• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I had a wonderful conversation today with the Media!

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
In the spirit of not shutting down non-liberal information and viewpoints, I took it upon myself to contact a "NYC based independent production company focused on creating compelling, character driven stories."

I was pleasantly surprised, only because the organization was most certainly not connected with any particularly headline, as was falsely claimed around 8:32 pm last night, but because the young lady with who I spoke was an atypical media representative in that she didn't take a position, but rather, had lined up a number of very open, objective, and insightful questions which afforded me the opportunity to share clear, concise ration and reason regarding the legal, moral, and fact-based reasons why we carry firearms.

During our 42 minute conversation, we were able to discuss the following topics:
- Constitutional basis for private/civilian ownership and carry of firearms
- How the Las Vegas shooter's use of bump stocks, and not "assault style" firearms made the deadly difference
- Background checks in general and the significantly difficult of psychologically identifying, accurately, of people who might commit a mass shooting
- The significant difference between semi-automatic weapons and automatic military assault rifles
- The true standing of US murder as compared to other nations around the world
- Why some people feel a need to carry and others do not
- How carrying can significantly reduce a lot of violent crime
- How gun bans like those in the UK have lead to far greater violent crime
- Much, much more

Again, it was my pleasure to have taken this opportunity to discuss the rational, reasonable, logical, and fact-based elements behind which most of have chosen to carry. My contact expressed pleasant surprise, that she heard a lot of information for the first time, information that's not normally covered in most anti-gun or pro-gun articles.

They're still looking for input from anyone who actually lives in Springfield, so if that's you and you read this in the next day or two, just PM me and I'll send you her contact info.

In the meantime, I'd like to ask all of you: What steps have you taken to get the word out with respect to our right to keep and bear arms? Have you had the opportunity to counter some of the misinformation in the media, addressing it directly, rather than merely griping about it here on this forum? If so, please share!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
OMGoodness, are you bloody stuck on...

Especially in lieu of Cohen’s “entertainment” shenanigans, as well as other interviews being gathered, then electronically manipulated to change the tone and tenor of the interviewee’s conversation to meet the political or hidden agenda of the interviewer!

So, Since9 after commenting in a recent OCDO post about combatting anti-rhetoric with facts, you have the adacity to step out over the telephone, talking with Lord knows who and with what agenda in mind, with multiple faceted politically loaded questions regarding a variety of subjective subject matter firearm question(s) and YOU attempted to ‘wing’ the answers based on your limited subject matter expert knowledge?

What I find interesting, you have previously have shown rather a lackadaisical capability of presenting viable data out here on OCDO, yet YOU felt invincible doing a recorded telephone conversation on the subjects you say you did ~ JUST W O W!

Did your ego even considered the ramifications if this goes downhill because an honorably retired, USAF fighter pilot, PhD candidate, espoused and is nationally quoted and when those answers are challenged and shown to be significantly lacking?

Did you consider what your current or prospective employer will do when they hear your ‘2A & firearm’ rant then finds out the info you espoused as Gospel was in fact, personal beliefs not grounded in fact?

I seriously doubt you thought that far ahead about that did you?
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Did you record your conversation in its entirety?

Aye. Audacity is a wonderful program. :)

Sadly, the individual running this forum has a far different approach.

What's not so wonderful was the act of slamming the door in the faces of those who ask genuine, open-minded questions. In the face of a good opportunity for education, such close-mindedness, if not paranoia, does everything to harm our cause and nothing to help.

In light of that self-imposed black eye, I have to say you absolutely do not speak for myself in this matter, or for the others on this forum, much less the sane, rational open and concealed carriers throughout the U.S. They're as free to make contact with the individual as I was, and I encourage them to do so. Took me all of about 4 minutes to track them down. Others can, as well.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
One hopes you have the verbal acknowledgement and identifying name of the person you recorded ~ prior to you beginning to record their conversation.

