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

[Pete7469]

I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?

I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.

 

[FA_Q2]

I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?

I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.

Because opinion has nothing to do with mod duties.

Really – there is nothing wrong with him becoming a MOD – there is a lot wrong with the continuous idiotic whining that he is one. IF he came down with mod decisions based around opinion (like banning a conservative because he does not like that posters postings or favoring one group over another) then those bemoaning his mod status would have something to stand on but there is no such problems.

You are simply lucky that the rules even allow this because I would (if I were the owner of the site) make it DIRECTLY against the rules to attack a mod’s status – it is not helpful to the health of the site or kind to those that actually DONATE their time to keep this place running smoothly FOR FREE (AFAIK).

I appreciate the mods here even if I think their opinions are those of partisan hacks (this is not in reference to THIS particular mod). Such an opinion does not reduce the job they do here. There are plenty of right winger mods here anyway – it is clear that opinions on the political section of this board is not the dictating factor in modship.

 

[Pete7469]

I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?

I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.

Because opinion has nothing to do with mod duties.

Really – there is nothing wrong with him becoming a MOD – there is a lot wrong with the continuous idiotic whining that he is one. IF he came down with mod decisions based around opinion (like banning a conservative because he does not like that posters postings or favoring one group over another) then those bemoaning his mod status would have something to stand on but there is no such problems.

You are simply lucky that the rules even allow this because I would (if I were the owner of the site) make it DIRECTLY against the rules to attack a mod’s status – it is not helpful to the health of the site or kind to those that actually DONATE their time to keep this place running smoothly FOR FREE (AFAIK).

I appreciate the mods here even if I think their opinions are those of partisan hacks (this is not in reference to THIS particular mod). Such an opinion does not reduce the job they do here. There are plenty of right winger mods here anyway – it is clear that opinions on the political section of this board is not the dictating factor in modship.

Point taken. You're right.

 

[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?

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?

I wouldn't know, but I'd be surprised if they did. We kind of take for granted that when you see a TV commercial spot, the message by definition has a bias and an agenda -- "buy this product", "support this candidate", "give to this charity", etc. It's not exactly a news program.

 

[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?

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.

Just answer the question --- are people (the general public) so completely powerless that they'll simply follow whatever orders the Telescreen gives them, like androids? Because if that's the case, there should be some major head explosions as soon as that Telescreen gives them contradictory info, should there not? In other words do you actually believe potential first-time gun buyers are going to make their decision (either way) based on what some stranger on a TV set decided?

I'm assuming here that your issue with the PSA is that the reactions of the "gun buyers" are scripted rather than personal. If that's not your issue then please clarify.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I wouldn't know, but I'd be surprised if they did. We kind of take for granted that when you see a TV commercial spot, the message by definition has a bias and an agenda -- "buy this product", "support this candidate", "give to this charity", etc. It's not exactly a news program.

I would also be surprised that the maker of the makers of the commercials you provided would perpetuate a falsehood obviously believed by the Washington Post and then specifically lie to them. Them Washington Post reporters sure are gullible, huh?

Now why do you suppose the people who produced this commercial would intentionally lie to those idiots at the Washington Post?

 

[Christophera]

Gun grabbers invent their own facts to make up for the utter lacks of actual facts.

Hah, think what could be done with our opportunity to vote. But that was all by deception, tens of millions dead, economies destroyed, environments ruined, and no facts have to be made up.

Only possible because the PURPOSE of the freedom of speech is abridged.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?

I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.

I stand by my view.
Mods should not be permitted to post their views.
The chances of one or more of them using their authority to squash opinions they may not like is just too great.
I am a firm believer in the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Doc is a mod who has a very short fuse. He gets frustrated at any poster who dares to even so much as question his authority.
I don't care for that.
Also, Doc seem very quick to hurl insults( he's done it to me) at those with which he disagrees.
I don't think that is right either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I understood the question.....You're a mod....Get it?

I just don't understand how that partisan lib hack became a mod.

Because opinion has nothing to do with mod duties.

Really – there is nothing wrong with him becoming a MOD – there is a lot wrong with the continuous idiotic whining that he is one. IF he came down with mod decisions based around opinion (like banning a conservative because he does not like that posters postings or favoring one group over another) then those bemoaning his mod status would have something to stand on but there is no such problems.

You are simply lucky that the rules even allow this because I would (if I were the owner of the site) make it DIRECTLY against the rules to attack a mod’s status – it is not helpful to the health of the site or kind to those that actually DONATE their time to keep this place running smoothly FOR FREE (AFAIK).

