On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:31:59 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?

If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined person
from breaking it.

Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?

NRA pamphlet?

Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different than
any other law?

Come on, try to field a real argument, please.

I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?

It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and saying we
need another drug law.

In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.

It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw purchase
or ignoring the background check.

Laws and education can incrementally stem the flow, little by little.
Same as we've cut into the death rate from auto accidents. It's a
fair comparison.

That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

===

And to me that seems perfectly reasonable given that Virginia was one
of the key states in the founding of this country and the resulting
constitution and bill of rights.

Do you have a problem with any of that?

If you want to live under British colonial rule I'd be happy to take
up a collection for your plane ticket.

On 11/14/14 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:


That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


I don't know why they went there, and neither do you. The point is that
you can buy firearms at gunshows without a background check. Period. You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

===

That's your opinion because it is the party line of all weenies just
like you.

On 11/14/2014 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:


That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


I don't know why they went there, and neither do you. The point is that
you can buy firearms at gunshows without a background check. Period. You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

If the seller is willing to break the law, what difference does it
make?
In this case the buyers and the sellers were breaking a federal law.

It would have been far more convincing if they just stayed in Georgia
and the fact that they didn't makes it sound like maybe they were
being asked more questions than they wanted for their show.

After all it is just a TV show and not a whole lot different than the
Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo. They shoot hours of tape to get a 12
minute segment.



Private sellers can break the law with virtual immunity *because there
is no requirement for a background check or registration of the
purchased firearm*. Geeze ...

On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:


That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


Maybe they decided to pick three nearby states within reasonable driving
distance and see how each compared in terms of easy of buying.

I just watched it again to get their story as accurate as I can.
They actually went to shows in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.
(They did not visit North Carolina)

They purchased twice in Tennessee and once in South Carolina for a total
of four (4) guns. One Tennessee purchase was for two (2) Glocks.

They also reported that they were asked for ID's three times, once in
each of the states visited.

If you actually watch and listen to the recorded conversations, it's
hard to conceive that this whole thing was scripted.

That is, of course, unless you think everyone they talked to are actors,
hired to play a part. If you believe that, more power to you.

On 11/14/2014 2:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:


That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


Maybe they decided to pick three nearby states within reasonable driving
distance and see how each compared in terms of easy of buying.

I just watched it again to get their story as accurate as I can.
They actually went to shows in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.
(They did not visit North Carolina)

They purchased twice in Tennessee and once in South Carolina for a total
of four (4) guns. One Tennessee purchase was for two (2) Glocks.

They also reported that they were asked for ID's three times, once in
each of the states visited.

If you actually watch and listen to the recorded conversations, it's
hard to conceive that this whole thing was scripted.

That is, of course, unless you think everyone they talked to are actors,
hired to play a part. If you believe that, more power to you.





What if somebody beleives something between the two.... is there no
other opinions but yours, and "it's all fake"?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:28:33 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:05:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:


That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


Maybe they decided to pick three nearby states within reasonable driving
distance and see how each compared in terms of easy of buying.

Yeah a 600 mile road trip is reasonable when there is a gun show in
Atlanta just about every weekend. There are 6 this month within an
hour's drive. Why did they have to make that grand loop if this
problem is so pervasive?

I just watched it again to get their story as accurate as I can.
They actually went to shows in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.
(They did not visit North Carolina)

They showed they went to North Carolina on the map and they did not
tell us about the other 2 shows they attended. (they said a total of
5)
I do not think it unreasonable to think they stopped off at a show in
North Carolina. So what if they didn't?


They purchased twice in Tennessee and once in South Carolina for a total
of four (4) guns. One Tennessee purchase was for two (2) Glocks.

They also reported that they were asked for ID's three times, once in
each of the states visited.

I was going on what they showed tape of.
So what?
Are you really going to say they only talked to SIX sellers in 2 days
at 5 shows? That is still ludicrous

If you actually watch and listen to the recorded conversations, it's
hard to conceive that this whole thing was scripted.

The narration is clearly scripted and probably recorded several times
until they got it just the way they wanted it. Most of the "facts" are
in the narration with short clips of actual conversation, taken
largely out of context.

That is, of course, unless you think everyone they talked to are actors,
hired to play a part. If you believe that, more power to you.



Just look at what you actually saw. You had some B roll from a guy
with a hidden camera walking around a gun show and the narrator
talking over the shot. He sets up a sound bite. The "seller" says a
sentence or two, then the narrator takes over again and tells you what
you are supposed to take away from that. There is no context, you
don't know what was said before or after the little clip. You only
have what the narrator says happened.




Well said.

And...the purpose of the show was to sway opinion, as it definitely
did in Luddite's case.

On 11/14/2014 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:31:59 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?

If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined person
from breaking it.

Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?

NRA pamphlet?

Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different than
any other law?

Come on, try to field a real argument, please.

I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?

It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and saying we
need another drug law.

In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.

It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw purchase
or ignoring the background check.

Laws and education can incrementally stem the flow, little by little.
Same as we've cut into the death rate from auto accidents. It's a
fair comparison.

That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



You don't know how many people turned them down other than the one
person in Tennessee.

I don't know either. Unlike you however, I don't "assume" what I don't
know and make it a fact in my conclusions.

Again though, the point is missed. They still bought a small arsenal in
two days consisting of a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, two Glock 17's
and a S&W 45 with no questions asked.

On 11/14/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:19:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 10:59 AM, wrote:


That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



You don't know how many people turned them down other than the one
person in Tennessee.

I don't know either. Unlike you however, I don't "assume" what I don't
know and make it a fact in my conclusions.


I know they admitted they went to 5 gun shows in 4 states. Are you
saying they only ran into 4 sellers?
It is clear they were dissuaded from buying a lot of guns. Only one
made the show.


Again though, the point is missed. They still bought a small arsenal in
two days consisting of a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, two Glock 17's
and a S&W 45 with no questions asked.

I think there were a lot of questions asked at the booths they didn't
buy from. They just did not make the show. Otherwise why didn't they
just buy all the guns in Ellijay and they would have been home for
dinner.
The narrator said it was because of a "limited selection". He didn't
say there were no guns.

Maybe I pay more attention to what they didn't write in the script but
was apparent from the circumstances and from what they did say.

It was presented as fact that they shopped at 5 gun shows in 4 states
and found 3 illegal sellers. It is easy to assume that everyone else
they talked to was not willing to make an illegal transaction.
They admitted to one. What about the rest?
I guess people following the law is not good TV.


If they just wanted to buy a few illegal guns, they probably didn't
even have to start their car. I bet there are gang bangers in downtown
Atlanta who would sell them guns, no questions asked.



As previously posted, the CNN crew reported that they were turned down
three times, once in each of the three states they visited.