories straight. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:32:52 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: no shortage of hits on "gun show loophole." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-ztawuh98 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...Unanimous-Vote many hits for virginia...here is one: http://tinyurl.com/mywfmo6 I can get thousands of hits on "the Mossad blew up the world trade center" too but that does not make it true. The fact is that these guys on MSNBC broke federal laws to make their little movie. Would more laws make it more illegal? Dick produced a stat that says less than one percent of crime guns came from a gun show. Oh. If so, then they must be ok. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 1:00 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:23:45 -0500, "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? That is what the map they put up there showed. I am fairly familiar with that area around Elijay because we vacationed there 4 times. You are right on the Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina lines and the loop they showed went through all 3 states. I will go back and watch it again. Please do and then report back on when they said they "had to drive around through 3 states to find a gun show with a guy who would sell them a gun" |
The gun thread
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"... :) |
The gun thread
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 :) |
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 |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 3:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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. I have seen fake floods and reporters in canoes... Just sayin'. Either way, I was being somewhat sarcastically over the edge to make the point that trusting CNN is like a crapshoot.. maybe I got the numbers wrong, but I don't really shoot craps, maybe I shudd'a put in *two* smiley faces....... again, relax dick, you are gonna' pop an artery... |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 4:11 PM, 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." What surprises me more ... and it's been a real eye opener ... is the rancor held for some who don't share their fanaticism and their ability to twist what is actually said into what they *think* they read or heard. No, on second thought, maybe it's what they *want* to think they read or heard. When you peel away the onion it all comes back to the same thing. The big bad gov'ment is comin' to take my guns away. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/14 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 4:11 PM, 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." What surprises me more ... and it's been a real eye opener ... is the rancor held for some who don't share their fanaticism and their ability to twist what is actually said into what they *think* they read or heard. No, on second thought, maybe it's what they *want* to think they read or heard. When you peel away the onion it all comes back to the same thing. The big bad gov'ment is comin' to take my guns away. Guns for me are a hobby, nothing more. I don't buy into the insane 2A bull**** that old farts are going to be able to hold off the government with our little light arms. Most of the 2A boys here wouldn't come to the aid of a woman being beat up in a parking lot. They're NATO boys, no action, talk only, and the louder they yap about the 2A, the less likely they are to take action of any sort that requires personal physical risk. Herring, for example, looks like a toddler on a plastic skateboard would do him in. I do think Fretwell would shoot a black kid if he had the chance, especially in Florida. -- “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 11/5/2014 4:19 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 3:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. I have seen fake floods and reporters in canoes... Just sayin'. Either way, I was being somewhat sarcastically over the edge to make the point that trusting CNN is like a crapshoot.. maybe I got the numbers wrong, but I don't really shoot craps, maybe I shudd'a put in *two* smiley faces....... again, relax dick, you are gonna' pop an artery... Trust me. If I ever pop an artery it won't be due to anything being discussed here. In some ways rec.boats is therapy. Makes one realize one is still very much sane. |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 4:39 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: When you peel away the onion it all comes back to the same thing. The big bad gov'ment is comin' to take my guns away. Guns for me are a hobby, nothing more. I don't buy into the insane 2A bull**** that old farts are going to be able to hold off the government with our little light arms. Most of the 2A boys here wouldn't come to the aid of a woman being beat up in a parking lot. They're NATO boys, no action, talk only, and the louder they yap about the 2A, the less likely they are to take action of any sort that requires personal physical risk. Herring, for example, looks like a toddler on a plastic skateboard would do him in. I do think Fretwell would shoot a black kid if he had the chance, especially in Florida. On 11/5/2014 4:39 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/5/14 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: When you peel away the onion it all comes back to the same thing. The big bad gov'ment is comin' to take my guns away. Guns for me are a hobby, nothing more. I don't buy into the insane 2A bull**** that old farts are going to be able to hold off the government with our little light arms. Most of the 2A boys here wouldn't come to the aid of a woman being beat up in a parking lot. They're NATO boys, no action, talk only, and the louder they yap about the 2A, the less likely they are to take action of any sort that requires personal physical risk. Herring, for example, looks like a toddler on a plastic skateboard would do him in. I do think Fretwell would shoot a black kid if he had the chance, especially in Florida. In fairness, you have to consider youth and conditioning: http://tinyurl.com/lvm5a6r |
The gun thread
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." |
