Oops…they published again… (hummed to a bad pop tune)

CNN re-publishes same article for the 20th time this year
(yes, another hit piece, by an incompetent moron who claims to be a journalist but likely only has a job because he’ll right piecemeal regurgitated sound bite pieces)


Below are my thoughts and responses…

“Despite being rejected by the military because of a history of illicit drug use and being kicked out of a community college for repeated incidents of threatening and bizarre behavior, Loughner legally purchased a semi-automatic pistol….”

And when have you heard gun owners express that we want nut jobs to be able to buy guns? Never!!!!

The reason this occurred is not because of gun owners, but because of HIPAA and medical privacy advocates.

The one related issue that gun owners are vocal about is not seeing our soldiers come home from war, be labelled PSTD, and lose their rights for the rest of their lives. That’s just not fair – is it?


“NRA spent in unsuccessful attempts to win close Senate races in swing states”

Yes, and it was a Presidential election between a leftist liberal Democrat incumbant, and a former liberal moderate socialist Republican who was unpopular except for NOT being the unpopular President.

No organization or issue was sufficient to affect that sort of election single handedly.


“The NRA portrays itself as an organization that speaks for and advocates for gun owners. The reality is that they speak for gun owners with the most extreme views and for the gun industry.”

Citation Mr. Daniel Webster, cause that sentence pretty much labels you a moron who talks out his arse. In fact, it’s often been the masses of NRA membership pushing the NRA organization to take stronger stances.


“A case in point is their opposition to requiring background checks for all firearm sales.”

Well, let’s discuss the oft repeated by CNN talking point. ALL handguns, like the one Loughner used, require a background check. Essentially, the only firearms we are talking about that are sold without a background check are individual sales of rifles and shotguns from one person to another.

In other words, when a hunter buys a new rifle and sells his old one to his hunting buddy or perhaps his nephew. And I am curious, could you quote what percentage of the firearms sold in that manner are used in actual crimes?

I bet it’s an embarrasingly low percentage. So low you’d be too cowardly to print it.

But you want it closed? So why not come to the table and discuss real alternatives? How about letting private party sellers use the NICS background check system for free. Really, it’s a very small portion of sales that actually occur this way.


“A recent survey found that more than 80% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members want this loophole fixed”

What recent survey. Because there are lot of BS surveys, that for example, contact all the NRA members in Berkely California.

When asked “Do you want to outlaw the right of a private citizen to sell his rifle or shotgun to a friend or other private citizen.”

I bet you get about 2% of NRA members supporting that statement.


“Gun owners don’t want dangerous people to have guns.”

Which is true, and why we are so confused as to why morons like you write this same article on CNN every few months. And yet never talk about why so many criminals are arrested with weapons and not prosecuted. And why so many violent criminals are released on parole or time served (until trial)?


“When states require background checks for all handgun sales and have strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers, far fewer guns are diverted to criminals.”

All handgun sales require background checks. There is no state that allows a legal sale of a handgun without one. So calling BS on your above statement.


“individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence (often pleaded down from felony charges) or those who have been convicted of multiple alcohol-related crimes are prohibited from possessing firearms.”

Well, most domestic and violence crimes, or drug related crimes. Makes one a prohibited person in the vast majority, if not all, states.

BTW, WTF is an “alcohol related” crime. You mean a DUI with a car? Are we going to prohibit anyone with a DUI from ever owning a car? Okay, so let’s say anyone who commits a DUI, we prohibit from owning a gun. Now, shouldn’t the inverse hold true? Anyone who commits a deed that prohibits gun ownership, should also not be allowed to own a car. Just saying…


“our homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than that of other high-income countries, due in part to greater availability of handguns”

No, it’s 90% due to parole, early release, and other programs that apply soft touches to criminals and put them back onto our streets. In fact, I have not read about a major crime, nor experienced a dealing with a criminal, who did NOT have a number of prior run ins and convictions with authorities.

We released armed robbers mere weeks after their trial conviction and sentence of 10 years. We release kidnapping rapists so they can just do it again (Jayce). Ironically, while violent predator criminals will often serve short sentences and be released due to overcrowded prisons. We’ll sentence a guy to 15 years for selling pirated albums and movies. No, the reason for our violent crime is judicial, not rights, related.

Parole is far more dangerous than handguns.

