huntsman
Member
It must be sweeps month.
NBC airing "investigation" into online gunsales tomorrow.
- Thread starter KW84
- Start date
- Status
Nushif
Member
While in no way in agreement with any of this corporate sponsored messa-... news I have to caution you guys.
NONE! of the corporate spons-... news sources are truly objective and bemoaning NBC while watching FOX to me at least is a sign of hypocrisy. The same applies vice versa. Someone claiming one corporate conglomerate that just happens to own a sizeable chunk of the media outlets is any more honest than the next is clearly deluding themselves.
For this reason, please leave your politics out of this. Because I haven't met a network that makes money yet that somehow has no strings attached to this money.
NONE! of the corporate spons-... news sources are truly objective and bemoaning NBC while watching FOX to me at least is a sign of hypocrisy. The same applies vice versa. Someone claiming one corporate conglomerate that just happens to own a sizeable chunk of the media outlets is any more honest than the next is clearly deluding themselves.
For this reason, please leave your politics out of this. Because I haven't met a network that makes money yet that somehow has no strings attached to this money.
repmurcs
Member
This is the type of biased ignorance that makes gun laws so impossible to avoid...
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454
I ahte the media
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454
I ahte the media
repmurcs
Member
Some huge petition singed by every ones who's life was saved - By being one of us Dark Sided Gun Toting Sith Jedi's...
So much for the 2nd amendment ..
So much for the 2nd amendment ..
Looks like yet another attempt to "educate" the public about guns. Most live in ignorance of these kinds of things and so their only source for information is the mainstream media. Until we can get people to realize that they are only getting one side of the story at BEST, they will continue to be controlled by whoever controls the media.
There were a lot of myths and anti-2A memes in there that tells us that the intent wasn't to produce an objective look at whether a problem exists or not, but we shouldn't be surprised. It is absurd to think that media sources aren't biased (what you don't think we have a bias?) on social/political issues. You have to understand what that bias is while you're looking/listening.
Used to be that you'd have a buddy tell you they or a family member had a gun they wanted to sell or you'd grab a copy of the weekly private sale paper and look for gun/knife sales or yard/estate sales or you'd got to the flea market or gun show and see what turned up. FS postings on the net have now made that process far less laborious. Is there anything wrong with that? Of course not. Is there anything wrong with a seller not performing the needed due diligence to make that sale legally to keep our firearms out of the hands of the criminals we don't want to get them. Of course there is. Making it easier for buyers and sellers to connect isn't the problem. It is the failure of some sellers to do make that effort that antis can point to as a "big problem". The real question is whether it a "real" problem or not since no one's doing the hard work of trying to determine if criminals are using the internet to find personal sales at all. No one in the anti leaning media asked that question because it requires more real investigative work than just performing an internet search to find some guy that thinks anyone using the net can't be a low life.
Used to be that you'd have a buddy tell you they or a family member had a gun they wanted to sell or you'd grab a copy of the weekly private sale paper and look for gun/knife sales or yard/estate sales or you'd got to the flea market or gun show and see what turned up. FS postings on the net have now made that process far less laborious. Is there anything wrong with that? Of course not. Is there anything wrong with a seller not performing the needed due diligence to make that sale legally to keep our firearms out of the hands of the criminals we don't want to get them. Of course there is. Making it easier for buyers and sellers to connect isn't the problem. It is the failure of some sellers to do make that effort that antis can point to as a "big problem". The real question is whether it a "real" problem or not since no one's doing the hard work of trying to determine if criminals are using the internet to find personal sales at all. No one in the anti leaning media asked that question because it requires more real investigative work than just performing an internet search to find some guy that thinks anyone using the net can't be a low life.
Last edited:
Nico Testosteros
Member
Nushif's point is a valid one.
JFrame
Member
As this is a board dedicated to the 2A, let us know when Fox News runs a piece detrimental to gun rights, and we'll torch them as much as anyone else.
.
I must take issue with this, because to my view it relies on a false premise, at least in my state and those surrounding it.
