HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Murdoch calls for automat...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:30 PM

Murdoch calls for automatic weapons ban

Source: Politico

News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch expressed support for an automatic weapons ban tonight following today's shooting in Newtown, Conn.

"Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?," Murdoch wrote on Twitter.

Murdoch made a similar call following the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., in July: "We have to do something about gun controls. Police license okay for hunting rifle or pistol for anyone without crim or pscho record. No more," he tweeted.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/murdoch-calls-for-automatic-weapons-ban-152057.html#.UMvdLlQtWrc.twitter



I don't know if Politico is considered reputable, but I'm taking the chance.

The NRA isn't going to be happy about this.

90 replies, 8062 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply Murdoch calls for automatic weapons ban (Original post)
caseymoz Dec 2012 OP
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #1
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #2
bossy22 Dec 2012 #3
Left Coast2020 Dec 2012 #24
Ter Dec 2012 #31
caseymoz Dec 2012 #25
bossy22 Dec 2012 #37
caseymoz Dec 2012 #41
aquart Dec 2012 #4
dogman Dec 2012 #56
DeschutesRiver Dec 2012 #86
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #18
Buddaman Dec 2012 #6
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #7
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #82
Lint Head Dec 2012 #8
southernyankeebelle Dec 2012 #9
Tigress DEM Dec 2012 #10
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #11
Ash_F Dec 2012 #17
Tx4obama Dec 2012 #12
Cha Dec 2012 #28
Blandocyte Dec 2012 #13
Ian David Dec 2012 #14
gejohnston Dec 2012 #15
meow2u3 Dec 2012 #16
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #19
caseymoz Dec 2012 #26
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #45
caseymoz Dec 2012 #49
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #50
caseymoz Dec 2012 #54
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #55
caseymoz Dec 2012 #61
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #68
caseymoz Dec 2012 #71
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #74
beevul Dec 2012 #81
caseymoz Dec 2012 #85
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #89
tavernier Dec 2012 #20
tularetom Dec 2012 #21
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #22
caseymoz Dec 2012 #27
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #40
caseymoz Dec 2012 #53
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #58
caseymoz Dec 2012 #60
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #62
caseymoz Dec 2012 #63
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #64
caseymoz Dec 2012 #67
SpartanDem Dec 2012 #65
caseymoz Dec 2012 #66
SpartanDem Dec 2012 #70
caseymoz Dec 2012 #72
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #46
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #34
valerief Dec 2012 #36
NickB79 Dec 2012 #42
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #43
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #47
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #59
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #69
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #75
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #76
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #79
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #80
llmart Dec 2012 #39
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #48
caseymoz Dec 2012 #84
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #87
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #90
lsewpershad Dec 2012 #23
BainsBane Dec 2012 #29
LineLineNew Reply +
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #73
Historic NY Dec 2012 #30
NYtoBush-Drop Dead Dec 2012 #32
ileus Dec 2012 #33
durablend Dec 2012 #35
dawn frenzy adams Dec 2012 #38
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #44
JI7 Dec 2012 #51
graham4anything Dec 2012 #52
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #57
olddad56 Dec 2012 #77
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #78
truthisfreedom Dec 2012 #83
AngryAmish Dec 2012 #88

Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:31 PM

1. NRA isn't going to be happy? Then I'm delighted.

I dare not print what I think of the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:37 PM

2. The balls on that asshole

"Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?," Murdoch wrote on Twitter.


People of his ilk have been working for decades to make it impossible to ban any gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:37 PM

3. ignorant comment

Automatic Weapons have been strictly controlled since 1934 and any manufactured after 1986 is illegal for a civilian to own for personal use

My guess is he is referring to semi-automatic weapons in which then he is also ignorant since that the majority of handguns are semi-automatic- in fact pistols are often used to refer to a handgun that's semi-automatic (Depending on what state you in, the forms you fill out often give the option under handgun types "pistol, Revolver, Other".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:01 AM

24. Automatic weapons were banned by law during Clinton Administration, but only until...

...repugs in Bush crime family undid it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Left Coast2020 (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:46 AM

31. Wrong

 

First of all, the 1994-2004 ban expired on its own. Bush had nothing to do with it, and supported signing an extension if it reached his desk (it never did). Second, they banned semi-automatic "assault style" weapons. Fully autos were banned in 1934.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:21 AM

25. Well, suppose he said 'automatics with an apostrophe.


A silent apostrophe. And suppose he was talking rifles and not pistols. You know, Twitter only gives you 140 characters. Not too much room for clarification there.

