Rachel Maddow is letting me down again.

[krispos42]

Just put on MSNBC and what am I hearing?

• Gun shows are magical geographical locations where Federal gun laws don't apply anymore
  
• Rep. McCarthy is upset because people on the terrorist watch list can buy guns if they pass the Federal background check
  

McCarthy is not upset that people on the terrorist watch list can vote, or speak in public, or worship freely, or have the right to not be forced to testify against themselves, or have due process, or are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, or have the right to face their accusers in the court of law, though.

*sigh*

[Ineeda]

1. None of those rights can maim or kill.

False equivalency.

[Zoeisright]

4. Exactly right.

I am so sick of the 40,000 gun deaths in this country every year, the gun porn crowd that thinks that number is perfectly acceptable, and those who vote on this one issue.

[petronius]

9. What's your take on the terror watch list?

How do you feel about denying or limiting rights without justification or process? Can you actually point to anyone who thinks 40k deaths are "perfectly acceptable", or is that just how you categorize people who are fonder of the Constitution than you seem to be?

[gejohnston]

11. the number is nowhere near that and you know it.

and do you seriously think the murder rate or suicide rate will go down? Every time I see someone parrot the "gun death" including raw number without adjusting for population, I am forced to come to one of two conclusions:
They are stupid
or they don't give a rat's ass about murder, suicide, or safe streets. The real issue is regional or sub-cultural bigotry.

[PavePusher]

27. Your numbers are wrong. Kinda destroys your credibility. n/t

[rl6214]

51. Get your facts right

40,000 guns deaths per year?

Cite it

[krispos42]

5. Yeah, because freedom of speech has NEVER led to any problems

or dead people.

:eyes:


I don't have the right to kill or maim, except under specific circumstances. Owning a gun doesn't increase or decrease my right to kill or maim one iota.



Regardless, Rachel is defending taking away people's rights when they are arbitrarily and without due process put on a list.

[gejohnston]

6. That does not excuse Rachel's ignorance or dishonesty

And the watch list is nothing but a list of names, not individuals and the ones that are there are mostly peace activists or soldiers that had gunpowder residue on their boots. No real terrorists. Rachel and everyone else on the professional left pointed that out ten years ago. Now since the subject is guns, it magically changed to be an important national security tool. Sorry, it is hypocritical for Rachel or anyone else to complain about Faux News while being dishonest. Websites like Crooks and Liars and Think Progress lower themselves to the level of free republic in not only dishonesty by also the very anti rural and working class bigotry found in the comments.

[PavePusher]

26. Naw, you can just use them to get other people to do that for you.

What. Evah.

[aikoaiko]

30. False differentiation....

Have you seen what voting for the wrong president produces in terms of needless deaths?

:shrug:

[Straw Man]

35. Neither can the right to keep and bear arms.

Misuse of those arms can kill. So can misuse of the other rights: see "yelling fire in a crowded theater." See also "inciting violence."

[cleanhippie]

43. Really? I thought "loose lips sink ships"?

[ileus]

46. Or protect....

[rl6214]

50. Why in your mind is one right worth less than another?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

62. The problem is looking at it as "a gun problem."

Some people automatically come in with the assumption that the problem is guns, people being allowed to own guns, and therefore the solution is to restrict guns and gun owners. Whereas there's several small mountains of evidence to show that there is no substantive correlation between guns and crime, and certainly no causation. But some people still think that the solution to crime is more laws which criminals ignore, like registries, or laws which have no effect, like banning pistol grips. As opposed to things which would, objectively, decrease the rate of violent crime in this country, such as an end to drug prohibition and the gang warfare that comes with it.

If you're willing to have a conversation that DOESN'T start from the premise of "you and your guns are the problem," then let's start a thread and have at it. But for most of the anti-gun folks here, their idea of "reasonable conversation" or "compromise" is for gun owners to give up something, and to get nothing back. Then later, coming back with something else that gun owners have to give up.

[Ineeda]

84. so funny that my post about having a conversation

was deemed worthy of deletion -- again proving my point. No offense to mods intended. Despite that, I acknowledge that the points you and others made are valid -- violence is the problem, remedying the causes of violence would solve much gun misuse. Ok, so now I'm done.