Unless and until there is an affirmative duty under the law to positively identify a buyer and for the seller to be completely satisfied that the buyer is not a prohibited person, there is no requirement for "due diligence," and it is completely legal, and therefore, in our society governed by law, it is by definition also morally and ethically acceptable to make the sale.
The whole theme of the NBC story was to bemoan and lament the lack of a background check requirement in face-to-face sales between private sellers in some states, and to impose the "due diligence" requirement on all sellers. I reject any and all attempts to insinuate that a seller has ANY moral, ethical or legal obligation to do any more "due diligence" than what is presently required by law, which is why I take issue with the statement above.
Of course, sellers are free to refuse to complete any transaction they don't want to, and for whatever reason they want to, but it is their choice in our free society. If they choose to ignore things that would ordinarily set off a reasonable person's Spidey Sense, they do so at their peril, but in a free society that is their right.
As I see it, any talk of "due diligence" outside a legal requirement to do any is capitulation to the anti-gun crowd, and an alignment, if not endorsement, of their gun control agenda through incremental steps.
I told a real estate agent that was showing me a house that I once come in second place in a marathon race. She congratulated me. Then I told her that there were only two people in the race. Her face turned red.
I did it to make notice of the disclaimer agents use in the listing that states “deemed accurate but not guaranteed”. Much of the data was erroneous and never validated. But it helped to sell the house and they were indemnified from legal action.
Point is that there is a “never ending battle for truth, justice, and (what once revered as) the American way”.
I did it to make notice of the disclaimer agents use in the listing that states “deemed accurate but not guaranteed”. Much of the data was erroneous and never validated. But it helped to sell the house and they were indemnified from legal action.
Point is that there is a “never ending battle for truth, justice, and (what once revered as) the American way”.
Private sales
The few times I have sold a firearm the deal is contingent on the buyer providing me proof he or she is not prohibited from buying firearms. Now I dont take checks, bank checks or money orders because all these financial instruments can have stop payments placed on them. You cant put a stop payment on a certified check. So the potential buyer and I have worked out an agreement and once the info is provided documenting they aren't prohibited and have an arrest history I can live with I make the sale. I wont sell to someone with an arrest history for DV even if they dont have a conviction.
You can buy a car/truck off the internet and use it to commit crimes or to stuff full of explosives. Does NBC want the seller to check the terrorist watch list?
The few times I have sold a firearm the deal is contingent on the buyer providing me proof he or she is not prohibited from buying firearms. Now I dont take checks, bank checks or money orders because all these financial instruments can have stop payments placed on them. You cant put a stop payment on a certified check. So the potential buyer and I have worked out an agreement and once the info is provided documenting they aren't prohibited and have an arrest history I can live with I make the sale. I wont sell to someone with an arrest history for DV even if they dont have a conviction.
You can buy a car/truck off the internet and use it to commit crimes or to stuff full of explosives. Does NBC want the seller to check the terrorist watch list?
WilleRupert
Member
We all know that just because the law allows it that doesn't make it moral or ethical. But hey, I'm happy to leave that one to the scores of college freshmen in their intro to philosophy courses to ponder. I know, as a member of a community, what I feel comfortable with. And I don't personally feel comfortable unless I see a ptp and getting a bill of sale. If someone couldn't produce one, I wouldn't sell. In my mind, I'm keeping firearms out of the hands of the same people I arm myself against. Just my two cents.
MtnSpur
Member
We all know that General Electric owns NBC and, that said, while GE is a multi-faceted conglomerate it's financially based by definition. There is no political message in this statement
Husker_Fan
Member
I'm with WilleRupert. I know there are some here who have a "don't snitch" attitude, but if someone told me they couldn't pass a background check, I wouldn't sell to them. I'd also be writing down their license plate and taking all the emails to the cops.
Husker_Fan
Member
I also don't see it a political bias. News is about selling advertising and sensationalistic stories get viewers to watch. The different networks just have different target audiences they are trying to rile up.
