[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.