arma virumque cano (et alia)
This woman is quite possibly the dumbest individual on the planet. She can't even complete a complete thought without lying or contradicting herself.MikeB, delete this part if you wish:I started to address each bullshit statement she made here but that would make the comments way too long. I'll try to do my own post tonight with a link to yours and email you when I'm done.
This lady said that "assault weapons" were still available for sale during the AWB.Paul Helmke claims that there was a 66% drop in "assault weapons" used in crime during the span of the AWB.Conclusion?If you want to reduce the number of "assault weapons" used in crime, sell more "assault weapons."
How is my AR-15 any more "dangerous' than an M1 Garand MikeB? (or any 30-06 hunting rifle)I can tell you which one I'd rather be shot with. I'd much rather get shot with a 55gr. .223 projectile from an "evil assault weapon" than a 30.06 round that's 2 or 3 times heavier. (i'd rather not get shot, but you see my point)
MikeB - Do you remember my telling you a while back (with facts) that "assault weapons" are used in at best a fraction of 1% of all violent crime in this country.You and your ilk want to ban them anyway. What does that say about your intentions?
Sounds like FatWhiteMan plans to do a better job, but I will, er, shoot at some low-hanging fruit:"Threat to law enforcement vests"Vests are designed to resist pistols. MOST rifles will shoot thru vests.Some of the "assault weapons" that they want to ban ARE pistols, or use pistol ammo. Those WON'T shoot thru vests -- but these folks want to ban then anyway.Also: "spray fire, attractive to the DC sniper"But the DC sniper NEVER "spray-fired" -- he used single shots on his victims. Any hunting rifle would do the same. In fact, a bolt hunting rifle would be BETTER for sniper work -- military snipers use bolt rifles. But the DC sniper used what he had -- a gun he was able to steal.
More:Jackie: "What is an assault weapon?An assault weapon is designed to..."Mike: "What do you think about her definition?"Mike, look again -- She gives NO definition that could be used in legislation. She only talks about a design intent that requires reading the designer's mind. (And it's a bogus definition as well --they intend to ban semiauto guns that have been designed for hunting.) The lack of a legal definition is significant -- why? Because there is NO "assault weapon" ban and defintion that they consider complete -- they intetend continual redefinition to ban more guns.
"What do you think about gun manufacturers who modified weapons to meet the letter of the law but were clearly violating its spirit?"When the AWB was being debated in 1994, the NRA claimed that it only banned cosmetic features.Gun control advocates were outraged, claiming that the NRA was LYING -- their AWB proposal WOULD effectively ban dangerous guns.Now, with the hindsight of the gun control advocates' own words --- who was REALLY lying?The AWB banned certain features on guns. Gun makers REMOVED those features from their guns -- they did not necessarily replace them with any new features, they just removed the banned features to COMPLY with the law.Were some "copycats" of banned guns? Yes -- but some new gunmakers made new semiauto guns that copied nothing, but also complied with the law. Surprise -- gun control advocates want to ban those, too.In Califoria, gun control advocates amended their AWB to redefine "assault weapons" and ban "copycats." So gunmakers went back to the drawing board and made semiauto guns that complied with the new AWB. To display insight into this issue, get this question right: Are California gun control advocates pleased that gunmakers have now complied with their new AWB?
It stinks. Ireelevant comment is that the WDC sniper could have used another type of rifle besides an "assault weapon" (e.g., most sniper rifles are bolt action)I prefer the Federal Definition of a machinegun (26 USC 5845(b)), It's that "is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot" language that makes pretty much any semi-automatic firearm that can accept a large capacity magazine a machinegun.That's sort of what WDC did when it banned firearms with a magazine capacity of over 11 rounds.
I prefer the Federal Definition of a machinegun (26 USC 5845(b)), It's that "is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot" language that makes pretty much any semi-automatic firearm that can accept a large capacity magazine a machinegun.Except that the Federal Government(and sane people everywhere)disagree with you."Assault Weapons" and other semi-auto rifles are NOT "machine guns." They are semi-auto rifles.An AR-15 cannot be readily restored for select-fire / full-auto firing.But hey, anti-gunners like Laci are never big on actual facts and definitions, instead preferring to make shit up out of thin air.