[Straw Man]

73. And also typical.

I submit to you that there is not a gun problem in America: there is a violent crime problem. If guns disappeared overnight, we would still have a crime problem. If crime disappeared overnight, we would not have a gun problem.

You have defined the issue strictly in your own terms, and you find it pointless to even try to have a discussion with people who disagree with you. Seems pretty "knee-jerk" to me.

[gejohnston]

75. It is a violence problem

and that violence problem has nothing to do with guns other than their misuse. All of the countries that have higher murder rates have very strict gun laws. While each side has their favorite country to point to like Japan and UK on one side while we have Norway and Finland and Switzerland. Their peacefulness has nothing to do with guns. The fact that Vermont, with the laxest gun laws still, is the safest place in the US and DC is DC has nothing to do with guns. The real issue has to do with history, culture, and inequality of wealth. Raising the minimum wage, single payer health care, including mental health, raise tariffs to bring jobs back, and most immediate: end the drug war. Want to take guns away from the gangs? Take away their money.

[X_Digger]

66. Like the rights protected by the first, fourth, or fifth amendments haven't killed anyone?

No homicidal murderer, rapist, or pedophile has been freed because a cop screwed up a search?

No writing was ever used to incite violence? No religious tenet was ever used as justification for killing or maiming someone?

Is that really what you're saying? Really?

[elleng]

2. Sorry. Background checks are not done, and should be.

[krispos42]

7. Fair enough. That is your opinion, and it is defensible.

However, Rachel and McCarthy continue to flog the "gun show loophole" myth, which does not exist.

[eqfan592]

18. Sorry, but that is simply not true

The is NOTHING special about gun show that allows FFL dealers to sell a firearm without a background check. The only people that can do this are private sellers, which is the case ANYWHERE, not just at gun shows. So the gun show loophole does NOT exist. At best there is a private seller loophole, which is a different story all together.

Edit: And even then it's not really a loophole. It's simply not addressed at all.

[elleng]

20. Watch the show. Background checks not done.

[eqfan592]

21. If an FFL fails to do a background check...

...then they have broken the law. No loophole involved. That's like saying that a person that drives drunk but isn't caught is proof of a dunk driving loophole. If they did get video of this taking place, did the people taking the video bother to show the proper authorities?

[krispos42]

22. Background checks are only done by federally licensed dealers.

If I was to sell you a gun of mine, not only do I not have to do a background check, I CAN'T do a background check!


Even if I wanted to, I could not run your name and information through the NICS system to see if you were able to buy a gun from me. The only was you could be checked would be if we both went to a federally licensed dealer and had him (paid him) to run a check on you.

[Hoyt]

36. And that's the way to do it -- require gun owners to go through a licensed dealer

when they want to make a buck off their guns.

[gejohnston]

37. enforce that how?

Besides ever hear of the Commerce clause?

[Hoyt]

58. Don't think the commerce clause protects people trying to get top dollar by selling to criminals.

Besides, you can still sell -- you just have to go through a dealer to do a background check. Of course, it makes those who buy to sell to anyone with a fist full of cash pucker like they sucked a lemon.

[TheWraith]

64. There's so many things wrong with that statement, it's almost laughable.

"Don't think the commerce clause protects people trying to get top dollar by selling to criminals."

Except that the large majority of weapons going to criminals are STOLEN, not sold, and therefore are cheap. Nobody is going to sell a $500 handgun or a $1000 rifle to a criminal for $100 so that it's disposable to the criminal.

"Besides, you can still sell -- you just have to go through a dealer to do a background check. Of course, it makes those who buy to sell to anyone with a fist full of cash pucker like they sucked a lemon."

So, you believe that people who are already committing a federal crime, engaging in straw purchases, are suddenly going to wet themselves in fear of the fact that they're not allowed to sell guns without going through a dealer? Are you going to assign an individual federal agent to follow around each new gun sold?

Simple fact: you cannot stop person to person transfers. The only people affected by banning such sales are law abiding people, for whom it will result in more hassle and more cost without reducing crime one single iota. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Hoyt]

70. If you are law abiding, then you won't mind going through a dealer.

Need big assed fines for straw purchases too. Skirting the system and intent of the law, should have major consequences.