Not everyone has the care for technical gun language that pro-gunners require before awarding the rest of us with free speech.

And suppose you make both those points, and he clarifies it to say ban semi-automatic rifles. And he's really not as ignorant as you're insulting him to be. And your comeback is . . .?

This technical lesson comes out every time somebody would rather say four syllables rather than six. Come on, we're not talking about partial differential equations here. You're not that intellectually advanced over your opposition that you can arrogantly disregard their opinion for not having a T crossed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:49 AM

37. The technical language makes a world of difference

an automatic weapon is not the same thing as a semi-automatic weapon. They are two completely different classes of weapons as recognized by BATFE. They can't and should not be used interchangably. Would you say it's okay to refer to a tractor trailer as a "car" for simplicity?

One is truthful the other one is misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:51 PM

41. Explain to me the real world consequences.

Are you afraid they might make automatics illegal, again? By mistake? Are you afraid they might make semi-automatics illegal and automatics legal? What catastrophe are you rescuing us from?

I've never had a progunner explain to me what endangered us if we refer to semi-automatics as automatics. You sound like my old grammar teacher warning me about "who" and "whom." Make it clear to me how seriously it will set back civilization, because right now, it sounds like annoying snark obstructing and cluttering the discussion.

If there's no catastrophe you can name, why isn't calling civilian-grade, rapid-fire guns "automatic" acceptable in informal debate? Especially when it's supported by your very point that status of full automatics has been long settled. Does it occur to you that everyone might presume we can't be talking about military-grade firearms anyway? So, no distinction need be made?

If you're steering us from the Mayan Apocalypse, then come up with a better word for "semi-automatic"; A less than five syllable word without a hyphen that doesn't shorten conveniently to "automatic" please. Of course, with any other implement, we can say just "civilian grade." Then again, when we don't, no snarky grease monkey calls us ignorant for not saying "civilian grade lube."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:38 PM

4. Put his finger in the wind, did he?

Or just nervous that angry libs may have our own arsenal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:52 AM

56. My first thought was nervous.

Now that he has done so well eliminating the middle class, he has no buffer from the common folk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:14 AM

86. Murdoch, Romney and those of that ilk will still have weapons - this is a law for the common folk

Just like during Prohibition - the wealthy never went without a drink. And were never harassed for doing so, unlike the common people who had agents after their asses when they drank their moonshine.

And the wealthy, both liberal and conservatives, made utter fortunes from the then illegal trade in the prohibited item, alcohol.

I think Murdoch is nervous only because his Faux viewers aren't going to like his comment; otherwise, I think he is hoping it happens with both fingers crossed. He will still be safe, his staff will be armed for his protection, and he will make a fortune from a ban just like in the good old days.

I have no idea of how to fix this problem, because what I know for certain based on history is that the wealthy will never have to give up their weapons. Which means the mentally ill Adam Lanza's of the world will still have access, because he was a son of privilege and wealth. His dad was a financier who made 8,500 bucks PER WEEK. No one will be telling him that his family can't have access to weapons.

That is reality. These are the same rich Wall Street people who tell our Congress what to do, and congressman fall in line like sheep. Murdoch will be thrilled when his Faux crazy viewers no longer have weapons and won't be the threat to him that they are today. He wants to make money off the lunatics that watch him, but not be in danger from them. I can't stand Murdoch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:39 PM

5. Automatics have been very, very strictly regulated in the US for something like 80 years, no? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:40 PM

18. Since 1934

It's called the NFA. Just another guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:40 PM

6. Get rid of the fucking assult rifles!!!!nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:42 PM

7. When they've lost Rupert Murdoch, I think the gun-nuts are in serious trouble.

Seriously. Rupert. Fucking. Murdoch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:41 AM

82. Looking forward to O'Reilly and Hannity this week

 

I'm sure they'll have their Thinking Orders from RM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:43 PM

8. This twits corporations promote the NRA and make money off of salacious stories of death.

Screw Murdoch. Why didn't this piece of garbage say this years ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:45 PM

9. Really who cares what this idiot says. He owns a company that encourages weapons. If he really

 

cares get out front and help push for a ban on this kind of weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:52 PM

10. I don't like him or trust him, but he said it, so we can hold him to it.

No more allowing rabid rants from his right wing nuts promoting gun violence as a solution for political dissent.

