For example. The CSGV tweeted this:
Gun enthusiasts using loophole to acquire full-auto machines guns & silencers w/o background checks. #p2 #politics... http://fb.me/BTWVAA3pProblem is, that's a flat out lie. Even in the article they link to, it says this:
Tough scrutiny comes along with this classification. Unlike with other guns, for each Title II purchase, a person must submit photos and fingerprints to the federal authorities for a background check.Another version of the story goes deeper but, as Uncle points out, is poorly written and seems to be confusing background checks and LEO approval. Speaking to a representative of the 'Gun Trust Lawyers", I was told that the purpose of this is to remove the CLEO component but that the BATFE has the authority to conduct background checks on Trusts and Corporations but generally don't. CNN has apparently been contacting them for some time trying to get some sort of 'hit piece' story out of it.
Then there's the classic example of Josh Sugarmann of the VPC and his intention to deliberately confuse the public on 'Assault Weapons':
The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons "anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun" can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.We've seen the dishonesty over and over when it comes to claims from gun control groups so when the messenger is dishonest, how can you trust the message? Shouldn't you at least look deeper into it?