[Straw Man]

74. Straw purchases are not "skirting the system"...

... any more than hiring a hitman is "skirting" the laws against murder. It is an out-and-out crime, clearly defined. Agreed that we need stiffer enforcement.

[gejohnston]

76. Big assed fine? You have no idea what current laws are

Violating the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a mandatory minimum of five years.

[TheWraith]

90. If you're not a terrorist, you shouldn't mind having the FBI tap your phone calls, right?

Right? After all, you've got nothing to hide... Or, perhaps, one feels that the government shouldn't be examining every inch of your life to make sure you're not committing a crime. Particularly when it brings with it the added costs and burden to the individual. Dealers charge for their services, in case you weren't aware. If a dealer is the only one in the area, they can sometimes charge up to $100 for firearms transfers.

By the way...

"Need big assed fines for straw purchases too. Skirting the system and intent of the law, should have major consequences."

It's not "skirting the system," it is a FEDERAL FELONY. Being a straw purchaser is, under federal law, an act of perjury, and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. If you are really unaware of something so basic about firearms law, I would hope that you would back up and reevaluate your preconceived notions on the subject, so that you can evaluate the law realistically. It's no good to demand tougher laws if the laws are actually much tougher than what you think they are.

[Hoyt]

91. Not tough enough to stop it, or dealers selling when they know something ain't right.

Besides how many cases are made against straw purchasers -- not many compared to the straw purchases? Hate to say it cause you'll freak and clutch a gun close, but registration is the only way to stop the chit. Trace that gun used in a crime back to the criminal who sold it without a licensed (held accountable/responsible) dealer involved. Then you can get the ultimate straw purchaser -- the guys who buy guns to sell privately (maybe after several years) to anyone with the cash, without any kind of check or anything else. Your alternative, sell through a licensed dealer and be done with accountability.

[gejohnston]

92. Complain to the US attorneys office, not us.

Along the same vein, how many felons possessing guns turned over to federal court? Why is the one thing NRA and Brady agree on not happening?
Some one uses a sawed off shotgun or automatic weapon in a robbery. The locals prosecute for the robbery but rarely find their way to federal court for having unregistered title two weapons?
Nil. It has been the same problem since those gun laws were passed in the 1930s. Same with Gun Control Act of 1968. They are half assed enforced by an agency with a history of civil rights violations, corruption, poor EEOC record. When they are enforced, rarely is prosecuted.

[rl6214]

93. You keep stating this as if it were fact:

"the guys who buy guns to sell privately (maybe after several years) to anyone with the cash, without any kind of check or anything else."

You have NO proof or evidence of this, none at all. Prove that guys are buying guns to sell privately to anyone with cash. As stated up-thread, there is no way they could get them cheap enough to turn a profit OR they could not sell them high enough to crooks to turn a profit. The crook is not going to pay higher than retail to buy a gun.

As usual you don't know what you are talking about and just making shit up.

[Hoyt]

97. Have you ever sold or bought a gun without a background check? Do you know others who have?

If you don't know others who have, you need to read some of the posts here.

In any event, background checks should be made on anyone buying a gun.

The only way I know to do that is to go through a dealer.

[RSillsbee]

99. Have you ever sold or bought a gun without a background check?

Have you ever sold or bought a gun without a background check?

Numerous times have yet to have one used in a crime. The trick is I only sell guns that I bought FTF so there's nothing tying the gun to me anyway


Do you know others who have?

Yes

In any event, background checks should be made on anyone buying a gun.

I'll agree that there should be a background check at the point of retail sale but private property is private property.

The only way I know to do that is to go through a dealer

FWIW at gun shows in Colorado there are usually two or three booths set up that do nothing but background checks. You pick out the gun you want fill out your 4473 the seller takes it to the booth and they tell you when to come back. Then, you go around and look at Jerky and Sham-Wows until your background check is done.

It isn't all that inconvenient and you can usually get the seller to eat the price of the background check.

The problem that is has zero real impact on crime

Most of the FFL do their own checks out of their booths.


TYPO

[eqfan592]

101. Your second to last sentence...

...really hit the nail on the head. Some people are for some reason convinced that background checks are some sort of magical catch all that will prevent criminals from getting guns, when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Even if you mandated background checks for all private transactions, it STILL wouldn't remove the black market sales of firearms.

