Liberal reporter tries to show it’s easy to buy AR-15; did NOT see this coming…

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jul 21, 2009
138,169
76,183
2,645
Headmaster's Office, Hogwarts
This jackass sure got a big surprise when he tried to buy a gun:


Written by Michael Cantrell on June 20, 2016
ar-15-300x180.jpg

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

Liberals in the media have been on the war path against the AR-15 over the last few weeks due to the regenerated gun control debate sparked anew by the Orlando terrorist attack, despite the fact this was not the weapon used in the shooting.

Many major networks and publications have sent out reporters to go “undercover” and attempt to expose the “seedy underbelly” of gun shops across America by showing just how easy it is to purchase one of these weapons.

This is exactly what Chicago Sun-Times reporter Neil Steinberg was on a mission to do when he attempted to buy a Smith & Wesson M & P 15 Sport II semi-automatic rifle from a shop in Des Plaines, Iowa.

However, things didn’t quite go as planned.

TheBlaze reports, Steinberg recalled how the transaction progressed:

When it came time to make the purchase, Rob, the clerk with the tattoos, handed me over to Mike, who gave his name shaking my hand, I gave mine. “The writer?” he said. If I wanted to lie as part of my job, I’d have gone into public relations. “Yes,” I said, explaining that I plan to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police. He suggested I sell it back to them instead and I heartily agreed. Economical. If they would let me photograph myself with it there, the gun need never leave the store.


A reporter in Philadelphia bought an assault rifle in seven minutes; 40 percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have no background checks. Here, I had paperwork. A federal form asking, was I an illegal alien? No. Was I a fugitive? Again no. Had I ever been convicted on charges of domestic abuse? No. Handed over my credit card: $842.50. Another $40 for the instructor to acquaint me with the gun the next day.

Steinberg never got the chance to fire that rifle, though.

He said an employee from the gun shop called at around 5:13 p.m. informing him that his sale was being canceled and money refunded. The reporter was initially not given a reason for the declined sale.

However, Maxon Shooter’s Supplies revealed the reasons behind the decision in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times a few hours later.

“[It] was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife,” the statement reportedly said.

“Well, didn’t see that coming,” Steinberg wrote. “Were that same standard applied to the American public, there would be a whole lot fewer guns sold. Beside, they knew I planned to immediately sell it back to them.”

Yes, the gun shop did its due diligence and prevented someone with a criminal record from purchasing a firearm.

Of course, like any good liberal who had their point busted to pieces by reality, Steinberg made up a little theory of his own about why he was denied the purchase. Get your tin foil hats ready for this one.

Now I’ll state what I believe the real reason is: Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark. Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that’s a different story. Gun makers avoid publicity because the truth is this: they sell tools of death to frightened people and make a fortune doing so. They shun attention because they know, if we saw clearly what is happening in our country, we’d demand change.

A reporter has his whole piece blown apart by the truth, but rather than admit he was wrong, the story gets flipped to a different angle altogether in order to continue pushing misinformation and spread irrational fear of guns.

That’s exactly what you’d expect from a liberal publication dedicated to helping progressives in government continue their crusade against the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, as the country continues to focus on gun control instead of the real culprit responsible for the Orlando attack — radical Islamic terrorism — jihadists across the globe are working up plans for radicalizing the weak-minded and recruiting more individuals to carry out similar attacks on our soil.

It seems as if our government will never learn.

Liberal reporter tries to show how "easy" it is to buy AR-15, didn't expect THIS to happen
 
This jackass sure got a big surprise when he tried to buy a gun:


Written by Michael Cantrell on June 20, 2016
ar-15-300x180.jpg

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

Liberals in the media have been on the war path against the AR-15 over the last few weeks due to the regenerated gun control debate sparked anew by the Orlando terrorist attack, despite the fact this was not the weapon used in the shooting.

Many major networks and publications have sent out reporters to go “undercover” and attempt to expose the “seedy underbelly” of gun shops across America by showing just how easy it is to purchase one of these weapons.

This is exactly what Chicago Sun-Times reporter Neil Steinberg was on a mission to do when he attempted to buy a Smith & Wesson M & P 15 Sport II semi-automatic rifle from a shop in Des Plaines, Iowa.

However, things didn’t quite go as planned.

TheBlaze reports, Steinberg recalled how the transaction progressed:

When it came time to make the purchase, Rob, the clerk with the tattoos, handed me over to Mike, who gave his name shaking my hand, I gave mine. “The writer?” he said. If I wanted to lie as part of my job, I’d have gone into public relations. “Yes,” I said, explaining that I plan to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police. He suggested I sell it back to them instead and I heartily agreed. Economical. If they would let me photograph myself with it there, the gun need never leave the store.


A reporter in Philadelphia bought an assault rifle in seven minutes; 40 percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have no background checks. Here, I had paperwork. A federal form asking, was I an illegal alien? No. Was I a fugitive? Again no. Had I ever been convicted on charges of domestic abuse? No. Handed over my credit card: $842.50. Another $40 for the instructor to acquaint me with the gun the next day.

