Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence: Election Is Mandate for Race Car Ban

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:38 AM
Original message
Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence: Election Is Mandate for Race Car Ban
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 11:42 AM by benEzra
Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence: Election Is Mandate for Race Car Ban

The Republican-led Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence announced today that the results of last week's election, which gave control of the Senate and House to Democrats, show that the public is demanding a ban on race cars.

"Race cars have no legitimate transportation purpose," said Republican Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Campaign. "You don't need a Ford Focus to tow a boat. It would pull the boat to smithereens." He added, "We're not trying to take anybody's cars, we just want to get deadly race cars like the Ford Focus and Honda Civic off the streets."

In an appearance with Senator Dianne Feinstein (DLC-CA), activists explained why banning race cars is so important. "Unlike conventional cars, race cars don't have to be steered, but merely pointed in the general direction of where you want to go," explained Tom Diaz of the Vehicle Policy Center (VPC). "And the rear wings on these cars enable them to slide sideways around corners."

"I'm tired of 13-year-olds running down 8-year-olds with NASCAR stockers," said a spokesperson for the Democratic Leadership Council, which has made the race-car ban its top legislative priority since the early 1990's. "We need to get these deadly race cars off the streets. They are the transportation of choice for bank robbers and drunk drivers."

"Race cars like the Honda Civic are truly vehicles of mass destruction whose only purpose is to outrun as many police cars as possible without having to refuel," added John Rosenthal, head of the Massachusetts-based Stop Car Violence. "Many of these cars are designed to go 350 mph."

Helmke also noted that if someone snapped and went on a road rage incident, driving a Civic would make them much more dangerous than if they were driving a more conventional vehicle like a Chevrolet Suburban. "This is just common sense car control. Our bill doesn't affect responsible car owners. We're not trying to take away anybody's Hummer H2; our bill specifically targets race cars like the Mazda 3."

Incoming senate Democrat Jim Webb, an opponent of the ban who recently defeated Allen Macacawitz in the Virginia senate race, objected to the proposed ban. "Banning sport compact cars is stupid, doesn't help address drunk driving, and is guaranteed to piss off car owners. Congress has bigger fish to fry, like figuring out what to do with Iraq, helping people who don't have health insurance, and stopping the flood of jobs going overseas."

Feinstein dismissed Webb's concerns as right-wing gibberish. "Everybody knows that the #1 threat to this country is people driving race cars on the highway," she said. "Al Qaida wants to buy Honda Civics with wings so they can destroy our freedom. They hate us for our freedom. Oh, wait, that was George's line."

President George W. Bush, a supporter of the Race Car Ban, said he'd sign the ban if it gets to his desk. "I don't think its a good thing in our society for people to have these cars," said the President, reading from a Teleprompter. "It's just Unammerican. They should drive pickup trucks instead. Only terrorists and illegals would want to drive Civics." He added that no civilian car needs a rear wing. "You know, wings are for flying, and, uh, cars aren't supposed to fly."

The Race Car Ban of 2006 bans all compact cars with two or more of the following racing features:

Four valves per cylinder
Aerodynamic spoiler or wing that protrudes conspicuously above the trunk lid or rear deck
Air dam
Hood scoop
Chrome exhaust tip
Levitation lights
Afterburner


The Race Car Ban would also ban the following race cars by name:

Honda Civic (all models)
Subaru Impreza WRX
Mitsubushi Lancer (all models)
Honda S2000
Volvo S40
Mazda 3 and Protoge
Toyota Corolla
Scion (all models)
Saturn Ion
Bentley Speed 8
NHRA Top Fuel dragster
Caterpillar D9
Boeing 737
Airbus A380


In order to reassure car owners, the bill's sponsors included a long list of non-race cars that are not affected by the legislation:

BMW 3-series
Cadillac CTS-V
Cadillac Escalade
Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe
Ford Edsel
Ford Model T
Ford Mustang (without wing and spoiler)
Ford F-150
Hummer (all models)
Jeep Cherokee
John Deere Tractor
Kenworth T2000
Sopwith Camel


The bill also makes it a felony to own a car manufactured after Sept. 14th, 1994, that has a fuel capacity of more than ten U.S. gallons of fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sopwith Camel?
hmmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Intentional... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
81. Snoopy is toast... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. be that as it may - car racing should die the same as corel reefs are

dying or already dead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. You know...
a rule change that allowed battery packs and regenerative braking in NASCAR would REALLY push the state of the art in hybrid vehicles...just think of the money that would go into battery and electric motor development, which could then transfer to everyday cars...

I'm not a NASCAR fan myself (go straight, turn left, go straight, turn left, repeat for 500 miles, not my cup of tea), but I do enjoy cars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. I went to one NASCAR race in my life.
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 01:17 PM by msmcghee
It was not a good experience. We had to get to Riverside Raceway the evening before so we could get a "good parking place in the infield". I tried to sleep but all nite it was fights and drunks and beer bottles sailing through the air. I pulled my sleeping bag partially under the car to avoid the incoming. Finally, the race started the next day and for the next several hours there was the monotony of loud cars going around in circles and the smell of burnt rubber wafting through the air. Oh, don't forget the three hour traffic jam trying to get out of the infield and back home before midnight. That was in 1960-something and I've been NASCAR free ever since.

But, imagine if gasoline engines were banned from NASCAR and electric batteries were mandated. I'll bet we'd break our ME oil habit in about five years.

Cheers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. When cars are outlawed ...
only outlaws will have cars.

You can have my car when you pull the keys from my cold dead hand.

What's your point caller?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Just poking a little fun at the Brady Campaign...
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 12:17 PM by benEzra
who are, in fact, saying that the election was a "mandate" for outlawing civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out.

www.bradycampaign.org

Webb is actually pro-gun, not pro-sport-compact. Most of the quotes by the ban proponents are based on things they really said about civilian rifles.

For example, what Rosenthal really said was, "Assault weapons are truly weapons of mass destruction whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible without having to stop and reload. Twenty percent of police officers killed in the line of duty are killed with these weapons (not true --bE) which are designed to penetrate police body armor from more than 1000 yards."

Considering that he's talking about some of the most popular civilian target rifles in America--guns that are less powerful than a .30-30 Winchester--that statement was pretty funny. You can see it in a cache here.

The statement about "13 year olds running down 9 year olds" originally said "automatic weapons"--which are, of course, controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act (since 1934!) and have nothing to do with the gun control debate today.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zreosumgame Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
37. well, considering they do not say that
it makes your lame attempt at parody just dumb...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. They don't say what?
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 01:29 PM by benEzra
That rifles with protruding handgrips are "useful for no other purpose than to out-gun police and to gun down children"?

Yes, they've said that.

That the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States (AR-15 platform) "has no other purpose than to kill as many police officers as possible without reloading," and that it was "designed to penetrate police body armor from a thousand yards away"? Yes, they said that (specifically John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence and the AHSA; I posted a link upthread).

That "I'm tired of 13-year-olds mowing down 9-year-olds with automatic weapons"? A prominent DLC politician, 1993 or 1994. I won't embarass the politician by saying precisely who, but if you want to know, PM me.

That rifles with protruding handgrips "don't have to be aimed, merely pointed in the general direction of the target"? Tom Diaz, Violence Policy Center. Google it.

That protruding handgrips "allow the rifle to be spray-fired from the hip" (actually, the effect is the opposite); another Diaz-ism.

The Bushism is fictional, but he does support the bait-and-switch, as did his daddy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zreosumgame Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. your lie crept in here;
'saying that the election was a "mandate" for outlawing civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out'

Now you try to change what you claimed and spin it some other way. tsk, tsk, tsk. Now, what other uses does an assalt rifle have? hunting? Um, not really very good for that, a shot-gun or 30-06 will do much better for that . Better range, accuracy and stopping power. unless of course you like to pretend you are a widdle tin soldier marching through the woods to gun down those dirty commie (or whatever strokes your penis when thinking of killing people) unarmed, unsuspecting deer or rabbits or birds. As far as your screed goes, it more suited to a Crash-cart Dick kind of 'hunter' then a serious one. See, the problem is making excuses for wanting a 'sexy' gun instead of a useful one just shows your agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. Sometimes this site is too tolerant of pathetic RW lies and BS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. No, the Brady Campaign IS saying that the election is a mandate
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 02:05 PM by benEzra
for passing a new "assault weapons ban," along the lines of S.1431/H.R.2038 (2004 session). Which was, indeed, a ban on civilian self-loading rifles with handgrips that stick out.

I'll cite the proposed law:

S.1431 (2004 session)

1ST SESSION

S. 1431

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JULY 17, 2003

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 6
(a) IN GENERAL.Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(30) The term semiautomatic assault weapon
means any of the following:
(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability
to accept a detachable magazine, and that has
(iii) a pistol grip


That law would have banned protruding handgrips on any civilian self-loading carbine with a detachable magazine (i.e., practically all of them).

The Brady Campaign is saying that the election is a "mandate" to pass a new "assault weapons ban": www.bradycampaign.org

It IS the case. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Now you try to change what you claimed and spin it some other way. tsk, tsk, tsk. Now, what other uses does an assalt rifle have? hunting? Um, not really very good for that, a shot-gun or 30-06 will do much better for that . Better range, accuracy and stopping power. unless of course you like to pretend you are a widdle tin soldier marching through the woods to gun down those dirty commie (or whatever strokes your penis when thinking of killing people) unarmed, unsuspecting deer or rabbits or birds. As far as your screed goes, it more suited to a Crash-cart Dick kind of 'hunter' then a serious one. See, the problem is making excuses for wanting a 'sexy' gun instead of a useful one just shows your agenda.

Maybe you should take your "widdle" stereotypes over to Free Republic, where they might actually FIT.

Do you have any idea what percentage of American gun owners are hunters?

1 in 5. Approximately 13-16 million licensed hunters annually, out of 65-80 million gun owners. 80% of us are NOT hunters.

Those of us who don't hunt have little need for something as powerful as a .30-06. Instead, many of us choose to own much less powerful guns, more suited for target shooting without the blast and recoil of a .30-06. Which is why the .223 Remington and the 7.62x39mm are the most used centerfire calibers in America, and why the AR-15 platform is the most common centerfire target rifle in this country.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm a Gen-Xer. I don't like straight wooden stocks on a rifle any more than I'd like a straight grip on a circle saw. Human forearm and wrist anatomy makes a protruding handgrip more ergonomic than a straight grip (which tends to put the wrist in extreme flexion), and materials science now makes such ergonomic grips practical. Hence, I choose an ergonomic grip.

You are attempting to argue the other side, that ergonomic grips are such a Deadly Menace to Society that possession of a rifle with a vertical grip needs to be made a Federal felony. Which is a ludicrous position to take (rifles are rarely used in crimes, regardless of stock shape), hence your perceived need to resort to ad hominem instead, I see...

As Plutarch said,

Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'ολὼν λαβέ' (Plutarch, Moralia, III, Apophthegmata Laconica, "Sayings of Spartans").

Plain English translation: Stick your stereotypes in your "widdle" ear, and keep your "widdle" fingers out of our gun safe, please...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zreosumgame Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. but they did NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED THEY DID
THAT is the issue. Now if you had posted that above you might have had a point, as it is you are just scrambling to not look like such a fool for posting that lame parody and for making stuff up you put in their mouths. And as to the 'mandate' they are claiming, well a bit of hyperbole no doubt, but they DID support a lot of winning candidates (yes, yes along with most progressive groups LOL, so sue them for being human) so they do have a point in that. I am still trying to find out why you targeted them specifically and why you continue to be such an ass about it.

Oh, and no I do not own any guns, and have not since I stopped hunting decades ago. Sorry to burst your widdle bubble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Claiming a mandate for a ban on "assault weapons"
is claiming a mandate for a ban on civilian self-loaders with handgrips that stick out, because that's how they define an "assault weapon" in their own model legislation.

If you don't believe me, try putting a protruding handgrip on a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle in California. On second thought, don't, since that'd be a FELONY...thanks to the Brady Campaign. That is what they want to take nationwide, and are claiming a mandate to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #59
75. infantile response
widdle bubble.