The gun thread
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. -- “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 11/5/2014 4:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 4:19 PM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 3:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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 do 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. I have seen fake floods and reporters in canoes... Just sayin'. Either way, I was being somewhat sarcastically over the edge to make the point that trusting CNN is like a crapshoot.. maybe I got the numbers wrong, but I don't really shoot craps, maybe I shudd'a put in *two* smiley faces....... again, relax dick, you are gonna' pop an artery... Trust me. If I ever pop an artery it won't be due to anything being discussed here. In some ways rec.boats is therapy. Makes one realize one is still very much sane. Just worried about your health. We all got 'BamaCare now you know... :) |
The gun thread
On 11/5/14 5:35 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 4:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 4:19 PM, KC wrote: On 11/5/2014 3:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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 do 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. I have seen fake floods and reporters in canoes... Just sayin'. Either way, I was being somewhat sarcastically over the edge to make the point that trusting CNN is like a crapshoot.. maybe I got the numbers wrong, but I don't really shoot craps, maybe I shudd'a put in *two* smiley faces....... again, relax dick, you are gonna' pop an artery... Trust me. If I ever pop an artery it won't be due to anything being discussed here. In some ways rec.boats is therapy. Makes one realize one is still very much sane. Just worried about your health. We all got 'BamaCare now you know... :) Yeah, you have health care insurance now, thanks to the liberals. Perhaps your friends in the GOP will take it away from now. Wouldn't that be nice? -- “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 11/5/2014 7:38 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/5/2014 9:11 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:01:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:35:27 AM UTC-5, 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. Of course Dateline's "To catch a predator" had no problem following through. Many "news" stories have been staged, and later revealed. That this one hasn't doesn't mean it's real. That show was specifically done in concert with law enforcement who were conducting sting operations. Not really the same thing. "Dateline NBC aired an investigative report on November 17, 1992, titled "Waiting to Explode". The 60-minute program focused on General Motors' Rounded-Line Chevrolet C/K-Series pickup trucks allegedly exploding upon impact during accidents due to the poor design of fuel tanks. Dateline?'?s footage showed a sample of a low-speed accident with the fuel tank exploding. In reality, Dateline NBC producers had rigged the truck's fuel tank with remotely controlled model rocket engines to initiate the explosion. The program did not disclose the fact that the accident was staged." But that is. I remember that. Agreed, it was proven it was staged. In their defense, NBC issued a statement that the problem with the GM trucks was well known and documented. They just couldn't get the thing to catch fire for their filming purposes, so they faked what caused the leaking fuel to ignite. Not exactly honest and they should have acknowledged it in the documentary. It turns out that the problem with the side saddle tanks in the trucks *was* real though. Here's what the Center For Auto Safety says about them: "The side saddle fuel tank design installed in over 10 million trucks - all 1973-87 General Motors full-size pickups and cab-chassis trucks (pickups without beds) and some 1988-91 dual cab or RV chassis - is the worst auto crash fire defect in the history of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Based on data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (formerly known as the Fatal Accident Reporting System), over 2,000 people were killed in fire crashes involving these trucks from 1973 through 2009. (Attachment A is a list of fatal C/K fire crashes by state since 1993.) This is more than twenty times as many fatalities as in the infamous Ford Pinto. Despite a voluntary recall request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in April 1993 (Attachment B) and an initial defect determination by Transportation Secretary Federico Pena in October 1994 (Attachment C), GM stubbornly refused to initiate a recall." GM has not always been forthcoming in acknowledging defects in their products. It caught up to them with the recent "key" thing though. NBC lost credibility with they explosion prior to impact. They should have immediately fired everyone involved in that staged video form the top to they bottom. Instead they decided to keep them around. I don't trust NBC to this day. Sixty-minutes is another show that has lost all credibility. 20/20 doesn't do much better in the credibility department either. 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? The point was to expose the dangers associated with the design which had already been responsible for many deaths. I don't condone the way it was done. They should have acknowledged in the video that the fire was not a result of the test, but was intentionally initiated to demonstrate what had happened in other crashes. The danger was still real. I was surprised because when people think fuel tanks exploding, they think of the Ford Pinto. Yet, the Chevy trucks caused over twenty times the number of deaths according to the U.S. Department of Transportation |
The gun thread
On 11/5/2014 7:41 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. Google does provide a lot of search results but it doesn't provide high quality search results anymore. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...gullible+idiot Luddite gullible idiot -- will return you over 400,000 results. LOL. That's funny right there. |
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 01:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com