Shadow 7D
Member
http://www.atf.gov/contact/hotlines/
lets do our part and report suspected criminal activity
lets do our part and report suspected criminal activity
The way I see it, If I am trading one gun for another and the person has a Florida License, he already had a gun. So I contributed nothing to his ability to obtain one. Especially if he has all of the paperwork from his purchase, "which I ask to see" , and most folks have no problem showing it to you. I don''t want a copy and if he doesn't have it, Like a lot of people who are inexperienced and throw away the box and warantee papers. Like a toaster oven. I still will go ahead with the transaction. My last two had Florida tags, license, were asked if they were prohibited from owning a weapon, and were both trades, so they already had guns.Had id, and were good well mannered men who had hunting rifles and other guns in their vehicle, even invited me to go duck hunting with them.
If darth vader pulls up that's another story, but a well dressed guy in a hummer, carrying a 1,300 dollar gun, with all the papers, I doubt it.
I did have a guy over 10 years ago who approached me while I was exiting my car, and asked me what I had, he had ID and a concealed permit, and he paid the asking price on 2 guns. Nothing I see wong with that. He just wanted to get the jump on everyone else by catching folks coming in.
I think too much is made of this, anyone can walk into a bar in a small town, and within an hour find a seller .
If darth vader pulls up that's another story, but a well dressed guy in a hummer, carrying a 1,300 dollar gun, with all the papers, I doubt it.
I did have a guy over 10 years ago who approached me while I was exiting my car, and asked me what I had, he had ID and a concealed permit, and he paid the asking price on 2 guns. Nothing I see wong with that. He just wanted to get the jump on everyone else by catching folks coming in.
I think too much is made of this, anyone can walk into a bar in a small town, and within an hour find a seller .
Last edited:
DCR, you are aware that in regards to the piecwe in question, the undercover "buyer" stated on multiple occasions that he likely wouldn't pass a background check. It doesn't take a whole lot of dilligence to have such a statement raise some red flags, IMO. If theres no reason to believe the person is prohibited...fine....but when the buyer himself indicates he likely is prohibited, I wouldn't make the sale. I realize "not being ab le to pass a background check DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY equate to "prohibited person" but it would raise enough suspicion that many would be uncomfortable making the sale....
They mentioned a seller who brought his seven year old son, like he was endangering him. It appears they already had decided that these transactions were dangerous and should be illegal.
I also want to know how many sellers turned down these people "who could not pass a background check".
I also want to know how many sellers turned down these people "who could not pass a background check".
mortablunt
Member
Sore point list:
* Never heard anyone talk about online purchases as major loophole.
* No mention of having to pick up the online purchased gun at an FFL and get the background check.
* AR-15 is one of the most powerful weapons produced.
* I don't recall there being hundreds of gun trading websites.
* There is no such thing as a Police grade pistol.
* They said nothing about ammunition purchasing but suddenly then brought up hollowpoint bullets.
* Assault Rifles are not semiautomatic.
* The deals were all F2F private transfers with none of the weapons bought online.
* It is surprisingly hard to shoot down anything with a 50 cal rifle and helicopters are rather delicate.
* Criminals do not favor online gun purchases.
* ATF guy was hired to help them.
* A real AK-47 requires a lot of money and time for all the NFA aspects.
* No hard statistics on private sales and murder weapons.
* No definition of private sales given.
* The Canadian stalker did not commit a crime in how he acquired his weapon.
* A Mini 30 is a not a tactical assault rifle.
* A Mini 30 uses the 7.62x39 round by its design.
* It is not illegal to arrange a meeting and buy guns with cash in a private face to transaction.
* Blaming people and tools for what other people choose to do with those tools.
* Deliberately showing the least sympathetic sellers.
* Scare tactics showing hollowpoint bullets of Black Tallon design.
* They only showed the people who would have sold to prohibited persons.
* A painted Remmington 870 is not a tactical shotgun.
* An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
* Having your kid with you during a gun deal is not bad parenting.
* The 50 caliber cartridge was not named.
* There are more rounds legally for sale in the U.S.A. than 50 BMG.
* Good luck hitting anything 5 miles away with a rifle.
* Most small arms can pierce armored vehicles.
* An Apache helicopter was shot down during Operation: Iraqi Freedom by an AKM.
* The weapons of choice for the Cartels are still subcompact handguns.
* Bloomberg pays people to break the law, falsify facts, and get away with it.
* Bloomberg also has a serious grudge against all firearms not controlled in some way by him.
* A law to mandate that all gun sales must go through an FFL and get a background check would be unenforceable.
* The most powerful lobby in Washington D.C. is the AARP.
* Background checks mandate an FFL, thereby making it no longer a private sale.
* Criminals do not even try to get guns through FFL's.
* Never heard anyone talk about online purchases as major loophole.
* No mention of having to pick up the online purchased gun at an FFL and get the background check.
* AR-15 is one of the most powerful weapons produced.
* I don't recall there being hundreds of gun trading websites.
* There is no such thing as a Police grade pistol.
* They said nothing about ammunition purchasing but suddenly then brought up hollowpoint bullets.
* Assault Rifles are not semiautomatic.
* The deals were all F2F private transfers with none of the weapons bought online.
* It is surprisingly hard to shoot down anything with a 50 cal rifle and helicopters are rather delicate.
* Criminals do not favor online gun purchases.
* ATF guy was hired to help them.
* A real AK-47 requires a lot of money and time for all the NFA aspects.
* No hard statistics on private sales and murder weapons.
* No definition of private sales given.
* The Canadian stalker did not commit a crime in how he acquired his weapon.
* A Mini 30 is a not a tactical assault rifle.
* A Mini 30 uses the 7.62x39 round by its design.
* It is not illegal to arrange a meeting and buy guns with cash in a private face to transaction.
* Blaming people and tools for what other people choose to do with those tools.
* Deliberately showing the least sympathetic sellers.
* Scare tactics showing hollowpoint bullets of Black Tallon design.
* They only showed the people who would have sold to prohibited persons.
* A painted Remmington 870 is not a tactical shotgun.
* An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
* Having your kid with you during a gun deal is not bad parenting.
* The 50 caliber cartridge was not named.
* There are more rounds legally for sale in the U.S.A. than 50 BMG.
* Good luck hitting anything 5 miles away with a rifle.
* Most small arms can pierce armored vehicles.
* An Apache helicopter was shot down during Operation: Iraqi Freedom by an AKM.
* The weapons of choice for the Cartels are still subcompact handguns.
* Bloomberg pays people to break the law, falsify facts, and get away with it.
* Bloomberg also has a serious grudge against all firearms not controlled in some way by him.
* A law to mandate that all gun sales must go through an FFL and get a background check would be unenforceable.
* The most powerful lobby in Washington D.C. is the AARP.
* Background checks mandate an FFL, thereby making it no longer a private sale.
* Criminals do not even try to get guns through FFL's.
doc540
Member
common sense prevails again
AlexanderA
Member
Speaking of "due diligence," as a non-FFL, I don't feel comfortable selling a gun to a private party that I don't know personally. My policy in such a situation is to run the sale through an FFL, even though it's not required, it's inconvenient, and it costs more. This allows for a Form 4473 to be filled out and a NCIS check run. But then again, I don't make many sales and I don't particularly need the money.
It wouldn't bother me at all if this sort of thing was required by law. If nothing else, this would tend to protect gun owners themselves. I just don't like the "bottom feeders" of the gun world, the kind of guys that sell guns from the trunks of their cars at gun shows.
It wouldn't bother me at all if this sort of thing was required by law. If nothing else, this would tend to protect gun owners themselves. I just don't like the "bottom feeders" of the gun world, the kind of guys that sell guns from the trunks of their cars at gun shows.
GCMkc
Member
Best line: We bought an assault rifle (SKS) and it's even been modified to shoot AK-47 bullets!
Do you really think the AZ police department destroyed those guns after the NBC reporter sent them there? I'm thinking they need a .50BMG a couple of AR-15's and tactical shotgun.
Do you really think the AZ police department destroyed those guns after the NBC reporter sent them there? I'm thinking they need a .50BMG a couple of AR-15's and tactical shotgun.
- Status