No coherent response, so you resort to baby talk. This one is priceless (or whatever strokes your penis when thinking of killing people)

Are you 13 yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #46
103. The Logic of the Brady campaign
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 02:51 PM by krispos42
When you touch a Mini-30, you are appreciating a finely-crafted sporting firearm with an action derived from John C. Garand's historic and storied war veteran "Rifle, Caliber .30 US, M1" and that never never never could ever be used to do anything but hunt deer, plink soda cans, and punch holes in paper.

World War Two US Garand rifle. Semiautomatic, approximately 2,800 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle.


Ruger Mini-14 rifle. Semiautomatic, approximately 1,200 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle.



When you touch a Kalishnikov-looking gun, you're a bloodthirty cop-killing, school-shooting, baby-bayoneting drug dealer who bought it at a gun show, which (as you all know) occur only in a mystic place called "Somewhere Else", next to nuclear power generators, asphalt plants, subsidized housing, and Katrina refugees, so that federal, state, and local laws governing firearm sales have no power.

AK-47. Semiautomaic in civilian guise, approximately 1,500 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle.


Note: pictures are not to scale.

<edit: fixed typo>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
60. Exactly.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
82. "handgrips that stick out"?
as in "my rifle has a woodie"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #82
90. Here's what I'm speaking of...
(Turbineguy)
"handgrips that stick out"? as in "my rifle has a woodie"?


Here's what I'm speaking of:


Old-fashioned straight stock; Friendly Bradyite-Approved Carbine; legal everywhere in the United States, AFAIK



More modern-style stock with ergonomic handgrip; Evil Assault Weapon With No Other Purpose Than Mass Murder


Look closely, and you'll see that the rifle in both pictures is the same gun; the photos were taken a minute or so apart. FWIW, it's the old-fashioned straight stock that is a "woodie"...literally...the 2nd stock is made of fiberglass-reinforced nylon. :)


FYI, this is a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a .22 caliber centerfire (.223 Remington) marketed as an all-purpose carbine suitable for hunting small game up to coyote-sized. Ruger makes the same rifle in 7.62x39mm (similar to .30-30 Winchester) for short-range deer hunting, and calls it the Mini Thirty.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech3149 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nice joke but too close to truth
Poor legislators write bad laws. I have no doubdt the current crop could come close to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. That's what I'm trying to avoid...
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 12:22 PM by benEzra
and honestly, I think the party leadership has learned the hard lessons of 1994:

(1) most gun owners aren't hunters;
(2) actual "AK-47's and Uzi's" are tightly controlled by existing law, and have nothing to do with bans on "assault weapons";
(3) civilian rifles aren't a crime problem at all (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI;
(4) modern-looking small-caliber rifles are much more popular than the Bradyites would have you believe;
(5) threatening to ban people's guns is a really, really dumb idea politically; and
(6) banning rifle handgrips that stick out is really not as important as the REAL issues facing the country.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (I wrote this in '04, and things are looking WAY better now than then; the DLC has apparently gotten the message.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. LOL!
But also, OUCH! :rofl: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. let me guess, pathetic "satire" saying gun control in all forms is wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scrinmaster Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. No, but feel-good nanny state legislation
that has no effect on actual crime and simply bans scary looking rifles doesn't help us, it cost us congress in 1994.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. yeah, you're right. Lets make sure every RWer has three assault rifles
its in the Constitution! All American citizens are required to have at least five fully-automatic assault rifles. For, hunting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Actual assault rifles have always been tightly controlled by Federal law...
specifically the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934 (the term "assault rifle" was coined in 1942-ish to describe a military automatic weapon firing a reduced-power cartridge, and able to fire in either automatic or non-automatic mode at the flick of a switch). Such weapons are restricted to police/military only in the United States, unless you undergo a special clearance process and obtain a BATFE Form 4, which very few people do.

I'm talking about NON-automatic CIVILIAN rifles with modern styling or handgrips that stick out. I own a couple, and my wife owns one.

FWIW, only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter. I don't personally care if I'm "allowed" to own a hunting rifle, since I have about as much use for one as I do a cricket bat. I don't need something that powerful; I'll keep my small-caliber carbines, thanks.



Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. so are the race cars you mentioned. You are being dishonest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Honda Civics aren't. Mazda 3's aren't. The point is,
talking about "military weapons like AK-47's and Uzi's" to stump for a ban on non-automatic civilian guns with handgrips that stick out, is PRECISELY the same as talking about "NASCAR stockers" to stump for a ban on Honda Civics and Mazda 3's. It's a bait-and-switch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Be specific, please.
I purposely included a couple of race cars in the ban list (Bentley Speed 8, NHRA dragster) because the actual AWB list included a few irrelevant automatic weapons in addition to the civilian guns listed. There's also a couple of airplanes there, if you didn't notice. :)

The "protected" list in the original AWB included a lot of irrelevant stuff as well, including guns that hadn't been manufactured for years (which made them as irrelevant to the AWB as a John Deere tractor in the protected list of my fictional ban).

Yes, the piece WAS deceptive. That is my point. Talking about the need to ban something that's already been banned, and then proposing legislation to ban something else.

Please be specific; I drew as many specific parallels as I could to actual "assault weapon" quotes and legislation, so I'd like to see precisely what you are referring to.

Peace,

bE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Modifying a car in the manner you described is illegal, you claim it is not
therefore, you are lying.

Sad and pathetic that the only way you can write half-decent satire is by completely skewing the truth, lying about gun control advocates, and giving false represntations of gun-nuts.

Maybe you should apply as a writer for South Park
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Putting shiny wheels, a rear spoiler, and levitation lights
on your car isn't illegal in my state (NC). What state do you live in? In most of the U.S., it is no more illegal to put a protruding spoiler on your trunk than it is to put a protruding handgrip on your rifle--except that the Bradyites are trying to criminalize the latter.

"Afterburners," of course, are the one item in the list that isn't street legal. Neither are M203-style grenade launchers (restricted under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act). That's an intentional parallel between my fictional ban and the real one.

Please go back and re-read the piece, considering that every facet is consciously intended to parallel a facet of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. The characters in the piece are intended to be deceptive, because what they are trying to do is deceptive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Its not a race car then, and you fucking know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Of COURSE I know it--THAT'S MY DAMN POINT!!!!!
And a civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out is not an "assault weapon." It's a civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out.

THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT.

Pretending that something you want to ban is actually something else, something you can scare people about.

Pretending that a ban on Civics is about race cars IS THE SAME AS pretending that a ban on protruding rifle handgrips is about military weapons.



I take it you haven't followed the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch closely? Because deceptive aspect of my fictional "race car ban" has a parallel in the deceptive "assault weapon ban."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Im done with you. Sell your RW bullshit somewhere else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Later, dude (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. Amazing
He presented an actual argument, and all you can offer is NUH-UH YOU'RE A POOPIEHEAD. Says volumes about the stance you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. He never did. Its all typical gunnut lies, exxagerations, and bullshit
and I really have no interest in hearing an opinion based on lies and propaganda that I could just as easily find of Free Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. And how is it lies and propaganda?
Because you say so? Horseshit. Craft an argument or slink back into the shadows where you belong, along with all of the other screaming idiots throughout the political spectrum who think that they never need back up anything they say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. Hmmm....
Lie: Modern-looking rifles are disproportionately used in homicides.
Fact: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Homicide by State and Type of Firearm: All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, only half as many as are perpetrated using fists and feet.

Lie: Rifles dubbed "assault weapons" fire faster than other civilian firearms.
Fact: All civilian firearms fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and do not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. An AR-15 has the same rate of fire as an ordinary civilian pistol.

Lie: Rifles dubbed "assault weapons" are owned only by a paranoid fringe; most gun owners are hunters and own hunting weapons instead.
Fact: Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a licensed hunter (13-16 million licensed hunters out of 65-80 million lawful gun owners). There are more owners of SKS's, AR-15's, civilian AK lookalikes, and similar modern-looking carbines than there are licensed hunters. The AR-15 is arguably the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States. Using a broader definition of "assault weapon" (any civilian firearm holding more than 10 rounds, a la S.1431), you are looking at roughly half of gun owners.

Lie: Rifles dubbed "assault weapons" are easily converted to automatic fire.
Fact: Any firearm that is easily converted to a machinegun, IS a machinegun under the NFA even if not actually converted, per the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 and case law.

I could go on. Perhaps you'd like to try to rebut the FBI stat on the percentage of homicides involving rifles? Or show me where the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act don't apply to modern-looking rifles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. Hmmm....
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 11:21 PM by benEzra
Its all typical gunnut lies, exxagerations, and bullshit and I really have no interest in hearing an opinion based on lies and propaganda that I could just as easily find of Free Republic.

Hmmm...

Lie: Modern-looking rifles are the weapons of choice of criminals.
Fact: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Homicide by State and Type of Firearm. All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, only half as many as are perpetrated using fists and feet.

Lie: Rifles dubbed "assault weapons" fire faster than other civilian firearms.
Fact: All civilian firearms fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and do not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. An AR-15 has the same rate of fire as an ordinary civilian pistol.

Lie: Rifles dubbed "assault weapons" are easily converted to automatic fire.
Fact: Any firearm that is easily converted to a machinegun, IS a machinegun under the NFA even if not actually converted, per the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 and case law.

Lie: Rifles dubbed "assault weapons" are powerful firearms.
Fact: Kinetic Energy
.9mm handgun or civilian Uzi lookalike (9x19mm)......450 ft-lb
.AR-15.............................................1,275 ft-lb
.civilian AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm)..............1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer hunting rifle..........................2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)..............4,230 ft-lb


I could go on. Perhaps you'd like to try to rebut the FBI stat on the percentage of homicides involving rifles? Or show me where it says that the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act only apply to rifles with straight wooden stocks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #71
77. Oops...darn, meant to hit edit and hit reply...the second post above
is the one I intended. Darn it... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #65
106. No, it's not lies. This actually is a pretty valid parody
First I will say that since you are apparently ignorant (and willfully, proudly so) about the operation, features, and history of firearms, you should probably a) do some research before responding, b) try to learn by reading and asking intelligent questions, or c) admit you don't want to learn, are unqualified to debate, and probably should avoid actively participating in the discussion.

Now for some education:

How a gun reloads itself is independent of the design of the stock that holds it. A pistol grip does not make a firearm more or less lethal, anymore than a floor-mounted shifter instead of a column-mounted shifter makes a car more likely to be raced. It is simply an ergonomic option. One option gives the car 6-passenger capacity, the other makes it easier to put the transmission in lower gears without hitting your knee. The engine in the car does not have more power based on the location of the shifter, nor is the suspension sportier or the tires grippier.

In many hunting guns such as bolt-action rifles, the use of the traditional non-protruding grip actually positions the hand closer to the bolt for faster and easier operation.

benEzra's parody is actually pretty good. The Brady campaign and the MSM used fully-automatic weapons examples as excuses to ban semi-automatic ones. When talking about semi-automatic rifles, video of fully-automatic weapons were shown, leading the gun-uninterested public to believe that full-auto firearms are populating the racks of your local gun shop. Kind of like using a NASCAR racer as an excuse to ban Civics. They are different classes, and not comparable.

The Brady campaign has also convinced many people that cosmetic features are what make a firearm an 'assault weapon'. benEzra correctly notes that taking the same rifle (in his example, a Mini-14) and replacing ONLY the wooden stock with a pistol-grip stock turns it from a legal firearm to an assault weapon. The mechanical operation (semiautomatic; one shot per trigger pull) is unchanged. The magazine capacity is unchanged. How the cartridges are stored (detachable magazine) is unchanged.

This is analogus to clamping a front-air dam onto a Civic and calling it a race car, and demanding it be banned. The addition of a spoiler, fat rims, a front-air dam, or a hood scoop does not a race car make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #106
111. excellent points krispos, but
this horse is mighty dead by now. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. Do not underestimate the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
San Fransisco recently tried to ban the ownership, manufacture, sale, and transfer of all handguns within city limits. No exceptions. Nancy Pelosi is from SanFran and has an obligation to represent her constituents in the House.

