Completely true statement. CBS News had reported that on Wednesday.
Also true, that was indeed “reported.”
if you look at that article, you’ll see
If the Washington Times learned something “exclusively,” it’s not shocking or disturbing that other media outlets didn’t report the same thing. That’s what “exclusively” means. If I was a CBS reporter and had a source at the Police Department telling me one thing, I wouldn’t disregarded it because of an un-sourced “exclusive” report by an outfit like the Washington Times. That perhaps they later turned out to be right doesn’t mean it was obvious at the time. Even the National Enquirer gets stories right now and then.
But there is a history of media outlets using the AR15 as their poster assult weapon for promoting more gun control for law-abiding owners. There is a history of gun control laws being still be ignored by criminals. There is a history of many media outlets continuing to concentrate on demonizing firearm owners and groups like the NRA in order to promote another attempt to ban firearms from law-abiding owners and users. There is a history of media outlets ignoring that bombs were also used by many crazy/violent monsters during their mass murders. ABC has produced out right lies (aka “news” stories) confusing semi-auto and full-auto firearms. The race-baiting NBC/MSNBC repeatedly holds inanimate firearms “responsible” for the actions of mentally ill monsters who personally chose to murder others.
The news-readers and editors hired/chosen to present “the news” are mostly anti-2nd, anti-firearms, anti-firearm owners. I have to consider the possibility that one of the reasons they were hired was because of their anti-right to bear arms viewpoint (or willingness to promote an anti-right to bear arms agenda).
Bottom line - There should have been NO mention of an AR15 in connection with the Navy Yard debacle. None. And yet it some became “news”??? Who should bear the responsibility for making the non-existent AR15 part of the story? Who should make the effort to clear their own names for getting the story wrong? Who is saying that this yet-another-media-cockup isn’t a big deal?
You’re putting the blame on the wrong party. Your beef is with the cops. I can’t imagine a reporter not mentioning the AR15 when they hear this from “two senior law enforcement officials:”
Even **Bricker **seems not to fault the NYT for publishing the story, but simply for not correcting it fast enough. As I pointed out earlier, it’s not clear how fast they actually knew the true facts. A story in the Washington Times certainly wouldn’t be enough to publish a correction.
And, now that I dig into these articles a bit deeper, it seems that perhaps Virginia law is the reason this shooter didn’t get to buy the AR15.
Wow. You are certainly bending over backwards to grant them every conceivable out, eh?
Not only did the Washington Times publish the story, but their senior editor directly contacted the NYT that same day, providing the correct information and asking the NYT to correct their story.
Gosh, Bricker, you seem to have slipped quietly away from your stern refusal to engage with me. It would appear that is based mostly on your determination that you have a winning point.
Oherwise, why is it that asking for a cite for your assertion that “most reporters fall squarely in the Procrustus school” arouses your pious refusal to debate with a hypocrite, and this one does not? From here, it looks like you don’t actually have any such proof, and ducked down a trap-door into a hidey-hole. I think so, and remain in that conviction “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”.
But when you think you’ve got the goods, you can be quite forgiving. Well, OK, now that I am redeemed, do you, in fact have any proof for this assertion? I remind: “…most reporters fall squarely in the Procrustus school…”.
And you may correct where I’m mistaken, but isn’t your parade of citation simply a repeat of the same citations you have already offered in your Quixotic quest to pillory the “liberal media” over a relatively puny error?
I do not have a biodiesel Prius to lose. You might angle for my bicycle (Goodwill, five dollars) with my blessing, I have a vested interest in keeping you healthy. Not only is it good* karma*, it insures that you will be available to make fun of.
You can have my dog outright, if you can assure me that you will keep him in that manner to which he has become accustomed. Which includes a beer habit of roughly a case a week. (No Coors, he is a very particular beast, and in firm solidarity with proletariat pooches worldwide). Be advised that he is scruffy, lazy and stupid, with a methane production that has aroused the attention of the EPA. He also has many less appealing characteristics. He won’t hunt. He might watch you hunt, if it doesn’t involve too much exertion.
Nope. The provisions spoken of there are not part of Virginia law. Wrong again. Federal law, 18 USC 922, is applicable, but it also does not require shipping to his home state. Why do you keep desperately trying to make some part of it true? (Well, I know why… but I’m curious what you’ll answer.)