He gave us a quarter, let's demand a buck fifty. It ain't much, but it's like getting candy from Scrooge at Christmas - priceless!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:54 PM

11. I'm not sure I have ever agreed with him before

But I do on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:26 PM

17. It's weird, doesn't feel right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:01 PM

12. And here's another article regarding Murdock...



Rupert Murdoch On CT Shooting: ‘When Will Politicians Find Courage To Ban Automatic Weapons?’

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rupert-murdoch-on-ct-shooting-when-will-politicians-find-courage-to-ban-automatic-weapons/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:12 AM

28. When they stop being afraid that the NRA

won't donate to their campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:03 PM

13. Ban automatic and handguns and see what happens

If it reduces mass killings, cool. If not, reverse it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:14 PM

14. Tell Conservatives they have to boycott Fox News now! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:17 PM

15. for all practical purposes they were banned in 1934

not that the average person wanted or could afford one anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:21 PM

16. I wonder why Murdoch is coming out in favor of a ban on automatic weapons

Is he afraid someone sick of his propaganda mill might spray him with bullets from one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:55 PM

19. As per usual, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

None of the weapons reported so far are automatic. Not one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:32 AM

26. Sophistry there.


Really, I don't know why that distinction matters here. Of course he means ban semi-automatic weapons. He means ban the weapon category that has been doing this crap. Since "real" military grade, automatic weapons are not found, why can't you accept "automatic weapon" as the colloquial term for civilian grade semi-automatic weapons? Since, really, lack of suppression-fire capability is the only distinction between the two, I get tired of progunners using this to block communications, and disqualify the opposition from their right to free speech.

Accept my correction for Mr. Murdoch. He means semi-automatic rifles. I shouldn't have to make that correction for you. You should be able to figure it out. Now, what's your point, if any?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:10 AM

45. Because it isn't.

It's no simple mistake either, it is deliberate, and is continuously done by pro-ban proponents. Shit, Josh Sugarmann, the guy behind the Violence Policy Center. spelled it out in a 'Romney on tape' like dinner session.

"The semi-automatic 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 that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

These people know exactly what they are doing. A colloquial term my ass. No correction necessary.

Also, banning semi-auto weapons would ban most firearms manufactured since the turn of the last century. It's very easy to get up to a podium and say 'Ban automatic weapons' when the vast majority (probably over 99%) of gun owners will think to themselves 'oh, he doesn't mean me'.

When the 80+ million gun owners in this country realizes he means THEM, then you have a political snafu on your hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:14 AM

49. I stop on your first sentence.


When you say it's deliberate, I say you're batshit insane and I'm not reading anything else you write.

Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:20 AM

50. Yeah, you wouldn't want to accidentally read the single biggest proponent of gun control in the

nation in his own words describing the strategy.

I keep forgetting, not everyone here is interested in actual evidence or the truth, even if it's an ugly or inconvenient truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:37 AM

54. Because it's bullshit . .


. . . a delusion that paranoids pass amongst each other, based on a completely fabricated or severely misquoted text. And when you're wrong on step one, your reasoning doesn't turn genius on step fifty.

If that's the number one objection, there's no reasoning with a movement when clinical psychotics are leading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:45 AM

55. I'll just take that as an admission that you cannot refute the facts I cited.

Might as well put me on ignore, since you can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:07 PM

61. You mean except that they're flatly false?

That they're fabricated by paranoids who are willing to tell the occasional lie to get other people believe the rest of what they do. Meanwhile, those people believe his lies and make up a few of their own, even falsifying documentation for the cause.

This is how what you believe has been propagated. It's a process in the spread of conspiracy theories, and it happens in cults as well.