I am truly worried that this issue will come alive again just enough to bite us in the ass! Just because the horse is dead doesn't mean you can't whip it; it just means that whipping it is stupid. And when has simply being a stupid idea ever stopped somebody?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. oh I know, definitely.
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 03:48 PM by piedmont
I was (humorously) remarking about the fact that the poster you replied to did a pitiful job of arguing his point, and then left the thread while telling us he's put everyone who disagrees with him on his "ignore" list.

edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. Yeah, facts don't ALWAYS have a liberal bias! :-)
It's the same reaction as the righties have about things like, say Iraq. Sad that so many otherwise-openminded people here can't let their preconceived notions die when faced with this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. Is it a preconceived notion USA has highest murder rate of advanced nations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. ...right on krispos' cue
It is a preconcieved notion that those murders wouldn't happen without dirty, horrid guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #118
126. Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with rifles...
Is it a preconceived notion USA has highest murder rate of advanced nations?

Which has NOTHING to do with rifles, modern looking or not?

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

AGAIN, all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of U.S. homicides, and in any given year multiple states will experience ZERO rifle homicides.

As I said, criminal gun misuse is just an excuse. What you really seem to hate is lawful gun ownership, which is why you're going after civilian rifles that are rarely used in crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #118
134. Oops--double post. (n/t)
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:31 PM by benEzra
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #118
149. The Russians might take offense at that....
Irregardless of the Russians, how's this for a notion?

Total civilian owned firearms in the world: ~375 million
Total firearms, civilian and military, in the world: ~638 million
Total firearms owned by United States citizens: ~245 million

Percentage of world civilian firearms owned by US citizens: ~65%
Percentage of world combined firearms owned by US citizens: ~35%

Per capita gun ownership, US citizens: 81,667 per 100,000 people
Per capita gun ownership, rest of the world's citizens: ~2,064 per 100,000 people
Ration of US per capita to rest of world's per capita: ~39.6 to 1

Ranking of United States in homicides: 24th
Ranking of United States in gun homicides: 8th

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/global_1... /

Now, I'm not a statician by trade, but I'm pretty sure that the higher murder rate in this country as opposed to, say, Switzerland is probably due more to our massive illegal drug problem and the organized and unorganized crime it creates, our multi-cultural society and ethnic tensions that can sometimes happen, and the massive income disparety in this country.

If it was due to gun ownership, I'd think we'd be first in both murders per capita and murders total; yet India has the most murders total and Columbia has the highest murders per capita.

We'd save far more lives legalizing drugs than illegalizing guns. Not to mention all the people who's lives WON'T be ruined by jail time for minor drug offences. We'd also save far more lives by getting the economy moving again. That has a natural effect of lowering crime rates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #106
136. You are willfully overlooking obvious differences between guns and cars
Like I said elsewhere, guns and cars are completely different and were designed for completely different purposes.

And the OP is making false claims about gun control advocates.

Besides, like another poster suggested, if you gun freaks (who apparently value the second amendment before any others, may I suggest relocating to Free Republic?) treated cars and driving the way you treated your precious firearms:

No one would need a drivers' license
No car would need registration
License plates would be illegal
Speed limits and traffic laws would not exist.


The OP was not a "valid comparison".

Its pathetic, childish satire that represents a gross misunderstanding and oversimplification of very complex issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #136
151. Ah, but the laws are more similar than you appear to think...
Besides, like another poster suggested, if you gun freaks (who apparently value the second amendment before any others, may I suggest relocating to Free Republic?) treated cars and driving the way you treated your precious firearms:

No one would need a drivers' license
No car would need registration
License plates would be illegal
Speed limits and traffic laws would not exist.


You only need a drivers' license to operate a car in public--just like you need a carry license to carry a firearm in public. You don't need a license to own a car, to operate it on private property, or to transport it to a race track--just like a firearm.

Ditto for registration.

All guns DO have "license plates" (serial number unique to the firearm). That's Federal law, and defacing the serial number is a Federal felony.

There ARE speed limits for guns. All guns capable of automatic fire are very tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, which I'm not convinced you're familiar with.

And as far as traffic laws (which govern how cars may be operated on public roads), there are analogous, and far more stringent, laws regarding how firearms may be operated in public. I'm not sure what state you live in, but here are NC's, where I live:

North Carolina Firearms Laws
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #136
208. Wow, your skull is very thick
Lets try this again:

It is not about the design of the gun versus the design of the car. It is about an arbitrary definition being transplanted from an object that a minority of people are familiar with (especially liberals) onto an object that practically everybod in the country is familiar with.

Go here and read the section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban#Defini...

Then read what the term semi-automatic rifle means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle

Then take a real close look at the two pictues of the Mini-14 that benEzra posted. The top one only has ONE feature that defines an 'assault weapon'. It is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. It does NOT have a bayonet mounting lug, a folding or collapsable stock, or a protuding pistol grip, or a grenade launcher.

The bottom one is the mechanism and barrel from the top gun unscrewed from the wooden stock and screwed into a synthetic stock. Now, it is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine AND and a protruding pistol grip, and by that definition is an 'assault weapon'.

The definition of 'assault weapon' is arbitrary. See this link.

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

I don't know how to explain it any clearer. I really don't.

Have you ever fired a gun before? I am honestly curious. If you have not, you should go to a shooting range or hunting safety class one day and try it. Actually observe how guns are loaded, unloaded, aimed, shot, handled, etc. If you were in the Twin Cities I could take you to a range myself.

If you refuse to experience shooting a gun and refuse to open your mind to the idea that maybe the Brady Campaign, like the NRA, has an vested interest in spin, then I don't think you will ever understand. Or ever clear your mind of the misconceptions that give you such comfort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #49
76. HAHAHA.......you got beat
so you take your ball and go home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #76
89. pwn3d is more like it. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #76
137. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MGD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #137
156. Go have a gay marriage ComerPerro. We pseudo-liberal posers won't try to stop you.
Go smoke a joint. We won't try to imprison you for doing that either. Go have an abortion or purchase birth control. We won't interfere. Talk about how good it is that a woman has finally become the speaker of the house and we'll all agree with you enthusiastically. Run her for President even. We may or may not vote for her but her gender won't be a consideration. Mention how outstanding it is that we have finally elected another African American senator to the senate and we'll agree with you on that too. But if you to fuck with our bill of rights because you think only your "favorite rights" are worth defending, we're gonna have words at the very least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #156
170. I have a feeling some of you freaks would sell all those rights down the river
just for your right to own guns, if it came to that. So drop the act.

I thought you gun worshippers had your own forum for this, anyway.

Go stroke off to Soldier of Fortune somewhere else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. I've rarely seen such a display of bigotry and intolerance on DU
Shame on you, ComerPerro.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #156
173. The ACLU doesn't think you have a right to gun
I guess they're against the bill of rights. Here's what these defenders of freedom have to say:

"IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."

<http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #173
178. So you let the ACLU make your posts for you?
Cut & paste is pretty lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #173
182. Interesting logic...
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 03:06 PM by benEzra
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

A rare logic breakdown at the ACLU; they of all people should be familiar with the concept of strict scrutiny in constitutional jurisprudence. The "if any regulation is OK, then ALL regulation is OK" argument can be applied to any of the Bill of Rights (thereby nullifying them all), but that is NOT the way the courts approach the BoR.

That article's premise is pretty much the same approach the theocrats take with the First Amendment, who could with equal alacrity state:

"The Moral Majority is neutral on the issue of book control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of books. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register books.

Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own child porn or detailed plans for nuclear weapons. Yet these, like novels, manuals, and even encyclopedias, are books.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict book ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."


Would that be OK with you?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."

Another disconnect. The justification for the right invokes the militia, but the right itself is recognized as belonging to the people, not to the militia.

But all that is pretty much beside the point, since 65-80 million Americans DO own guns, including millions of rifles with protruding handgrips. We ALREADY own modern-looking rifles, they are almost never misused, and there is no rational or pragmatic justification for trying to take them.



Bill, you are throwing out every talking point in the prohibitionist book without addressing these core points:

(1) The "assault weapon" issue is a bait-and-switch.

(2) "Assault weapon" rhetoric can be seen as ignorant and silly when placed in a more familiar context.

(3) Rifles are almost never used in crimes in the United States; all styles of rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides (only half as many as fists and feet).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #173
190. Pretty twisted interpretation of what the ACLU says
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 04:17 PM by slackmaster
They absolutely do not say you DON'T have a right to own a gun, therefore they believe you DO have a right to own a gun (Ninth Amendment and common law).

But if you want to play Second Amendment Straw Man with yourself, have fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #137
159. Again an infantile response
You're on a roll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhollyHeretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. The car analogy has to be one of the dumbest things the gun nuts use
1. Cars are registered
2. People are licensed to use a car
3. People have to pass a test to get the license
4. There are types of cars that are banned from being on the road

Discussing gun laws is fine but the car analogy is just ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Fantastic points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Actually, ascribing mythic power to a small-caliber rifle because the handgrip sticks out...
is 100% as stupid as describing mythic power to a 4-cylinder car because it has a rear wing. That was my point.

The quotations in the article originated as really, really dumb things the speaker said about small-caliber non-automatic rifles. Things like rifles with pistol grips don't have to be aimed; the most popular civilian target rifle in the country has no other purpose than to murder as many police officers as possible without reloading; and that a gun less powerful than your great-great-grandfather's .30-30 Winchester can "penetrate police body armor from a thousand yards away."

My point was to take those quotations and thought patterns away from something most people aren't familiar with (small-caliber rifles) and apply them to something that people are familiar with--cars. Everybody knows that adding a wing to a car doesn't make it any faster, and ESPECIALLY doesn't mean the car no longer needs to be steered. But when an activist gets in media and says that a protruding handgrip on a small-caliber rifle means the rifle "doesn't have to be aimed, merely pointed in the general direction of the target," people who have never fired a gun may not bat an eye, because they don't realize what an asinine statement that is. Hence the analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
83. Let's look a little deeper into these points
1. Cars are registered

Yes, if they are to be driven on public roads. Car registration is reciprocal - A car registered in any state can be driven on the road in all other states.

2. People are licensed to use a car

A license to drive a passenger car, issued by any state, allows a person to drive any passenger car in all state.

No license is required to own or even to buy a car.

OTOH a license to carry a concealed firearm in your state is not necessarily valid in other states.

3. People have to pass a test to get the license

In most states that issue concealed handgun licenses (and most do), the applicant has to pass a test to get the license.

4. There are types of cars that are banned from being on the road

There are types of firearms that cannot be licensed to be carried loaded in public, and types of firearms that require special fees, background checks, and registration even to own.

Firearms are more strictly controlled than cars.

Discussing gun laws is fine but the car analogy is just ridiculous.

In a gun law debate, it's often the anti-gun side that brings the car analogy into the mix. The points I've made above are usually enough to end that line of discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #83
129. Cars have key's. Cars have insurance. New cars mostly have tracking devices.
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:01 PM by billbuckhead
You have to have a license to buy a car in most states.

Car owners pay taxes and insurance to pay society for the cost of cars to the commons. Maybe, there should be higher taxes for cars. I'm not sure about that. Maybe a carbon tax would be good.

Does it seem just that guns promiscuously sold for profit in states with weak gun regulations end up costing lives and taxpayer dollars in other states? At the least it's lack of responsibilty by gun owners, but I think it goes beyond that. America's present gun regulation environment is terrorism by mostly red states against minorities, urban centers and the blue states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #129
163. I have a safe. I have liability insurance. I have a chip implanted in my brain.
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 11:20 AM by slackmaster
I have a Federal Firearms License that allows me to acquire and dispose of curios and relics through interstate commerce.

I even have a cute little kitty who guards my gun collection for me.



You have to have a license to buy a car in most states.

Oh really?

I'll bet you can't name ONE state where you have to have a license in order to buy a car (and cite the law or at least a state-provided FAQ to prove it).

Note for the record: billbuckhead has made that claim before and been called on it. He won't bother responding because he knows he's wrong.

I believe the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan requires all cars to be registered even when they are garaged, but that is not the norm. I bought a car from a dealer here in California in 2003 without ever showing a driver's license.

Car owners pay taxes and insurance to pay society for the cost of cars to the commons.

People who buy guns pay an 11% federal excise tax, plus state sales taxes on guns and ammunition and accessories.

Does it seem just that guns promiscuously sold for profit in states with weak gun regulations end up costing lives and taxpayer dollars in other states?

No, not really.

