Monday, December 10, 2012
Emily Miller on the State of the Gun Debate
The lies:
"Illinois doesn't allow any rights to bear arms."
"AWB expired because the FBI said we didn't need it any more."
"AWB bans guns that kinda look scary."
"The UN Treaty would water our right to bear arms."
And no biased gun-rights snow job worth its salt would be complete without the perennial
"There were 2.5 million crimes prevented with guns last year."
Emily Miller continues to be the stooge mouth-piece of the NRA, as I've said before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The lies?
ReplyDelete1. Illinois doesn't allow ordinary citizens to bear arms. A few well connected people get permission, but we talked about that recently.
2. Look at the data regarding what your side calls assault weapons. They're used in only a tiny fraction of crimes. The Assault Weapons Ban was found to be useless.
3. Exactly. That's what's going on here. If a gun is black with lots of parts, some will fear it.
4. The U.N. treaty was aimed at doing exactly that. I read the draft text. It was filled with the typical mealy mouthed wording, but you keep forgetting that we know how to read between the lines.
5. O.K., so government studies put the number at 1.5 million. And?
It should be noted that a "right" to keep and bear Arms is unfortunately included in the Illinois constitution.
DeleteIt reads:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
In response to Greg's 4th Statement:
The goal of the ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) was to prohibit the sale, proliferation, and eventually possession of small arms and light weapons concerning non-State actors (and other approved entities), such as the terrorist organizations which you advocate. No wonder you oppose such measures, as your ilk would find it difficult to obtain weapons, with which you may use to mount an (inevitably unsuccessful, yet bloody) insurrection. That is your goal, and that is why you support the agenda of the "gun rights" movement.
I doubt that Greg possesses the cognitive ability to understand the text of the ATT. Regardless of this fact, We have to pass the ATT, so you can find out what is in it.
DeleteWrong on all counts, E.N.
Delete1. Notice that "subject only to the police power"? That's how Illinois violates the rights of its citizens.
2. If standing up for my rights makes me an insurrectionist, then we need a lot more insurrectionists.
3. I did read the text. It was badly written, but I've taught a lot of freshman composition classes, so I can wade my way through bad writing. The Senate will not ratify that treaty, but keep dreaming.
Greg Camp:
Delete"I did read the text. It was badly written, but I've taught a lot of freshman composition classes, so I can wade my way through bad writing. The Senate will not ratify that treaty, but keep dreaming."
You seem to be under the impression that the entirety of the world speaks English. It is not so.
The ATT may not translate properly to your language.
As I have already stated, We have to pass the ATT, so you can find out what is in it.
E.N., are you unaware that English is one of the official languages of the United Nations? But we don't have to ratify this treaty or any other, so don't get too excited.
DeleteAs for Emily's comment, "Illinois doesn't allow any rights to bear arms."
ReplyDeleteThat comment is not accurate regarding bearing arms in one's home or for licensed hunters to bear arms while hunting afield. However, that comment is 100% accurate with regard to citizens who want to be armed outside of their home for personal protection -- whether carrying openly or concealed.
Either it's an accurate description or it's a lying exaggeration.
DeleteWhy so simple-minded, Mikeb? Licensed hunters may carry, but other than that, ordinary citizens aren't allowed to do so.
DeleteThat means she was wrong. Hers was the over-simplification.
DeleteMike, you know better than that. Bob Costas was not talking about hunting. Her 'over-simplification' was exactly correct because it is concerning the issue at hand. You are attempting diversion.
DeleteJust so, Frail Liberty. The gun control freaks always tell us that they're not going after hunters, and we've told them time and again that the right to carry is important to our side. But they don't won't to admit that Illinois is an example of gun control failure.
DeleteOn the AWB, let's look at just one of the guns. The Intratec TEC-9. Right after the AWB banned that weapon, Intratec came out with the AB-10 (AB standing for After the Ban) that was AWB compliant. The only difference was that the AB-10 did not have a threaded muzzle and came with a 10 round magazine (but would accept all TEC-9 magazines, so if you had a 32 round magazine for the TEC-9 then you could use that in the AB-10). The capabilities of the AB-10 were exactly the same as the TEC-9. It just didn't look as scary.
ReplyDeleteNa, they found the new one equally scary and cried "loophole".
DeleteProduction didn't stop on the AB-10 until the company went out of business in 2001. Although I'm sure you're right about them finding that one scary too.
DeleteA big part of the AWB was the high-capacity magazine prohibition. The Loughner shooting proved how useful that was.
DeleteBecause no one could learn how to change out magazines. And no large magazines could be imported illegally. And all the large magazines will magically disappear if a new law passes.
DeleteMike, so are you saying it was pointless to ban the Tec-9? The only point was to ban the magazine? I know you said “a big part” but what was the part of the AB-10 that made it less dangerous than the Tec-9 (apart from the magazine)?
DeleteAnd if you are going to quote the Tucson incident, you need to realize that he stopped firing when the gun jammed. Normal capacity Glock magazines don’t jam, but those extended ones are very unreliable. The irony is his choice in magazines may have saved lives.
The same is true about the Aurora shooting. That C-Mag jammed. Here's innovative gun control for Mikeb: Require extended magazines.
DeleteTS, that's the first time I've heard that Loughner's gun jammed. Are you sure about that?
DeleteRegardless, if he'd gotten more than 10 rounds off before trying to change mags, lives were certainly not saved by that ironic "fact" of yours.
We’ve talked about it here before, but I am not surprised that you don’t hear it much. It is something that the gun control circles don’t want to talk about much.
Deletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071191163461466.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110
http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/ccw-talk/181016-about-jared-loughner-shootings.html
I am not sure what you mean by your last line. The jam was critical in him getting stopped. He dropped the slide on a fresh mag, which means without the jam, he was good to fire and the shooting continues. The magazine that Patricia Marsh grabbed was yet a third one that Loughner pulled from his pocket after the jam.
I repeat, your ironic fact leaves something to be desired since he fired many many more rounds than a normal magazine holds PRIOR to the jam.
Delete"Mr. Loughner shot 18 others, six fatally, including the judge and a 9-year-old girl, before his gun jammed and he was wrestled to the ground."
Standard magazines for a Glock 9mms hold different numbers of rounds, but one common magazine holds seventeen.
DeleteAll opf dear Emmy's comments are false.
ReplyDeleteNotice how gunloons have to rephrase what she said to make them only somewhat false.
Of course, Miller came pretty close to going to the hoosegow for her part in the Abramoff scandal.
Goldilocks, how about telling us where her comments are wrong? We can't take your word for it, especially since your definition of close to going to prison is that she testified against her former fiance'.
DeleteGreggy: All of Miller's comments are false.
ReplyDeleteNo ifs or buts. All patently untrue.
For example, she claims IL citizens have no rights to bear arms. Yet, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of IL citizens legally own guns.
RE Abramoff--she worked with her fiance and knew of his dealings with Abramoff. She would have been charged had she not turned in her fiance.
Bearing arms and owning arms are not the same thing.
DeleteGoldilocks, you love to smear the reputation of anyone who disagrees with you, so I'll take your coments for what they're worth. But as Jim pointed out, while some are allowed to keep arms legally in Illinois, ordinary citizens can't bear them.
DeleteSo your accusations of her lying turn out to be false. Anything else you want to try?
Jimmy: Actually civilians cannot bear arms. Bearing arms is exclusively a military term.
ReplyDeleteYou see now I'm just wondering if you're even familiar with the Constitution we have in America including the Bill of Rights. Because our founders recognized that keeping arms doesn't do much good if you can only keep it locked in your house, that just might be why it's written as the right to keep and bear arms. An extra point of clarity is that the entirety of the bill of rights, excluding the 10th amendment which clearly states it deals with states, deals with individual rights. Rights not given by the government, but protected from the government.
DeleteThat's news to me--I do it every day.
Deletebear
Delete/be(ə)r/
Verb
(of a person) Carry: "he was bearing a tray".
synonym; carry
Is not tied to military service only.
LMAO! My Lord, Goldie, you DO have a sense of humor!
DeleteAt least, that's what I HOPE that statement was as that would be the only way it could make sense. The good reverend has supplied the definition of the word 'bear', and unless English is not your first language you should have known that already.
TF, what the hell are you talking about? The Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald said in the house was OK, not outside.
DeleteMikeb, you keep forgetting that those were limited rulings. The questions in both were whether an ordinary citizen is legally able to have a handgun in his home. D.C. and Chicago had made that all but impossible. Carrying outside wasn't under consideration.
Deletemikeb said...The Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald said in the house was OK, not outside."
DeleteNot exactly, mikeb.
DC V Heller:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
SCOTUS never said that it was not a right to bear arms outside the home, the example they gave of a traditionally lawful purposes was self defense within the home. Self defense outside the home is also a traditionally lawful purpose of bearing arms.
That's right. The stretching of the 2A to include concealed carry is only wishful thinking on the part of the fanatics.
DeleteThe carrying of concealed weapons is not a traditionally lawful purpose. Therefore, it cannot be deemed to be "protected" by the Second Amendment.
DeleteBearing arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. I don't think it would include the word "bear" if it didn't.
DeleteSCOTUS only ruled on the Heller and McDonald cases. Those cases did not have anything to do with bearing arms. They were only focused on keeping arms.
What's a stretch, mikeb and E.N. and that your assumptions that my comment was about concealed carry.
DeleteToday's court decision shines an interesting light on this thread.
ReplyDeleteindeed it does.
DeleteI just saw that. Good news, there.
DeleteHow long until Laci comes around to tell us that this ruling doesn't mean what it says and can't possibly apply to ordinary citizens anyway?
DeleteThe State has 180 days to comply with the ruling.
DeleteThey ought to respond by prohibiting "concealable weapons", defined as any firearm with a total length less than 80 centimeters, or simply impose a punitive (50,000 American dollar perhaps?) on civilian gun ownership (with certain exceptions made for those with a valid need for personal protection).
Greg Camp:
Delete"How long until Laci comes around to tell us that this ruling doesn't mean what it says and can't possibly apply to ordinary citizens anyway?"
The ruling stands in contradiction of numerous American legal precedent. It will likely be overturned by a higher court.
E.N.,
Delete1. Actually, the ruling is grounded in both Heller and McDonald and in legal precedents going back centuries. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, it likely would stand if appealed, but the state attorney general is said not to want to lose a case like this, so it may not even be appealed.
2. The legislature in Illinois wants to pass a shall-issue system for concealed carry. They've tried several times, but the governor has vetoed the bills. With this ruling, he'll be forced to accept what the people and the politicians outside of Chicago want.
Once again, America shows that individuals have rights. You may struggle to deny that all you want. You perhaps are part of a government that infringes on rights--although I suspect that you're just some kid in your parents' basement who isn't being supervised enough. Regardless, the law moves more and more my direction.
It is a rather pointless arguing with a double digit-er such as yourself. What else can I expect from a westerner these days?
DeleteIt's wonderful news. Now we have another chance to see if Illinois suddenly becomes safer and has less gun violence. I'll be watching.
DeleteE.N., you're welcome to go away. According to you, individuals have no rights, so you shouldn't be speaking, anyway.
Delete