Gun Grabbing Group hires actors to fake video, violates NY guns laws in process

[theDoctorisIn]

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

That's the whole point of the thread. Welcome to the thread?

Well, then - make your point.

Why does it matter?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

Better question is who gave them the funding for a such a lucrative hoax?

I imagine they got the money from people who have donated to their organization.

That's generally how 501c3s fund their projects.

 

[Pogo]

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

Better question is who gave them the funding for a such a lucrative hoax?

What makes you think it's "lucrative"?
You mean because Alex Jones is making money off it?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

That's the whole point of the thread. Welcome to the thread?

Well, then - make your point.

Why does it matter?

We have. The Strawman dilemma was already brought up directly by another poster, although he should not have needed to state it, since the problem was obvious.

You're deliberately trolling this thread. Thanks for keep it bumped for the 10-0 vote.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

That's the whole point of the thread. Welcome to the thread?

Well, then - make your point.

Why does it matter?

We have. The Strawman dilemma was already brought up directly by another poster, although he should not have needed to state it, since the problem was obvious.

You're deliberately trolling this thread. Thanks for keep it bumped for the 10-0 vote.

So the "scandal" is that an anti-gun group used a strawman argument in an anti-gun ad? The rules of informal logic are the basis for your outrage? That is interesting to think about, but you know you're not really one to talk about strawmen, right?

Just for reference, "trolling" isn't defined as "disagreeing with you", and I couldn't care less about how posters vote in your poll. I "bump" the thread because I'm in the midst of a discussion in it - and if you get your validation from posters voting in online polls, I don't know what to tell you, other than that you're taking the internet a little too seriously.

 

[Pogo]

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

That's the whole point of the thread. Welcome to the thread?

Well, then - make your point.

Why does it matter?

We have. The Strawman dilemma was already brought up directly by another poster, although he should not have needed to state it, since the problem was obvious.

You're deliberately trolling this thread. Thanks for keep it bumped for the 10-0 vote.

You have a severely inflated opinion of your "polls" as well.

How many do you think (like me) passed on voting in your "poll" because it's a stupid question?
Oh wait -- there's no way to measure that.
You don't have a "poll" up there -- you have an echo chamber.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Just for reference, "trolling" isn't defined as "disagreeing with you",

You have yet to disagree with anyone. You've been pretending you can't understand what we're saying (aka trolling). You have yet to even declare what you believe they made this video for.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just for reference, "trolling" isn't defined as "disagreeing with you",

You have yet to disagree with anyone. You've been pretending you can't understand what we're saying (aka trolling). You have yet to even declare what you believe they made this video for.

Actually, I have - numerous times.

I believe "they" (States United Against Gun Violence, a 501c3 pro-gun control non-profit) made this video as an anti-gun ad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You didn't answer my question.

Because your question doesn't make any sense.

That's just a dodge; we both know it makes perfect sense.
But, I'll ask differently.
They want to make a point.
To do that, they create a straw man.
What does using a straw man to support a point to do the soundness of said point?

The "soundness" of their point is not what we're discussing.
The "scandal" of how they made their point is the topic of this thread.

Uh.huh.
Well, to that point, I can only restate my original response:
More proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

My experience has shown that the loons on either side of the gun issue argue only from emotion, ignorance and dishonesty.

So long as we understand that you agree with me.

 

[legaleagle_45]

What it means is that certain people will present a false message in order to advance their agenda.

What "false message" are you talking about?

The false message prominently displayed in the beginning of the ad that they used a "hidden cameras captured gun buyers reactions"

They were not gun buyers, they were actors.

Then they proceeded to claim the were "first time gun buyers"

Then they stated they "opened a gun shop in NYC". It was not a gun shop.

Then they stated "with hundreds of guns". They were not guns they were props.

They then said the "all the guns had a history" . Since they were not guns, they did not.

And that was in the first 25 seconds of a 3 minute spot.

Want more?

Tell me -- do you actually believe there's a real woman named Flo working in the Progressive Insurance building handing out policies in little white boxes too?

Nope,... did the Progressive commercial begin with a statement that it was a real insurance office and that the persons coming in were recorded with hidden cameras to see there reaction as first time insurance buyers?

Far as I know they haven't used that particular script. But I have seen her hand out insurance in little white boxes. Do you believe insurance is packaged in little white boxes?

Oh and those guys that plainly claimed to be from the rival insurance companies ---- are you about to tell me those were actors??

Did the progressive ad ever have a write up in the Washington Post which claimed that the agents from the rival insurance company were real insurance agents?