I also can't refute a paranoid schizophrenic when he says he's Napoleon reincarnated because I'm just that lame.

Do research on that quote you just made, and on others that you depend on at something besides propaganda websites. But beware, because the anti-gun side is hard at work with constant disinformation. (in case you don't know.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:32 PM

68. Yes, I fabricated Josh Sugarmann's quote. Very good. Got me there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:12 PM

71. No, you quoted a source, who quoted a source . . .

. . . who quoted a source (who knows how many links were in the chain) that fabricated it, complete with quote. Look, you have Atheist in your handle, how do you think misinformation spreads in cults? You have people who believe most of it, and are willing to lie (maybe just a little) to get other people to believe. Among those converts, you have some who will lie to spread the belief. Along the way there are people who are willing to tell big lies about it. How do you think dogma gets developed?

If I were accusing you of doing the fabricating, would I have told you to do research on that? You may be surprised at what you find, if you can filter out the bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:25 PM

74. Walked right into that one.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

First indented paragraph.

Oh, I know, I hacked their webpage and inserted the text!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:17 AM

81. You said it best when you said...

You said it best when you said this:


I keep forgetting, not everyone here is interested in actual evidence or the truth, even if it's an ugly or inconvenient truth.

Even when you quote the hoses-ass right from their very own web-page, you don't get a "I stand corrected" or any sort of apology.

Not that that sort of thing is anything new...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:47 AM

85. You must be seeing something there that I'm not.


Yes, it's called a delusion.

You mean that people can confuse an automatic with a semi-automatic? No brainer. That wasn't even the point. That doesn't mean, as you've jumped the conclusion, that the VPC is maintaining that ignorance. That doesn't mean there's an anti-gun conspiracy.

You've just proved what I said: paranoid delusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:59 AM

89. That link shows Sugarmann acknowledging that confusion between semi and full auto is beneficial to

his cause.

You will NEVER see him correct anyone on that mistake. Not once.

Some people would, in the interests of honest and accurate debate or discussion, point out exceptions, or problems with their own argument.
You will also see him demonizing weapons like the SKS, a FIXED magazine (fed by hand from the top, a California-assault-weapons-ban-friendly rifle). No matter, he calls them high capacity, 'enhanced threats' because they can penetrate body armor. Problem is, any center-fire rifle can penetrate the soft body armor the police wear. He fucking knows it. Hell, Sugarmann is the only FFL in Washington DC.

He's a disingenuous piece of shit.

Does that prove a broad conspiracy? No. I gave you one example of an asshole that likes to fudge the facts to sell his agenda.
Murdock is a similar creature, though normally about different issues, and happily breaking whatever laws in the process. (IE: Phone hacking scandal that ended his UK media outlet entirely)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:56 PM

20. Definitely drunk.

He must have just come from a yacht holiday party, full of the booze of human kindness. Fox has long since advocated for the NRA and been paid well for doing so. Is Murdoch now going to deny their involvement?

As Santa says; Ho. Ho. Ho.

I won't believe the sincerity of that fat old fuck until I see him suited up and standing in the halls of congress screaming loudly for gun reform, and leaning on his fox lackys to do the same. I'll bet my paltry (but much needed) paycheck that we will never see that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:40 PM

21. He's about 80 years too late since automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934

The entire gun debate would be a lot easier to have if the participants would learn the meaning of the words and phrases they toss around so freely.

When I hear terms like "automatic weapons", "assault rifle", or "high capacity clip" it tells me the speaker is not well informed. Murdoch as well as anybody else.

I'm a gun owner and I despise the NRA but if we're going to have a sensible conversation about gun control we'll have to be talking the same language and we have to avoid the media inspired emotionally charged buzzwords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:46 PM

22. Reasonable Conversation?

Let me know when the g-team wants to have that conversation.

Reasonable my *ss.

Read the dozens or hundreds of posts saying the problem is gun free schools. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:39 AM

27. You know, this is the fourth time somebody has said this here?


For goodness sake: he means civilian-grade automatic weapons, that is, semi-automatic. He means rifles, because that's what was used here. This isn't bio-nano-robotics. You're not intellectually superior to your opposition here. Your not going to baffle them with your command of technical details. You know, you're going to keep correcting their terms, and you're going to notice you change no opinions with it. Not because they don't understand you, but because you're not bothering to understand them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:13 PM

40. When you use the wrong words, you end up

with things like the useless, previous, federal "assault weapons" ban.

Use the correct words, get the correct message out, get the correct action started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:30 AM

53. Really? What's the real world consequences here?


Are you afraid they're going to ban automatic weapons, again? Or are they calling them automatic because then everyone knows it really means semi-automatic, and so will ban everything except muskets. (Yes, I know that's technically incorrect. It's called a joke. Don't correct me. Then again, when Founders wrote he Second Amendment, they had muskets in mind.)

Really, is your entire fear that nobody is going to employ a researcher and a proofreader before Congress makes some law about it? A step we're not even near yet? There's no such thing as informal discussion?

Do you insist on an asshole being called a rectum or anus just because, technically speaking, there''s no donkey involved? I would think that you do. Think of all the confusion this causes in real life!

The assault weapons ban failed? Certainly news to me. There have certainly been a lot of spree shootings, and far more serious ones, since it came off the books. And you're also acting like what would fix it to your satisfaction would be correct terminology, when really, I sense your objection is that there's any regulation at all. So, if you could obstruct or confuse the argument with semantics, you would, and do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:58 AM

58. My fear is that we end up with another copy of the useless AWB.

Yes, the AWB failed. It did not met any of the goals it set out. What it banned was a set of cosmetic features on certain semi-auto rifles. The same rifles without the complete set of cosmetic features continued to sell quite briskly. The rifles with the complete set of cosmetic features jumped in price and also sold quite quickly.

The previous AWB did not ban automatic guns of any sort. That was the purposeful deception worked by the writers and you have fallen for the trap.

> Is your entire fear that nobody is going to employ a researcher and a proofreader before Congress makes some law about it?
That is the common practice of Congress. Unfortunately, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

By using the correct terminology, everyone understands what is being talked about. If you want to talk about semi-auto carbines, then talk about semi-auto carbines. If you want to talk about the cosmetics of the guns, talk about the cosmetics of the guns. There is no need to create artificial terms designed to confuse people, for example the term "assault weapon".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:54 PM

60. Look, if you want to fix this

Come up with a less awkward term for "semi-automatic," something that's less than five syllables, doesn't have a hyphen, and doesn't shorten conveniently "automatic."

Am I'm supposed to believe you're concerned that an ineffective gun law will be passed? If it's ineffective, you'd consider it such a disaster that you're giving dire warnings about the disastrous effects of imprecise terms in informal language. Please. You know what the progunners do when there's an ineffective ban on weapons? Celebrate. If the language of the law aimed enforcement at "cosmetic features" I suggest you look instead to the pro-gun lawmakers, who wanted it to fail as much as you do, and wanted just the "cosmetic feature" talking point you're using.

Cosmetic features: you certainly have marshaled out all the buzzwords here. That's a precise technical term for you, no doubt what you mean. No Orwellian fog obscuring that at all.

I reiterate: the ban looked effective to me.

"The previous AWB did not ban automatic guns of any sort. That was the purposeful deception worked by the writers and you have fallen for the trap."

This is nutcase. It belongs on a squirrel farm. Spar me the paranoia and conspiracy theories. When children are getting killed, I have no inclination to entertain them at all. Neither do parents, who are a very large constituency. They are not going to be mollified by conspiracy theories. If pro-gunners like yourself continue to marshal out these arguments you're guaranteed to lose within a decade.

The purposeful deception is as credible as alien abductions and Creationism. With that, this conversation is over. We're done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:27 PM

62. Your problem is that you don't know the simple industry standard terms but still want to use them.

Learn the terms, educate yourself. They all have easy to understand meanings without trying to deceive people. If you don't want to learn the terms, fine don't do it; just write out the long hand descriptions of what you want. There is no need to stay confused.

Next, learn some history. Research the old AWB. Learn what it did and did not do. Once folks have learned the truth, they are not usually happy regardless of their pro/anti-gun stance.

We are not trying to deceive you. We are trying to remove the deception from you.