We are wasting time with this garbage that would be better spent combating other issues.

[rl6214]

113. The only guns I have bought have gone thru dealers

The only guns I have sold have gone thru dealers.

And you STILL have not provided any proof, only anecdotal evidence. No proof at all so your assertions carry NO weight.

[TheWraith]

96. Registration simply doesn't work.

It doesn't work here in New York, doesn't work in California, doesn't work in Canada. Because the biggest source of guns used in crime is THEFT. No amount of hassling legitimate owners with registration will change that. Otherwise, your entire plan is based on treating legal and responsible owners like criminals who are just drooling over the chance to make sure a would-be murderer gets a firearm.

[RSillsbee]

100. Registration works exactly as planned

you get all the law abiding gun owners to register then you take their guns. Works every time

[Hoyt]

102. Are you really afraid someone is going to take your guns? Christ man.

[petronius]

103. There were illegal confiscations in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, right?

Why make it easier for something like that to happen without solid evidence that the risk and cost are worth the reward?

[DonP]

104. ... and California and Chicago

But no one is going to take your guns. Just the ones they decide are too dangerous for you mere citizens.

"Please register your semi-automatic firearms for the public good, we have no intention of taking them away" .... yet.

"Oh ... we just outlawed semi-auto rifles and you must turn yours in within 90 days of your current registration lapsing ... or the Chicago Area Gun Enforcement (CAGE) will come to call."

Registration never leads to confiscation, I've been assured by a lot of people that don't own or like guns or gun owners that it's the case, so it must be true.

[Glassunion]

109. Oh... And NYC...

[RSillsbee]

105. To be fair in NOLA they just took any gun they found

(unless you were connected) registration played no part in it.

As a matter of fact there are still reports of people being pulled over by the NOLA PD and having their gun summarily confiscated now.

[petronius]

107. You're right, I could have been clearer - what I meant was that registration makes illegal

acts like that easier, not that it played a role on New Orleans specifically. The NO example simply demonstrates that official will to behave in such a way is far from unlikely.

So, the benefits of registration should be great enough to offset the increased risk of gun owners being victimized, as well as the cost.

California has had handgun registration for a while - I'd be curious to see if there's any detectable impact on crime prevention and/or solving due to use of the registry...

[RSillsbee]

106. They CAN'T take my guns because they don't exist (on paper) "Man" NT

[Glassunion]

108. It has been demonstrated that registration does not work.

Canada for example has firearms registration. The Canadian police overwhelmingly stated in a poll that the registry is worthless as a crime fighting tool. Why is that?

[gejohnston]

111. New Zealand had registration until the 1980s

until law enforcement lobbied parliment to repeal it. Their reasoning was that it was pointless theater that took money and manpower away from crime fighting/solving.

[krispos42]

38. And that is certainly a fair topic for consideration.

I feel lukewarm at best towards the idea, but it is at least reasonable and possibly even effective in that it would completely eliminate the "I didn't know" straw buyer's excuse.

IF the feds prosecute straw buyers, of course. And if the forms didn't become a back-door gun registry.

[gejohnston]

23. Key word is private seller

Private sellers are barred from using NICS. For example, if you want to sell a gun because you became a vegetarian and gave up hunting and you put an ad in the paper. You happen to get the FBI phone number. When the FBI person asks you for your FFL, you have a problem. If you answer "I'm a private seller who wants to be a responsible citizen and not sell to a wrong person," the FBI will politely hang up on you. Most of us think that is wrong, I am guessing we agree on that. That is the real issue. The hard part is how to fix it, because of a number of issues that would be affected by it.

[eqfan592]

24. It's as I thought then.

They didn't actually catch anything illegal happening. They are just going for the bullshit "OMG" factor for those ignorant of gun laws by showing some private transactions taking place.

Epic fail on all parts.

[Hoyt]

59. Of course they are barred -- can't have any old fool checking on anyone's background.

A dealer could lose their license for doing so. Private citizen Joe --on the other hand --could just be interested in finding out if the guy down the street has a criminal record, etc.

Make it go through a dealer -- easy solution.

[Straw Man]

89. Do you know how NICS works? I don't think you do.

There is no detailed information given. The FFL phones in, gives the buyer's ID info, and the NICS operator either says "Proceed," "Denied," or "Delayed." That's it. They don't give a reason.

Unless you know the height, weight, date of birth, and place of birth of the guy down the street, you wouldn't be able to run him through NICS anyway.

[rl6214]

52. WTF are you talking about?

Have you ever been to a gun show? Have you ever worked at a gun show? Have you ever purchased a gun from a gun show?

I have done all three. I have never encountered an FFL that would sell to anyone without any background checks being done. NEVER.

[elleng]

53. Thanks for being so civil NOT.

No, I never have been. However, video evidence was provided on the Maddow show that background checks were not being done.

[X_Digger]

63. That was private sellers, not dealers.

Perhaps you might want to check into the issue and learn the difference.

[elleng]

67. Perhaps those in the know would want to inform others of us,

rather than being unpleasant.

So there's a distinction between the legal treatment and obligations of 'private sellers' and 'dealers.' Interesting.

[gejohnston]

78. OK I'll try to explain it to you.

A dealer is someone who holds either a class one or class three federal firearms license. Class three can deal in firearms that are regulated under National Firearms Act of 1934. These are commonly known as NFA or title two weapons. These are very expensive and include three month background check and registration. That is why I busted a gun when the AQ guy claimed that he could buy a machine gun at gun shows or Wal Mart.
Class one can only sell firearms that are title one. This is the most common. These FFL holders legally sell firearms as retail business. Only they can do interstate sales and shipments. Only they can do NICS background checks. The best analogy is they are like car dealers.
A private seller is just that. Someone who puts an ad in the paper for a one time sale or takes it to a gun show. The analogy is putting a for sale sign in the rear windshield. You are prohibited from using the NICS system. Assuming you had the phone number, the FBI will ask for your FFL number.

[elleng]

79. Thanks for the info, ge.

So there are no restrictions on to whom private sellers may sell?

[gejohnston]

81. If the private seller knows or has reason to know if someone is a

prohibited person, he can not sell. The problem is he would have know way of knowing. For example, if my son were to sell a gun to G. Gordon Liddy or John Dean, he most likely not be prosecuted because there is no reason someone his age would know that that these guys can not posses a gun (convicted felons). Since I am old enough to remember Watergate, that defense would not be as effective for me.
The problem is knowing who you are selling to. As for me, I am willing to take a loss and consign it to a FFL unless I know who you are.

[elleng]

86. Thanks again, ge.

[petronius]

83. It would still be a illegal for a private seller to knowingly transfer a firearm

to a prohibited person, the rub is that the private seller has no access to the information that would identify such people.

Some states don't allow private sales at all - everything must go through a dealer. The federal government doesn't have the power to regulate that sort of intra-state commerce, however, so it's up to the states to decide the restrictions they want...

[elleng]

85. Thanks, petronius.

[X_Digger]

82. Yes. Just as you selling your car in the newspaper does not make you a car dealership.

Or selling your home to a person directly does not make you a realtor.

[TheWraith]

65. Do you also believe James O'Keefe is accurately representing the subjects of his videos?

Or is two minutes of highly edited video from someone looking to prove their own agenda only an invalid tactic when it disagrees with your existing assumptions?

[elleng]

72. I have no 'existing assumptions,' and know nothing of James O'Keefe.

[gejohnston]

77. James O'Keefe is a right wing smear artist who used the same tactic

to destroy ACORN and smear Shirley Sherod.

[elleng]

80. Thanks. So, a NoGoodNik, and highly questionable.

[DonP]

87. Yes, but his edited videos were very convincing ntxt

[DonP]

71. FWIW, it varies state by state

In Illinois even private sales at a gun show must go through an FFL (charge is usually $20 per gun). Same in some other states.

But ... I can drive to the man's home and buy the same gun over his kitchen table, as long as I have a valid FOID card. The Feds are not allowed to monitor intrastate sales of anything.

In other states no NICS check is required, or even allowed, for private sales.

But FWIW I wouldn't believe or trust every video you see on TV, even the ones that seem to agree with your existing POV.

If you want to rely on video evidence, you must think those ACORN tapes were all honest and a good reason to shut them down too?

