testtest

Yahoo news says the AR Pistol skirts gun laws in regards to the Boulder shooting

KillerFord1977

KillerFord1977

SAINT
Founding Member
Intersting article from yahoo news on AR pistol vs the rifle. Chock full with words of misrepresentation on the firearms, but it appears yahoo and others are confused now that the weapon used is a pistol.

news.yahoo.com

Boulder shooting suspect's gun looked like a rifle. But it's a pistol. Experts worry it's helping people skirt gun laws

The suspect in the Boulder, Colorado shooting bought a Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before the attack at a King Soopers. The gun looks like an AR-15 and uses the same ammunition. But it's legally defined as a pistol.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
That article is packed full of so many lies it’s hilarious. To say that an AR15 Pistol is easier to buy then an AR15 rifle is BULL 💩 Yahoo packed full of a bunch of YAHOOS who probably don’t know the difference between a pistol and rifle anyway.
Quote
“If you shorten up the muzzle, you know the thing the bullet comes out of”
Give me a freaking break.
 
Keystone19250 said:
That article is packed full of so many lies it’s hilarious. To say that an AR15 Pistol is easier to buy then an AR15 rifle is BULL 💩 Yahoo packed full of a bunch of YAHOOS who probably don’t know the difference between a pistol and rifle anyway.
Quote
“If you shorten up the muzzle, you know the thing the bullet comes out of”
Give me a freaking break.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with what you say. Am not thinking article states lies so much as fabrications of the truth or misunderstandings of the facts in how they may understand them?

Firearm regulations cam be so complex even the people who write them don't always understand them. Another good example of why there shouldn't possibly be any firearm laws and regulations? From experience, some people seem to have a tendancy to not pay much or as much attention to things they don't believe in. May sound like strong words, but so are and is 2nd Amendment in regards to fire arm infringements for those who care to abide by or evade them?
 
Yeah USA Today reprint this hot take, of course these are the same imbeciles who claimed a chainsaw bayonet was a common AR accessory a few years back.

www.usatoday.com

Boulder shooting suspect's gun looked like a rifle. But it's a pistol. Experts worry it's helping people skirt gun laws

The suspect in the Boulder, Colorado shooting bought a Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before the attack at a King Soopers. The gun looks like an AR-15 and uses the same ammunition. But it's legally defined as a pistol.
www.usatoday.com
 
BobM said:
I mostly agree with what you say. Am not thinking article states lies so much as fabrications of the truth or misunderstandings of the facts in how they may understand them?

Firearm regulations cam be so complex even the people who write them don't always understand them. Another good example of why there shouldn't possibly be any firearm laws and regulations? From experience, some people seem to have a tendancy to not pay much or as much attention to things they don't believe in. May sound like strong words, but so are and is 2nd Amendment in regards to fire arm infringements for those who care to abide by or evade them?
Click to expand...
Aren't "fabrications of the truth" the same as lies??? And why should reporters write about "misunderstandings of the facts" without checking their facts and doing some background research before reporting false information???

The biggest lie in this article is that it's easier to purchase a pistol than a rifle. Both are subject to the exact same requirements. Fingerprints and background checks are required for both. Yes, a pistol of any kind is easier to purchase than a "short barrel rifle". But to say that any pistol is easier to purchase than a rifle is an outright lie. Intentional or not.

THIS is why the news has been called fake...
 
TacticalPirate said:
Yeah USA Today reprint this hot take, of course these are the same imbeciles who claimed a chainsaw bayonet was a common AR accessory a few years back.

www.usatoday.com

Boulder shooting suspect's gun looked like a rifle. But it's a pistol. Experts worry it's helping people skirt gun laws

The suspect in the Boulder, Colorado shooting bought a Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before the attack at a King Soopers. The gun looks like an AR-15 and uses the same ammunition. But it's legally defined as a pistol.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
Accuracy is lost sometimes in the media?

Firearm regulations can and do vary from state to state. In my state for example, rifles are generally easier to buy than pistols. - Opposite of what's stated in the article. Thing is with local news broadcast over national news many things are distorted, aren't always presented in the same light or with same views in different regions of the country. Then, people who don't know or understand which law applies where broadcast news to others with little regard to who reads what where and may be alarmed. Local things often mean other things in different areas of the country. Some people may forget that? California isn't next to New York city and Texas isn't next door to Florida. Their laws and views all vary.
 
uspatriot1960 said:
Aren't "fabrications of the truth" the same as lies??? And why should reporters write about "misunderstandings of the facts" without checking their facts and doing some background research before reporting false information???

The biggest lie in this article is that it's easier to purchase a pistol than a rifle. Both are subject to the exact same requirements. Fingerprints and background checks are required for both. Yes, a pistol of any kind is easier to purchase than a "short barrel rifle". But to say that any pistol is easier to purchase than a rifle is an outright lie. Intentional or not.

THIS is why the news has been called fake...
Click to expand...
"Aren't "fabrications of the truth" the same as lies???"
Not always, depends on what's written and language used. Different people can interpret things differently depending on what's written and how. As in "how" or "shall" or "may" or "is" or "Possibly" or "Apparent."

Reporters checking facts? Thinking very few go past Google anymore. What's printed on Google is sometimes gospel to some people? Am thinking some reporters need to dig and think deeper. But, from what heard some reporters are also under deadlines and sometimes disregard facts in order to get article published rapidly, get hits and collect payment.

"THIS is why the news has been called fake..." Yup, there's a lot of negligent reporting out there, too much, some forget that part of too much is? Many newspaper "rags" are out of business because of it. That's pretty sad news.
 
uspatriot1960 said:
Aren't "fabrications of the truth" the same as lies??? And why should reporters write about "misunderstandings of the facts" without checking their facts and doing some background research before reporting false information???

The biggest lie in this article is that it's easier to purchase a pistol than a rifle. Both are subject to the exact same requirements. Fingerprints and background checks are required for both. Yes, a pistol of any kind is easier to purchase than a "short barrel rifle". But to say that any pistol is easier to purchase than a rifle is an outright lie. Intentional or not.

THIS is why the news has been called fake...
Click to expand...
"Both are subject to the exact same requirements. Fingerprints and background checks are required for both. Yes, a pistol of any kind is easier to purchase than a "short barrel rifle". But to say that any pistol is easier to purchase than a rifle is an outright lie. Intentional or not."

- It depends on where you reside and their laws. For example where I live, no fingerprinting is required for purchase of either handguns or common rifles, just a background check IF purchased from LGS. Law is different from an individual or private seller, none required just register handgun within 10 days. Common rifles are not required to be registered within 10 day period or at all. For Concealed Carry, yes on fingerprints with handguns.

All requirements apply on SBR's/silencers/fully automatic arms because that's Federal law not local or state law. At least from the last I read on this date. Hope that helps you to understand differences from place to place better?
 
BobM said:
"Both are subject to the exact same requirements. Fingerprints and background checks are required for both. Yes, a pistol of any kind is easier to purchase than a "short barrel rifle". But to say that any pistol is easier to purchase than a rifle is an outright lie. Intentional or not."

- It depends on where you reside and their laws. For example where I live, no fingerprinting is required for purchase of either handguns or common rifles, just a background check IF purchased from LGS. Law is different from an individual or private seller, none required just register handgun within 10 days. Common rifles are not required to be registered within 10 day period or at all. For Concealed Carry, yes on fingerprints with handguns.

All requirements apply on SBR's/silencers/fully automatic arms because that's Federal law not local or state law. At least from the last I read on this date. Hope that helps you to understand differences from place to place better?
Click to expand...
Where do you live?

Thinking more about it, fingerprints are not required in Georgia for a BG check (I've had a carry permit for around 15 years, so it slipped my mind). My bad. However, to my knowledge, the purchase of a rifle or a pistol/handgun are the same when purchasing from a FFL. Fill out the 4473 form and pass a BG check. If you have a carry permit (fingerprints required), no BG check required since possession of the carry permit required a BG check with fingerprints. No registration of any firearms. No BG check required for private sales.

My points remain the same. When reporters are reporting, they should state all the facts. How those facts relate to the state in which they are reporting on, but a disclaimer that laws vary from state to state. It is disingenuous and misleading. Many times purposely...
 
This article is filled with so many legal inaccuracies that it is embarrassing. Any attorney quoted in the article should demand that USA Today print a retraction clarifying that buyers in most states do not generally have to pay additional taxes and wait months to buy an AR-15 rifle, and that background checks for pistols are normally identical to or stricter than the ones required for rifles in most states. If the attorney fails to demand a retraction, then it is safe to assume that the author wrote deceptive information into the article based on the attorney's advice. Any attorney giving such blatantly deceptive legal advice should be subject to sanctions.
 
Last edited:
TacticalPirate said:
Yeah USA Today reprint this hot take, of course these are the same imbeciles who claimed a chainsaw bayonet was a common AR accessory a few years back.

www.usatoday.com

Boulder shooting suspect's gun looked like a rifle. But it's a pistol. Experts worry it's helping people skirt gun laws

The suspect in the Boulder, Colorado shooting bought a Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before the attack at a King Soopers. The gun looks like an AR-15 and uses the same ammunition. But it's legally defined as a pistol.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
Wait, don't we all have chainsaw bayonets? I have one on each of my rifles. And my pistols.
 
The problem with these arguments is no different than that of race or if the person was married or single, or if they drove a truck or a car. It is irrelevant. I mean look, the article on bump stocks says over a half million people own them, but because it was used once in a horrible act, they deem the weapon as bad instead of the person who did it as bad. I mean if you want to make that argument, then we should ban rocks, because Cain used one on Able.
The fact is, it does not matter what you ban. It does not matter what a person intent on harming another uses, they will find a way. It is the person who is to blame. Blaming an inanimate object is stupid, chicken **** and a waste of time.
 
the obsrver said:
The problem with these arguments is no different than that of race or if the person was married or single, or if they drove a truck or a car. It is irrelevant. I mean look, the article on bump stocks says over a half million people own them, but because it was used once in a horrible act, they deem the weapon as bad instead of the person who did it as bad. I mean if you want to make that argument, then we should ban rocks, because Cain used one on Able.
The fact is, it does not matter what you ban. It does not matter what a person intent on harming another uses, they will find a way. It is the person who is to blame. Blaming an inanimate object is stupid, chicken **** and a waste of time.
Click to expand...
You can kill someone with a plastic fork or knife I don’t see the banning those items. It’s getting pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top