America's present gun regulation environment is terrorism by mostly red states against minorities, urban centers and the blue states.

billbuckhead plays the Race Card with nothing to back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #163
172. IN MY STATE YOU NEED A D.L&THEY RUN YOU THRU HOMELAND SECURITY
Drivers License Requirements to Obtain Title Transfer in Georgia

GIADA Official Position - Effective July 1, 2003 Senate Bill 250 amended Official Code of Georgia Annotated 40-3-21(a)(1) and added the following additional requirements to the contents for an application for a first certificate of title:

The full legal name, drivers license number, residence, and mailing address of the owner;
Senate Bill 250 and OCGA Code 40-3-21

Executive Anti-Terrorism Order - Verify Customer I.D. & Check Blocked Persons List

With so much attention being directed toward the rules evolving under the Patriot Act, the requirements under Presidential Executive Order 13224 are often overlooked. The Executive Order prohibits U.S. citizens from entering into ?any transaction or dealing? with individuals or entities identified either in the Executive Order, by the Department of Treasury or by the Secretaries of State as posing a significant risk of committing terrorist acts or providing support to these organizations or individuals. The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) maintains an alphabetical master list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. Individuals who violate the Order by entering into a transaction with a ?blocked? person or entity can be fined up to $250,000 and serve up to 10 years in prison, while companies can be fined up to $500,000.

Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) Click Here for Website and Q&A Section

Blocked Persons List - (SDN) Specially Designated Nationals - Suspected Terrorists

The law requires car dealers to verify their customers identity and check the SDN database. If you encounter a person who?s name appears on the SDN database, do not do business with him or her. Call local PHONE NUMBER BELOW. Call GIADA if you have questions.
Link: Click here for access to (SDN) Blocked Persons List This link will take you to the U.S. Department of Treasury Website. Click on Specially Designated Nations (SDN) List. This is a rather large PDF file and approximately 180 pages. High speed Internet is highly r ecommended.
IMPORTANT: IN THE EVENT THAT A MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP SUSPECTS OR HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE INVOLVED IN MONEY LAUNDERING OR OTHER TERRORIST ACTIVITIES THE DEALERSHIP MAY REPORT SUCH ACTIVITY BY CALLING THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 'HOT-LINE' 866-556-3974 WHICH IS ALSO THE NUMBER TO CALL IF YOU FIND THAT YOUR CUSTOMERS NAME IS ON THE SDN-BLOCKED PERSONS LIST.

<http://www.giada.org/compliance.htm >

Getting a Driver's License
In order to drive a car or buy a car in Delaware, you need to get a Delaware driver's license. Manuals describing the driving laws in Delaware are available at the Office of Foreign Students & Scholars and online at www.dmv.de.gov/services/driver_svcs.shtml.
http://www.udel.edu/ofs/information/misc.html

STILL WANT TO BET?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #172
175. As usual, you are WRONG, billbuckhead
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 02:03 PM by slackmaster
Georgia Annotated 40-3-21 applies only to getting title for the initial sale of a new car.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/GaCode/?title=40&cha...

And you missed the bigger picture - No title is requred for "A vehicle which is not sold for the purpose of lawful highway use..." according to 40-3-4. See http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/GaCode/?title=40&cha...

Once again, cars have to be registered ONLY if they are going to be driven on public roads.

If you don't need a title, you don't need a driver's license.

I won't even bother going through the Delaware code, because I have no doubt that a car collector without a driver's license there can go to a car auction, place a winning bid, and have the car shipped to his or her private property legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #175
177. So you' re going to buy a car and never drive it from where you bought it?
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 02:18 PM by billbuckhead
:crazy: No title, no tag, no insurance. The township or county would fine you it if was outside on your property. That makes as much sense as all your other propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #177
179. Have you ever heard or car racing? How about car collecting?
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 02:33 PM by slackmaster
The township or county would fine you it if was outside on your property.

Or stashed in your garage. I know a man who is about 80 years old, doesn't have a driver's license, and owns several vintage Packard automobiles. He goes to car auctions and buys them, then has them shipped to his home.

If you really want to pursue the cars/guns analogy please at least try to be honest about it.

You don't need to title a car to buy it, unless you want to drive it on public roads. Cars driven in races, other than races specifically for street-legal cars, are generally not titled.

You don't need a license to drive a car, unless you want to drive on public roads.

You don't need a license to CARRY a gun, unless you want to carry it in public.

Most cars DO get titled and most drivers ARE licensed because the most common use for cars is to drive them on public roads, for transportation. Most guns are NOT carried in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #179
180. Hillarious, you're going to pay for a car and not get the title
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 02:41 PM by billbuckhead
How about the Brooklyn Bridge next?

If you want to keep your gun inside your house and never bring it outside or be able to legally sell it, that would be an improvement in gun regs.
:rofl:
Soon, all new cars sold will have tracking devices, how about that for guns? With the high amount of gun theft,required lojack for guns would be a great benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #180
181. Like I said, have you ever heard of car racing or car collecting?
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 03:30 PM by slackmaster
If you want to keep your gun inside your house and never bring it outside or be able to legally sell it, that would be an improvement in gun regs.

You are the King of Lame Analogies.

If you own a race car and keep it in your garage, you CAN take it outside and put it on a trailer to transport it to a place where you can drive it legally. If the car doesn't need a title, you don't need to have a title in order to legally sell it.

Firearms work the same way - If I want to shoot one, I can transport it, unloaded and cased, from my home to a non-public place where I can do so, and vice-versa.

If I want to carry a gun around, loaded in public, what do I have to do first? GET A LICENSE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #181
185. So how about an OnStar for your next gun purchase?
If gun lobby prostitute Regola had one on his gun, then he would know his son borrowed the death gun from his gun safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #185
187. But he couldn't have done anything about it
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 04:07 PM by slackmaster
He should never have given the safe combination to his unstable kid.

To answer your question, that's a ridiculous idea. Implementation would cost billions and billions of dollars. There is no legal requirement AFAIK for new cars to have OnStar, LoJack, etc., and older ones that don't have such systems will surely be grandfathered even if it becomes mandatory.

A much more practical idea would be satellite tracking of known violent offenders, because those are the people who do most of the crimes.

We passed a ballot proposition (83) to do that for all registered sex offenders here in California on November 7. Due to its broad EMOTIONAL appeal it passed by a wide margin. A federal judge blocked it as probably unconstitutional immediately. (And I voted No for that very reason.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
85. "gun nuts"?
Ad hominim attack. Anyway I'm quite sane even if we disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
86. Licensing only applies to public streets.
No paperwork is required to drive on your own property. Just as driving on public roads requires a license, carrying concealed in public requires a permit, which cannot be obtained without passing a background check and an exam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
109. Incorrect
1. You do not need to have a car registered in order to own it. You need to register it to drive on city streets. You can drive an unresistered car on private property as much as you want.

2. Again, only to drive on public roads. I would also note that in 46 states you need a licence to carry a concealed pistol in public. Two states do not allow it, two states do not require it.

3. You have to pass a test (background check) in order to buy a gun as well.

4. You can still own cars that are banned from being on the road. See response #1.

In addition, I will note that the parody is about the POLITICS of gun ownership. The primary focus is to expose the illogic of many anti-gun reasoning, not to draw an equivilancey betwen guns and cars. If I were to do that, I would note that requiring gun registration is ridiculous because slapping a licence plate on gun is just stupid and useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. No, I'm not...
I'm saying that banning NON-automatic civilian rifles because they (1) have a handgrip that sticks out or (2) have a post-1861 magazine capacity is silly, considering that all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually.

No, I'm not opposed to all gun control. I'm OK with background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, and so on. But the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is both pointless, and based on fearmongering and hysteria. Most of the quotes I spoofed were dumb things that these people actually said about civilian rifles.

You are aware, I hope, that actual AK-47's and Uzi's are tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act (which has nothing to do with "assault weapons"), and possession of an actual AK-47 or any other automatic weapon without a BATFE Form 4 is a 10-year Federal felony?

More at length here: Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Lawmaking based on ignorance, fearmongering, and moral panic doesn't have a very good track record, AND it would be nice not to lose the House and Senate over the gun issue again, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. read post 17, you got owned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Read post 23, you missed my point. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. so maybe the answer is not registering our cars, getting rid of traffic laws
and just trusting people to do the right thing.

That seems to be your stance on gun control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. No...my point is, banning levitation lights and rear wings would be STUPID...
and so is banning rifle handgrips that stick out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. and its a false comparison, for the exact reason cited in the post I mentioned
Cars and guns are not the same thing.

Only a freeper or a child would have trouble understanding that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. How well do you do with analogies?
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 01:40 PM by benEzra
The thing about an analogy is, the points of coincidence the author draws between the two topics are the ONLY points that are generally coincident. Yes, that's a tautology, but that's how analogies work.

The points of coincidence between the "race car bait-and-switch" to "assault weapon bait-and-switch" analogy are the deceptions and idiotic statements. I'm not talking about licensing, registration, or anything other than that.

Here are my points:

The "assault weapon" issue is a bait-and-switch.
"Assault weapon" rhetoric can be seen as ignorant and silly when placed in a more familiar context.

Rebut those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. I don't have to. Opponents of gun control want all guns to be legal
and widely availible, capable of being sold to anyone, wihout any restrictions, registration, or limitation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. I don't....
false premise.

I don't have to. Opponents of gun control want all guns to be legal

and widely availible, capable of being sold to anyone, wihout any restrictions, registration, or limitation.


I don't, so your premise is falsified. (Actually, even the NRA doesn't, so there's a hole in your premise that the Queen Mary 2 could sail through.)

I support the following:

Restrictions on automatic weapons, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), cut-down firearms, disguised firearms, and explosives;

Prohibiting a criminal or anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent from touching a gun;

Requiring background checks for purchases from any gun dealer, even at a gun show;

Requiring background checks and licensing in order to carry a firearm;

Strictly regulating when a gun can be drawn and/or used in self-defense;

Restrictions on armor-piercing handgun ammunition and hypothetical "plastic guns" that could evade metal detectors;

etc. etc. etc. and there is probably more that I can't think of off the top of my head. I might even be persuaded on background checks even on private sales, with appropriate privacy protections and such.

Here's what I oppose: FURTHER restrictions on the right of a LAW-ABIDING ADULT with a CLEAN RECORD to own a NON-AUTOMATIC civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out, or with a post-1861 magazine capacity.


If you'd be interested, I'd appreciate it if you'd read this essay with an open mind; I wrote it shortly after the '04 loss, but I think a lot of it is pertinent here. You seem to be under a lot of misconceptions about what we gun owners want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #48
84. That's a mighty broad brush you are painting with
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:44 AM by slackmaster
Person whose screen name translates as "To eat a dog".

I support most of the gun laws we currently have. I do not support new ones being created for frivolous reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #84
116. The OP was the one with the broad brush, I am just responding in kind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #116
133. Narrow brush:
Points:

(1) The "assault weapon" issue is a bait-and-switch.

(2) "Assault weapon" rhetoric can be seen as ignorant and silly when placed in a more familiar context.

(3) Rifles are almost never used in crimes in the United States; all styles of rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides (half as many as fists and feet, FWIW).

I didn't call proponents of gun control idiots or poopieheads. I said that restrictions on small-caliber civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out are irrational.

If you'd like to provide a rational rebuttal of points (1) through (3), I'd certainly love to discuss it.

bE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #133
174. 400 a year is NOT almost never
Why should police have to deal with weapons that can be used military style to deliver covering fire? I have family in law enforcement and in the line of fire.Why does the "gun rights" movement fight so hard to help criminals and terrorists have better weapons? I agree with Michael Moore.

"We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours."

<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=... >

As far as target shooting, it's to hunting as masturbation is to sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. Around and around and around we go
The "automatic weapons" straw man again, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #174
183. Thanks for proving my point, bill...
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 03:23 PM by benEzra
"We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours."

There you go again, talking about automatic weapons while pushing for a ban on NON-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out.

And, of course, 80% of gun owners, including my wife and I don't hunt.

As far as target shooting, it's to hunting as masturbation is to sex.

I'm sorry, but thinking that killing an animal is like sex is just, well, wierd. But I don't hunt, so I wouldn't know.