Oh a minor sidebar...do not presume the conversation originated in the state you believe they are located in, e.g., you called NY but the person took the call in CT!
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Is it possible to post the interview? Perhaps a link to the interview. I am interested in your responses to their questions. Thanks in advance.

In deference to their journalistic right to publish the interview, along with the legal fabric created by the interviewer/interviewee understanding, I have limited any revelation to the summary I described in the OP.

However, if you have any specific questions as to any of the topics listed, or other topics, by all means, just ask. I'll be happy to share my opinion. :)
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
One hopes you have the verbal acknowledgement and identifying name of the person you recorded ~ prior to you beginning to record their conversation.

Not required. Federal law only requires one-party consent. Colorado law only requires one-party consent. Only the law of the state in which the recording is being accomplished applies.

Oh a minor sidebar...do not presume the conversation originated in the state you believe they are located in, e.g., you called NY but the person took the call in CT!

The state of origin doesn't matter. All that matters is what state where the recording takes place. If that state allows one-party consent, then the recorder does not need to inform the other party. If that state requires two-party consent, then you need to obtain consent.

First, federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation.

Second, § 18-9-303. Wiretapping prohibited – penalty (1) Any person not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication commits wiretapping if he... Since I was either a sender or intended receiver of the telephone communication, 18-9-303 does not apply. Being either a sender or intended receiver is the qualified exemption.

Reference
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), last little part of the USC cite in your zeal you may have failed to read...

quote: ...
unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

keep the grin since9 since once again you have mis-interpreted the law again on a public forum for all judical agencies to see...nice job.

cheers


 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), last little part of the USC cite in your zeal you may have failed to read...

quote: ...
unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

keep the grin since9 since once again you have mis-interpreted the law again on a public forum for all judical agencies to see...nice job.

cheers



Then by all means, let's read it -- all of it -- on this public forum together, shall we?

(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

"shall not be unlawful" means "it's lawful"

"unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act" does not apply as recording my own telephone calls for later defense should the need arise is perfectly legal in my state.

What was your point again, there, Solus? Do you ever have any point? Or do you knee-jerk react, misfire, and spew off-target nonsense out of A) ignorance, B) sloppy error, and C) sadism?

But I think I see what you were trying to get at. When you read, "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State," you probably thought that applied to the act of recording the conversation itself.

It does not. Rather, that applies to any secondary act which meets the "criminal or torious act" definition.

For example, if someone in Colorado were to record a call for their own records, regardless of where the other party or parties reside, that's legal.

However, if a Coloradan were to record a call for the purpose of launching a criminal slander campaign against the other party, that's illegal, and if convicted for slander, they'd likely face illegal federal wiretapping charges as well.

I'm sorry you're incapable of separating the chaff from the wheat, solus. You performed a similar and very grave disservice when you complained to Grapeshot about the people who logged in here seeking an interview, and sadly, he listened to your gibberish and locked both threads.

Then again, your gibberish is why you're on ignore, at my discretion to peek.

But, hey, keep putting your neck in the guillotine, if you'd like. It's always interesting watching you misconstrue just about everything there is about, well, everything.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snipppp...not germane to my point!

Then again, your gibberish is why you're on ignore, at my discretion to peek.

It's always interesting watching you misconstrue just about everything there is about, well, everything.

So, to quote an infamous OCDO poster...

It's always interesting watching you misconstrue just about everything there is about, well, everything.

Since9, your bravado out here expresses quite a lot with minimal leap of faith,
1. You stepped out and IMMEDIATELY self-promoted your opinionated bias to an unverified ‘cohen’ type enterprise without any forethought of possible consequences.

2. When asked if you recorded, there was no immediate, nor since, statement “of course” just innuendo of showing an app.

3. Further, when asked to share your comments, even failing to summarize, you immediately get into legal mumbo-jumbo ~ yet by your own pronouncings say any recording(s) belong to you to do with as you wish.

4. When recording permissions were brought up, there was no immediate, nor since, “of course that was the first thing discussed for their publication(s) releases, yet instead a tirade of federal CFR rhetoric is produced which it appears you hadn’t researched the last segment of the CFR.

