|January 31, 2013||First Beck, then Boortz, now Palin||13 comments|
|January 22, 2013||Why gun nuts are deluded||8 comments|
|January 21, 2013||Boortz, Borden and Bashing||4 comments|
|January 15, 2013||James Yeager, tough guy patriot (not)||1 comments|
|January 11, 2013||NRA’s “Hollywood Guns” glorifies movie gun violence||8 comments|
|January 07, 2013||Borden suffering from gun derangement syndrome||8 comments|
|January 04, 2013||Patriot Apocalypse||3 comments|
|December 31, 2012||Stand up for assault weapons, Patriots!||5 comments|
|December 18, 2012||A Slaughter in Connecticut||33 comments|
|December 12, 2012||"Fake news" a fake controversy||8 comments|
"F*** that! I’m telling you that if that (sensible gun safety measures) happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot," he barks into the camera. "Load your damn mags!" and "get ready to fight!" Then he adds this: "I’m not f***ing putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people!"
"I said some pretty volatile stuff which I apologize for. I do not in any way advocate the overthrowing of the United States government, nor do I condone any violent actions towards any elected officials. It's not time to shoot anybody. What it is time to do is to organize politically, contact our elected officials and help steer the ship the direction that we want it to go.The way to do that right now is via letters, via emails, some phone calls to your elected officials."
When he doesn't like what I write, Pete Borden likes to call me a liar. He has again leveled a charge that I lied in my recent column on the need to make gun safety part of the public safety discussion.
Here's his incendiary statement (emphasis added):
"Foley makes the erroneous statement that you can walk into almost any gun show and buy 'assault weapons', high capacity magazines and ammunition, no questions asked. I will not dignify that by calling it an untruth. I will call it what it is. It is a bald faced lie. Dealers at gun shows are bound by the same regulations requiring background checks, as they are when they are in their places of business. Since Foley is only parroting something he has heard, I have no way of knowing whether he is aware of that or not. But, I repeat, the statement is a lie."
Again, Mr. Borden, unlike you, I am far too good a writer and commentator not to do my research before speaking out on an issue.
I didn't say "every gun show." I qualified my statement sby aying, "almost any gun show," but that's beside the point.
From the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence web site, here's the breakdown on the so-called "gun show loophole":
Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.
Mr. Borden again shoots himself in the foot playing ready, fire, aim. Nice try, Peter. I'm waiting for my apology.
"They are joined by some members of Congress and other groups who have asked the FCC to investigate whether the government and broadcasters are violating regulations by producing and airing what they say are deceptive public relations tools funded with taxpayer dollars.
"'It's essentially propaganda, it's so-called news that is promoting White House policies and is provided by the government and is not being labeled as such," said Josh Silver, a spokesman for Free Press, a watchdog group that recently helped to collect 40,000 signatures on a petition calling on the FCC, Congress and the broadcasters to "stop fake news.'"
In 2006, the CMD uped the ante, releasing a "report" condemning the use of all VNRs by TV stations. Much of what the CMD presented was either flat out wrong or deliberately distorted, but that didn't stop two FCC commissioners from siding with the CMD and speaking out before hearing the other side of the story.
I helped form and then lead an industry group, which hired a Washington attorney specializing in FCC matters. He reviewed the CMD report and agreed it was one-sided and seriously flawed from a legal standpoint. He sent a letter to the FCC chairman that included this:
"CMD, nevertheless, cites so-called VNR 'abuses' that have nothing to do with controversial or political matters and do not involve the alleged payment of money or other consideration to the broadcaster, including:
As happens so often in such things, the entire "fake news" fiasco died a natural death. Sorry conservative readers, but there's nothing to see here. Move along.