I appreciate the mods here even if I think their opinions are those of partisan hacks (this is not in reference to THIS particular mod). Such an opinion does not reduce the job they do here. There are plenty of right winger mods here anyway – it is clear that opinions on the political section of this board is not the dictating factor in modship.

Point taken.
However, I still stand by my opinion that a referee( mod) should show 100% impartiality. And with that, should not hold themselves out as a participant..
If I were a mod, I would never post. Never. In my opinion, it would not be ethical.
Anyway....I'm through with this topic of discussion

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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.

Just answer the question --- are people (the general public) so completely powerless that they'll simply follow whatever orders the Telescreen gives them, like androids? Because if that's the case, there should be some major head explosions as soon as that Telescreen gives them contradictory info, should there not? In other words do you actually believe potential first-time gun buyers are going to make their decision (either way) based on what some stranger on a TV set decided?

I'm assuming here that your issue with the PSA is that the reactions of the "gun buyers" are scripted rather than personal. If that's not your issue then please clarify.

Lets get something straight.
In no way is this video a PSA.
it is a not so carefully crafted program created with the intent of presenting a particular political agenda.

 

[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.

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.

Just answer the question --- are people (the general public) so completely powerless that they'll simply follow whatever orders the Telescreen gives them, like androids? Because if that's the case, there should be some major head explosions as soon as that Telescreen gives them contradictory info, should there not? In other words do you actually believe potential first-time gun buyers are going to make their decision (either way) based on what some stranger on a TV set decided?

I'm assuming here that your issue with the PSA is that the reactions of the "gun buyers" are scripted rather than personal. If that's not your issue then please clarify.

Lets get something straight.
In no way is this video a PSA.
it is a not so carefully crafted program created with the intent of presenting a particular political agenda.

Let's get something straight: yes it is.
Is it selling a product or service? No it isn't. Therefore it's a PSA. Whether you agree with its point or not is irrelevant.

So I never got an answer -- from anyone -- as to why certain POVs should not have a voice. Guess I won't wait.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Let's get something straight: yes it is.
Is it selling a product or service? No it isn't. Therefore it's a PSA. Whether you agree with its point or not is irrelevant.

So I never got an answer -- from anyone -- as to why certain POVs should not have a voice. Guess I won't wait.

They can in fact have a voice, so long as in exercising that voice they do not intentionally try to mislead their intended audience or violate the law in presenting their POV. If they do, we have the right to criticize them for doing so.

 

[Pogo]

Let's get something straight: yes it is.
Is it selling a product or service? No it isn't. Therefore it's a PSA. Whether you agree with its point or not is irrelevant.

So I never got an answer -- from anyone -- as to why certain POVs should not have a voice. Guess I won't wait.

They can in fact have a voice, so long as in exercising that voice they do not intentionally try to mislead their intended audience or violate the law in presenting their POV. If they do, we have the right to criticize them for doing so.

Criticize the message, absolutely.
But silence it?

"Mislead" is entirely subjective. To the extent one does not believe in a product being advertised in a commercial, every commercial is "misleading". Propaganda/persuasion is after all the whole point of such media, whether it's to sell a product, to support (or denounce) a candidate, or to advocate a cause. No one looks at a commercial/PSA spot and thinks they're watching a news program or a moderated debate. Spots are by definition made for some agenda. It's the electronic equivalent of the speaker on the stump, whether he's selling sliced bread or snake oil.

Now if you're selling Acme Widgets, you can't go on video and claim your Widgets can fly or cure cancer or deliver a pizza when they can't, but you can certainly persuade your audience --or try to-- that they should buy your Widgets, even if your Widgets are complete crap. And I suspect we could all find more than a few political ads misleading about some opponent's position.

The question is: does the audience get to make up its own mind as to whether to accept that particular propaganda message or not, or does that message get regulated from above as to what that message may be and what it may not be?

And the second part --- what law was violated?

 

[Pogo]

And btw I read over your WaPo article, which as you note clearly indicates the customers are real, random customers:

“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.
​

-- but what I haven't seen is any definitive proof that said customers were hired actors. Every citation I could find on the internet refers right back to the same source, which is hanging its hat on the single word "actors" in a filming permit, which is an awfully thin wire on which to hang one's rhetorical hat. I've yet to see an indication that "actors" on a legal document means "paid thespians reading a script" and not merely "warm bodies that appear in front of a camera". Seems to me if one is railing about the sanctity of veracity, one might apply that standard to one's own point.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Criticize the message, absolutely.
But silence it?

I am not trying to silence it. I am pointing out that they are lying. I have no ability to silence them.

"Mislead" is entirely subjective.

Not when they lie to Washington Post Reporter and say that the persons in the ad were real 1st time gun buyers. That is a lie-- it is not open to interpretation. Further, it demonstrates their subjective intent to mislead the public with their ad... otherwise why would they lie to the WAPO reporter? For the fun of it?

 

[legaleagle_45]

And btw I read over your WaPo article, which as you note clearly indicates the customers are real, random customers:

So you believe their lie as well? SEE!!

-- but what I haven't seen is any definitive proof that said customers were hired actors. .

From their television permit license issued by the City of New York: "Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store".

A copy of their license to shoot the commercial obtained via a FOI request:

PSA Permit 312

So you think they lied on their license?

 

[Pogo]

And btw I read over your WaPo article, which as you note clearly indicates the customers are real, random customers:

So you believe their lie as well? SEE!!

I don't have an indication that it's a "lie". That's my point. OTOH we do have an indication that they're real people, which is what I quoted.

Again, an internet search returns only info on the clerk-actor, and how he worked in something called "GTA" ---- but not a word about any other actor. Just the one. Which, since the whole store and its merchandise are fake and they weren't really selling anything, would be not only unsurprising but required to do that.

And again, EVERYTHING I could find on the internet all pointed back to the same source, the guy who filed a FOIA request and got the permits and chose to riff on the word "actors".

When every source for a theory points back to a single source it's a pretty good indication that you're looking at an echo-ring meme that nobody verified, choosing to run with what they were hoping to believe in the first place. That's not quite good enough. If anybody had any kind of documentation that "actor (name)" played the third "customer", there would be no downside to bringing it out. Yet... no such info.
:

-- but what I haven't seen is any definitive proof that said customers were hired actors. .

From their television permit license issued by the City of New York: "Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store".

A copy of their license to shoot the commercial obtained via a FOI request:

PSA Permit 312

So you think they lied on their license?

I've already read that. I am neither a lawyer nor involved on either side of New York theatrical permits but I have no indication that the word "actors" for the purpose of a filming permit does not mean literally that -- a person who performs action in front of a camera (or onstage) -- as opposed to, say, the Executive Producer or Lighting Director, who do not. You have to read the word "actors" in the broad social-cultural definition in order to reach that conclusion, and that's not exactly a solid foundation. The language of legal documents tends to be technical and precise rather than loose and broad. We would not expect the document to state "customers" --- that would be getting into the plot of the piece, which is not the function of a permit.

And then there's the fact that the OP brought the whole story in from Alex Jones, a source not quite known for its research but very much known for running with phantom fooballs, hence the skepticism in the first place and the need for confirmation. But as far as actual evidence that the statement in WaPo is a "lie", all I have seen is one guy who got the permit, points to a single word and creates a rumor.



What else you got?

 

[Care4all]

It's called freedom of Speech....from what I can tell so far....?

The same people that were defending the guy who released his anti Muslim/Islam/Mohamed video that caused at least 10 riots and protest throughout the middle east and several deaths should know that this too represents freedom of speech, no?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Gun Grabbing Group hires actors to fake video, violates NY guns laws in process..Is this typical of Gun Grabbers?"

This is a typical lie propagated by most on the right, given the fact there is no such thing as a 'gun grabber,' that guns can't be 'grabbed' (2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments), and that there are no laws in place now nor proposed in any jurisdiction authorizing the myth 'gun grabbing.'

This is typical of the ignorance and stupidity of the OP and those who agree with him, that anyone is seeking to 'grab guns,' as the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And this is typical of the OP, who has started yet another ridiculous, failed thread predicated on hyperbolic nonsense and demagoguery.

.

 

[Pogo]

"Gun Grabbing Group hires actors to fake video, violates NY guns laws in process..Is this typical of Gun Grabbers?"

This is a typical lie propagated by most on the right, given the fact there is no such thing as a 'gun grabber,' that guns can't be 'grabbed' (2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments), and that there are no laws in place now nor proposed in any jurisdiction authorizing the myth 'gun grabbing.'

This is typical of the ignorance and stupidity of the OP and those who agree with him, that anyone is seeking to 'grab guns,' as the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And this is typical of the OP, who has started yet another ridiculous, failed thread predicated on hyperbolic nonsense and demagoguery.

And hypocrisy --- here's a guy pretending to get all virtuous about what these customers may be really thinking or not ..... yet he has no hesitation implanting his own set of motives into the group that made the spot.

Having it both ways: Priceless.