Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 118. (Read 450551 times)

How many individuals who have a license for their firearm have intentionally shot innocent people? The shootings are by individuals usually who obtain firearms illegally. Restrictive laws will only disarm the law abiding citizens, making us more likely to become victims of a crime.

9th Circuit: Americans Have No Right To Concealed Carry A Gun Outside Home



The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is ruling in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement, saying the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed gun in public.

On February 13 2014 Breibart News reported that a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s “good cause” requirement. Thereafter–under pressure from State Attorney Kamala Harris–the court announced that it would rehear the case en banc. Today that en banc ruling resulted in the “good cause” requirement being upheld and Americans being told they have not right to carry a concealed gun in public.

The case–PERUTA V. CTY. OF SAN DIEGO–was filed by concealed permit applicants who think the “good cause” requirement infringed their Second Amendment rights in San Diego and Yolo Counties. On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit panel sided with the Plaintiffs, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense. Moreover, that it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted from Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s majority opinion, in which he emphasized that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

But the en banc ruling went in the opposite direction, upholding the “good cause” requirement and unequivocally stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed gun outside the home for self-defense. Writing in the majority opinion, Judge Williams Fletcher said, “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”


http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/06/09/9th-circuit/

In my part of the world, access to a gun is difficult and we see one of the least number of murder and violence. Even the police have limited access to guns. And it's really difficult for us to think about a gun pro society. The thought of people freely carrying gun is weird for us.

Some evidence exists to support your hypothesis RE the "Fast and Furious" program.  And for F&F, it's not fair to say "The State" when you can point directly to Obama's AG and Hillary pushing the lies.

But it appears the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories have no rational basis

....In fact they declined so much that, like terrorism, the state is having to try real hard to created enough problems to make people concerened.  They even have to go so far as to fabricate events (a-la Sandy Hook.)

I think the way we can reduce on gun control would be on the limitation of bullets for 1 ownership.

So less bullets - limiting peoples when they do fire a gun. It may not sound like much, but if a school shooter was limited to bullets start with it would be less deaths.

Katie, get your gun lawyer.

By now you’ve probably heard about Katie Couric’s new anti-gun documentary “Under The Gun,” and how her producer doctored video of interviews with gun owners in order to make them look stupid and heartless. Couric’s producer and director, Stephanie Soechtig, admitted to doctoring the video, and Couric herself kinda sorta apologized for it.



But that’s not the worst thing that happened with the making of this documentary. It turns out that Couric’s production team deliberately conspired to violate federal gun laws. According to video obtained by Ammoland, a shooting sports news website, one of Couric’s producers deliberately committed at least four separate felonies by purchasing four separate firearms across state lines without a background check.

In the video, Soechtig openly admits that she directed one of her employees to purchase guns across state lines, and that he absolutely followed her orders:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/03/katie-courics-anti-gun-producers-repeatedly-violated-federal-gun-laws/


-------------------------------------
The producer is in more trouble than couric I would think?

Well for me guns should be controlled because it was sometimes used to harm others Although I believe that gun control will not work.
Gun control will not work because we already had something like it a few times and each time it has failed. Remember the Prohibition? From 1919 till 1933 owning, producing, and selling alcohol was illegal. Some people believed that alcohol was a bad thing and that it caused people to do terrible things. To these people it seemed like a good idea at the time to make alcohol illegal.

I think she's central in the "aiding and abetting" of those criminal activities.

In fact the only ethical thing for such as Couric and her producer is to require themselves to be found guilty of not controlling guns per state and federal statutes.  As gun control advocates, I am sure they understand the need that they be imprisoned.

Or they are just prostitutes for the latest cause of the left, which the rules of said cause would not apply to them?

....
The producer is in more trouble than couric I would think?

Next:  Couric's adventures in women's prison as personal bitch of the white supremicist gang leader.

....    What does that mean? It means that a producer who resides in Colorado cannot legally buy a gun in Arizona unless that gun is shipped to an FFL in Colorado, whereby that FFL confirms that the Colorado resident can legally own that firearm.

So driven by their anti-Second Amendment agenda it looks like Couric and her team were willing to not only violate journalistic ethics but also federal law......

Katie Couric: On second thought, I can see why that highly deceptive edit in our gun-control movie might be misleading










Last week, when gun-rights advocates first cried foul, she sniffed that she was “very proud” of the film. Now, in a statement posted this morning, she’s claiming the edit bothered her too the first time she watched it. What happened?

Here’s a safe bet. So long as it was only activists on the right who were criticizing her, Couric and her team could shrug it off and refuse to address the edit. They’ll wear the attacks from “gun nuts” like a badge of honor, no matter how meritorious they are; it’s good PR for a movie about gun control. Once “respectable” media echoed the criticism, though, it risked undermining the moral authority of the film, which is the whole point of gun-control propaganda. A critique of the media-political class from the right isn’t credible until someone from the class itself validates it. The same dynamic explains why the New York Times’s story last week about the controversy ran under the headline, “Audio of Katie Couric Interview Shows Editing Slant in Gun Documentary, Site Claims.” There was no need for that last bit. The Times could have checked the work of Stephen Gutowski and the Washington Free Beacon in five minutes and declared as a matter of plain fact that the footage had been edited deceptively. They felt obliged to hedge by noting that this is merely what the Free Beacon “claims” only because the Beacon is a right-wing site and thus is presumed untrustworthy until someone not of the right has vouched for it.

    As Executive Producer of “Under the Gun,” a documentary film that explores the epidemic of gun violence, I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). My question to the VCDL regarding the ability of convicted felons and those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun, was followed by an extended pause, making the participants appear to be speechless.

    When I screened an early version of the film with the director, Stephanie Soechtig, I questioned her and the editor about the pause and was told that a “beat” was added for, as she described it, “dramatic effect,” to give the audience a moment to consider the question. When VCDL members recently pointed out that they had in fact immediately answered this question, I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.

    VCDL members have a right for their answers to be shared and so we have posted a transcript of their responses here. I regret that those eight seconds were misleading and that I did not raise my initial concerns more vigorously.

“Dramatic effect,” huh? I didn’t realize it until I read this Examiner post but it turns out other Couric productions have also allegedly used creative editing to falsely suggest that Katie stumped an interviewee who was on the wrong side of an issue. From an account of Couric’s 2004 production “Fed Up”:

    “I am told from others who have seen the film that a clip is shown in which I am asked a question about how one would ideally test whether sugar sweetened beverages contribute to obesity, and that I ask for a few moments to collect my thoughts; after showing me think for about 10 seconds, the camera cuts away before I give my answer,” says Allison, who hasn’t seen the film. “If this is the case, the film-makers’ behavior seems counter to thoughtful dialogue. To ask me a question and edit out the answer, and I did answer every question, shows a lack of interest in a discussion of the evidence.”

Precisely. The “stump the chump” edit is what you do when you want to make the subject look like an imbecile for opposing the conventional liberal position, not when you’re interested in a discussion. (That’s why “The Daily Show” loves it.) I was curious about Couric’s “dramatic pause” defense, though, so I asked Gutowski, who’s seen the entire film, whether the full exchange with the VCDL members appears at any point. After all, a “dramatic pause” between question and answer would involve extra time being added between the two to create the illusion that the question was difficult for the subject. If the answer is never shown, however, that’s not a pause. That’s a full redaction, implying that the subject was unable to answer the question at all. According to Gutowski, the film never returns to the exchange with the VCDL members to show their responses. Which means, even in damage-control mode, Couric’s being misleading about what the editors actually did and why.

Her best defense, frankly, may be that this is SOP by filmmakers who favor gun control when interviewing subjects who don’t. Via Becket Adams, here’s a few minutes of footage from the segment in “Under the Gun” that features the VCDL members. Note the bombastic operatic music at the beginning designed to mock their enjoyment of shooting at the range.




http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/31/katie-couric-on-second-thought-i-can-see-why-that-highly-deceptive-edit-in-our-gun-control-movie-might-be-misleading/