CNN turns further Left

[JustinJ]

But you seem to have no problem with CNN's careless phrasing, which coincidentally also tends to perpetuate the false refrain of the gun-grabbers. No evidence of bias there, except what may be imagined by a crazy right-winger.

Once again, i do not see it as careless phrasing. It is simply saying that private sellers are not required to perform background checks as is the case when they are selling at gun shows. That's it and it's true.

If we asked CNN how many gun purchases are made via the "gun show loophole," they might throw out a number like 40%. Emily Miller takes the time to "grossly elaborate" in a way you may not see too often on CNN: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...loophole-myth/

So is there some such article or are you actually making an argument for bias based on a hypothetical scenario in which cnn, which is not a single person, would reply to a question?

 

[MtnCreek]

I didn’t read all the responses (I will later), but I did read your response JustinJ. When I said “The above is either an outright lie or meant to deceive. Where I grew up, that’s the same thing…”, there’s a reason I see things in a less nuanced way than you may. I once tried to deceive my father when I was a kid. When called out on it, I tried to explain to him that everything I said was factual. He corrected me and explained that any attempt to mislead is a LIE. I guess you and I just grew up different…

 

[jerkface11]

Justin they said there aren't background checks at gunshows. They didn't say only when it's from a private seller. A lie by omission is still a lie.

 

[JustinJ]

Justin they said there aren't background checks at gunshows. They didn't say only when it's from a private seller. A lie by omission is still a lie.

Where did they say that? They said gunshows do not require them. Unless i missed something in the article what you just said is far more deceptive than anything in the article.

I didn’t read all the responses (I will later), but I did read your response JustinJ. When I said “The above is either an outright lie or meant to deceive. Where I grew up, that’s the same thing…”, there’s a reason I see things in a less nuanced way than you may. I once tried to deceive my father when I was a kid. When called out on it, I tried to explain to him that everything I said was factual. He corrected me and explained that any attempt to mislead is a LIE. I guess you and I just grew up different…

Apparently you didn't read my replies because i said i don't believe the phrase was meant to deceive. The irony is that you are lying by accusing me of saying that misleading is not lying. I guess those lessons didn't really stick. But, yeah we apparently did grow up differently because i was taught to look at things objectively rather than just as i want to see them.

 

[10mm Mike]

They are being deceptive by saying:

...Private sellers and gun shows have no background check requirement.

It would be factually correct, and clear, if they would have instead said:

Private sellers at gun shows have no background check requirement.

or

Private sellers have no background check requirement.

As it is written however, they are referring to a gun show as a entity rather than an event. We know that everyone selling guns at a gun show falls into 1 of 2 categories: FFL Dealer or Private seller. There is no 3rd category called "gun show" that is engaged in the business of selling firearms who also exempt from doing background checks, as they are implying by the way it was written. They are introducing confusion with their wording. Some here think they are doing it on purpose, others don't. Regardless, it could have been written better to avoid confusion and remain factual.

 

[k-frame]

There's a large difference between lying and just being wrong.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Justin
you know it's a lie, aimed at THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW BETTER

Now...
what's defensible?
that they are technically correct, or that they are perpetuating a myth to drive their agenda
Really, you want to take that line, try explaining how it works to someone not familiar with law, it's pretty hard not to get flustered when they keep bringing up crap like this when you are quoting the law.

Justin, its a lie, why are you supporting a lie?
Don't have a EBR
Don't live in a state that permits private sale
don't worry they are coming for you too, just wait.

 

[BHP FAN]

Greenmachin3 said '' I have read on multiple occasions that even Newscorp (Fox New's holding company) is a silent partner in companies like Al Jazeera among others...

any proof, or even a source, or are you thinking of Al Gore?

 

[JFrame]

Yes -- that was indeed duplicitous reporting by CNN.

I had to tell a non-gun friend repeatedly that I did, indeed, have to clear background checks while purchasing firearms from dealers at gun shows. The myth that the Left is perpetuating, by omission, is that there are NO checks being done at gun shows.


.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

CNN reached the point of no return turning left when Ted Turner said "I THINK IT'S GOOD US TROOPS ARE COMMITING SUICIDE." Vendetta, accepted.

 

[alsaqr]

CNN held onto the article for airing at the most opportune time. Nothing new here, all the networks do that. Except fo the weasel wording about the so called "gunshow loophole"; CNN did a pretty good job with that article. The CNN article rightly points up the failures of states to provide the federal government data on ajudicated mental cases. Many states are not complying with federal law. The Oklahoma case cited by CNN is an example of state incompetence in the handling of mental cases.

Violence prone mental cases should not have guns.

BTW: One policeman claims the OK mental case fed parts of his mothers body to the dogs. The prosecutor says theres no evidence of that.