By the way, this Wonkette column takes the false story and uses it to make exactly the argument I suggested would be made. No sign of any corrections there, either.
See how these things start to take on a life on their own?
The story was essentially true. He wasn’t “refused” when he tried to purchase the AR15, but apparently didn’t have two IDs or didn’t want to wait to get his gun, so he decided to get something else. Thus, the VA law was effective to some degree.
And BTW, do you really think the NYT would care what a senior editor at the Washington Times thinks?
Nope. it’s because the point of contention (“This was only the NYT…”) was raised by Truman Burbank, not you.
You, I’ll provide supporting cites to when the cows come home. Those cows being your supporting cites to me from this thread. You had nothing, refused to admit it, and bailed with the incredibly lame excuse that you were’t going to provide cites because I didn’t deserve it. That’s my on-going answer to you.
Wait a tick. You mean that Federal law would have delayed the purchase but your whole beef is because that isn’t Virginia law? That can’t be it. Tell us that isn’t it.
I cannot advise you more sincerely to avoid Wonkette, as well as Daily Kos, ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo. I tremble in horror at the harvest of pungent debating points you would gather if you should read those sources on a regular basis. Please, please, don’t do that! Anything but that!
The NYT should certainly care enough to spend three minutes checking Virginia law. This was a factual matter – I can see the NYT sniffing dismissively at some sort of a journalistic standards argument from the far-beneath-their-mightiness Washington Times, but this was a simple factual statement easy to independently check.
And the business about how he tried to buy it is also completely false.
But uncorrected. And you bought it. Which goes further towards proving my point. They still report, falsely, that there was an attempt, and you believe it, hook, line, and sinker, even though you already know they fucked up other details. See how pervasive their little “unimportant” errors are? See how well they work?
Ah, I see, it only appears to be convenient. Yes, of course you have a cite for “most reporters fall squarely in the Procrustus school”, you simply refuse to lower yourself to provide it.
The news-readers and editors hired/chosen to present “the news” are mostly anti-2nd, anti-firearms, anti-firearm owners. I have to consider the possibility that one of the reasons they were hired was because of their anti-right to bear arms viewpoint (or willingness to promote an anti-right to bear arms agenda).
And I would suppose, after considering the possibility, that it is unlikely there is an industry-wide habit of consideration of the employee’s 2nd amendment beliefs is during the hiring process.
Cite? For either the ‘fact’ presented in the first sentence, or the hypothesis raised in the second?
No. Federal law merely requires that the transaction be in person – that is, the buyer and the seller are face to face – and that the transfer be legal in both states. Another desperate attempt (“Please, please, let me find something true that I can hang my hat on!!”) but no dice. Federal law does not prevent such a sale either. And in fact, under federal law, both the rifle and the shotgun are treated the same: any federal law that would have stopped the rifle sale would also stop the shotgun sale.
I guess I’ll end it where we began. How do you know it’s completely false? The reports have been all over the map. It just might be that those “two senior law enforcement officials” were right after all.
Nope. it’s because the point of contention (“This was only the NYT…”) was raised by Truman Burbank, not you.
(snip)
That was a pretty selective snip, counselor. The fuller quote was:
You contend, then, that ‘the media’ (that counts, not Fox etc) didn’t correct their reporting, so, AHA, proof of an underlying agenda.
Except, of course, (plenty/most/everyone but the NYT) of the media did correct their reporting of the facts as they went along (cites plentiful throughout the thread), although sometimes not specifically under a “Corrections” heading.
Now you seem to be left with “well, but it was anemic”.
You could uncover 5 instances of egregious misreporting/failing to adequately correct the “Virginia statute” part of the story, and I still wouldn’t concede that you had thereore established clearly the sweeping “anti-AR-15 bias” of 'the media".
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence, and all that. Even if you established that the NYTimes had such a bias, found ‘smoking gun’ documents proving the same, your larger thesis regarding “the media” would be speculative, not confirmed.
Ah! This time the reason not to answer is because its a “strawman”. What a wide array of firm principles you have to stand upon, climb down from, and then stand upon again!
Are you effing kidding me? I was *directly quoting *another poster (Doorhinge,#202), and inviting them to support their assertions, and from that you are going to accuse ME of constructing a strawman? Either you have an inability to read for comprehension, or you don’t know what a strawman is.