Wow. Her information, from the first sentence, is so often incorrect. Assault weapons were NOT created for trench warfare, those were assault rifles. The term assault weapon was created to define what is essentially any scary or 'cool' looking weapons, or appeared dangerous when seen in movies or TV, primarily for cosmetic features. And 'designed to spray from the hip'? Laughable education gained by watching Rambo movies and the like. You will NEVER see a trained user of any of these firearms "designed to be sprayed from the hip" actually using it from the hip. If they were truly designed that way, wouldn't actual intended users of them use them in that way?It's very curious that people like this have no actual experience with the topic they purport to be an expert about. Perhaps she should watch an actual expert who clarifies some of the confusion with actual facts, including testimony from the ATF which admits that assault weapons are essentially made so by their "exotic type appearance" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30 But the real question is once again, is she truly interested in facts, or in simply presenting bent truths to support her own opinions? Is it even possible to have this discussion without hysterics on both sides, and simply sticking to truth and facts?
Laci: Ireelevant comment is that the WDC sniper could have used another type of rifle besides an "assault weapon" (e.g., most sniper rifles are bolt actionCall it what you will, but here is the equivalent:"By driving the 20 mph the wrong way down a one-way street, the Corvette caused the fatal accident. Corvettes can exceed 200 mph, and cars that fast should be banned."Ms. Kuhls specifically linked "assault weapons" to "spray fire" -- and used as an example an incident in which "spray fire" did not occur and played no role.
Laci: I prefer the Federal Definition of a machinegun (26 USC 5845(b)), It's that "is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot" language that makes pretty much any semi-automatic firearm that can accept a large capacity magazine a machinegun.If semiauto rifles are "can be readily restored to shoot" like a machine gun, that would explain all the shootings with machine guns which were converted from semiauto which happened in the US last weeker, last monther, last yearer, last decadeOOPS -- there either were none or next to none.
"What do you think about her definition? "It'll eventually change. No one has been able to come up with a consistent definition for "assault weapon"." What do you think about gun manufacturers who modified weapons to meet the letter of the law but were clearly violating its spirit?"Only children and democrats believe in the "spirit" of the law. It's part of their failed attempt to make everything "fair".The letter of the law is the only thing that counts.
Laci: I prefer the Federal Definition of a machinegun (26 USC 5845(b)), It's that "is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot" language that makes pretty much any semi-automatic firearm that can accept a large capacity magazine a machinegun.Of course, that would ban many semi-auto hunting rifles -- which most prominent gun control advocates promised gunowners that they would not ban.Were they lying -- or would they let themselves be made into liars? But even a semiauto ban is a red herring. Britain, Australia, and Germany have also banned and confiscated PUMP action hunting longarms -- and there is no reason to believe that gun contral advocates will stop short of trying to do that here.(The pump action shotgun may be the most commonly owned hunting firearm in the US)
"I prefer the Federal Definition of a machinegun (26 USC 5845(b)), It's that "is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot"That would mean a gun which at one point in time had the ability to shoot full auto and then full auto capability was somehow disabled."Restoring" something means to bring it back to the original.Semi-autos can not be "restored" to fire full auto because they were never full-auto to start with.Try again.The wording and language of a law means something.A lawyer would know that.
FYI the ideal gun for trench warfare was a pump shotgun with a bayonet lug.http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_shotgun_m97.phpFYI the "Assault Weapons Ban" never covered shotguns or firearms with fixed magazines.More lies!
I love how she says assault weapons are designed to be spray fired from the hip, yet two of the guns on her poster are handguns.Then she says they can easily defeat bullet proof vests, which any centerfire rifle can do, yet the two handguns on her poster can't do.She can't even keep her definition of assault weapons consistent from one minute to the next. This is ultimately why an assault weapons ban is so unfeasible. The gun banners create a completely arbitrary term and try to sweep as many weapons as possible under it. Even popular sporting guns.More gun owners are starting to see through this assault weapons scam and won't support a ban like they did in 1994. And a ban won't pass without the support of gun owners.
I knew you guys would love her. And I agree with many of your criticisms. But, isn't it understandable that a non-gun person, even one involved in gun control activism, might not be well-versed in the proper terminology. Remember the famous "barrel shroud" incident with Congresswoman McCarthy? Did her lack of technological knowledge obliterate the point she was trying to make?Another thing I agree with is that to define "assault weapon" is not easy. How would you do it? Some of you guys who comment here are far more expert than all these gun control people combined. How would you define "assault weapon?"