Ask questions. We are happy to help you learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:05 PM

63. Now you sound like a cult member.


You've made the jump from insane to creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:17 PM

64. Knowledge often does that with the uninformed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:30 PM

67. So do stupidity and insanity with everyone else.

It's like, "I know you're an alcoholic because you deny being one."

You can ROTF, but you and your side is taking exactly the wrong strategy with this. Enjoy the margins. You're going there and you deserve them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:18 PM

65. "the ban looked effective to me."

This gun was legal under the AWB and while the AWB did ban new large capacity magazines from being made, it did NOT ban the possession of preexisting ones.

http://imgur.com/a/pAVPl

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:23 PM

66. Imprecision in language did not put any of that crap in.


You cited this one as one that would not be prevented. (He had three guns.) You have me at a disadvantage, since I can't cite the ones that were prevented. You don't have a statistical control to measure it against.

There weren't as many mass shootings. There weren't as many mass shootings and they weren't as deadly as the ones since he ban was lifted. About half of the most deadly gun sprees have been in the last decade, and the two deadliest happened since 2006.

You have a major flaw in arguing this text to try to prove to me the changes were "cosmetic." (Again, there's a precise technical term for you.) Please trace and cite the errors in language that led to this passage. Trace down how saying "automatic" led to any of that.

They didn't ban or limit anything by accident. If anything, it looks like the pro-gun congressmen cluttered the law with irrelevant passages and otherwise reduced the law's effectiveness. That's not an error, and they will still do it whether we are scrupulous about which guns are called automatic. Also, they will still blame it on the anti-gun people.

Furthermore, don't say the antigun people were deceived by this. No they weren't. It's what they had to settle for. It had as much to do with calling a semi-automatic an automatic as it does calling a rectum an asshole. So, you gained a little in demonstrating cosmetic features, but you lost more by making your whole point irrelevant.

And you can't tell me that the law being less effective really made you so anguished that you must give dire, helpful warnings to anti-gunners to make sure it never happens again. Please.

Still, considering the spike in spree killings and casualties from them, it looked to have some effect even in its weakened form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #66)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:47 PM

70. Actually I'm very sincere

What makes you think I'm not? The gun laws are entirely too lax, it's harder to adopt a dog than it's to get a gun. But people cheering the return of the 1994 AWB are getting a far weaker law than they think they are. The gun use Newtown would've been legal under the AWB because it lacked the cosmetic features I posted. It wouldn't have made sure his mother never owned a large clip.
If you want to implement a good gun control policy these are thing you need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:20 PM

72. If you're sincere, than I've still shown the mistake.


You still can't trace down how using "automatic" instead of "semi-automatic" led to one word of this. The progunners still diverted the focus of the law, not careless language. In fact, the passage even uses "semi-automatic" correctly.

I'm thinking that people directly involved in making the law would study the technical details. That's how it should work, but-- for comparison-- one doesn't have to become an auto mechanic to make traffic laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:11 AM

46. Oh no, we understand Murdock perfectly well.

PERFECTLY well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:51 AM

34. The entire debate would actually be over already if the 2nd amendment itself was written to be

more specific on what types of weapons the citizens have the right to and until the politicians grow a pair and address that area we will still have this headache of an issue plaguing us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:47 AM

36. That would be dangerous. It might lead to a clarification on "person" or "people"

in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:29 PM

42. The Supreme Court addressed that issue in 1939

In the Miller case, a citizen was arrested for owning a sawed-off shotgun. He fought to the Supreme Court and lost. Here is what the Supreme Court ruled:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:07 PM

43. Yes but that same argument could be turned around to argue for allowing

things like grenade launchers, shoulder launched missiles and the ever popular bazooka.
My point is the entire thing, from top to bottom of what weapons are and are not allowed need never go before the court again if the Constitution was amended to address it but that however is unlikely to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:16 AM

47. Firearms are classified in the eyes of the court as very different from Destructive Devices.

Explosives (missiles, bazookas, artillery, RPG's, etc), are all delivery mechanisms for explosives(and you can see this fact in that you can own the visible components of each of these weapons, as they are pretty much inert tubes))

Firearms are protected under the 2nd as 'arms'. Ordnance is not. Never has been, in the eyes of the court.