I do know that target shooting is Zen, not sex.

400 a year is NOT almost never

It is when you are talking about a nation of 300 million people that owns roughly 300 million firearms--but again, you are taking the figure for all rifles combined and treating it as if every single one of those rifles was a modern-looking small-caliber carbine.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that as many as 50% of rifle homicides involve rifles with modern styling (I don't think it's that many, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt). That would be 200 per year. 200 deaths/yr divided by 300 million people is a death rate of less than 0.07/100K, or 0.000066%. Yes, that is statistically "almost never."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #174
198. Yeah, spew the O'Reilly "You must love terrorists" bullshit
Damn, you sound just like Bill O'Reilly.

We do not fight to help criminals and terrorists have weapons, anymore than fighting for the 4th Amendment is coddling those that seek to harm us. That is a neocon argument that you have flipped for your own purposes. It is disgusting when the righties argue that things like constitutional rights are simply a hinderence to fighting terrorists and those that fight for the rights are coddling them, yet here you are doing the same thing.

Like Bush, you are attempting to remove the effect without addressing the cause. Bush, in fighting terrorists and terror, are in fact making both more numerous. The Brady Campaign, in fighting crime and illegal guns, are in fact making both worse. The root cause of terrorism is hatred of America's ham-handed policies and political interference in the Middle East. The root cause of crime is poverty, drug abuse, and the organized and unorganized crime rings that sell the drugs and enable crime to flourish.

And when both Bush and the Brady Campaign policies fail to do what is promised, the solution is more of the same. Invade and threaten more countries, ban more and more guns, trample more and more constitutional rights in the name of "safety".

You seem to be operating under the assumption that banning these firearms will magically keep them out of the hands of criminals. In truth, the first people that would be affected by such laws are law-abiding people. The criminal class will be the absolute last to be affected by the laws you wish to enact, and the impact will be minimal.

I wish Michael Moore was focusing on our streets and schools safe from crime instead of guns. He, and apparently you as well, are making a link between guns and crime that does not exist.

And how nice of Moore to appoint himself High Deciderness regarding what an appropriate gun is.

I respect the civic duties that your law-enforcement family members do. I tried to become a state trooper, but my eyes were way to bad uncorrected to become one. I do not want their job to be any harder than it must be. But it must be hard. Giving the police, as agents of the government, the right to violate our privacy, imprision our bodies, analyse our fluids, search our homes, read our private corrosponence, listen to our intimate conversations, monitor our spending habits, and track our movements must not be given casually. They must operate within the confines of the Constitution, regardless of cost.

Pesky things like requiring warrants, reasonable cause, jury trials, all make it harder and less safe for the police because it protects accused crimnals until they are convicted criminals. What police must do is protect the bodies of the citizenry, and what the legislatures and courts must do is protect the rights of the citizenry. But I will not sacrifice civil rights to make their job easier, especially when the rights you want to sacrifice will not help anybody. It will not lower the crime rate, it will not lower the homicide rate, it will not lower the suicide rate. It will not make society safer, it will not make society freer, and it will not save the lives of police officers.

Your family members knew that when they pinned the badge above their heart. And I hope they serve safely and effectively until they retire. I hope the pistol they carry on their hip never gets fired in anger. And I hope the police death and disability benefits go unused. I watch America's Most Wanted on occasion, and the segment about an officer who died in the line of duty always makes me tear up. But the risk is a part of the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #116
164. No, the OP wrote a good piece of satire
You are just being rude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
69. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. What right wing website birthed this?
Just wondering. Wnna give an accurate source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I suspect the OP, thinking himself a satarist, wrote this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. Benezra, confirm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Yes, I did.
And no, I'm no satirist (I'm not that good!), but that was indeed satirical. And quite fun to write. I'd been collecting the boneheaded quotes (referring to rifles, not cars) for a while.

I'm not sure who originally said that a 9mm pistol round would "blow a deer to smithereens," but the meme is certainly out there. I could probably find it.

The Rosenthal quote is authentic and only slightly altered, as is the "DLC spokesman" quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Nicely done.
I may now forward, if you don't mind. I have a friend who is a (not West by God) Virginia rural Progressive from a family of Virginia rural Progressives who will get quite a laugh from this. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. Totally fine with me, and thanks! :) (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Why should the mockery of nanny-state gun-haters
be enjoyed by the right wing only?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. False choice question.
Interesting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
31. Ummm...I wrote that...sorry I'm not a right-wing website...
and I doubt a right-winger would have skewered Macacawitz and Shrub, anyway.

I wrote that this morning. I had collected the idiotic quotations from gun-ban activists some time ago and thought about an analogy, but the (repub) Bradyites' claiming that they won the election for the Dems gave me the hook I needed to turn a collection of idiotic quotations into something satirical.

FWIW, I'm a technical writer by profession, with a B.A. and some master's work in English, and writing is an outlet for me. That was a fun piece to write. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. Inflamitory assumption happily withdrawn.
See my post above. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
25. Do we no longer have a lounge?
Why is this here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. Because this is a political piece, not a fun piece...
though it was fun to write.

Not sure if you've been following it, but the repubs at the Brady Campaign (including their Repub leader, Helmke) have been saying for a week that THEY gave Dems the victory, and that Dems now need to pay them back by banning rifle handgrips that stick out. Which would, of course, bring a repeat of 1994-2004. (Remember, Dems controlled the House and Senate then, too.)

My point is a political one--that spending political capital to pass a pointless ban on rifle handgrips, based on ignorance and fear, would be stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
55. fun to read
I've also enjoyed reading some of the resulting sub-threads. Thanks benEzra!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Thanks for the compliment! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
52. Ford Focus and Honda Civic are "race cars???"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"Race cars like the Honda Civic are truly vehicles of mass destruction whose only purpose is to outrun as many police cars as possible without having to refuel," added John Rosenthal, head of the Massachusetts-based Stop Car Violence. "Many of these cars are designed to go 350 mph." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. :)
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 02:21 PM by benEzra
Here's the actual quotation, speaking of small-caliber civilian guns (mostly 9mm, .223, and 7.62x39mm) covered by S.1431/H.R.2038:

Assault weapons are truly weapons of mass destruction whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible without having to stop and reload...(T)hese weapons...are designed to penetrate police body armor from more than 1000 yards.

John Rosenthal, head of Stop Handgun Violence and the AHSA Foundation

here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
61. Great post!
Sadly, it might give some people ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
62. killing people is not what cars are designed for-
nor is it their primary function.

assault rifles on the other hand...

i hope you get the picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. And actual assault rifles are TIGHTLY CONTROLLED
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 03:03 PM by benEzra
by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, and possession of an actual assault rifle is a 10-year Federal felony unless you have gone through the six-month vetting process to obtain a BATFE Form 4.

Non-automatic civilian rifles like the Bradys want to ban, on the other hand, are designed for lawful civilian uses, primarily target shooting and self-defense. The AR-15 is arguably the most popular non-rimfire target rifle in America, for example.

If popular civilian rifles REALLY had no other purpose than criminal homicide, then you'd expect to see a significant number of murders committed with rifles, yes?

Check out the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Homicide, by State and Type of Weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually. The whole "Modern Looking Carbines Are A Grave Threat To Society" meme is bogus; twice as many murders are carried out using fists and feet as with all rifles put together, per the FBI.

The point of the OP is, the mythic properties ascribed to modern-looking small-caliber civilian rifles by the Bradyites are ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. oh, well...
i still support the ban and the attempted satire in the original post is still totally ludicrous... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. What makes it obviously ludicrous...
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 10:29 PM by benEzra
is that you already know enough about cars and automotive technology to understand that all those statements are asinine.

I believe that if you were familiar with Federal firearms law and firearms technology, you'd see immediately that those statements are equally as ludicrous when applied to firearms.

"I'm tired of 13-year-olds gunning down 9-year-olds with automatic weapons." Automatic weapons are restricted to police/military only except for holders of a BATFE Form 4. Kids are NOT killing kids with automatic weapons.

"These rifles out-gun police and gun down children." Police have access to automatic weapons, so they're not "out-gunned" by anybody with some non-automatic, small-caliber civilian rifle. "Gunning down children"--see FBI stats; many states will report zero rifle homicides in any given year, and all rifles combined account for only a tiny fraction of homicides.

"Assault weapons are truly weapons of mass destruction..." Yes, Hiroshima was actually destroyed by a civilian rifle with a protruding handgrip.

"...whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible without having to stop and reload..." That isn't true even of military assault rifles, never mind non-automatic civilian guns. But this statement is easily falsified by that pesky FBI stat, which shows that rifles (despite their popularity) are almost never used in homicides.

"...(T)hese weapons...are designed to penetrate police body armor from more than 1000 yards." Only if both you and the policeman are standing on the moon. On Earth, atmospheric drag ensures that these small-caliber weapons don't have anywhere near that much energy. Some powerful hunting rifles might have this capability (most wouldn't), but small-caliber carbines sure don't. Not to mention the difficult in even hitting something a thousand yards away with a 9mm, 7.62x39mm, or even a .223.

"If you want to use assault weapons, go joing the military." Except that the military doesn't use non-automatic small-caliber rifles, which are made exclusively for civilian use. The military uses NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons, that are restricted to military/police use only unless you can obtain a BATFE Form 4. (I didn't use this statement in the OP, but the equivalent might be, "If you want to drive a Honda Civic, go join NASCAR.")

And so on. The quotations are self-satirizing; when shifted into a familiar context (cars), they become ludicrous because they already were ludicrous. Which is, of course, my point.


It is certainly your prerogative to support a ban on non-automatic, small-caliber civilian guns that are rarely used in crime. The point of my post was that the justifications generally marshalled for such bans are not rational, and that many of those who do support such bans do not understand precisely what the ban would cover.

But thanks for reading it, and for your comments!

bE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #68
94. except for one big thing...
cars are not designed to kill things- guns are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Please back up and look at the FBI stats on types of guns used in murders...
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 01:09 PM by benEzra
except for one big thing...cars are not designed to kill things- guns are.


Please back up and look at the FBI stats on types of guns used in murders.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Homicide, By State and Type of Weapon

You can download the Excel spreadsheet version (see link off the main page) and sum the columns. If you do, you'll see that all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, and that several states will report zero rifle homicides in any given year. To put it another way, all rifles combined kill fewer Americans every year than bathtubs do.

Given the popularity of civilian rifles, it is obvious that they are vastly underrepresented in homicides compared to handguns. Meaning that the premise that modern-looking civilian rifles are unusually suited to homicide, or are useless for lawful purposes, is quite obviously a false one.

Rifles are "designed" to throw a small piece of lead at high velocity (Mach 2 to Mach 3) to within an arcminute or two of where the rifle is aimed. Whether they are used to kill animals, punch holes in tin cans and paper targets, deter somebody trying to break into your house, or commit a murder is not a function of design, but of user intent. The FBI stats make it clear that for rifles in particular, user intent is almost always lawful and nonlethal.

To come back to the car analogy, a BMW 330i or a Honda S2000 is not "designed" for street racing. It can be used for such, or it can be used for lawful purposes, even though it has the capability of street racing. The design criteria are 0-60 in X seconds, X lateral g's on a skidpad, X top speed, X fuel economy, and so on. Whether you put those specs to use responsibly or irresponsibly is up to the user, but practically all users use them responsibly--and if we outlawed all cars capable of street racing, we'd all be riding bicycles.

Yes, guns are capable of killing. The overwhelming majority--especially rifles--are not so used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. looks like an assault weapons ban could reduce gun murders by 3%
every little bit helps! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. That's all rifles COMBINED...
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 01:55 PM by benEzra
looks like an assault weapons ban could reduce gun murders by 3% - every little bit helps!

That 3% of homicides is from all styles of rifles COMBINED, not just modern-looking rifles.

Two thoughts:

(1) The substitution effect. If you ban protruding rifle handgrips and such, the effect would be zero. There is no difference in lethality between a rifle with a straight stock and a rifle with a modern-looking stock.

If you outlawed ALL rifles, then somebody who wanted to commit a homicide could use a shotgun, which is even more deadly than a rifle. I don't know if you're aware of this, but a 12-gauge shotgun slug is .729 caliber; a bullet from an AR-15 rifle is .223 caliber.