Steinberg never got the chance to fire that rifle, though.

He said an employee from the gun shop called at around 5:13 p.m. informing him that his sale was being canceled and money refunded. The reporter was initially not given a reason for the declined sale.

However, Maxon Shooter’s Supplies revealed the reasons behind the decision in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times a few hours later.

“[It] was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife,” the statement reportedly said.

“Well, didn’t see that coming,” Steinberg wrote. “Were that same standard applied to the American public, there would be a whole lot fewer guns sold. Beside, they knew I planned to immediately sell it back to them.”

Yes, the gun shop did its due diligence and prevented someone with a criminal record from purchasing a firearm.

Of course, like any good liberal who had their point busted to pieces by reality, Steinberg made up a little theory of his own about why he was denied the purchase. Get your tin foil hats ready for this one.

Now I’ll state what I believe the real reason is: Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark. Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that’s a different story. Gun makers avoid publicity because the truth is this: they sell tools of death to frightened people and make a fortune doing so. They shun attention because they know, if we saw clearly what is happening in our country, we’d demand change.

A reporter has his whole piece blown apart by the truth, but rather than admit he was wrong, the story gets flipped to a different angle altogether in order to continue pushing misinformation and spread irrational fear of guns.

That’s exactly what you’d expect from a liberal publication dedicated to helping progressives in government continue their crusade against the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, as the country continues to focus on gun control instead of the real culprit responsible for the Orlando attack — radical Islamic terrorism — jihadists across the globe are working up plans for radicalizing the weak-minded and recruiting more individuals to carry out similar attacks on our soil.

It seems as if our government will never learn.

Liberal reporter tries to show how "easy" it is to buy AR-15, didn't expect THIS to happen

He answered no to Domestic violence and he was charged for Domestic Violence so right there he was denied.

Also in the state of Illinois it is harder than some think to obtain a firearm and the reporter should have known this. Him being a reporter had nothing to do with him being denied and there is a waiting period in the state while you are processed.

The processing and state laws from state to state are not uniformed and maybe they should be but they are not.

So as the reporter tries to paint the gun shop denying him because of his reporter status I can say I know very well in Illinois it is a lot harder to own a gun than it is here in the state of Texas.

" There is a waiting period to take possession after purchasing a firearm — 72 hours for a handgun, or 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun. For private sales, the seller must verify the buyer's FOID card, and keep a record of the sale for at least 10 years. "
 
This jackass sure got a big surprise when he tried to buy a gun:


Written by Michael Cantrell on June 20, 2016
ar-15-300x180.jpg

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

Liberals in the media have been on the war path against the AR-15 over the last few weeks due to the regenerated gun control debate sparked anew by the Orlando terrorist attack, despite the fact this was not the weapon used in the shooting.

Many major networks and publications have sent out reporters to go “undercover” and attempt to expose the “seedy underbelly” of gun shops across America by showing just how easy it is to purchase one of these weapons.

This is exactly what Chicago Sun-Times reporter Neil Steinberg was on a mission to do when he attempted to buy a Smith & Wesson M & P 15 Sport II semi-automatic rifle from a shop in Des Plaines, Iowa.

However, things didn’t quite go as planned.

TheBlaze reports, Steinberg recalled how the transaction progressed:

When it came time to make the purchase, Rob, the clerk with the tattoos, handed me over to Mike, who gave his name shaking my hand, I gave mine. “The writer?” he said. If I wanted to lie as part of my job, I’d have gone into public relations. “Yes,” I said, explaining that I plan to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police. He suggested I sell it back to them instead and I heartily agreed. Economical. If they would let me photograph myself with it there, the gun need never leave the store.


A reporter in Philadelphia bought an assault rifle in seven minutes; 40 percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have no background checks. Here, I had paperwork. A federal form asking, was I an illegal alien? No. Was I a fugitive? Again no. Had I ever been convicted on charges of domestic abuse? No. Handed over my credit card: $842.50. Another $40 for the instructor to acquaint me with the gun the next day.

Steinberg never got the chance to fire that rifle, though.

He said an employee from the gun shop called at around 5:13 p.m. informing him that his sale was being canceled and money refunded. The reporter was initially not given a reason for the declined sale.

However, Maxon Shooter’s Supplies revealed the reasons behind the decision in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times a few hours later.

“[It] was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife,” the statement reportedly said.

“Well, didn’t see that coming,” Steinberg wrote. “Were that same standard applied to the American public, there would be a whole lot fewer guns sold. Beside, they knew I planned to immediately sell it back to them.”

Yes, the gun shop did its due diligence and prevented someone with a criminal record from purchasing a firearm.

Of course, like any good liberal who had their point busted to pieces by reality, Steinberg made up a little theory of his own about why he was denied the purchase. Get your tin foil hats ready for this one.

Now I’ll state what I believe the real reason is: Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark. Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that’s a different story. Gun makers avoid publicity because the truth is this: they sell tools of death to frightened people and make a fortune doing so. They shun attention because they know, if we saw clearly what is happening in our country, we’d demand change.

