# Gun grabbing hypocrite writer gets in trouble



## Grenadier (Jul 20, 2007)

Interesting article...  The guy is a gun control advocate, insists on having more laws in place, arranges for unlawful straw purchases, and complains when he gets busted...

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07/20/the_atf__me/


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 20, 2007)

Like many in his camp, he is not especially gifted with a surfeit of brains, and they always seem completely shocked when the consequences of their actions catch them up.

Karma is a mother****er.


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 20, 2007)

Doing illegal things (straw purchases) does not justify his attempts to "prove" how easy guns are obtained.  He is missing the point that those who are *legally* permitted to purchase (as indicated by the quote below):



> but it took Belair, a New Hampshire resident and licensed gun owner, less than 20 minutes to complete the purchase of a trashy little .38-caliber revolver, perfect for a night out in Dorchester.


Of course, it should be easy for Mr. Belair to get the gun--he passed the "test" first when he became licensed.

The problem here is not with the purchases nor with having kids coming in free to gun shows (and kids couldn't purchase firearms, etc., anyway).  The problem here is whether Mr. Bailey was willing to follow the law, which evidently he didn't, when he gave Mr. Belair the Globe's money to make the purchase (straw purchases).  He still thinks he didn't do anything wrong here.  Had Mr. Bailey tried to make the purchase himself, he would have found that it would take him longer (without a license) than it did with Mr. Belair.  So what does this prove?  Gun shows still have to follow federal purchasing rules.

(Shaking my head)

- Ceicei


----------



## SKB (Jul 20, 2007)

The stunt proved he could get some attention and that is what the paper wants. "MAN TRICKS SYSTEM TO GET GUN ILLEGALY" What ever makes a flash and gets someone to read the paper. Now he will act like a victim and say the ATF should have better thing to do then pick on him!!!!

"A Mr. Police!!! (as he waves his arms and jumps up and down) I have done something which could be illegal! Here is the information you need to stop other people from doing it!..................... WHAT? You can't use that information against me!"


----------



## K31 (Jul 22, 2007)

Like most of the arguments from his side the author's is filled with emotional ones, not rational ones. The reason kids get in free to the gunshow is that they are being proselytized like the tobacco industry huh? It couldn't be that like smart businessmen the gunshow owners decided they could get better attendance if parents didn't have to find sitters for their kids to attend thus increasing the shows attendance, no, never. 

If the ATF came and took your firearm, left you free, and gave you a receipt to boot, then you are indeed in rare company for those who have had their firearms taken. Ask the people of New Orleans.

Finally, I have no problem with someone who got convicted of tax-evasion and only tax-evasion, who has been punished having his rights restored. What exactly does the author fear this guy will do? Use a 1040 for target practice?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 22, 2007)

On the one hand, I am semi-for gun control (no one outsdie the military needs a 50 cal, lets be reasonable. On the other hand, if I worked at a conveneit store, you'd better expect that i'm going to have me a fire arm). But, this guy is what I like to call an IDIOT! Someone please, please, please SLAP this idiot!
Besides, guns dont kill people. People kill people. (common sense)
And "if guns kill people, can i blame spelling errors on my pencil" - 'Larry the Cable Guy'


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 24, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> On the one hand, I am semi-for gun control (no one outsdie the military needs a 50 cal, lets be reasonable.
> ...


 
heh...don't presume to claim the status of reasonable or objective when you make statements like that.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 24, 2007)

That's another thing that gets me, this fallacy that the right to bear arms is, or was ever, based on a matter of "need". 

It isn't called the Bill of Needs.

Just as no one has any business telling me how many calories i need, *I* will decide what is or is not good enough for the defense of my self/family.


----------



## SKB (Jul 25, 2007)

There trying to take the guns, they already wont let me smoke so guess what is next.............. your calories!!!!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 25, 2007)

They can have my Double Quarter Pounder when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!


----------



## Blindside (Jul 25, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> On the one hand, I am semi-for gun control (no one outsdie the military needs a 50 cal, lets be reasonable.


 
Speak for yourself, I need a .50 cal.

Do you know how resistant zombies are to 223 and 308?


----------



## OUMoose (Aug 15, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Speak for yourself, I need a .50 cal.
> 
> Do you know how resistant zombies are to 223 and 308?



I prefer the Molotov Cocktail/chainsaw combination personally, but the .50 does have a nice punch when you catch them juuuuuuuuuuust right. 

/humor off


----------



## grydth (Aug 15, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> On the one hand, I am semi-for gun control (no one outsdie the military needs a 50 cal, lets be reasonable. On the other hand, if I worked at a conveneit store, you'd better expect that i'm going to have me a fire arm). But, this guy is what I like to call an IDIOT! Someone please, please, please SLAP this idiot!
> Besides, guns dont kill people. People kill people. (common sense)
> And "if guns kill people, can i blame spelling errors on my pencil" - 'Larry the Cable Guy'



Respectfully, exactly what we do not need in The Land of The Free is an encroaching goverment deciding for us what we need.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 17, 2007)

Every so often, someone calling for the banning of firearms seems to get caught breaking firearm laws like in this case.

I can understand the reason. People want dangerous weapons out of the hands of idiots and criminals. Since it would be  hard to administer a test for common sense or intent, their answer is to keep them out of everyone who might fit that description.

But they (mostly) would not have a problem with the police having them, since police are not criminals and are probably out of a job if they prove to be an idiot.

By the same token, no one ever considers themself an idiot or a criminal. Even the people in jail will tell you that they are good people forced into bad action _and they honestly believe it!_

So since the intent of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and they are not that, then it is ok for _them_ to do as they like. In their minds, they don't plan on robbing a liquor store- but they don't trust many others. They can only tell their intention and they know it to be honorable.

In areas and times when alchohol was banned, people who called for the banning were sometimes caught drinking after the laws were passed. It is the same principle. Some people abuse alchohol and ruin their lives, their families and sometimes harm or kill others. The people calling for the ban thought that they themselves were not in danger of binge drinking and causing harm, so they saw no problem with partaking of stuff they denied others.

And yes, it smacks of being a hypocrite. It is human nature to think that you run society based on what the lowest, most evil person could do to abuse the system and bend the rules when you know that they do not apply. And no one thinks of themselves as being the lowest and most evil.


----------