Or they could just use a handgun--less lethal than either a rifle or a shotgun, but considerably easier to conceal and transport, which is why .38/.357 revolvers are the predominant firearms used in homicides.

FWIW, twice as many murders are perpetrated using fists and feet than using all styles of rifles combined.


(2) The political backlash. Merely specifying that rifles with protruding handgrips could not have adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, or muzzle threads--plus jacking up the price on replacement handgun magazines--was arguably THE single biggest factor that cost Dems the House and Senate after Sept. 1994. Care to speculate on the political cost of actual confiscation? Dems just got back the House and Senate because they vastly out-polled independent swing voters. Don't throw that away again over some stupid wedge issue like banning people's guns.


(3) The impossibility of a nationwide ban. The Twentynine Palms survey of combat Marines in the mid-1990's indicated that 75% of U.S. soldiers would disobey a direct order to fire on U.S. citizens who refused to turn over banned firearms. I don't know about you, but the prospect of deploying the military/National Guard on the streets of THIS country to kick in people's doors and take their rifles--and the inevitable sequelae--is the scariest thing I can think of. That is just NOT going to happen, and it would be the end of any political party that tried it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #102
124. like i said- every little bit helps...
and i am NOT advocating deploying the military to kick in people's doors to confiscate them-

make them illegal to sell, buy, or own- and when someone is caught with/using/selling them- enforce the law and send them to jail and confiscate/destroy the weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. And why do you believe that legislating rifle stock shape
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:04 PM by benEzra
like i said- every little bit helps...

and i am NOT advocating deploying the military to kick in people's doors to confiscate them-

make them illegal to sell, buy, or own- and when someone is caught with/using/selling them- enforce the law and send them to jail and confiscate/destroy the weapon.

And why do you believe that legislating rifle stock shape would do ANYTHING to prevent homicides?

Rifles with straight stocks are no less lethal than rifles with handgrips that stick out.

That's like trying to reduce drunk driving deaths by banning rear wings on compact cars. A car without a rear wing is no less likely to cause a fatality in the hands of a drunk driver than a car with a rear wing--which, of course, is the point of the OP.

You also fail to consider the political price of this irrational policy. The 1994 Feinstein ban didn't restrict possession of anything, only mandated small cosmetic and ergonomic changes to pistol-gripped rifles manufactured after September 1994, and raised the price of replacement pistol magazines but didn't outlaw anything. And that small but pointless attack on lawful gun ownership created a "Dems'll take yer guns" meme that arguably cost Dems the House, the Senate, and TWO presidencies 1994-2004.

Banning rifle handgrips that stick out is a useless gesture--a symbolic one, if you will--that will do absolutely nothing to reduce gun misuse one iota. What it WILL do is ensure that the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme is resurrected, drive away a lot of the swing voters who just gave back Dems the House and Senate, and ensure that the REAL issues facing this country aren't addressed.

Half of gun owners in the U.S. are Dems and indies. We trusted Dems this year to leave the guns of the law-abiding alone. Don't betray that trust, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #127
140. i don't give a rat's ass about rifle stock shape...
i just like the idea of less assault rifles out there...like i said, every little bit helps. and the laws won't affect me, because i wouldn't buy one either way. btw- i am also in favour of conceal/carry- as long as ALL crimes committed with a gun means at least a mandatory doubling of whatever sentence is handed down, and a minimum of 10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. "Assault rifle" IS primarily about handgrip shape.
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 11:27 PM by benEzra
i don't give a rat's ass about rifle stock shape...i just like the idea of less assault rifles out there...like i said, every little bit helps.

Assault rifle" IS primarily about handgrip shape.


Old-fashioned straight stock; Friendly Sporting Carbine, legal everywhere in the United States, AFAIK.


Same gun with an ergonomic stock, taken a couple of minutes later; "Evil Assault Weapon With No Other Purpose Than Mass Murder."

Here's the text of the proposed 2004 "assault weapon" ban, minus the red-herring stuff at the beginning:

1ST SESSION

S. 1431

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JULY 17, 2003

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 6
(a) IN GENERAL.Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(30) The term semiautomatic assault weapon
means any of the following:
(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability
to accept a detachable magazine, and that has

(iii) a pistol grip



and the laws won't affect me, because i wouldn't buy one either way.

But they would affect me, since I own the little carbine in those photos--and yes, that's my crummy carpet beneath it. :)

My wife also owns a highly collectible Russian SKS (1952 Tula) with a straight stock, but it has a bayonet.

btw- i am also in favour of conceal/carry- as long as ALL crimes committed with a gun means at least a mandatory doubling of whatever sentence is handed down, and a minimum of 10 years.

I might be OK with that. Florida has a 10-20-30 law that goes something like, carry a gun during commission of a violent crime, automatic +10 years; threaten somebody with a gun during commission of a violent crime, +20 years; shoot somebody during commission of a violent crime, +30 years. That's probably a good idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #142
143. however they care to define it doesn't matter much to me...
anything that results in less of them out there does.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. Less of *WHAT*?
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 11:32 PM by benEzra
Civilian rifles? Black plastic rifle stocks? Or just whatever Sarah Brady wants to ban this week?

That is exactly my point. Banning some small-caliber civilian rifles as "assault weapons" is precisely like banning 4-cylinder Civics with wings as "race cars." The term itself is a bait-and-switch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #144
145. assault rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #145
152. A tautology...
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 08:14 AM by benEzra
"Assault rifle" is a military term with a very specific definition--a reduced-power rifle capable of being operated in both automatic and non-automatic modes--and those are already tightly controlled by Federal law, with mere possession by an unauthorized person being a 10-year Federal felony.

"Assault weapon" is an elastic term used by the ban-guns lobby to refer to civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, and to other civilian firearms with post-1861 magazine capacities. This term, and the bait-and-switch that it represents, are the topic of this thread.

"I think assault rifles have no place in private hands. Hand over your AR-15."

"I think race cars have no place on public roads. Hand over your 4-cylinder Honda Civic."

Same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #94
150. That is not necessarily a bad thing
And that is the point. The fact that I shoot and kill somebody is not always the wrong thing to do. Assuming I or my family is being attacked, it is the right thing to do. While the killing of a person is always a tragic thing, it is not necessarily the wrong thing or the evil thing.

Now, it is true that only about 350 people a year are shot in self-defense. What is not mentioned is that well over a million times a year and possibly over two million times a year, law-abiding citizens draw or otherwise show a firearm of some sort and stop a crime from happening. Because criminals prefer unarmed victims, and honest citizens don't shoot unless they have to, this almost always results in the criminal running away unscathed. However, when facing an unarmed victim, there is a far greater chance that the criminal will decide to murder the victim.

I have little doubt that many of the gun murders were actually done in self-defense but the jury did not see it that way. Perhaps an overly-restrictive deadly-force-use law in that state, for example. benEzra may know more about it.

I would also note that, despite the fact that cars are not designed to kill people, they do a pretty good job of it. I will give you that nearly all car-related deaths are accidents, whereas nearly all gun-related deaths are suicides.

Regardless, the Brady campaign saying that banning what they term "assault weapons" will reduce crime and murder is like MADD saying that banning "pimpin'" modifications to cars will reduce drunk-driving deaths. Would it make sense to term a car an "assault car" simply because the owner tinted the windows or put 20" spinner rims on the car?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #62
73. Thanks to this and a thread kissing Lou Dobb's ass, my ignore list went from 0-20
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 01:32 AM by ComerPerro
I am done with "reach out to the right" and "blame liberalism first" Democrats, and am really not interested in anything they have to say.

And you are absolutely right. Anyone who even tries to suggest that the primary purpose of guns is to kill things is delusional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. When will you ever learn?
This isn't a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. It's freedom, baby, yeah!

It's talking a stand against this mindset: "The cop gets to own a gun. The soldier gets to own a gun. Even the criminal gets to own a gun, since he won't obey our laws, anyway. But you, the taxpayer, the average-Joe cog-in-the-wheel puke piece of shit whose tax money is the reason we even have a working government in the first place - you don't get to own a gun because you cannot be trusted with one. Unless you're a hunter, in which case we'll let you tote around an old shotgun, but that's it, peon..."

Sorry. I'm in this to make sure that Democrats stay in control of Capitol Hill, not piss their advantage away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #73
78. Guns aren't a "rightist" issue--and it was the DLC, not liberals,
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:10 AM by benEzra
who decided that banning protruding rifles handgrips was so damn important. They thought that passing an "assualt weapon ban" would make them look "tough on crime"--e.g., pandering to the right. And of course, Sarah Brady is proudly a Reagan republican, and Dems and indies make up half of all gun owners.

FWIW, do you know who was responsible for the first Federal restrictions on "assault weapons"? Reportedly arch-conservative right-winger William J. Bennett, czar-something-or-other under Bush the Elder. The recommendations were signed into an XO by Bush and later codified into 18 USC 922(r).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #73
88. "Anyone who even tries to suggest that the primary purpose of guns is to kill things is delusional."
At last, you see reason! The majority of privately-owned guns in the US are only used to shoot cans, bottles and paper targets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #73
93. THEN MAKE GUNS THAT DON'T KILL PEOPLE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Thoughts...
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 01:19 PM by benEzra
THEN MAKE GUNS THAT DON'T KILL PEOPLE!

Since alcohol kills 100-200 times as many people as rifles, one could say with equal conviction that we need to make alcohol that isn't inebriating.

The problem is, the thing that makes alcohol desirable as a social beverage, for those who partake of it, is that inebriating quality. When used responsibly, it is relaxing, helps break down social barriers, and even good for you.

Back to rifles. The quality that makes rifles useful, as opposed to merely fun, is that they do have the capability to kill. If you are a hunter, the need for that quality is obvious. If you are a nonhunter, but interested in firearms as defensive tools (the category into which most lawful American gun owners fall), that quality is also necessary, although a lower level of lethality is acceptable in a nonhunting gun than a hunting weapon.

The entire deterrent effect of a firearm on a would-be attacker/home invader is based on the fact that being shot with a rifle can REALLY ruin your day. But back to that pesky FBI stat--rifles kill fewer Americans each year than bathtubs do.

You are constructing an imaginary problem (rifle-related crime) in order to rationalize your advocacy of civilian rifle bans/confiscation, and no amount of Guns Are Of The Devil rhetoric can change that fact.



BTW, they DO make "guns" that don't kill people. They're called Airsofts, and your man Bloomberg is trying to ban those, too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. There's only around 300 justifiable homicides a year in USA
Those 300 count for you but the 300 or so people killed by rifles are statistically insignificant?
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #99
104. The vast majority of defensive firearm uses do not involve
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 02:09 PM by benEzra
There's only around 300 justifiable homicides a year in USA...Those 300 count for you but the 300 or so people killed by rifles are statistically insignificant?

The vast majority of defensive firearm uses do not involve the death of the perpetrator, as you well know. Meaning that 300 attackers who are killed each year is the metaphorical tip of the iceberg of defensive gun use.

A defensive use is equally successful if the attacker is deterred with no shots fired; if the attacker is deterred with only warning shots fired; if the attacker is hit and ceases the attack, but survives; or if the attacker is killed. The first three categories comprise the majority of defensive gun uses, and aren't counted as justifiable homicide because, of course, there was no homicide involved. That was one of the two major problems with the Kellerman study.

My own father had a "save" in the early 1970's, here in rural eastern NC, late one night, when I was a child. No shots fired; the aggressors saw his gun, backed off, and left. Score one for the good guys, and nobody was hurt. I'd call that the ideal outcome.

But as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, an outright ban on protruding rifle handgrips would NOT reduce the homicide rate one whit, because a rifle with a straight stock is no less lethal than a rifle with a handgrip that sticks out. Such a ban would do absolutely NOTHING to reduce homicide, any more than banning rear wings on sport compact cars would reduce drunk driving deaths.

This type of ad hoc rationalization of nonsensical positions is exactly why the U.S. gun-control lobby is in the sorry shape it's in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #104
114. The vast majority of criminal uses of guns also don't involve firing a shot
"Gun use does not need to result in a fatality to involve domestic violence. A
study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers analyzed gun use at home and
concluded that hostile gun displays against family members may be more common
than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic
violence directed against women.3
<://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2006.pdf> ;
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #114
128. Which, again, has nothing to do with banning rifle handgrips that stick out...
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 09:49 PM by benEzra
The vast majority of criminal uses of guns also don't involve firing a shot

Which, again, has nothing to do with banning rifle handgrips that stick out...

