Friday, October 11, 2013

Emily Miller with Joe Scarborough and Friends

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In the past I've called her a shill for the gun lobby and a stooge for the NRA. My opinion hasn't changed, although I have to say, of all the pro-gun spokespeople, she's the best talker they've got.

The shill part comes in when she tries to repeatedly convince us that "assault weapons" are just like hunting rifles. This is ridiculous and anyone with half-a-brain can see why. Hunting rifles are not designed to take magazines which hold 30 rounds or more.  That's because hunting rifles are made for shooting deer and wild pigs. Assault rifles are designed to shoot as many humans as possible in as efficient a manner as they can.

The other quibble I have is when she falls back on that old nonsense of how few people are prosecuted for failing the backgkround check. We've discussed this at great length, basically it's a diversionary tactic to distract people from the fact that in every case in which someone fails a background check the system worked. That person was prevented from buying a gun. The paper crime of lying on a government form is beside the point.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Mike,

    Since you insist that there is a clear difference, please tell us what it is. How do you define an Assault Rifle?

    There are tons of definitions floating around out there. Most deal with cosmetic features so that the same guns are available so long as they have certain parts ground of and different furniture on them. The one that breaks the pattern is California's new bill which, if signed, would include any semi-auto that takes a detachable magazine--regardless of that magazine's capacity.

    Neither this new proposal nor the old cosmetic laws have anything to do with the capacity of magazines which is covered under a different law.

    So please, tell us, what is your definition of "assault weapons" that need to be banned and tell us how they differ from acceptable hunting rifles. Until we know what you're arguing for, it's impossible to answer yea or nay.

    1. For a "clear difference" I mentioned that hunting rifles aren't equipped with heavy-duty magazines. Isn't that a clear enough difference for you?

      I also understand the other so-called "cosmetic features" which you pretend make no difference but in reality are mainly built in to kill people better.

    2. Mikeb, that's not clear. There is no functional difference between the two, and lots of "hunting rifles" can take magazines of any size.

    3. Thanks for ignoring my questions, Mike, and not telling us what type of ban you want.

      Right now, we just have your comments on magazine size which, frankly, seem like a red herring since you like the california proposal that bans any semi-auto with a detachable magazine, including many hunting rifles whose factory standard magazines are small enough not to scare you.

      As for the cosmetic features, You haven't explained which features are evil, why they're evil, and how they are not beneficial features for hunters.

    4. T., you're trying to win the argument by making it as tedious as possible. We have discussed this at length but now you pretend we haven't and bring us back to square one.

      For one thing, I never used the word "evil" to describe anything. So your asking me what features I consider evil, implies I have stated that position. That makes you a liar again.

      Can you tell me why the forward pistol grip is not on hunting rifles? Can you do that?

    5. I've been here less than a year--I remember one discussion on assault weapons where you dodged or ignored every question I asked and seemed to indicate that you were more concerned about semi-automatic actions rather than the cosmetic features.

      Hence my questioning about what you consider an assault weapon--Is it any semi-auto, or are there some features that push a gun over the line?

      As for your complaints about me talking about "evil" features--please! Can you seriously not handle ribbing of your position without coming up with some justification to scream "LIAR!"

      As for forward pistol grips--first, thanks for indicating that they're one of the features you have a problem with. Why are they not on hunting rifles? Well, some hunting rifles have them added to them, but I'll grant that most don't. There are several potential reasons.

      1: My AR that has a forward pistol grip for one reason--holding it puts my thumb in position for hitting my flashlight--good for nighttime home defense. My home defense and raccoon killing shotgun has a light mounted differently and activated differently because a forward pistol grip would be undesirable for actuating the pump action. You don't go hunting at night, so my hunting rifles don't need a light mounted on them or a special grip making it easier to hit.

      2: Ergonomics: some people like forward pistol grips, others don't. I like it on the one AR, but the other and my other guns, such as the AK, have no forward pistol grips because I find the normal stock more comfortable for me.

      3: Aesthetics: Many traditional hunting guns are pieces of art that are not given forward pistol grips because they would mess up the lines of the gun. They look OK on guns with rear pistol grips and distended magazines, but a wood stocked Remington 700 with a forward pistol grip looks like a pig with lipstick--or a pair of underpants with a stripe, rather.

      In addition to these differences, most hunting rifles have nice, folding, and telescoping bi-pods added onto their forearms. These do a lot more to stabilize the rifle than a forward pistol grip which does it's best work being used as a monopod (one use the one on my AR gets).

      Do you see some nefarious purpose for the grip that I'm missing? Do you have other features?

    6. Mikeb, just admit it: You oppose all semiautomatic rifles.

    7. T., the forward pistol grip is a military feature which helps the shooter spray fire into multiple enemies. Hunters don't need that. You like it because it helps fulfill your Rambo fantasies.

      Tell me about the barrel shroud. Do hunting rifles have that? Don't bother. I don't have the patience for another lengthy lawyerly bullshit lesson from you. No, hunting rifles don't need that because when you hunt you don't expect to empty 30-round magazines one after another thereby overheating the barrel.

      So, when the shill for the gun lobby and the stooge for the NRA said in the video that assault rifles are just like hunting rifles, she was lying through her teeth. That's what shills and stooges do, as you well know.

    8. I don't even know where to start on all this bullshit. "You like it because it helps fulfill your Rambo fantasies." Ah, right. That would be why I said that I don't use these grips on most of my guns.

