Gun Control

[Enhance]

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 your beef is despite the fact that she was able to purchase a pretty incredible amount of potentially lethal firepower with relative ease, you're more upset that she transferred the weapon and was untruthful about her intent? If she hadn't transferred the weapon then you'd have nothing to whine about.

I assume you must be more upset that Omar Mateen lied about his weapon purchase intent instead of the dozens of people he murdered.

'Murica.... am I right?

 

[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

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.

So, then you don't have anyone at home? See I can play that game, too. Lets leave my personal life out of this!

I specifically said that is what happens, I didn't say I came here to argue. and YES, I am aggressive when my civil rights are being threatened. Gun control does just that!

I have posted a number of facts based responses, while others are throwing out personal opinions (and insults pointed at me) about how we need more gun control .. but yet have no problem ignoring current laws when laws like lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm are broken.. I mean it was just CBS.

Do you appreciate fact based response or just responses that agree with your point of view?

When it comes to gun control I will be aggressive.. my apologies if that offends you, but I won't change.

Now, my family awaits me.. it is my 23rd wedding anniversary today!

 

[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 your beef is despite the fact that she was able to purchase a pretty incredible amount of potentially lethal firepower with relative ease, you're more upset that she transferred the weapon and was untruthful about her intent? If she hadn't transferred the weapon then you'd have nothing to whine about.

I assume you must be more upset that Omar Mateen lied about his weapon purchase intent instead of the dozens of people he murdered.

'Murica.... am I right?

Why should she be restricted her background was clean. The problem was in her quest to try and create a story she committed a felony. She broke a current federal law by lying. Why do you feel compelled to sweep that under the rug when you, at least from what I have seen via your posts, think we need more gun control laws? A little ironic in my opinion!

Ok, done for today.. I have some celebrating to do

Oh and your last line is so far over line it isn't even funny! not sure if you said that to try and get me to attack, but it won't work.

 

[zoogs]

I've as much faith in your legal opinion as I have in your standards for historical accuracy. But keep banging that drum, maybe you're right.

Let's pretend you are. Some reporter broke a law. Therefore gun control is illegitimate?

Zounds, your powers of reasoning do astound.

Happy ... birthday, I assume?

 

[Enhance]

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 your beef is despite the fact that she was able to purchase a pretty incredible amount of potentially lethal firepower with relative ease, you're more upset that she transferred the weapon and was untruthful about her intent? If she hadn't transferred the weapon then you'd have nothing to whine about.

I assume you must be more upset that Omar Mateen lied about his weapon purchase intent instead of the dozens of people he murdered.

'Murica.... am I right?

Why should she be restricted her background was clean. The problem was in her quest to try and create a story she committed a felony. She broke a current federal law by lying. Why do you feel compelled to sweep that under the rug when you, at least from what I have seen via your posts, think we need more gun control laws? A little ironic in my opinion!

Ok, done for today.. I have some celebrating to do

Oh and your last line is so far over line it isn't even funny! not sure if you said that to try and get me to attack, but it won't work.

I'm not sweeping anything under the rug, despite your flippant attempts to suggest otherwise. You and I have fundamental disagreements about what matters in this story.

If she did in fact break a law, then I have a huge problem with that. But, I have a bigger problem with her initial purchase in general. I don't think anybody should be able to purchase that amount of firepower in less than an hour.

Once again, you're acting as if Omar Mateen lying about his intent during his gun application process is a bigger deal than the fact that he murdered dozens of people. You're acting as if everybody should get a gun based on very minimal parameters and that whatever they do with it is their will. I think that's a flawed ideology.

And my last line wasn't meant to insult you, but to insult the general nature of the gun mentality in this country. Besides, I don't think you need me to provoke you - you've come pretty close to a ban on this board already without my help.

 

[Saunders]

So the drum that the politicians have been beating that Omar Mateen "can't fly but can buy a gun" was, uh, false.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/283290-orlando-shooter-was-on-then-off-watch-list

This is why the details are important.

 

[The Dude]

Delete. Wrong topic.

 

[walksalone]

if you want to make a difference, take the guns away from those who aren't supposed to have them...

I was wondering where you've been. Real glad you're here to answer this issue for us with such a simple yet elegant solution.

Well, the paragraphs upon paragraphs of blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, I figured this need to be dumbed down some...

 

[ZRod]

if you want to make a difference, take the guns away from those who aren't supposed to have them...

I was wondering where you've been. Real glad you're here to answer this issue for us with such a simple yet elegant solution.

Well, the paragraphs upon paragraphs of blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, I figured this need to be dumbed down some...

I'm curious to hear your views on how we identify those who aren't supposed to have them.

 

[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 your beef is despite the fact that she was able to purchase a pretty incredible amount of potentially lethal firepower with relative ease, you're more upset that she transferred the weapon and was untruthful about her intent? If she hadn't transferred the weapon then you'd have nothing to whine about.

I assume you must be more upset that Omar Mateen lied about his weapon purchase intent instead of the dozens of people he murdered.

'Murica.... am I right?

Why should she be restricted her background was clean. The problem was in her quest to try and create a story she committed a felony. She broke a current federal law by lying. Why do you feel compelled to sweep that under the rug when you, at least from what I have seen via your posts, think we need more gun control laws? A little ironic in my opinion!

Ok, done for today.. I have some celebrating to do

Oh and your last line is so far over line it isn't even funny! not sure if you said that to try and get me to attack, but it won't work.

I'm not sweeping anything under the rug, despite your flippant attempts to suggest otherwise. You and I have fundamental disagreements about what matters in this story.

If she did in fact break a law, then I have a huge problem with that. But, I have a bigger problem with her initial purchase in general. I don't think anybody should be able to purchase that amount of firepower in less than an hour.

Once again, you're acting as if Omar Mateen lying about his intent during his gun application process is a bigger deal than the fact that he murdered dozens of people. You're acting as if everybody should get a gun based on very minimal parameters and that whatever they do with it is their will. I think that's a flawed ideology.

And my last line wasn't meant to insult you, but to insult the general nature of the gun mentality in this country. Besides, I don't think you need me to provoke you - you've come pretty close to a ban on this board already without my help.

To the first bold - that was a clear attack at me, you can try to backtrack now, but the statement is there for everyone to see. if it wasn't meant at me then why point it at me?

To the last bold - that would be funny because I have not attacked anyone but defended myself against pretty pathetic attempts by you and a couple others. I have at worst called POSTS stupid and pathetic (I even apologized for being rude), not once did I say anything about the person. Everyone will make a stupid post now and then and there should be no problem calling it that.

Also, how would you know I came pretty close to being banned, I don't see MOD next to you name. Are you talking to mods about me?

The fact that you can assign a position to me like that should not be allowed and you are the one that should be banned for doing so. I have made it very clear how I feel about this situation, so for you to make this claim as asinine!

The fact that because I brought up this CBS producer breaking the law in order to create a story somehow draws a parallel for you with Omar is unreal, and it shows your agenda.

EDIT: I will make my position very clear one more time for you, so you can stop assigning BS positions to me that are not even remotely true and that should not be allowed.

I am against more gun control laws because they will not stop mass shootings, it will only infringe on my rights. It is not a gun problem it is a humanity problem. not once has a gun killed anyone, it is a person picking up a gun to kill. it is societies lack of morality, among other things.

 

[ZRod]

You have a post that was removed using a phallic name for someone. Lesser offense got people suspended last week...

 

[huskerfan2000]

You have a post that was removed using a phallic name for someone. Lesser offense got people suspended last week...

i said that because of what was said to me, and it was a direct response to that poster attacking me.. it said " or do you want to be one". I never said he was one.

 

[Landlord]

zoogs/saunders/whoever, is there any kind of policy for banning certain people just from certain threads?

my goodness this has turned into a sh#t show. congrats on killing any meaningful dialogue huskerfan2000 (here comes the response about how if i don't like it then that's on me and i just can't handle it)

 

[Mierin]

You have a post that was removed using a phallic name for someone. Lesser offense got people suspended last week...

i said that because of what was said to me, and it was a direct response to that poster attacking me.. it said " or do you want to be one". I never said he was one.

You're incredibly sensitive.

 

[Mierin]

I'm somewhat neutral on the whole gun rights issue. I want it to be harder than it is to get guns.

But I find it pretty hilarious that many of the gungho pro-guns, "the libs are gonna take away my guns!" crowd are also in support of many things that take away the rights of others. Particularly the right to privacy, not being profiled because of your skin color, and getting married to who you want to marry. To those people, anyone who complains about those issues is accused of acting politically correct. Anyone who complains about their ease of gun access being reduced is considered to be patriotic. Apparently having your freedom being stomped on is okay as long as it doesn't relate to guns. As to the argument that it's the same in reverse: having an item made a little bit harder to obtain and being judged (denied marriage, stalked by police) for who you are born as are completely different things. One of those things is a hell of a lot worse than the other.