This stuff was settled nearly 100 years ago, and yes, there were fully automatic weapons at the time.


What WOULD be legal, is removing the Hughes amendment, and extending the select fire registry to require registration of semi-automatic weapons. I would totally support you there, AND it would be fully legal to do so via the 2nd amendment. It would go a long ways towards eliminating straw purchases and other means by which guns get into ineligible recipients hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:59 AM

59. But there were no fully automatic weapons back in 1787 when the Constitution was written

which was over 200 years ago thus the problem we have now with the new weapons technology that has evolved since that time that the founders had no way of foreseeing thus we have the problem which will keep cropping up as new weapons are developed of having the courts having to decide whats legal for citizens to own and whats not.
Thats why I am saying the only way to really resolve the issue in such a way as to remove it from having to go to SCOTUS as often as it has been would be by amending the Constitution to more clearly define what type of firearms private citizens are permitted to own and under what circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:37 PM

69. There were semi-automatic weapons.

Girandoni Repeating Rifle. The Austrians were using it against the French. It was available during the ratification. Powerful enough to kill a deer. Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition a few years after the ratification.

In 150 years, there hasn't been THAT much innovation in firearms. Most of the innovation has been in guided weapons, rockets, etc, and we can't have those, per the courts, because they are indiscriminate DD's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:41 PM

75. Problem with that is we are discussing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution

which was written by men in North America who largely had experience with single shot muskets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #75)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:46 PM

76. You are using a line of logic that has been used to try and proscribe certain free speech

because the founders could not have envisioned 'the press' including things like posting on the internet for thousands or millions to see.

All of this has been hashed out in the courts over the last couple hundred years. it doesn't matter if the founders in 1791 didn't know about the girandoni repeating rifle of 1785. (Some did) The letter of the law doesn't specify the specific means on purpose.

This is a dry hole, without a new amendment to the constitution in hand. (Which can be done, by the way)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #76)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:06 PM

79. I believe we are just going to have to agree that we disagree as I still believe

the best way to resolve the entire issue is via an amendment rather than a law which can be thrown out by a fickle scotus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:52 PM

80. That is certainly a valid avenue of attack.

I don't disagree with you there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:28 PM

39. So you want to split hairs about semantics.......

while we watch 20 small coffins being buried?

No one cares about how much fucking "technical" garbage you know about guns. Those parents of those dead children don't care whether it was an automatic or semi-automatic. THEIR CHILDREN ARE DEAD.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:17 AM

48. So, where ARE we allowed

to have a mature discussion, informed by technical knowledge of the subject matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:39 AM

84. Where's this technically mature discussion about automobile regulation?


It's not mature. You're cluttering and obstructing discussion and impugning other people's right to free speech. Tell me again what complete catastrophe you're trying to avoid by disqualifying everybody who thinks semi-automatic is an awkward term?

And then when that's called, you fall back on paranoid delusions claiming that there has to be some conspiracy behind wanting to stop children from being killed. It can't just be that.

There's a similar conspiracy behind Global Warming, I'm told. And a similar snarkiness that stopped reasonable debate for years.

And for defending the populace against tyranny, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, and very soon Syria, have shown you don't need to start with a populace armed to the teeth to overthrow tyranny.

Mature discussion says: the Founders were wrong about guns, and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:17 AM

87. "You're cluttering and obstructing discussion and impugning other people's right to free speech"

That is complete and utter hogwash. I would have to be a moderator to have even a hope of that. That's just a silly statement.

im·pugn
Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.
2.
Archaic. to assail (a person) by words or arguments; vilify.
3.
Obsolete . to attack (a person) physically.


I asked where I might have the opportunity to offer technical details and discussion related to firearms regulation. I didn't say he didn't have the right to say whatever he likes. Major difference.

"Where's this technically mature discussion about automobile regulation?"

There's quite a lot of that from multiple public interest angles, safety, emissions/environmental, and road use (which is land use/habitat issues). I can only wish this discussion was as in-depth as some of the Environment and Energy forum discussions related to automobiles.

