Debunking 'Under The Gun' - Documentary or Propaganda?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • david890

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 1, 2014
    1,263
    38
    Bloomington

    "Thus, by asking a private party in Arizona to sell the Colorado producer firearms, Ms. Soechtig and her staff induced an otherwise law abiding citizen to commit a federal crime."

    IANAL, but it seems the seller is on the hook under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5) if it can be shown he knew or had a reasonable suspicion ("reasonable" to be determined by a jury) that the producer did not reside in AZ. That is what the law addresses, not the intent or actions of the buyer. I don't think "But they induced me!!" would be a legitimate defense for the seller.

    No indication that I can find he took the rifle out of AZ. I think a conspiracy charge would be hard to prove.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Yeah, but it's not like anyone else has tried such shenanigans before...

    ...and how is that case going?

    "Thus, by asking a private party in Arizona to sell the Colorado producer firearms, Ms. Soechtig and her staff induced an otherwise law abiding citizen to commit a federal crime."

    IANAL, but it seems the seller is on the hook under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5) if it can be shown he knew or had a reasonable suspicion ("reasonable" to be determined by a jury) that the producer did not reside in AZ. That is what the law addresses, not the intent or actions of the buyer. I don't think "But they induced me!!" would be a legitimate defense for the seller.

    No indication that I can find he took the rifle out of AZ. I think a conspiracy charge would be hard to prove.

    The producer knew she did not reside in Arizona. What evidence is there that the seller knew or had reason to know?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Yeah, but it's not like anyone else has tried such shenanigans before...

    Without fail.

    "But Bush..."

    "But they..."

    Equivalence arguments just aren't arguments. We discussed those very "shenanigans" at length in another thread months ago. If you'd like, you can go dig that up (well, unless it was locked) and voice your opinions. Here, in this thread, we're talking about the anti-gun propaganda production Under the Gun.

    ...and how is that case going?

    Well, there's that.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    ...Equivalence arguments just aren't arguments. We discussed those very "shenanigans" at length in another thread months ago. If you'd like, you can go dig that up (well, unless it was locked) and voice your opinions. Here, in this thread, we're talking about the anti-gun propaganda production Under the Gun....

    "Yeah, but look what he did" arguments seldom work for me in court. I mean, not never, but...
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Equivalence arguments work only with the "feelings" crowd. Then again, Obama has appointed how many liberal judges in the past 8 years?
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    Yeah, but it's not like anyone else has tried such shenanigans before...
    look_a_distraction_design_by_eecomics.jpg
     

    david890

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 1, 2014
    1,263
    38
    Bloomington
    ...and how is that case going?

    Charges against the 2 dropped. Planned Parenthood cleared of any wrong-doing.

    What evidence is there that the seller knew or had reason to know?

    None that I know of. My point is that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5) puts the responsibility on the seller, not the buyer. If the seller doesn't ask anything, I'm under no obligation to tell the seller anything. The link in the OP suggested the buyer committed a felony by "inducing" the seller.
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    The Judge's reasoning is interesting;
    “The plaintiffs’ defamation claims fail because the interview scene is not false,” Gibney writes. “Under the Gun portrays members of the VCDL not answering the question posed by Couric. In reality, members of the VCDL did not answer the question posed by Couric. They talked about background checks and gun laws generally, but did not answer the question of how to prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing guns without background checks. The editing simply dramatizes the sophistry of the VCDL members.”

    Had the plaintiff's (VCDL) response been as he characterized then there was no need to edit the footage to insert the silence. If the silence and inability to answer were the response to the question prior to editing then that silence is true. That is not the case. The silence was spliced in, and accordingly is patently false.
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    524,489
    Messages
    9,794,215
    Members
    53,638
    Latest member
    Dhlawson
    Top Bottom