...and I see that you are citing the VPC, which is the very lobbying group that created the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch in the first place, and which is reponsible for much of the sky-is-falling rhetoric surrounding modern-looking small-caliber rifles.

All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides. Indisputable fact. There is no reason to believe that the percentage of rifles used in nonfatal gun assaults is any higher than that, and banning rifle handgrips that stick out would, of course, do nothing to address it.

Ad hoc rationalization of a nonsensical position, as I pointed out previously. Non-automatic rifles just aren't a crime problem in the U.S. and never have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor Venmkan Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #93
120. They're far, far ahead of you there...
In fact, I think a gun that CAN kill a person by itself, without a human being at the controls, would be a rather recent invention. If they even exist! ;)

It gets old, but I'll say it again - it's not the TOOL, it's the PERSON using it!

Should we be calling on Nike to make SHOELACES that "don't kill people?" Because, anyone with a fair amount of hand and arm strength and ingenuity could kill someone using those, as well...

ben, great post! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. That's beyond pathetic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #120
123. Yeah but guns are the very top choice for killing people, they're just so effective
And don't forget the terrorizing aspect of guns. Here's a study of American men terrorizing women with their guns.

When Men Murder
Women: An Analysis of
2004 Homicide Data
Females Murdered by Males in
Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents
September 2006


Intimate partner violence against women is all too common and takes many
forms. The most serious is homicide by an intimate partner.1 Guns can easily turn
domestic violence into domestic homicide. One federal study on homicide among
intimate partners found that female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered
with a firearm than all other means combined, concluding that the figures
demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by
IPV .2

Gun use does not need to result in a fatality to involve domestic violence. A
study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers analyzed gun use at home and
concluded that hostile gun displays against family members may be more common
than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic
violence directed against women.3
The U.S. Department of Justice has found that women are far more likely to be
the victims of violent crimes committed by intimate partners than men, especially
when a weapon is involved. Moreover, women are much more likely to be victimized
at home than in any other place.4
-------------snip---------------------------------------

<http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2006.pdf >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #123
130. BUT. NOT. RIFLES.
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:09 PM by benEzra
Yeah but guns are the very top choice for killing people, they're just so effective

BUT. NOT. RIFLES.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

Twice as many people are murdered using fists and feet as with all rifles combined. Again, the crime stats you keep throwing out are just a post hoc rationalization for your obsession with banning modern-looking small-caliber rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. 400 dead people don't matter, they're statistically insignificant to you
The beltway snipers would have had a hard time using their feet. The killer's of JFK, MLK, RFK, would have struggled using their hands. Terrorist Tim McVeigh said that if he it to do over again he would have used a rifle instead.

BTW, when are going to tell me how Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer are a victory for the gun lobby and it's minions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #132
139. But they could have used a rifle without a protruding handgrip...
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 11:28 PM by benEzra
The beltway snipers would have had a hard time using their feet.

But they could have used a rifle without a protruding handgrip. Or, at the very close ranges they were shooting, a shotgun with slugs.

Banning protruding rifle handgrips wouldn't make a bit of difference.

The killer's of JFK, MLK, RFK, would have struggled using their hands.

Hmmm. They all used straight-stocked, hunting-style rifles, didn't they? Bolt-actions, even, at least in the cases of JFK and RFK.

So, you want to ban bolt-action deer rifles, too? The mask comes off...

Terrorist Tim McVeigh said that if he it to do over again he would have used a rifle instead.

And I'll bet he couldn't have killed 168 people with a rifle...but if he had used a rifle, whether the rifle had a protruding handgrip or not would have been irrelevant.

You think he could have caused this much destruction with a civilian rifle?



400 dead people don't matter, they're statistically insignificant to you

"100,000 dead people don't matter, they're statistically insignificant to you, because you oppose alcohol prohibition." Would that be a fair statement?

You also are ignoring the fact that banning protruding rifle handgrips would do NOTHING about the tiny percentage of homicides that are committed with rifles, because stock shape is irrelevant to the rifle's lethality. Just like whether a car has a decklid spoiler or chrome exhaust tip is irrelevant to drunk driving fatalities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #139
146. If the stock is so irrelevant? WHY DO YOU WANT IT? Easy control in full auto?
"The pistol grip design gives better control under full-auto fire. Helps
you hold the muzzle down, because your hand has better leverage. If you
look at submachine guns, most of them from the Thompson on forward have
had pistol grips. The original "assault rifle," the German Sturmgewehr
44, had basically the same outline as a modern military rifle. Imitation
is the sincerest form of flattery - the layout of the AK-47 is very
similar to the StG44. Mikhail Timofeyevich knew a good thing when he
saw it."

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.guns/browse_thread/t... >

Just want to pretend it's a real automatic. I'm sure criminals would also like to fake us out and also it helps them shoot from behind walls.

Why should law enforcement need to face something like this cause you don't want to be seen with a "cowboy gun"?

As far as alcohol, it's been part of human culture for tens of thousands of years and occurs naturally in nature and is close to impossible to ban. Assault rifles are a very recent hard to make invention and have been successfully banned by advanced nations around the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #146
148. Nope
"The pistol grip design gives better control under full-auto fire. Helps
you hold the muzzle down, because your hand has better leverage. If you
look at submachine guns, most of them from the Thompson on forward have
had pistol grips. The original "assault rifle," the German Sturmgewehr
44, had basically the same outline as a modern military rifle. Imitation
is the sincerest form of flattery - the layout of the AK-47 is very
similar to the StG44. Mikhail Timofeyevich knew a good thing when he
saw it."

The pistol grip is an ergonomic feature which makes firing modern weapons conmfortable. Since modern weapons have the stock more in line with the barrel (To prevent some amount of muzzle rise), the only ergonomic option for such weapons is to include some form of pistol grip.

Just want to pretend it's a real automatic.

I don't know where you're pulling this opinion from. I highly doubt that it comes from any sort of personal experience or factual study.

I'm sure criminals would also like to fake us out

Statistically, they're going to be too busy getting simple, concealable .357/.38 revolvers to bother getting a cumbersome rifle.

also it helps them shoot from behind walls.

Shooting a rifle one-handed? Around a corner? What is this from, "Ahnuhld's Big Book of Hollywood-Inspired Tactics"?

Why should law enforcement need to face something like this cause you don't want to be seen with a "cowboy gun"?

Why, for the matter, should they have to face someone with a hunting rifle? Those have higher effective ranges, greater power cartridges, and most will rip through standard police body armor with lethal effects. Not to mention, they're usually much cheaper.

As an example of the potential power and lethality of hunting rifles, Charles Whitman managed to kill 15 and wound 31, most with simple bolt-action Remington hunting rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #148
155. Does the pistol grip help deliver covering fire from Astroturf?
Wecome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #146
153. That's hilarious...
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 08:25 AM by benEzra
If the stock is so irrelevant? WHY DO YOU WANT IT? Easy control in full auto?


That's hilarious, considering that the most advanced single-shot target rifles in the world have, yes, ergonomic pistol grip stocks:


Anschutz European target competition rifle

Old-fashioned straight stocks put the wrist in extreme flexion when firing from the shoulder, BUT were required due to the inability of wood to stand up to shear stress parallel to the grain; a one-piece wooden stock with a protruding handgrip would break easily. Another big reason was that straight stocks are slim enough to fit into a scabbard for carry on horseback, and require less space to store.

Modern materials make it easier to make a stock that accomodates a comfortable wrist angle, and horseback carry is no longer relevant. Also, going to a separate handgrip allows you move the action of the gun rearward relative to the trigger, giving you a slightly longer barrel for a given overall length if the designer so chooses.

As far as alcohol, it's been part of human culture for tens of thousands of years and occurs naturally in nature and is close to impossible to ban. Assault rifles are a very recent hard to make invention and have been successfully banned by advanced nations around the world.

Are you saying it's harder to attach a protruding handgrip to a straight rifle stock than it is to brew alcohol from grains?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #153
154. ASSAULT RIFLES CAN'T BE MADE IN BATHTUBS LIKE ALCOHOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #154
162. billbuckhead is posting in all caps again
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 10:54 AM by slackmaster
He must be right.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #154
165. We're not talking about assault rifles, we're talking about protruding handgrips,
remember?

If a protruding handgrip turns a non-automatic, small-caliber civilian rifle into an Evil Deadly Assault Weapon that has no other purpose than mass murder, protruding handgrips are pretty darn easy to make, no?

But the whole idea of a protruding handgrip turning a civilian rifle into a mass murder machine is ludicrous, which is the point of the OP. Yes, race cars have wings (and actual AK-47's have protruding handgrips), but that doesn't make a 4-cylinder Civic a "race car" because it has a wing, any more than it makes a non-automatic civilian rifle an "assault rifle" because it has a handgrip that sticks out.

And, of course, there's that pesky fact that if the millions and millions of modern-looking rifles in our gun safes were so damn suited to criminal misuse, you'd see them killing more people than bathtubs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #154
201. Submachine guns can be made in a basement
Open-bolt submachine guns like the Uzi, the Sten, and the M3 "Grease Gun" are made from a maximum of stamped, punched, and welded parts and a minimum of machined parts. The simplicity and reliability of these guns is impressive, they are fully-automatic only, and made for spraying pistol bullets at close range targets.

One guy in San Quentin made a .32-caliber repeating pistol out of the prison workshop using plumbing fittings.

I'm thinking that a cottage industry in illegally-made SMGs might emerge if needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #154
204. Hey Bill, check this out!
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/introduction.shtml

A fully functional machine gun, with no advanced machining processes required!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #204
207. LOTS of interesting stuff at that site, Nabeshin. thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #204
209. Holy shit is all I have to say.
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
72. Best. Pro-RKBA. Post. EVER.
Would you mind terribly if I shared this with Amendment II Democrats? Pretty please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #72
79. No, go right ahead. And thanks for the compliment. :) (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
80. Race cars and Cigarettes very bad for us
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:13 AM by dogday
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota_Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
87. If we let them take away our Formula Ones now, they'll go after our soap box racers next!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. Ah, but if they SAY they only want Formula 1's, but ban Civics instead...
then you have a problem...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Street racing IS banned and most states regulate automobiles & drivers
Regulations do work. Actually we need more regulations on cars and drivers. Many young people are terrible drivers and need better training before being weeded out by survival of the fittest. Southern states should have state safety inspections on vehicles like Northern states. TeXXXas should have emissions inspections. That's just a start.

If the cops can't tell the difference between real AK-47's and fake ones, how can they respond properly?

Once again tell me how speaker Pelosi was a big win for the gun lobby and it's minions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #92
100. So are homicide and the carrying of weapons, if you weren't aware of that fact...
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 01:26 PM by benEzra
Street racing IS banned and most states regulate automobiles & drivers

So are homicide and the carrying of weapons, if you weren't aware of that fact. But we don't outlaw RX-7's and Honda Civics because they have the capability to be misused. The misuse is restricted, not the car itself.

If the cops can't tell the difference between real AK-47's and fake ones, how can they respond properly?

If the rifle is being used threateningly, the "proper response" per police training would be EXACTLY the same--either shoot the aggressor, or take cover, secure a perimeter, and call for backup. Whether the perpetrator is carrying a pistol, a shotgun, a non-automatic civilian carbine, or a stolen police/military automatic weapon.

But go back to that pesky FBI stat, bill. Rifles are almost never misused. Again, you are creating imaginary scenarios in order to post hoc justify your ban-more-rifles agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #100
117. 400 dead Americans are statistically insignificant to you?
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 04:32 PM by billbuckhead
Tell those dead people families that it never happened.

BTW, I held my nose and went over to that 'High Road"cesspool/website and the gun pimps and freepers are whining about how the new AWB will be even worse. I bet in the end they will wish they had the old AWB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #117
131. And banning rifle handgrips that stick out would do NOTHING
to reduce that almost one-in-a-million number, since a rifle with a straight stock is just as lethal as a rifle with a handgrip that sticks out.




Your position is EXACTLY the same as imagining that banning rear wings and chrome exhaust tips on compact cars will reduce drunk driving deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. So you don't care about 300 American's and their families?
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 10:39 PM by billbuckhead
Many of these innocent victims are in law enforcement and are paid little for risking their lives. They shouldn't be forced to deal with deadlier and deadlier weapons and knock offs of these borderline weapons of mass destruction. You don't care about these victims or the danger to law enforcement cause you're embarrassed to seen with a "cowboy gun". America needs modern gun laws like the rest of the advanced world enjoys, not "modern" guns that terrorize the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #135
141. Banning rifle handgrips that stick out is irrelevant to even that statistic...
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 11:13 PM by benEzra
Many of these innocent victims are in law enforcement and are paid little for risking their lives.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with banning rifle handgrips that stick out.

They shouldn't be forced to deal with deadlier and deadlier weapons and knock offs

A handgrip that sticks out doesn't make a small-caliber rifle "deadlier."

of these borderline weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, Hiroshima was leveled by a civilian rifle with a protruding handgrip. :eyes:

You just reinforced the point I tried to make in the OP, about the silly rhetoric used to prop up bans on protruding rifle handgrips.

You don't care about these victims or the danger to law enforcement cause you're embarrassed to seen with a "cowboy gun". America needs modern gun laws like the rest of the advanced world enjoys, not "modern" guns that terrorize the public.

And again, the shape of a rifle's stock has NOTHING to do with its lethality or potential for use in crime.

If popular rifles with modern styling were as murder-inducing as you say, then they'd probably kill more Americans each year than bathtubs, no? Or fists and feet?

Remember, that 400 murders/year figure includes ALL rifles, not just modern looking ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota_Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. First they came for the Mazda RX-7s, and I didnt speak up....
because I didn't drive an RX-7.

Then they came for the Dodge Vipers, and I didnt speak up,
because I wasnt a Viper owner.

Then they came for the Ford GTs, and I didnt speak up,
because I drove a SUV.

Then they came for my SUV, and by that time there were no drivers left
to speak for me...they all had become pedestrians.


This is a dire warning that I think we all should heed.

:D :D :D :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
101. WTF!!! a Honda Civic is a race car????
Is this satire????

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. Yes, it's satire. :)
Edited on Thu Nov-16-06 02:23 PM by benEzra
I took the rhetoric of the Brady Campaign's "assault weapon" bait-and-switch (i.e., talking about military automatic weapons while pushing a ban on popular civilian guns) and created a "race car" bait-and-switch (talking about race cars while pushing a ban on popular non-race cars). It is indeed ludicrous--but the quotations are more or less real, just altered somewhat, as they are equally ludicrous when applied to civilian rifles.

For some of the actual quotations (regarding rifles) I was satirizing, see post #68.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. GREAT POST!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. Thanks! :) (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xela Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
110. Corolla????
Hell, that means they'll be after my Matrix next.

From my cold dead speed pedal foot!!!

Xela
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
121. If you let politicians write the ban thats what you get
Any ban on technical features of firearms should be drafted by a panel of gunsmiths. Give them some requirements on what you want the gun to be able to do and unable to do. Then we might get something that makes some sense.

And just maybe we won't find that the post ban Honda Victory is a Civic with a fresh coat of paint and no evil rear spoiler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwerlain Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
125. Gee another gun debate
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-16-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
138. Thanks for reminding us that being liberal is about liberty. ;-)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
147. mandatory bradley fighting vehicles
Somebody's gotta buy them, then the streets will be safer with
more people sporting 50 cals on the sunroof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #147
157. BFV don't have a .50 cal., they have a .30 cal and a 25 mm cannon.
Another anti-gunner who pontificates about things he/she does not understand?
There was a time in America when our citizens owned war ships complete with cannons btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #157
158. Thank you gunner
I had a feeling that was wrong. Well, a 25mm cannon is better in heavy traffic anyways. :-)

I'm not the least bit ignorant about military conflict. I'm full aware that it is
absolutely the last last last reserve way of achieving a political objective, with
so many more effective ways used by people with forebrains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #158
161. Actually, I was a gunner on a BFV.
"a 25mm cannon is better in heavy traffic anyways."
I can tell you from personal experience that that is indeed a true statement.

"I'm not the least bit ignorant about military conflict. I'm full aware that it is
absolutely the last last last reserve way of achieving a political objective"

Whose talking about using guns to achieve political objectives? I'm talking about defending all elements of our bill of rights with equal enthusiasm. But as long as you mentioned it,the majority of truly successful political revolutions were only successful because of a relative balance of firepower between the opposing forces.

"with so many more effective ways used by people with forebrains.
Forebrains are overrated IMO. If someone is shooting at you, you would be better off with a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #161
169. karl marx used no gun
brain cells are far more powerful in our internet age. Force wins in 1 playground,
goodwill and moral high ground wins globally, and from that place with every person's life,
the assault of intelligence is more pervasive.

I don't hang out in places with violence, where i would need a gun at all,
though i am years proficient with edged weapons, i find it most challenging
to dice an onion perfectly to cubes without getting it in my eyes. ;-)

If we can't take violence in to plowshares ourselves entirely that our every
act be one of peace, when what business have we calling out just wars in the
name of a peace that nobody respects. Then we war outside, bully inside and
never it stops, the repression game, they're either trying to screw you, or
they expect to be screwed, its the new darwinian culture, to be shot or be the
shooter, with us or against us.

Its all that i wish turned in to plowshares, and guns are cool, i have no issue
with the second amendment.

I remember when i got turned off to guns. Some friends and I from Texas A&M university
way back when, went bird hunting around kingsville texas. This consisted of packing
a car with guns and driving around to loads of places and shooting birds, some far away
with scopes, blowing the heads off, then shooting at signs, and generally treating the
outdoors as a target range. It was fun for about 1 hour. Then i realized i could kill
any animal at a few hundred meters with the right scope and rifle, without combat,
except in the violence of my trigger finger. And i realized the violence was the
spark in my mind and heart that would pull that trigger, did pull it, to kill a peaceful
bird in the middle of a lake... without even a dog to fetch it back. I had bad dreams
about all the dead birds we killed unnecessarily, but it was a few beers and good old boys.

Then i met those same folks back in texas a&m university's racist military academy, and
really sussed out that i was in the wrong university, learning the wrong things, and i
left that place, they can keep their guns, if they shoot me, then c'est la vie, but i'm
done with such a boring trade. I respect people who like to shoot guns, and who believe
they could not survive without one, but i'm not a person like that, i just walk away
from gun people without looking back anymore... i sinned against my soul and i learned,
death dealing is somebody else's business this lifetime.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #169
205. A very thought-provoking post
I too would like to see the swords beaten into plowshares. But if we are not vigilent in defending those plowshares, we will wind up plowing for those who did not convert their swords.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #157
206. I was going to argue, then I realized I was thinking of the Humvee
The Bradley carries TOW missiles as well, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
160. So I can still buy a BMW M3? Your race car ban is still fucked.
LOOPHOLE! LOOPHOLE!

And btw, just because it has "Cadillac" on the rear deck doesn't make a six-speed, 400hp V8 powered car slow by any means.

Sorry...had to say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #160
166. I agree...
and the CTS-V is now officially my dream car (sorry, Volvo S40T5!) which is why I very self-servingly put it on the protected list. :P



Notice that it doesn't have a rear spoiler, though, so it's not one of those deadly 4-cylinder race cars that will tow a boat to smithereens. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #166
167. It has ground effects, though...and a FRONT spoiler
Sorry...this one is out.

Does this eliminate the 2-door vert style too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #167
168. Oh, darn it... :)
GM will have to come out with a post-ban version with no air dam and two valves per cylinder. :)


Actually, the original Feinstein ban (1994-2004) did have some self-contradictory bits. For example, the mini-14 without a folding stock was explicitly protected, but you could run afoul of the features list if you put a pistol grip stock on one with muzzle threads. So if you did, the law supposedly exempted such a mini-14, while simultaneously banning it. Case law never resolved that because the BATFE apparently thought that provision was too dumb to enforce, and I am not aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for putting two listed features on a postban rifle.

The same situation occurred for reproductions of Civil-War vintage lever-action carbines; those were on the protected list, but simultaneously banned by the 10-round capacity limit. BATFE let them slide also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
184. you're an evil genius, benEzra
You mock the hell out of an indefensible piece of legislation, then when irrational gun-fearers show up and give you the Talking Points, you beat them over the head with logic until they make themselves look silly. The ends of some of these subthreads are hilarious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #184
186. Yeah how about a lojack or an OnStar for your next gun purchase?
:rofl:

I'm still waiting for any of gun "enthusiast" to explain how Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer are a win for the "gun rights" movement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #186
188. You think the Democrats took over both houses of Congress over gun control?
Last I heard, it wasn't even on the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #186
189. They aren't
But I'd rather bitch about the 2nd amendment than be bitching about:

  1. The 1st Amendemnt
  2. the 4th Amendment
  3. the 5th Amendment
  4. the 6th Amendment
  5. the 7th Amendment
  6. the 8th Amendment
  7. the 14th Amendment
  8. Article 1 Section 9
  9. The Military Commissions Act
  10. etc., etc., etc.,


What we want is a) the laws to be left alone, and b) to avoid losing the Congress and/or the Presidency in 2008, 2010, 2012, and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #186
191. I vote Democratic, even knowing Pelosi's stance on gun control.
It's for many reasons other than gun control. In no particular order:
1) Bush and all that he has wrought
2) the environment
3) republican class warfare (rob from poor, give to rich)
4) abortion, religious freedom, human rights, etc. etc.
5) Nancy's not gonna touch gun control with a 10 foot poll in this Congress (I bet she wouldn't have the votes, anyway)


What does lojack or OnStar have to do with benEzra's analogy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #191
192. OnStars are GPS tracking devices
Soon GPS tracking devices will be on all cars and that's a damn good idea for guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #192
194. I know what they are. I also know they have zip to do with benEzra's post. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #192
200. As long as only the gun owner can remotely activate it, fine.
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 05:48 PM by krispos42
When a gun owner reports a stolen gun, he enters a PIN to turn on the tracking device, the cops hunt it down. Works for me.

Now, all they have to do is get the price down to about $20 per unit, and figure out a way to keep the criminals from disabling it. Unlike cars, guns don't have power supplies, nor does it require power to operate. And you can't integrate a GPS into the critial electronics of a gun, because guns don't have critical electronics.

And it's a lot harder to fit a GPS in a gun than in a car.

Other than that, keep working on it! A $20 GPS with radio beacon transmitter, perhaps a cellular connection, the size of a grain of rice that is powered indefinately by air.

<edit: fixed typo>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #186
193. That's easy
I'm still waiting for any of gun "enthusiast" to explain how Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer are a win for the "gun rights" movement?

They will only be a "win" if they try to push for a renewal/expansion of the '94 AWB. History often repeats itself, and there's really no reason to believe that a new ban wouldn't have the same political effects as the '94 version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #193
195. Wager!
Exactly, dairydog, and I'll take the point further:

To anyone: If the new Congress passes any piece of gun-banning legislation in the next two years, I will donate $100 to an NPO of your choice. If anyone wants to take me up on the bet, you will agree to donate $100 to an NPO of my choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
196. ah, the tired ol' guns = cars arguement
so ridiculous i can't believe it still gets trotted out to justify the slaughter in the streets and schools of america.

no wonder the the word 'nut' often follows 'guns' :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #196
197. and the tired ol' "this argument is dumb" argument
you should read the OP. No wonder the word "pointless" often precedes the words "Assault Weapons ban."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #196
199. The 'gun nuts' didn't make the stupid law. Which is the OP's point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #196
203. No, this is the "silly rhetoric = silly rhetoric" argument...
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 08:26 PM by benEzra
I took some silly rhetoric from the ban-more-guns lobby and applied it to a topic that's a bit more familiar to most people. Most of those quotes originated as actual idiotic statements about small-caliber rifles.

FWIW, rifle homicides are extremely rare in this country (all classes of rifles combined account for less than 3% of murders), though you'd never know it from the MSM.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
202. The GD moderators must have gotten a good laugh out of this one
They sure let it run for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 24th 2014, 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC