Claims you can "buy weapons online without background check

tnyotehunter

New member
http://huff-watch.blogspot.com/2012/07/huffpost-lies-claims-you-can-buy.html

UPDATE 1, July 23, 7:30pm: HUFFPOST SURRENDERED (partially): As documented at the end, sometime late in the afternoon of July 23, HuffPost changed its story page headline, and admitted it had done so. Yet it still has the false headline on its front page --- demonstrating once again that this was no simple "mistake," as it likes to claim when it's caught in another lie.

-

An "arsenal" is defined as: "an establishment for the manufacture or storage of arms and military equipment b : a collection of weapons." Most people accept this common definition.


A reasonable reader could only infer from this headline that the Aurora madman was able to obtain the weapons he used in his massacre online --- with no background checks. And look at the picture of those scary weapons! Those must be the ones (or like the ones) that he... supposedly bought online, with no background check. Shocking!!!

Just one little problem: HuffPost's headline is a lie --- and it knew, or should have known it was a lie, before publishing it.



Unhindered by federal background checks or government oversight, the 24-year-old man accused of killing a dozen people inside a Colorado movie theater was able to build what the police called a 6,000-round arsenal legally and easily over the Internet, exploiting what critics call a virtual absence of any laws regulating ammunition sales.


The next two paragraphs of the Times' story claim:



With a few keystrokes, the suspect, James E. Holmes, ordered 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun — an amount of firepower that costs roughly $3,000 at the online sites — in the four months before the shooting, according to the police. It was pretty much as easy as ordering a book from Amazon.

He also bought bulletproof vests and other tactical gear, and a high-capacity “drum magazine” large enough to hold 100 rounds and capable of firing 50 or 60 rounds per minute — a purchase that would have been restricted under proposed legislation that has been stalled in Washington for more than a year.



Clearly, the (actual) NY Times story refers to ammunition --- not weapons.


Under current laws --- as HuffPost knew, or should have known --- no one can buy weapons online without a background check.


Bottom line: HuffPost lied to its global audience of readers --- the largest on the Internet --- by falsely claiming that one can "buy weapons online without background check."

Let's take another look at the story page headline that HuffPost wrote --- even though it knew the New York Times was talking only about ammunition?

Furthermore, how does the Times feel about HuffPost taking its content, then manipulating the headline to incite a false perception among readers --- which appears to be the fault of the Times itself? Remember --- the headline from the Times story that HuffPost cited read:


"Suspect Bought Large Stockpile of Rounds Online
 
Yep, the anti-gunners, not being constrained by fact, are having a heyday pushing their agenda using this tragedy, as usual.

I still wonder where he acquired the smoke grenades. No one has mentioned that!

Regards,
hm
 
I haven't read where the nut purchased the smoke grenades...but, they are available online at retailers that carry equipment for paintball matches and the like.
 
And the vest has already been debunked. It was simply a tacti-cool mag carrier best, not body armor. And I love their display of ignorance calling it "assault rifle" again!
 
CNN had the idiot from the Brady Fountain repeating the same mis-information, of course, not a single point of view from the other side was presented.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71I haven't read where the nut purchased the smoke grenades...but, they are available online at retailers that carry equipment for paintball matches and the like.

Thanks, HB. I couldn't think of any civilian use for such and had therefore never seen them advertised.

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996Originally Posted By: HunterBear71I haven't read where the nut purchased the smoke grenades...but, they are available online at retailers that carry equipment for paintball matches and the like.

Thanks, HB. I couldn't think of any civilian use for such and had therefore never seen them advertised.

Regards,
hm


If you simply Google them, you can find smoke canisters, tear gas, pretty much anything you want. They really aren't regulated as they're not explosives or firearms. Not expensive either... Tear Gas Canisters will run you less than $40. Consussion grenades run anywhere from $20 - $100 on-line. Pretty simple to find any of it honestly.
 
Did you guys see O'Riley last night.he had me yelling at the TV.MY wife looks at me funny when I do that.He was so full of misinformation I could not believe it.I lost a lot of respect for what he says now.He was all for a national register for large ammo buy for one thing.And was saying there was no background check for full auto.His guest was trying to tell him he was wrong but he would not listen. He sounded like a flaming liberal.His "facts"were just wrong.
 
No but I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN, and he kept asking his guest to answer a question, and every time he tried Piers would cut him off and wouldn't let him answer it. Then Allan Dershowitz was on the other feed and he kept saying that everything the guy was telling them was lies, and the statistics he offered were junk data, that he didn't know what he was talking about.

It was pretty damm ridiculous, let me tell you! The guest finally told them both that he'd been asked a question and he would love to answer it, and if they'd both SHUT THE [beeep] UP and allow him the time to address the question, he would. They shut up until he got it about half answered then both of them cut him off again. At which point, I got tired of listening to the [beeep], changed channels, and went to the CNN website and slammed comments on every article they had posted!!

glare.gif


 
Originally Posted By: tnshootistDid you guys see O'Riley last night.he had me yelling at the TV.MY wife looks at me funny when I do that.He was so full of misinformation I could not believe it.I lost a lot of respect for what he says now.He was all for a national register for large ammo buy for one thing.And was saying there was no background check for full auto.His guest was trying to tell him he was wrong but he would not listen. He sounded like a flaming liberal.His "facts"were just wrong.

I agree!It looks like O'Reilly has gone over to the side of the anti's on gun control.I realized O'Reilly is self-serving,egotistical and poorly informed on many issues a couple of years ago.I stopped watching his O'Reilly Factor.
 
Originally Posted By: ADKOriginally Posted By: tnshootistDid you guys see O'Riley last night.he had me yelling at the TV.MY wife looks at me funny when I do that.He was so full of misinformation I could not believe it.I lost a lot of respect for what he says now.He was all for a national register for large ammo buy for one thing.And was saying there was no background check for full auto.His guest was trying to tell him he was wrong but he would not listen. He sounded like a flaming liberal.His "facts"were just wrong.

I agree!It looks like O'Reilly has gone over to the side of the anti's on gun control.I realized O'Reilly is self-serving,egotistical and poorly informed on many issues a couple of years ago.I stopped watching his O'Reilly Factor.
Same here.
 
Back
Top