[Mr. Luddite]

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.

[Roger]

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.

[KC]

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...

[Mr. Luddite]

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.

[Poco Loco]

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.

[F*O*A*D]

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

[Wayne.B]

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.

[Mr. Luddite]

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.B]

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.

[F*O*A*D]

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