[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/5/2014 9:41 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:21 AM, 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).

Is it not a crime to entice someone to commit a crime?


They didn't. They were demonstrating how easy it is for anyone to
purchase guns.