Was this mis-leading item pointed out...

[RoeBear]

In the super long thread: 'New round in gun issue'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=42620&mesg_id=42620
(regardless I hope this stays open because the other is sure to be locked soon based on it's length)

From the article:

"Pick up the Yellow Pages and go to "Guns." Call the first gun store you find. Ask what you'll need to purchase a semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle like the one used by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to kill 10 people during their 2002 Washington, D.C.-area murder spree.

"You have a driver's license?" said the man at the Long Island store I called yesterday to ask about buying the assault rifle known as the Bushmaster XM-15.

"Sure," I said, "but what else do I need to bring?"

I was thinking paperwork - perhaps to verify my clean criminal record, my relative sanity, the lack of any documented connections between myself and al-Qaida.

"Nothing else," said the man. "Just money."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyone else wonder why he doesn't mention the MANDATORY back ground check? Is he ignorant or is he being deliberately misleading

[AndyP]

1. doesn't want to scare people away

I know if I were a serial killer, I wouldn't want to do all that busy paperwork, I'd want to start killing asap. I hope he's not doing it purposly.

[slackmaster]

2. You have to bring additional information and a willingness to affirm

That you are a legal resident, never been convicted of a crime that could have carried a sentence of a year of more, not an illegal user of drugs, not under a restraining order for domestic violence, have not been discharged dishonorably from the military, etc.

All under penalty of perjury with a possible 5-year term in Club Fed if they catch you lying.

Anyone else wonder why he doesn't mention the MANDATORY back ground check? Is he ignorant or is he being deliberately misleading

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that:

1. Obviously he has never bought a gun, so he has no personal experience to guide him, and

2. He didn't fulfull his journalistic responsibility to verify the facts.

[RoeBear]

3. So all his blather about...

...'assault weapons' was just a coincidence. This had nothing to do with getting people stirred up for the AWB renewal?

Like our friend might say; Suuuurrreeee!

[MrBenchley]

4. Or maybe, like a majority of voters

he doesn't think these weapons should be allowed on the market,, even after a background check.

Of course, the same Republican scumbags fighting to put assault weapons back on the market are also fighting to make sure loonies and criminals can go to gunn shows and buy them without a background check....but everybody already knew that.

Tell us, roe, why didn't you mention the gun show loophole in your rant? I'm SURE it wasn't because you were being "ignorant" or "deliberately misleading".

[slackmaster]

5. A majority of voters don't understand the issue

A majority of voters also oppose gay marriage.

Tell us, roe, why didn't you mention the gun show loophole in your rant? I'm SURE it wasn't because you were being "ignorant" or "deliberately misleading".

Start your own thread, MrBenchley.

[RoeBear]

6. "Tell us, roe, why didn't you mention the gun show loophole in your rant?"

Uhmmm... because it wasn't mentioned in the article? I also don't bring up the dishonest 'gun show loophole' when I'm talking about the weather, how about you?

On to another point:
"he doesn't think these weapons should be allowed on the market,, even after a background check."

So is it ok for him to lie about or at the very least mis-lead the general public about the requirement for a background check. Does the end justify the means?

Would you like proof that he mis-lead the general public?

[MrBenchley]

7. Gee, roe...

So you can omit something but the author cannot, in your opinion...<snicker>

And frankly, since there is an easy way to evade the background check in most states, I don't feel he was beinng misleading in the slightest. Nor is the general public misled in the slightest...which explains the wide support for the assault weapons bann and for closing the gun show loophole.

[slackmaster]

8. Unbelievably vigorous spin

And frankly, since there is an easy way to evade the background check in most states, I don't feel he was beinng misleading in the slightest....

Jeezus H. Christ on a bicycle, did you even READ the article? The guy called a GUN DEALER and asked what was needed in order to buy a gun from the GUN DEALER!

BTW Paul Vitello lives in New York State, where there is NO GUN-SHOW LOOPHOLE.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ny

[RoeBear]

9. The wide support proves...

..that the general public is not mislead? Hmmm...very interesting.
I don't buy it for a second. Care for proof that he mislead the public?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"So you can omit something but the author cannot, in your opinion...<snicker>"

The story is about him calling a gun store and asking what is needed to "purchase a semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle like the one used by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to kill 10 people during their 2002 Washington, D.C.-area murder spree".

A DL and money are all he says are necessary, do you believe that was accurate? does his statement:

"I was thinking paperwork - perhaps to verify my clean criminal record, my relative sanity, the lack of any documented connections between myself and al-Qaida."

Imply anything to you?

P.S. I wasn't writing a story for a newspaper general audience.

[MrBenchley]

10. Yeah, it does...

It implies that these goddamn weapons should not be offered for sale. Which most voters also agree with.

"P.S. I wasn't writing a story for a newspaper general audience."
No shit, sherlock.

[RoeBear]

11. The end justifies the means....

...is that the page you are on?


"It implies that these goddamn weapons should not be offered for sale.Which most voters also agree with."

And you don't care if the public comes to that conclusion with outright lies or mis-information?

P.S. Care for proof that he mis-lead the general public?

[MrBenchley]

12. Nothing there is misleading

however desperately you want to spin. He is reporting what the guy said to him over the phone.

"you don't care if the public comes to that conclusion with outright lies or mis-information?"
Too too rich...How often does the RKBA crowd here lie through their teeth about the phony English bloodbath...or try to pretend there is no gun show loophole...or play that horseshit "nobody knows what an assualt weapon is" game?

[slackmaster]

14. I almost can't believe what I'm reading

Paul Vitello gets a complete "pass" for his terribly inaccurate article.

:eyes:

[FatSlob]

13. At one time most voters were for slavery too.

Authoritarianism everywhere is wrong.

[MrBenchley]

16. Now the last remnants of that crowd is pushing gun rights...

[FatSlob]

17. Do you accuse me of being a "remnant"

of the slavery crowd? I beg to differ. I am for liberty. Authoritarians were pro-slavery and are today pro-gun control.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

20. And if you pimp for scum like Larry Craig and the NRA

you're pimping for actual racists.

[GRClarkesq]

15. The article was at least sloppy

Author tried to imply you can purchase a firearm by only presenting a DL, with no mention of the 4473 and background check.

[Wickerman]

21. Locking

Sorry, this is getting out of hand. Be your mod - put the folks who offend you on ignore and you can have thread that remains open a tad longer. Responding in kind to every attack, perceived or otherwise, will only result in increasing the hostility in this forum.