A reporter has his whole piece blown apart by the truth, but rather than admit he was wrong, the story gets flipped to a different angle altogether in order to continue pushing misinformation and spread irrational fear of guns.

That’s exactly what you’d expect from a liberal publication dedicated to helping progressives in government continue their crusade against the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, as the country continues to focus on gun control instead of the real culprit responsible for the Orlando attack — radical Islamic terrorism — jihadists across the globe are working up plans for radicalizing the weak-minded and recruiting more individuals to carry out similar attacks on our soil.

It seems as if our government will never learn.

Liberal reporter tries to show how "easy" it is to buy AR-15, didn't expect THIS to happen

He answered no to Domestic violence and he was charged for Domestic Violence so right there he was denied.

Also in the state of Illinois it is harder than some think to obtain a firearm and the reporter should have known this. Him being a reporter had nothing to do with him being denied and there is a waiting period in the state while you are processed.

The processing and state laws from state to state are not uniformed and maybe they should be but they are not.

So as the reporter tries to paint the gun shop denying him because of his reporter status I can say I know very well in Illinois it is a lot harder to own a gun than it is here in the state of Texas.

" There is a waiting period to take possession after purchasing a firearm — 72 hours for a handgun, or 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun. For private sales, the seller must verify the buyer's FOID card, and keep a record of the sale for at least 10 years. "

Here are the laws for Iowa:

Gun laws in Iowa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
This jackass sure got a big surprise when he tried to buy a gun:


Written by Michael Cantrell on June 20, 2016
ar-15-300x180.jpg

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

Liberals in the media have been on the war path against the AR-15 over the last few weeks due to the regenerated gun control debate sparked anew by the Orlando terrorist attack, despite the fact this was not the weapon used in the shooting.

Many major networks and publications have sent out reporters to go “undercover” and attempt to expose the “seedy underbelly” of gun shops across America by showing just how easy it is to purchase one of these weapons.

This is exactly what Chicago Sun-Times reporter Neil Steinberg was on a mission to do when he attempted to buy a Smith & Wesson M & P 15 Sport II semi-automatic rifle from a shop in Des Plaines, Iowa.

However, things didn’t quite go as planned.

TheBlaze reports, Steinberg recalled how the transaction progressed:

When it came time to make the purchase, Rob, the clerk with the tattoos, handed me over to Mike, who gave his name shaking my hand, I gave mine. “The writer?” he said. If I wanted to lie as part of my job, I’d have gone into public relations. “Yes,” I said, explaining that I plan to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police. He suggested I sell it back to them instead and I heartily agreed. Economical. If they would let me photograph myself with it there, the gun need never leave the store.


A reporter in Philadelphia bought an assault rifle in seven minutes; 40 percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have no background checks. Here, I had paperwork. A federal form asking, was I an illegal alien? No. Was I a fugitive? Again no. Had I ever been convicted on charges of domestic abuse? No. Handed over my credit card: $842.50. Another $40 for the instructor to acquaint me with the gun the next day.

Steinberg never got the chance to fire that rifle, though.

He said an employee from the gun shop called at around 5:13 p.m. informing him that his sale was being canceled and money refunded. The reporter was initially not given a reason for the declined sale.

However, Maxon Shooter’s Supplies revealed the reasons behind the decision in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times a few hours later.

“[It] was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife,” the statement reportedly said.

“Well, didn’t see that coming,” Steinberg wrote. “Were that same standard applied to the American public, there would be a whole lot fewer guns sold. Beside, they knew I planned to immediately sell it back to them.”

Yes, the gun shop did its due diligence and prevented someone with a criminal record from purchasing a firearm.

Of course, like any good liberal who had their point busted to pieces by reality, Steinberg made up a little theory of his own about why he was denied the purchase. Get your tin foil hats ready for this one.

Now I’ll state what I believe the real reason is: Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark. Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that’s a different story. Gun makers avoid publicity because the truth is this: they sell tools of death to frightened people and make a fortune doing so. They shun attention because they know, if we saw clearly what is happening in our country, we’d demand change.

A reporter has his whole piece blown apart by the truth, but rather than admit he was wrong, the story gets flipped to a different angle altogether in order to continue pushing misinformation and spread irrational fear of guns.

That’s exactly what you’d expect from a liberal publication dedicated to helping progressives in government continue their crusade against the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, as the country continues to focus on gun control instead of the real culprit responsible for the Orlando attack — radical Islamic terrorism — jihadists across the globe are working up plans for radicalizing the weak-minded and recruiting more individuals to carry out similar attacks on our soil.

It seems as if our government will never learn.

Liberal reporter tries to show how "easy" it is to buy AR-15, didn't expect THIS to happen


If he wants a gun, he can come on down to Texas and buy all the guns he wants. Individuals can legally sell him that gun with no check of any kind. He doesn't need an ID., or even need to tell them his name. You got the cash, you can buy the gun. The first place I would go would be the parking lot of a gun show.
 

Forum List

Back
Top