Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Typical anti gunner bull crap. First off the ACTION of harming, or going around shooting another person has been illegal since forever it seems like. I know people like Couric can't read the constitution. I know they just can't comprehend the second when it talked about the peoples rights. I know people like her can't comprehend the amendments that followed.That says people have to be charged with a crime they personally commit, and get their DUE PROCESS, and a crime be proven in courts of law. I know they can't comprehend the 8th that talks about cruel and unusual punishments. People don't forfeit their rights for the rest of their lives. I know they can't comprehend the 9th that practically means the same thing as the second, and I know they can't comprehend the 14th that goes on about how no state shall make or enforce any LAW that abridges the privileges or immunities or deprive ANY person of life,LIBERTY, and property.

Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

Keep it Classy Couric, Keep it classy.

Newsflash Couric felons usually get their firearms out of the trunk of a car in some street ally. Any hoo.

I wonder how Americans ever got along in this country for over close to 200 years without the background check. Cause you see people that was not created until the Clinton administration, and the Brady Handgun 'violence' prevention Act.

You can read that here:

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act and commonly called the Brady Bill,[1][2] is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the NICS system was implemented in 1998

en.wikipedia.org...

The creation of America 1776.

The creation of liberals making all of us ask the state for permission to practice our RIGHTS. 1998.

222 YEARS.

How EVER did we ever get along without the saviors of the republic keeping us safe?

Well I am glad the anti gunners are so fascist let me tell you.

By law WE have to get it's permission, and only after we pass a given set of rules. Those clowns couldn't even pass. We might be allowed to buy one.

Even though there is ABSOLUTELY no authority for it.

NONE what so ever.

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds

It gets upheld anyway.

The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose.

Even though by law I can't go around shooting someone else. The LAW says I Can't do that.

I have to yield ALL of my rights.

The 2nd,4th,5th,6th,7th,8th,9th,10th, and 14th.

I absolutely LOVE what the anti gunners came up with.

ATF form 4473 By LAW has to be filled out every time someone purchases a firearm.

www.atf.gov...

Pay close attention here.

11 b. Are you under indictment OR information in any court for a felony, or any other crimes, for which the judge COULD imprison you for more than a year

COULD is the operative word. Which means a whole lot of things, and a whole lot of people.

But hey people that's some of that 'common sense' gun control in action. Even though it ALL violates the bill of rights, extending to the 14th.

The 14th is really awesome.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

That means according to the US constitution.

Every single city in the union, Every state in the union is suppose to be a sanctuary city from draconian laws.

Because that bleeping piece of paper is the highest LAW in the land.

Couric YOU FAIL.

Anti gunners YOU FAIL so epically.

And so does gun control since we have had over 80 years of it beginning with FDR in 1934. Since we still have 'gun violence'.

People like Couric want you to ignore the law. In order to push a political agenda.

The state is suppose to protect people.

Not the police.

Not you.

Them.

You know those people that go around arming Mexican Drug Cartels with it's straw buyer programs like Fast and Furious, and other government programs like the Operation Cyclones arming terrorists over in the middle east of yesteryear, and more recently arming a bunch of people over in Syria to over throw their elected government.

But hey NONE of all that matters.

Our rights to some people are really meaningless.

In the sad United States of Dysfunction called America. Where a gun free zone shouldn't even exist.

If we truly thought of our selves as a constitutional Republic.

None of the above would exist, But here we are.

Caught between a rock and a hard case.

People KNOW your RIGHTS.

a reply to: neo96


But but but, they aren't trying to take your guns!

a reply to: neo96

You mean someone from the leftist media purposefully distorts and stoops to unethical behavior? Say it ain't so.

I read that yesterday and was appalled at the deliberate attempt to paint an image of ignorance by this lady when they fully engaged her with well thought out and accurate responses. And she just goes *snip* "we got to mislead the public and make 2nd amendment supporters look confused" . What a Bitch!

If it wasn't for the gun manufactures POURING money into the NRA (which was hijacked by radicals in the 70's) no one here would buy into this "assault on the 2nd amendment" stuff.

The NRA is an advertising and propaganda arm of the weapons industry, and sadly it seems to have done its job pretty well.

LOL

What an obvious attempt at total BS.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If it wasn't for the gun manufactures POURING money into the NRA (which was hijacked by radicals in the 70's) no one here would buy into this "assault on the 2nd amendment" stuff.

The NRA is an advertising and propaganda arm of the weapons industry, and sadly it seems to have done its job pretty well.

Agree with the overall gun issue or not, still no reason for a "professional" journalist of Couric's caliber to pull a stunt like this.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If it wasn't for the gun manufactures POURING money into the NRA (which was hijacked by radicals in the 70's) no one here would buy into this "assault on the 2nd amendment" stuff.

The NRA is an advertising and propaganda arm of the weapons industry, and sadly it seems to have done its job pretty well.

And the more people like Couric goes after them.

The more money that gets poured in.

Virtually how ALL lobbying/lobbyists are created.

Target specific people.Specific groups.

Creating a cash cow.

I have never given money to the NRA.

I am of the opinion people are their best own lobbyist. and it doesn't cost a dime.

originally posted by: neo96
First off the ACTION of harming, or going around shooting another person has been illegal since forever it seems like.

I totally agree. It's kind of like how predators harming others in public bathrooms has been illegal since forever.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: neo96
First off the ACTION of harming, or going around shooting another person has been illegal since forever it seems like.

I totally agree. It's kind of like how predators harming others in public bathrooms has been illegal since forever.

Nice political troll there.

Get back to me after 80 years.

I might listen then.

At least they don't have to get a background check to use the rest room.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If it wasn't for the gun manufactures POURING money into the NRA (which was hijacked by radicals in the 70's) no one here would buy into this "assault on the 2nd amendment" stuff.

The NRA is an advertising and propaganda arm of the weapons industry, and sadly it seems to have done its job pretty well.

So why did Ms. Couric feel compelled to deceive her viewers?
Or are we just confused and she didn't attempt to deceive? We are just buying into hype from the NRA?

face it, the nra okayed people shooting up kids at school rather than sensible gun laws.
ms couric is hardly going to change types, like the original poster, that need their right to shoot kids in the face with extreme prejudice.

It is this kind of deceptive reporting that pushed me on the conservative side about 25 years ago. ironically, it was glaring flaws in gun control reporting and analyses that really woke me up to start examining other liberal positions.

To think we have the other thread trying to claim no liberal bias in the media.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
face it, the nra okayed people shooting up kids at school rather than sensible gun laws.
ms couric is hardly going to change types, like the original poster, that need their right to shoot kids in the face with extreme prejudice.

So that means all guns should be confiscated?

Is that the "only way"?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Maybe - I would argue that liberal / anti-gun politicians (i.e. Obama and Hillary) and their illogical reactions and laws they pass in places like CT and NY and CA are better for gun sales than the NRA is...

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
face it, the nra okayed people shooting up kids at school rather than sensible gun laws.
ms couric is hardly going to change types, like the original poster, that need their right to shoot kids in the face with extreme prejudice.

Spoons make people fat...

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
face it, the nra okayed people shooting up kids at school rather than sensible gun laws.
ms couric is hardly going to change types, like the original poster, that need their right to shoot kids in the face with extreme prejudice.

It is this type of appeal to emotion in absence of facts that make your argument completely useless and makes you look completely ignorant.

Tens of millions of legally owned firearms have never been used to shoot another human being, let a lone a child.

a reply to: seeker1963

It would be helpful to have a longer clip from the documentary. All we get is this:

"How do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing the gun" followed by an apparently nine second pause with what sounds like an open mic.

Then we're told that this "isn't how it actually went" and an audio clip is played where she is heard asking the question:

"How do you prevent felons or terrorists from walking into, say a licensed gun dealer, and purchasing a gun?"

So does the documentary pick up after the nine second pause with the responses heard in the audio clip? In other words, did they insert a whole different segment of audio with a nine second pause because it's not clear from the embedded video. If that's the case, it's clearly deliberately misleading editing.

EDIT:

Same deal with the source cited in the OP. That seems a little odd to me in of itself. Why end the video clip from the documentary after the pause and before anyone responds if the purpose is to demonstrate that it's the same exchange and that the documentary audio was manipulated. Clearly the question part of the two clips is not the same so how we can presume that it's even the same exchange?

EDIT 2:

Never mind, the response from the director is an implicit admission. Shame on the director, that's clearly deception and shame on Katie Couric for standing by the director. I didn't have much of an opinion of Katie Couric before but now what opinion I have is negative. I also hope that those people sue the director, production company, EPIX, whoever to get the "documentary" removed.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: neo96

You mean someone from the leftist media purposefully distorts and stoops to unethical behavior? Say it ain't so.

You can't really blame them. There are enough sheep out there who lap it up like mother's milk to make their tactics quite effective. I blame the ignorance of their viewers, frankly.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
face it, the nra okayed people shooting up kids at school rather than sensible gun laws.
ms couric is hardly going to change types, like the original poster, that need their right to shoot kids in the face with extreme prejudice.

Face it.

If people like Couric really gave a snip about kids.

They would do a documentary AGAINST abortion.

Since that is where kids come from.