      As for your spray fire comment, the only case where that comes close to being true is in the case of machine pistols where the forward grip helps counter muzzle rise. On semi autos, a grip is a grip is a grip--the real question is whether the grip helps the shooter stabilize the gun based on how he or she holds it. Some like the forward pistol grip for this, some like an angled one, and some prefer the standard stock. If you really favor safety, you should want people to be able to use whatever they're most comfortable with and can shoot most accurately to avoid misses.

      As for your comments on barrel shrouds, hunting guns get fired a good deal when they're taken to the range to be sighted in, to be shot at targets for fun, or to be used to teach a new shooter--I've been burned plenty of times on such occasions. Why do you insist on banning a feature that helps avoid dropped firearms on such occasions?

      (BTW, if you're shooting real hunting rounds, like the .308, you're going to heat the barrel up to uncomfortable levels far before number 30.

    9. Mikeb, just admit the truth: You oppose semiautomatic rifles. These accessory features don't amount to anything other than a backdoor attempt at a ban.

  2. Mike, please elaborate. What part of a hunting rifles's design prevents a longer magazine from being inserted into it?

    1. And please explain how flash supressors, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, adjustable stocks, and pistol grips have anything to do with whether or not a large magazine can be used. I'd like to hear your explaination.

    2. Asked and answered.

      But, do you know a hunter that uses 30-round magazines? Or are you just pretending like Tennessean likes to do?

    3. How many times have you been shown hunters going after feral hogs, Mikeb?

    4. "Asked and answered." Not really. There were a lot of broad generalizations in the past about how they made it easier to hold the gun steadily and how this benefited killers but not hunters, but nothing you've said has been convincing--or even consistent. You agree that flash suppressors and bayonet mounts are harmless, and even that barrel shrouds are good to keep people from burning their hands and thus dropping a gun, but you insist on defending lists that include these and other features.

      As for 30 round magazines, I use them whenever I hunt with a rifle that uses them. We don't have any game laws that require a smaller magazine, so even though I only load 5-10 rounds, I go ahead and use the larger magazines that I have rather than spending more money on a small "hunting" magazine.

      You wouldn't imagine the ecological damage done by that unused capacity in my magazines!

      Moreover, you may remember the discussion a week or two back on here about hunting boar and how a semi-auto was a good backup gun. I'd wager Texas and some of his friends use the full size magazines in their backup gun. I'd even wager it's topped off like mine will be when I finally get around to going on a hog hunt.

      Oh, but I just gave examples of what I do, and Mike singled me out to charge with "pretending" so I must be imagining all this stuff. I must have a reduced capacity magazine somewhere here that I use...

    5. It's not at all answered, Mike. Do you think it is not possible to make a larger magazine that fits into an approved hunting rifle? Why? There isn't a large market for it, but if you ban rifles with pistol grips, guess what... You'll start seeing more rifles without pistol grips and large magazines. Again, what on earth does the shape of the grip, movement of the stock, or little pieces of metal at the end of the barrel have to do with the size of magazine it can be fitted with? Anyone with half a brain should know, right?

    6. TS, it's not a question of if it's possible. Hunters don't use extended magazines or forward pistol grips because those items are needed for killing many people at once, not one animal at a time.

    7. Eradicating feral hogs, Mikeb. Again, you are lying, since you've been shown that repeatedly.

    8. But you think the whole gun should be banned, not just the magazine. Yet a large magazine can fit into a gun with or without a forward vertical grip.

      Tell us how you feel about Brown's veto of sb374.

  3. "The shill part comes in when she tries to repeatedly convince us that 'assault weapons' are just like hunting rifles." -- Mike B

    Mike, the hunting regulations of most states prohibit hunting with rifles that can hold more than 5 rounds in their magazines. Other than that magazine limitation, there is no functional difference between a traditional semi-automatic hunting rifle and modern semi-automatic rifles.

    And even the magazine capacity limitation is tenuous. Millions of people have semi-automatic rifles that hold as many as 18 rounds of ammunition in tubular magazines.

    So there are currently semi-automatic "hunting" rifles that have detachable magazines and semi-automatic "hunting" rifles that have magazine capacities in excess of 15 rounds.

    Modern semi-automatic rifles simply combine both desirable features and have 30 round detachable magazines. They function wonderfully for hunting if not prohibited by state hunting regulations. Those rifles also function well in situations like the Los Angeles riots in 1993 when Korean shopkeepers used similar rifles to guard their property and their lives from rioters. Absolutely nothing stops another such riot from occurring today.

    Personally, my most important and pressing reason to have such a rifle right now is when I am in remote locations exploring and camping. Criminals plant and maintain large marijuana fields on public lands and they will do everything in their power to kill anyone who discovers their fields. If I stumble upon their operation and one or more criminals come after me, I want the best tool available to defend myself as I try to escape. And that tool is a modern semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round detachable magazine.

    -- TruthBeTold

  4. Once again, that smug self-congratulation society smirks its way through a segment, and Miller unfortunately didn't smack them around enough. But I have to wonder about Mika Brzezinski's claim that her family had guns when she was growing up. That may be, but did her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski have guns while he was living in Germany in the 30s as the son of a Polish diplomat? Or how about in the late 30s when his father was posted to Moscow? And then what about when he and his family were refugees in Canada during the war and afterward when the Communists took over?

    Perhaps Mika should rethink her comfort with government control.

    1. So America is as bad as Germany in the 1930's?
      What a fucking idiot fuck head toothless grin idiot hillbilly.