Or do you think Rachel is just too smart and pure of heart to use a doctored tape (by Bloomberg of all people) to support her POV? A little less hero worship and a lot more circumspection is called for, OK?

Get some first hand information and make your own decision about what's going on.

I highly recommend that you actually go to a local gun show, walk around and and see for yourself. Try and buy a gun off the records at a table and see what happens.

My sister and BIL were both absolutely convinced you could buy parts to make your own machine gun until they actually went to a show with me. No Klan or Nazi displays, way more people selling holsters, reloads, accessories and jerky than guns. BIL went to pick up a gun he was curious about and the dealer stopped and asked for his ID first. When he didn't have an Illinois state FOID card he was politely told he was not allowed to even touch a gun or ammo at the show.

Now they don't sound nearly as stupid as they did about guns and the law as they did before.

[rl6214]

94. You did not post in a complete sentence/thought

You posted as if you knew everything about the way things work at a gun show. Unless you do you shouldn't be making statements like you did. It had already been pointed out that the sellers were not FFL (dealers).

[GreenStormCloud]

39. FFL dealers at guns shows are required to do NICS background checks.

The NICS system is not open to private sales so it is illegal for a private sale to be NICS checked.

Private sales happen in homes, parking lots, garage sales, and anywhere two people can get together.

[shraby]

3. No comparison to what you list as comparisons.

Straw man argument.

[krispos42]

10. Why not?

A person's right is being denied because they were put on a list. So you deny this?

[eqfan592]

19. Care to explain? Nt

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Gosh, that's quite dilemma.

Poster in the gungeon or Rhodes scholar?

[krispos42]

12. Yeah, DU is full of dilemma like that.

Poster in GD, or a guy with an MBA from Harvard?

Gee, I guess Bush's economic policies have much more credibility than those idiots in GD that deride them.

[Liberal Veteran]

25. You are absolutely right. It was a visceral reaction.

My apologies.

[Abq_Sarah]

13. Why do people believe

labels, like Rhodes Scholar prevent people from latching onto any falsehood that reinforces their prejudices?

It's not a freaking shield against ignorance, prejudice or bigotry.

[gejohnston]

14. A Rhodes scholar who should know better, or does not care.

Or Rhodes scholar with an ax to grind
Or someone who knows and is affected current federal gun control laws? In this case, I know the latter is correct for the same reason he does. A simple visit to the ATF website or phone call to the BATFE would clear everything up. Like the idiot at Crooks and Liars that thinks you can buy a machine gun at a gun show legally with no questions asked.

[one-eyed fat man]

16. Why are you now a big fan of Bush Cheney watch lists?

Why are all the unwarranted and unconstitutional crap associated with the Patriot Act right wing bullshit, except when it comes to guns when it's all of a sudden the greatest crime fighting tool since fingerprints?

You have people on a "no-fly" list who have no clue how they got there, no way to appeal to get off, and you PROMOTE this?

It is a lousy, despicable list, EXCEPT when you get to use it against people you hate!

Maybe you should have them sew a special patch on their clothes so you can avoid them more easily...

[PavePusher]

28. Are Rhodes Scholars now infallible or incapable of pushing lies to serve an agenda?

Yes, dilemma indeed....

[-..__...]

29. Ohh look, it's Maddow again...

Some sacred cows shouldn't be so sacred.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

41. That's called Appeal to Authority, and it's a common logical fallacy

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true....

Underlining added by slackmaster for emphasis.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

[Hoyt]

55. Yep, we need an "expert" -- someone who can't leave home without a gun -- to set her straight.

Guns are clearly sold at gun shows without a back ground check. They are sold local without one. Simple to correct, require gun sellers to got through a licensed dealer who has their ass on the line if they skirt the rules.

[rl6214]

95. She's got an extensive staff to research for her

She shouldn't make mistakes, she is being intentionally misleading. And your definition of an "expert" is just you being a jerk as usual.

[slackmaster]

112. "...extensive staff..." - Is this another Weiner thread?

:argh:

[lawodevolution]

15. If you are a gun owner and this pisses you off

go buy more guns and high cap mags. It's the best way to go against them. Also donate to www.saf.org if you have money (I don't lol).

[krispos42]

17. Maybe by the end of summer I'll have the money n/t

[virginia mountainman]

32. It is amazing how popular Bush's secret watch lists have become around here..

O well, just shows the kinda people THEY are.

[jeepnstein]

40. Yep

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. baffling

is what it is to me. surely, they are only ignorant and can be educated.

[Flyboy_451]

45. I don't find if baffling at all...

Maddow is nothing more than a politically biased mouth piece. She is the liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, ect. It is not simple ignorance that is at issue, but willful ignorance, to forward a specific viewpoint. Maddow is not a news reporter, she is a commentator. The sad part is that many people will take her word as gospel because it resonates with their own views.

This, in my opinion, is the the real driving force behind much of the political division that we see in America. What is baffling to me is why anyone would view her, Beck, or any other political commentator as anything more than a biased hack. I watch the news to get NEWS, not OPINION. Here is a novel idea...how about we do away with all the bias in such "news" programs and actually discuss factually based problems and solutions without all the snark, finger pointing and political pampering? We might actually get something done...

JW

[rrneck]

54. +1000. nt

[gejohnston]

110. More like Bill Buckley than Rush or Glenn

man, give her some credit. The fact that I had to dig up a dead guy to compare her to says a lot about the current conservative talking heads (or my not keeping track of these people).

[Flyboy_451]

114. I have given her the credit that she has earned...

This is not the first time that she has misrepresented facts regarding the firearms issue, in what appears to be a willful manner. Every time that she does it, there are multiple people that point this out on the MSNBC discussions. As another poster here pointed out, she herself even chastised someone else for failing to do a simple google search rather than presenting false information.

The real harm is done when these falsehoods are taken as truths by those ignorant of the subject. This was also displayed in this thread by a poster that truly did not how NICS is set up and when a check can and cannot be done. It required that other members provide insight into the situation and applicable laws.

Maddow has displayed a blatant lack of journalistic integrity, and people stand up and defend her for it? Really? I could excuse it, if it were a singular event and she offered a retraction when it was demonstrated to be false. But by repeatedly and purposefully misrepresenting information to forward her own biased view, all she has done is marginalize her own integrity and her viewpoint at the same time. if she continues to choose to do so, i will continue to call her what she is...a liar.

JW

[gejohnston]

116. I thought it was a one time stunt

and not a trend. The only firearm issue I saw she explained NFA as well as I understand it. It is unfortuate that she and others will sell out their integrity in the name of ideological purity or fitting in with the elites. What puzzles me is that she is a closet shooter. She once told Letterman that she rents guns at some of the local ranges in NYC and takes every new staff member shooting, which really baffles me.
No, I will not defend her or Thom Hartmann on this stunt. They both know better. I even found a couple of posts in Hartmann's site by people who literally thought they could go buy an M-60 like it was an air rifle.

[X_Digger]

33. Screw the Bushco bullshit supa sekrit-squirrel list

Due process, it's what's for dinner.

The fact that some people would embrace that fascist garbage when it comes to depriving a right they don't like-- makes me wonder what other basic principles of our government they'd drop trou and shit on if it limited something they don't like.

I'm reminded of the quote {mis-}attributed to Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it."

[gejohnston]

34. Even worse, Thom Hartmann bought this nonsense too.

[spin]

44. I find it difficult to trust Rachel when she comments on more complicated issues ...

which I am not familiar with when she is so obviously wrong on gun control issues.

Firearms and gun control are very simple topics which are easy to understand and can be easily researched on the internet. Obviously to understand the subject you have to look at both sides of the argument. This should be very easy when you work for a 24/7 news outlet like MSNBC or for that matter CNN or Fox News.

I personally feel that one of the most important attributes that a news commentator can have is honesty. It's quite possible for two commentators to have opposite views on the same issue and still be intelligently honest and factually correct.

If I were a talk show host discussing gun control I would point out that the "gun show loophole" doesn't only apply to gun shows but to all private sales of firearms which in most states do not require an NICS background check. I would also mention that 18 states currently require NICS background checks at gun shows or "impose other requirements on buyers such as requiring a state issued permit or firearms identification card to purchase certain types of firearms." source: http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/gunshow.pdf

I would also point out that the terrorist watch list is unreliable and inaccurate and until it is improved is useless and could even be misused for political motivation.

OUR VIEW EDITORIAL: Keeping 6-year-old girl on the terrorist ‘no fly’ list is plainly absurd
Published: Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The placing of a 6-year-old Westlake girl on a government-compiled Terrorist Watchlist is once again troubling.

The incident involving young Alyssa Thomas calls into question the reliability of the “no fly” list that comes under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It’s even more disturbing that the girl’s parents are getting the runaround from Homeland Security officials while trying to get her taken off the list.

The problem arose when Dr. Santhosh Thomas and his family checked into Cleveland Hopkins International Airport earlier this month for a flight to Minneapolis. A ticket agent said Alyssa was on the watch list.

The Thomases were allowed to fly that day, but authorities told them to contact Homeland Security to clear up the matter. The father did so. Homeland Security officials responded with a letter addressed to Alyssa notifying her that nothing in her file will be changed.emphasis added
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/06/29/opinion/mj2960172.txt

But Rachel works for a liberal 24/7 cable news outlet and probably gets a pat on her back for promoting an anti-gun agenda. To be totally fair, often MSNBC is as biased as FOX news.

I enjoy watching Rachel and love her snarky humor and usually agree with her views. Her distortion of the facts on gun control really bothers me. I just wish there was ONE person that I could watch on cable news who honestly reported the facts on all issues and was trustworthy.

Is that asking too much?

[jeepnstein]

47. I miss real journalism

What we have today are entertainers who grind their axes for ratings. Are Americans too stupid to handle intelligent discussions of serious policy? I don't think they are but then again I might be too stupid to realize that.

Rachel Maddow is just an entertainer posing as a journalist. Just like Baba O'Reilly or whatever his name is. Or that big fat guy who rants and raves on the radio. They are good profit centers for the broadcasters but lousy sources for news.

[Straw Man]

48. The "new journalism" has more in common with professional sports.

People root for their teams and love it when they "win." Truth and objectivity have little or nothing to do with it.

[gejohnston]

49. I was naive and now just disillusioned

and going back to BBC. Crooks & Liars and free republic are mirror images of each other as far as I am concerned.

[Glassunion]

61. I go to one place for my news. It is accurate, honest and reliable.

The Daily Show with John Stewart.

The rest are all comedians and political talking heads.

[spin]

68. My son in law keeps telling me to listen to Howard Stern on Sirius Satellite Radio ...

I'm so fed up with the 24/7 cable news channels that I probably will. I have to admit that my son in law appears to be well informed about the news.

[rl6214]

56. Is this the same terror watch list that Maddow said this about?

"The Bush/Cheney administration created the terror watch list system that theoretically should have flagged the Christmas bomber this past Friday. As has been noted, this is a list that has more than 500,000 names on it. That’s handy.

It’s a list that’s full of so much noise, so much useless, incoherent junk that random people like the late Senator Ted Kennedy and the former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ wife would get hassled at airports all the time because of their position on the list, even though that list could not function properly to keep actual terrorists off of actual planes."

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002459/

[X_Digger]

57. LOL, I wonder why Rachael didn't bring that up to McCarthy. n/t

[spin]

69. Becasue she works for MSNBC which would like to see gun ownership restircted ...

and because having talk show hosts with intellectual honesty is not a high priority for any 24/7 cable news outlet. Tow the line or don't let the door hit you in the the ass on your way out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Maddow herself said why- "Why let a 30-second Google search get in the way of your good sound bite."

Found about halfway through the transcript on that DailyKos page:

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002459


Looks like a certain hypocritical, self-important commentator forgot her own advice....I guess she really is "the Limbaugh of

the Left"!

[Euromutt]

98. Holy selective amnesia, Batman!

Unless she just read that off the autocue and let it bypass her consciousness. Still, it shows the value of being consistent in your beliefs rather than coming up with ad hoc rationalizations.

Still, less than 18 months ago...

[krispos42]

115. She was saying similar things right after the Arizona shooting.

I remember that after a long segment in this vein (and after a commercial break) she did mention that the 11+ magazines were not banned; only that new sales to non-LEO were illegal. But of course, that was way after making her point in the previous long segment.