MIke--it is impossible to write effective legislation if you are ignorant about the subject. Having MCCarthy or Kuhls writing firearm legislation makes about as much sense as having one of my uncles write safety regs for cars--he was a PE teacher that didn't get a drivers license until he was a 60 something widower
Trying to define "assault weapon" is an exercise in idiocy because any weapon can be used to assault someone. Abe Lincoln was killed with a single action, black powder revolver. JFK was killed with a bolt action rifle. Malcolm X was killed with a pump action shot gun. Robert Kennedy was killed with a .22 caliber revolver.No one would argue that those people weren't assaulted, yet even the gun banners aren't dumb enough to call any of the above "assault weapons".To make a legal definition of "assault weapon" that's actually effective (one that can stop manufacturers from violating the "spirit" of the law ), you'd have to include so many firearms that you'd lose what little support you had for a ban.And that's the conundrum the gun banners are faced with now. They know the last assault weapons ban was horribly written. They also know that if they write a better ban, they'll look even more ridiculous than last time.The gun banners would be smart to drop the "assault weapons" charade and just be honest for once: They want to ban guns, period. They English did it. There was no "assault weapon" ban in England. They just banned guns. Why can't American gun banners be that upfront?
This is not a matter of not being well-versed in terminology, this is a case of a woman flat out lying her ass off in order to further an agenda.It's what anti-gunners do. They thrive on lies and misinformation.
Mikeb: "But, isn't it understandable that a non-gun person, even one involved in gun control activism, might not be well-versed in the proper terminology."No. I agree with Mike W: "This is not a matter of not being well-versed in terminology, this is a case of a woman flat out lying her ass off in order to further an agenda."First, I would not be surprised that non-gun folks are not well-versed in terminology -- BUT these folks claim to have expertise on this subject and they release a scripted video to demonstrate said expertise and then they get so much utterly wrong?Second, their "errors" go beyond terminology into the realm of multiple deceits to further an agenda.I read an article about a local restaraunt that overcharged. The writer said that the check being wrong every time could be explained by poor math. But the check being wrong in the restaurant's favor every time was something else.
If you don't know the bare basics of what you are talking about, shut up until you do. Especially if you are a politician. Your damn job is to know about the laws you are promoting. You don't need to be a gunsmith to figure out gun laws, but you do need to know which end is which. Anyone who speaks English as a primary language and can't figure out from context that a barrel shroud would be some sort of cover over a gun barrel has no business writing laws on any subject.
I agree that politically active gun control people should know what they're talking about, at least better than some of our favorite examples have. But, I can't help but think you guys seize on their mistakes rather than try to hear their message.
their message is ban them all
Ummm their mistakes show they don't know what they're talking about.If my doctor is recommending surgery and refers to my gall-bladder exclusively as the "Do-hicky" or "Spleen" It means he's an incompetent doctor and has no right do practice medicine or make recommendations, as he is DANGEROUS.When a Congresswoman advises a ban on "Barrel Shrouds" but can't explain what they are, or why they should be banned, that's incompetence and she should be removed from office.A Person talks about stripping away our rights gives mad-up or incorrect statistics on the issue, that is incompetence and they should be removed from power.These people and you, are asking for things to be taken away without having ANY IDEA what you're asking for. That is DANGEROUS and immoral.This is not nit-picking!
Mikeb: "But, I can't help but think you guys seize on their mistakes rather than try to hear their message."Yes, we will seize on their mistakes to point out their ignorance.No, we don't avoid hearing their message. We hear it, and not that their message is often based upon misinformation and deceit.
MikeB: "Another thing I agree with is that to define 'assault weapon' is not easy. How would you do it? Some of you guys who comment here are far more expert than all these gun control people combined. How would you define 'assault weapon?'"The definition of "assault rifle" should be well understood by everyone. An Assault Rifle is selective-fire weapon (it can be made to shoot semi-auto, burst fire,full-auto modes with the flip of a switch) with a detachable magazine that fires an intermediate-cartridge (a round that strike a balance between a pistol cartridge like the 9mm and a rifle cartridge like the 30-06). However, the definition of "assault weapon" can be any weapon that isn't popular with the anti-gun people at the time.
Thanks BillyB. Your definition sounds good, but maybe we could make it real simple: anything that fires one of them long pointy bullets, you know, the really scary ones, should be banned.