"And then when that's called, you fall back on paranoid delusions claiming that there has to be some conspiracy behind wanting to stop children from being killed. It can't just be that."

Deliberate obfuscation between semi-auto and full auto, is a significant issue. One class was thought important enough to register, track, tax, and ultimately, ban in the 30's and 80's. The other was not. These weapons operate fundamentally differently.

"There's a similar conspiracy behind Global Warming, I'm told. And a similar snarkiness that stopped reasonable debate for years."

I would argue there's a conspiracy behind Global Warming denial, from an obvious and well funded industry. So, it would be disingenuous to say there's no conspiracy at all.

"And for defending the populace against tyranny, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, and very soon Syria, have shown you don't need to start with a populace armed to the teeth to overthrow tyranny."

Lovely. I haven't raised that issue. (Are you certain you meant to include Syria in that list? Really? Might want to watch the news)

"Mature discussion says: the Founders were wrong about guns, and you don't have a leg to stand on."

Well, if you say so. Of course, there are avenues for you to legally address that. I have pointed them out repeatedly. Something, something, technicalities, something, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:27 PM

90. "the Founders were wrong about guns" I wouldnt go that far.

Their problem if any was that they lacked the ability see a future where we had the range of weapons we do now but then they were only human *shrug*
Fortunately they did have the foresight to leave us a way to address anything they missed as we can amend the constitution, its not easy of course but then nothing worth doing is ever easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:51 PM

23. Guess

now that this hoodlum has asked for it we will surely get it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:55 AM

29. Let's see this carried through on Fox

Before we believe anything he says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:23 PM

73. +

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:25 AM

30. Let him put his money & propaganda network FOX News to work then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:41 AM

32. Why wont Murdoch fire his cronies...

On his networks who keep advocating for the NRA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:47 AM

33. Did the shooter have a Glock 18?

Or is he just dumb?

Maybe he meant Semi-auto's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:06 AM

35. Oh come on Rupert

Everyone knows if those kids had been armed none of this would've happened!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:26 AM

38. The phone hacking criminal has advice for us?

Last edited Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)


Oh no Rupert. First and foremost we need to ban Fox News. Your propaganda network has done nothing but stoke the fires hatred, violence, anger, and resentment. Make no mistake about it, Fox News and right-wing radio help foster the kind of climate that leads to ultra violence. Do not forget "Tiller the Baby Killer" or Jim David Adkisson? Adkisson was the one that open fire on a Unitarian Church because he hated liberals, Democrats, Gays, and African Americans. When they searched his car he had books by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage.

And by the way, we need to ban Rupert Murdoch from this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:26 PM

44. Note to DU Gunsters: You're too far right for Murdoch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:25 AM

51. there seems to be a divide on this issue among wealthy and the rest of gop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:30 AM

52. =Sorry, it doesn't solve the problem. Reframe as Terror & deal with all OUTSIDE STREET guns.

 

hunting can be done with bow and arrow

and at shooting range, they can rent out for the day guns like you do when you play minigolf.

gun stays there.

ZERO guns on street allow for clean-up of the problem, especially if guns can be reclassified as part of the war on terror and when Janet N. retires as she has said, name Mike Bloomberg gun czar.

(and to the Bloomberg haters who say he is a 1%er blah blah blah, well, then Rupert M. must love him, right, therefore he will easily be accepted by both sides.


and this is an idea that I have said in the past many times, however then the replies were on the gun group thread populated by people who love guns, and of course, it was immediately derided. But 100% of my posts in that thread were anti-gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:56 AM

57. Hey Mordor(ch). I'll see your automatic weapons ban and raise you

 

With total handgun ban and stricter laws around gun background checks, registration and the like on rifles and shot guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:55 PM

77. I'd rather see a ban on every news outlet Murdoch owns.

In my mind he is a more dangerous person that the guy in Connecticut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:06 PM

78. He seems unaware that AUTOMATIC weapons have been illegal in the US since that whole Al Capone stuff

No wonder FAUX Snooz can't report facts. Even their CEO is a complete moran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:53 AM

83. Heh. He's old enough to know. He just doesn't read the real news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:20 AM

88. Next thing he will call for is a ban on pipe bombs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread