Gun Control

[NM11046]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so.

I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process.

Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime?

 

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so.

I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process.

Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime?

Yes you do, you just won't admit it. It is pretty clear what her intent was just by reading the article. She was trying to expose something but while doing that she lied, and committed a felony in the process.

That isn't the same thing at all. I believe in the 2nd amendment, which doesn't grant me any rights by the way, it up holds my rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't uphold your right to be a child molester.

 

[huskerfan2000]

from one of our founding fathers..

 

[zoogs]

If you look into (research and read) many of those shootings listed in that link, you will notice that certain individuals and even agencies had prior information that if reported and followed up on, could have prevented many of these shooting sprees.

The thing about that is, yes, if you walk back from Point B (after the shooting), you will *always* find flags. Moments where you go, "Of course the shooter had this kind of past."

But, do all people who start at Point A end up at Point B? We are after all, talking about deciding at what "Point A" we start treating people not as citizens with rights, but as criminals who can't be afforded any.

That's the worry I'm driving home about this approach. Let's look at how someone might end up on the no-fly terrorist watch list, for example. Or let's consider, to bring up the Holmes case, every single person in the United States who at one point in their life is consumed with rage, maybe even in their volatile teenage years; and this is known to somebody -- friends, associates, psychiatrists -- and can be reasonably called "homicidal tendencies".

What should the government do with these people? I mean, the suggestion seems plainly that many more people need to be flagged rather than to slip through the cracks. And, once flagged, their constitutionally-protected 2nd amendment rights should be denied to them without due process, under the justification of "public safety" or "because terrorism."

Yeah, that might work, if this flagging program becomes all-encompassing. But there are chilling consequences to that, too. If one constitutionally protected right can be removed in the name of security, then why not any and all of them?

The far better route to take, in my opinion, is rather than say "we need a more powerful surveillance state to stop likely criminals before they kill people, in the name of safety", to instead say "we need to stop treating extremely dangerous murder weapons as a constitutional right."

The federal government can decide what foods and drugs are too dangerous to be allowed in the US, for goodness sake, and companies have to negotiate, lobby, and work their way around that. Why should this be any different when it comes to machines specifically designed to kill?

 

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

a few more

 

[ZRod]

from one of our founding fathers..

From plus 200 years ago. #context

 

[zoogs]

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

[NM11046]

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[NM11046]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so.

I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process.

Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime?

Yes you do, you just won't admit it. It is pretty clear what her intent was just by reading the article. She was trying to expose something but while doing that she lied, and committed a felony in the process.

That isn't the same thing at all. I believe in the 2nd amendment, which doesn't grant me any rights by the way, it up holds my rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't uphold your right to be a child molester.

If your worry is chasing reporters that lied on a form in order to show significant outages in the monitoring of the sales of guns in a news story, you're focused on the wrong thing. You should create a thread to debate that.

 

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so.

I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process.

Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime?

Yes you do, you just won't admit it. It is pretty clear what her intent was just by reading the article. She was trying to expose something but while doing that she lied, and committed a felony in the process.

That isn't the same thing at all. I believe in the 2nd amendment, which doesn't grant me any rights by the way, it up holds my rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't uphold your right to be a child molester.

If your worry is chasing reporters that lied on a form in order to show significant outages in the monitoring of the sales of guns in a news story, you're focused on the wrong thing. You should create a thread to debate that.

We have laws for a reason, do we uphold those laws or just ignore them when we want.. and how would creating more laws help when we (some anyway) rationalize when they are broken?

 

[huskerfan2000]

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird!

 

[NM11046]

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird!

Dude - don't you have somebody at home you can go pick apart and argue with?

 

[huskerfan2000]

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird!

Dude - don't you have somebody at home you can go pick apart and argue with?

This is what happens, people argue.. if that isn't your thing then maybe this isn't the place for you.

Also, you can argue with me but I can't give it back? Oh, I'm supposed to stop when you think I should?

lol

 

[NM11046]

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird!

Dude - don't you have somebody at home you can go pick apart and argue with?

This is what happens, people argue.. if that isn't your thing then maybe this isn't the place for you.

Also, you can argue with me but I can't give it back? Oh, I'm supposed to stop when you think I should?

lol

So no, you don't have anybody at home.

I don't come here to argue, I come to learn, to understand what others are thinking and why. I don't take the aggressive approach. I appreciate well thought out, fact based or responses - not defensive attacks. And conversations about the "whys".

You can continue all you want here just seems like your comments toward the folks here are aggressive and on the verge of disrespectful. If what you want is a dialogue then you should change your tactics, if what you want is a fight you're right, I'm not signed on for that.