Why this Manhattan gun store didn t actually sell guns - The Washington Post

From the Washington Post story:

“The people who came in were actually seriously considering buying a gun,” Barrett said. “We thought that showing the guns and their histories and getting people to think twice about owning a firearm would be an instructive thing to experience.”

"And with that, the experiment began…

"Numerous customers walked into the store, Barrett said, most seeking a gun for self-protection."....

 

[legaleagle_45]

Instead, they were.....?

Making a statement.

Which was....?

"Guns are bad", I guess.

And, is your statement made better or worse when you have to make up circumstances in order to make said statement?

ah but they're not made up --- those histories attached to the firearms are in fact accurate... those events did in fact happen.

Actually, at least one of the histories is false. Do you know which one?

 

[legaleagle_45]

The false message that weasely manginas go shopping for guns but change their minds as soon as they are presented with a strawman

That wasn't the "message".

They were not trying to fool anyone into thinking they were a "real" gun store - there are no "real" gun stores in New York City.

Then why did they lie and say they did open a gun stor in New York? For fun and everyone was supposed to know it was fake and that everyone knew they were lying?

You really believe that?

Yes.

This was the storefront in Soho:

Do you really think anyone would mistake that for a real gun shop?

People who believe that "assault weapons are fully automatic weapons and that if you coat bullets with teflon that they will become cop killer bullets and that Glocks are invisible to Airport X-Ray machines...

Of course they intended people to think it was a real gun shop

No, they didn't.

There are no "real" gun shops in NYC.

If they did not intend for people to believe it was a real gun shop, why did they claim that

“The people who came in were actually seriously considering buying a gun,”

When they were interviewed for a story in the Washington Post? Is the Washington Post foolish for believing them or do you suppose that the Washington Post was merely playing along and wrote the story in their newspaper as a gag?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Imagine, if the pro-life crowd opened up a fake abortion clinic and responded to those interested in an abortion with pictures of aborted babies

 

[legaleagle_45]

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

Better question is who gave them the funding for a such a lucrative hoax?

I imagine they got the money from people who have donated to their organization.

That's generally how 501c3s fund their projects.

It is a subsidary of CeaseFire which obtains (or at least did obtain) almost all of its financing from the Joyce Foundation. However, that is based upon 990's from 2012, I would not be surprised if they received a whole bunch of funding from one of Bloomberg's shell companies now.

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?

Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.

Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.

The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

Really?

Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Point conceded.

In fact Jovino looks somewhat like the Fake Gun Shop at issue and it is located at 183 Grand St, New York, NY 10013

 

[Pogo]

Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?

Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.

Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.

The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.

Oh my GOD. The basstids!

Oh wait....

​

Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

Really?

Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.

---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??

Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?

Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?

 

[BluesLegend]

Some liberals lie and fabricate because they can't win an argument otherwise, plus they are lying lowlife scum to begin with.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?

Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.

Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.

The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.

Oh my GOD. The basstids!

Oh wait....

​

Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

Really?

Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.

---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??

Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?

Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?

Did the makers of any of those commercials ever have an interview with the Washington Post claiming that the commercial involved the actual reactions of real buyers?

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you guys believe the woman in the ad is not an actress, and is actually having her house broken into in the above video?

Don't play ignorant. The difference is extremely obvious - the OP video claims quite directly to be genuine and contain actual buyers. That was false. They use 'hidden' cameras and a completely false gun store.

Essentially they DIRECTLY lied.

The video you link to does noting of the sort. It is a clear dramatization. If it had been prefaced with 'hidden' cameras catching a real criminal then you might have a point.

Oh my GOD. The basstids!

Oh wait....

​

Seriously?
Think about it -- all "hidden camera" has to mean is that the cameras are not in plain sight.

So that looks like a "real" gun store to you?

Question: Why would anyone think it's a fake gun store? No one thinks a shop in NYC is fake, especially when the real-estate/rent is mad expensive.

More importantly, why does it matter whether people thought it was "real" or not?

Really?

Because the OP vid clearly tries to send a message that these are real purchasers and that is a direct lie.

---- So do all the commercials posted just above.
...........And??

Do you believe the general (viewing) public --- wherever this spot might be shown --- is so impressionable and bereft of anything like free will that they're going to slavishtly robot out to whatever the Telescreen tells them?

Because if so, that's an awful lot of power; do you therefore advocate for some kind of editorial control authority to regulate media content?

Do you honestly expect a straight answer when you are being so fucking dishonest?

Of course you do – you expect me to swallow the BS that those are comparable when they clearly are not. Try again Pogo – without being so dishonest – or continue to be ignored.