OUTING THE JOURNALIST: Daniel W. Webster – is professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.  And piss poor journalist.  Seriously, realizing he was referencing studies done at Johns Hopkins when he is likely involved with the organization that did the studies is rather disreputable.

No longer am I going to allow this to go on namelessly,  Mr. Daniel Webster, is an incredulous journalist and should be associated with the poor levels of research (or genuine dishonesty) portrayed in his article.

From now on, when we comment on hit pieces, we’re going to try to associate the journalist with their work “Mr. Daniel Webster, a piss poor journalist”.
Published in: on November 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://nugun.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/oops-they-published-again-hummed-to-a-bad-pop-tune/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Well, let’s discuss the oft repeated by CNN talking point. ALL handguns, like the one Loughner used, require a background check. Essentially, the only firearms we are talking about that are sold without a background check are individual sales of rifles and shotguns from one person to another.

    All handgun sales require background checks. There is no state that allows a legal sale of a handgun without one. So calling BS on your above statement.

    Sorry…not true.

    Under federal law, background checks may only be conducted by licensed firearms dealers. This is for both long guns and handguns. A private individual is not required to run background checks in the process of selling their personal property.

    State laws may vary, but there are plenty of states that do not place tighter restrictions on sales than federal law.

    The point is that the antis are advocating the outlawing of private transfers of personally owned property.

    This does two things: increases the costs and inconvenience of gun ownership by the law abiding (which will have no effect on criminals who will just ignore the law), and create a de-facto gun registry of law abiding gun owners as each transaction conducted by a gun dealer must be recorded and those records maintained forever.

    Property rights are sacrosanct under our constitutional government. That is enough of an argument to undermine their efforts along these lines. The fact that it is completely unenforceable (how will they know that I sold a gun unless they do spot checks and inventories?) is also a determining factor. Not to mention the fact that it only affects the law abiding. The criminal trade in stolen, straw purchased or otherwise illegally obtained firearms will continue unabated.

    Otherwise, your points are well made.

    • It’s quite possible I’m mistaken. But I thought ALL handgun sales had to be transferred by an FFL. (In other words, no private party sale of handguns without FFL brokering agent.)

      Is there a state in which an individual can sell a handgun to another individual as a private party sale.

      If so, which state(s). Cause I’ll need to redact that part of my post.

  2. I can’t speak to all states, but Virginia is where I live and it is one example.

    I think you’re just getting a couple of the 30,000+ laws confused.


    The basic gist is this:

    Under federal law:

    It is illegal for a private individual to buy a firearm from another state and bring it home (Title 18, US Code, Section 922 (a)(3)), or to knowingly sell a firearm to a resident of another state (Title 18, US Code, Section 922(a)(5).

    Federal law does not prohibit private sales of any firearms to another resident of the same state. I can’t point to a section of the law because it simply doesn’t speak to that…meaning that it is not unlawful to do so. This was because when the law pertaining to these things was passed (1968), the federal government was still minimally adhering to the constitutional premise of “interstate commerce”. The Federal government did not prohibit sales within the states because, if for no other reason, it was not considered to be constitutional to do so…there was no “interstate commerce” component for the federal government to regulate.

    Moving on:

    It’s illegal for a licensed dealer to sell handguns to residents of other states. Long guns can be sold to residents of other states when the sale is done “face to face” (Title 18, US Code, Section 922(b)(3).

    To legally buy a handgun from a dealer in another state, the handgun must be transferred to another dealer within the purchaser’s state and received from the in-state dealer.

    The ATF produces a “summary of federal firearms laws” that you can get in pdf form from their web site or they will send you in paper form if you ever get a federal firearms license (even a curio and relic license). Toward the end of this document is a “frequently asked questions” section. Question B1 (page 176):

    (B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

    A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

    [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

    As far as Virginia law:

    Again, I can’t point to a specific section, because state law simply doesn’t speak to the subject. Knowingly transferring firearms to prohibited persons is illegal, accepting a firearm if you are a prohibited person is illegal, selling firearms to minors is illegal, etc, but there simply is no restriction on the sale of firearms within the state of Virginia from one private individual to another private individual as long as neither are minors or otherwise prohibited persons (felons, adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, under a restraining order, etc.). I don’t have time to research every state’s laws, but I’m very familiar with Virginia’s and with federal law on the subject. I’m confident that most states (with the exception of states like California, New Jersey, Illinois, etc) are similar to Virginia’s and just let federal law control on such matters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: