Weekend amusement

[Mark Rippetoe]

Did they break the law? Is it legal for a private individual to purchase a long gun across state lines from another individual without a background check?

[almostfree]

I have not (and will not) see the film, but from what he has written it appears as though that they broke the law. I have not disputed that in any way.

That being said, the author goes to great lengths to explain the pertinent federal law concerning out of state firearms purchases. My point is that despite the effort, his statements are not totally correct and there is no reason they shouldn't be. Since a rifle (the bushmaster) was one of the purchases, and that particular rifle is under fire for being some kind of kid killing machine, I think an accurate statement regarding the purchase of rifles out state would make the article better.

[Kitsuma]

The OP was about Couric and her "team" of people-who-would-be-in-jail-were-they-not-in-the-media. You have successfully confused the issue.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[ud2o]

Mark, you probably remember a similar situation w/ David Gregory on Meet The Press a few years ago following Sandy Hook (I think). Very similar.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Precisely the same situation, but this time the venue is different, and that may actually make a difference. If not, it will demonstrate that leftists are just not subject to federal firearms statutes.

[Brian Harlin]

Infuriating. They broke federal law multiple times, while making a movie that's purpose is to argue need for more laws.

Perhaps our outrage needs to be more focused on law enforcement. A zoo shoots a gorilla because a child is in the pen. Public outrage and online petitions leads to rumors of police looking at possibly investigating the parents for charges of neglect. So activist outrage focused on law enforcement triggers a response.
Though I wonder if the leaked rumors of investigation are just to placate the outraged because I can't imagine any charges will actually be leveled.

We on the right tend to roll our eyes, shrug, get pissed and complain amongst ourselves. At least it seems that we are much less effective at pressuring for change (or justice in this case) than the more effective activist left.

[ud2o]

In fairness, they're not really accountable for anything. When intentions are good, outcomes don't matter. The blood in Chicago's streets confirms as much specific to the issue at hand.

[thedude47111]

We on the right tend to roll our eyes, shrug, get pissed and complain amongst ourselves. At least it seems that we are much less effective at pressuring for change (or justice in this case) than the more effective activist left.

People on the right are often effective. Republicans/conservatives own the House of Representatives and have a huge influence on what happens in the U.S.. There are more conservative governors than liberal governors. Until recently the Supreme Court could be counted on to be conservative on many key issues. Beginning with Reagan there have been more Republican presidencies than Democratic presidencies. When looking at third party candidates, people mention Gary Johnson. They never mention Jill Stein from the Green Party.

[Brian Harlin]

People on the right are often effective. Republicans/conservatives own the House of Representatives and have a huge influence on what happens in the U.S.. There are more conservative governors than liberal governors. Until recently the Supreme Court could be counted on to be conservative on many key issues. Beginning with Reagan there have been more Republican presidencies than Democratic presidencies. When looking at third party candidates, people mention Gary Johnson. They never mention Jill Stein from the Green Party.

I was speaking more about activism in regards to effecting change not results of elections.

Who are those talking about third party candidates? The only ones I see doing so are people on the right. Why would they ponder a Green Party candidate when the Libertarian Party is a natural choice? For reasons that are beyond me, the left seems content with their candidates (while Bernie is still in it at least).

[thedude47111]

I was speaking more about activism in regards to effecting change not results of elections.

Who are those talking about third party candidates? The only ones I see doing so are people on the right. Why would they ponder a Green Party candidate when the Libertarian Party is a natural choice? For reasons that are beyond me, the left seems content with their candidates (while Bernie is still in it at least).

But activism is successful when the activists actually get into office. The left has Bernie and that's about it. The Tea Party and some libertarians have gotten involved in local and state politics in a way which puts the left to shame. And to your point, leftists who aren't content with voting for Hillary in the general aren't talking about voting for Jill Stein. They're talking about sitting out the election! Maybe it's a case of the grass being greener on the other side, but right now I would rather have the organization of conservative activists than leftist activists.