CBS "Sunday Morning" gun focus.

The irony of course being that they're at the same time DENYING that's what they want, having been PUBLICLY on the record as saying that's what they DO want.

That's why they use gobbley Gook terminology - they're only interested in "Gun Safety" BS...they're interested in Disarming the public....."Gun Data Base" (BS) there IS one, ATF can run a history on any gun from the day it left the plant to every lawful owner who had it and if it was ever reported lost or stolen or used in a crime.....all the county registration data has been centralized (in violation of Congressional edicts) about central data bases etc.
 
That's why they use gobbley Gook terminology - they're only interested in "Gun Safety" BS...they're interested in Disarming the public....."Gun Data Base" (BS) there IS one, ATF can run a history on any gun from the day it left the plant to every lawful owner who had it and if it was ever reported lost or stolen or used in a crime.....all the county registration data has been centralized (in violation of Congressional edicts) about central data bases etc.

A few face to face transactions fixes that and is perfectly legal.
 
T"Gun Data Base" (BS) there IS one, ATF can run a history on any gun from the day it left the plant to every lawful owner who had it and if it was ever reported lost or stolen or used in a crime.....all the county registration data has been centralized (in violation of Congressional edicts) about central data bases etc.

Nope. In free States like WI I can sell my gun to a fellow citizen without a background check. And I have no requirement to document or maintain a record of who I sold it to. And on and on. So while the ATF might be able to identify the FFL who sold me the gun and then on to me the trail could end there. The only gun I ever sold was to a fellow officer. Who later sold it to another fellow officer. So I could point them to him but from there it could be a total unknown. But someday, the persistent drone of "common sense" gun laws may get Universal Background Checks across the nation. We shall see.

But back to the CBS segment. I would argue for those who feel it was neutral that it was indeed not an in-your-face gun control piece. The subtle message to me was still for some gun control measures like pointing out how antiquated the ATF system is still being paper based. Oh the horror, no computer involved showing huge stacks of boxes of forms in boxes for records of FFL's who have left the business. Again, subtle but a clear sentiment of "modernizing" the system in the form of a computer database that does not exist now. And then the next common sense step...and the next...and the next.
 
Well, I quit watching any commercial tv at all. I watch movies on streaming video, but will not even watch that if it has commercials. I get my news solely from newspapers, and occasionally from posters on this forum, which, by the way is the only one that I belong to.

I'm just too old to listen to the garbage that the "mainstream media" spew, and I know that even they occasionally tell the truth, just by accident, it seems, but since I started this regimen, my blood pressure last time it was taken is 90 over 60, and I just Had my blood work done as part of my insurance requirements for an annual checkup, and it looks like a 25 year olds.

Conclusion? Network news is bad for your health. (Well, I'm only partly kidding here).

Best Regards, Les
 
Last edited:
It's silly and delusional to expect that you will be able to defend yourself against an attacker with a gun, especially when they have the element of surprise.

So it would be much smarter and realistic not to have a gun so that you won't delude yourself when you are attacked.

I dont have to worry about that, I carry a WWII 40mm shell with me now. :D
 
The Constitution is becoming void, where prohibited by law.
Its sad because some groups in this country demand prohibiting Police from enforcing the law.
I cant make this stuff up.
Jim
 
The Constitution is becoming void, where prohibited by law.
Its sad because some groups in this country demand prohibiting Police from enforcing the law.
I cant make this stuff up.
Jim

Which is partly why im a Constitutionalist. I gave my word in an oath to defend it against foreign and domestic enemies. The oath is still valid even if im no longer employed for the job I swore it to.
 
Just some casual observations (and I watched the CBS Morning News that day): 1. The media is not our friend; very few alleged reporters have any particular knowledge of or real experience with firearms. However, they are ever sensitive to seeing that their hairdos are aways in place while parading their utter lack of factual knowledge (whether about firearms or most anything else ); 2. Firearms and their easy availability will always be the cause of gun violence in Chiganistan and similar places because it is never the fault of the terrorist/gang banger/mentally challenged trigger puller; 3. Australia "did what had to be done" as there hasn't been a mass shooting of consequence since, yet there is never any mention of criminal predators preying on the self-defensively shorn sheeple of the subcontinent. Believing the media is anything but an enemy is functionally akin to whistling while walking past the graveyard. And that's where that class of elites would be very happy to put the Second Amendment. (Disclaimer: from the early '70s to the early '80s I was a newspaper reporter, editor and publisher at various places.)
 
Back
Top