As stated, to quoth the infamous one...keep on misconstruing everthing and keep believing ‘denial’ is a river in Eygpt!

Sidebar....and to think wittle humble me is on “sometime ignore” especially after all the past posted bluster, bravado, exclamation from the infamous one of putting wittle humble me on ignore ~ how nice!
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
1. You stepped out and IMMEDIATELY self-promoted your opinionated bias to an unverified ‘cohen’ type enterprise without any forethought of possible consequences.

No. I thought about my response for a while and offered an informed opinion.

The difference between you and I, solus, is that you're chock full of wild and almost always groundless accusations that have no basis in fact.

2. When asked if you recorded, there was no immediate, nor since, statement “of course” just innuendo of showing an app.

Answer implied. Sorry if you didn't catch that.

3. Further, when asked to share your comments, even failing to summarize, you immediately get into legal mumbo-jumbo ~ yet by your own pronouncings say any recording(s) belong to you to do with as you wish.

The conversation I had with another person is my business, not yours. I chose to summarize that conversation, contrary to your false assertion to the contrary. Pretty ironic when my summary is right there in the OP. I choose not to share any details with the public at large, and yes, it most certainly does belong to me and is mine to do with as I wish.

You're missing the point: Provided you're not given to gross misunderstandings, conversations with the media can be a very good thing. Tom Selleck once walked off a talk show set because it went south. My conversation was quite different; it went very well. At no time did the journalist ever attempt to twist the conversation to any sort of uninformed anti-gun advantage. In fact, they were quite up front and honest about that, saying they didn't know much about firearms, and in light of recent events, wanted to speak with someone who was knowledgeable. They put forth a number of common misconceptions which I addressed, with links and references.

4. When recording permissions were brought up, there was no immediate, nor since, “of course that was the first thing discussed for their publication(s) releases, yet instead a tirade of federal CFR rhetoric is produced which it appears you hadn’t researched the last segment of the CFR.

In accordance with both state and federal law, no "permission" or even notice is required. The state in which the other party resides has no say in this matter. The only thing that matters is the state in which the recording takes place. In fact, the party living in a one-party-consent state can legally record a telephone conversation without consent of the other while the party living in a two-party-consent state cannot.

This key point is important enough that it's worth emphasizing:

The party living in a one-party-consent state can legally record a telephone conversation without consent of the another while the party living in a two-party-consent state cannot.

As for "the last segment of the CFR, I clearly demonstrated your ignorance in my last post, and you're clearly continuing in your ignorance, solus.

Look Here: We have a lot of people from all over the United States who come here for a wide variety of information relating to firearms and a number of other issues. You do them a grave disservice when you fail carefully review the very reg you're trying to throw around.

Please, if at all possible, show a modicum of decorum and maturity and lay off the brain dead jibes.

I'm not here to trade insults with you or any other. I am here to clarify information, provide assistance to others, and enjoy discussing positive, pro-active measures we all can take to help secure our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Can you -- will you -- agree to that?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Did the media organization know that you were recording them?

Polite and in depth conversation does not mitigate distortions, omissions, and falsehoods...we are referring to a media organization.
... In fact, they were quite up front and honest about that, saying they didn't know much about firearms, and in light of recent events, wanted to speak with someone who was knowledgeable. ...
Observation: Liberals not knowing much about firearms does not stop liberals from working to use government to confiscate our guns.

Ask these liberals if they would be up for the government "confiscating" their 1A right to a significant degree outside their home so as to mitigate violence...given the recent events where radical liberals are documented as assaulting law abiding citizens without provocation.

Of course not!!! Liberals in the media, regardless of their scale, are unlikely to paint their fellow liberals as violent thugs...antifa, blm, ect...nope, go after the tool and not the tool wielder.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Hummm...

Ya know Since9, based on your forum background espoused, your previous forum posting(s), your off subject tirade(s), your nonsensical rhetoric constantly espoused, I am truly curious why you believe you actually perceive you are any sort of subject matter expert whatsoever?

Firearm Iinstructor or hp95, or Venator, or [sorry forgot their aliase] the bloke who is from VA & walks the line with the MD troopers, or Grapeshot, or BB62, or CoL, or good heavens forgot CCJ, or others can, based on their established commentary on this forum, could easily be considered a SME on a variety and myriad 2A subjects.

oh, by the way Since9, I can’t possibly agree to anything from anybody who is so hypocritical to brag about being on this forum, quote: ...to clarify information, provide assistance to others, and enjoy discussing positive, pro-active measures we all can take to help secure our Constitutional rights and freedoms. unquote, yet engages in such bravado and bragging posted tirades about putting members on “ignore” when it appears you feel they are not supporting your rhetoric!

BTW, when did you say you illustrious and enlightening interview will be ‘released’ or published?

go well mate, I have a hurricane’s landfall to prepare for...
 
Last edited:

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
conversations with the media can be a very good thing.

+1 Media interaction/participation is needed.

Qualifier: Also a very good opportunity to get trapped or twisted; many who work in the media truly believe that to lie, cheat, and steal is desirable.

So every media transaction should be approached carefully, either be at your best or be somewhere else. Consider all angles and motives for every question or statement.

The best type of media interaction (for people starting out in career) is to become a journalist yourself in "mainstream" media; get in there and reform it. They did and succeeded. You can't? For some reasons libs are naturally wired to infiltrate and conquer institutions, while conservatives just be shaking their heads and letting it be. Just don't get sucked in and converted to the dark side. :) Second best (all ages) - set up or produce alternative media, lots of different formats to choose from. Third (for people good at winning) - beat the social media algorithms, reach the masses on Gaggle FarceBook Twitstream and RubeTube. Don't have to love it to utilize it. Fourth (the articulate) - interviews, letters to the editor, op-eds, articles, columns, ads etc. They have to publish something, so give them something other than the usual tripe. They will cheat, but you will be heard if you persist. Fifth (certain types) - be a uni professor or get into govt bureaucracy - they have cozy relations with media in addition to the other influence they exert. Every article quotes someone from the local college or department of whatever. I know some of these routes are better for youngsters; steer some of our young folks in that direction. We need long-term and short-term efforts in different areas to defend 2A and 1A, and media is one of those areas.

Since9, this sounds interesting, hope it went well.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
We do this when cops are about...the media deserves a higher degree of distrust and scrutiny. Record the interaction and inform the media org. that you are recording. Any deviations by the media org., even if for time, will result in negative consequence for the media org.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Based on the op listed topics it seems that the legal term "prior restraint" continues to be excluded from 2A conversations. Did "prior restraint" come up in the conversation? Would a media type even have the intellect to connect the 1A dot to the 2A dot?

Neither the abbreviated definition of prior restraint i.e. censorship, nor the more involved, temporally-constrained definition, prior restraint proper, were mentioned.

When it comes to censorship, I'm a fan of enforcing moral decency laws. Very few people want to see their communities become moral sewers.

When it comes to the press, I'm in favor of letting people espouse whatever beliefs they want, subject to moral decency laws.

Even SCOTUS does not connect these two dots...don't feel bad.

It might help if you explain how you believe 1A and 2A are connected.

Until then, here's my thought:

1A applies to Congress. It says so right there in the first word: "Congress shall make no law..." The courts have long since extended it's prohibition to local and state levels of legislature, with the exception of moral decency laws.

2A, being an absolute in the negative, applies to everyone and everything: "...shall not be infringed."

They're connected in that both protect two key rights of human beings, that of expression and that of self-protection.

Furthermore, the First amendment provides the means by which people can protect their rights under the Second, and the Second provides the means by which people can protect their rights under the First. Or, as I've often mentioned here on this forum (actually used to be in my signature), "The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, these two protect the rest."
 
Top