Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Ban AW? 44 Minutes on FX now.

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
 
a560 Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:45 AM
Original message
Why Ban AW? 44 Minutes on FX now.
Assault weapons make every murder more lethal giving criminals enough firepower to hold off police, there is no legitimate need for these weapons in private hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kalian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh please....
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a560 Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. oh please give me a reason anyone needs such weapons
thousands of people dying every year and many more injured, no pro gun person has yet to give a good reason why they should be allowed to own such weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deleted.
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 11:53 AM by OpSomBlood
My hot head on this issue got the best of me. Not civil, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I apologized.
But to answer your question, I agree that more needs to be done to ensure that known dangerous people don't get their hands on powerful weapons.

But look over the statistics and you'll see that "assult weapons" are used in a miniscule number of crimes. The AWB was a ban on "scary looking" guns...it was candy coating to appease the gun control crowd. Nothing in the AWB makes firearms any less lethal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. What do you mean...Oh Please! We are a family of hunters and
have been for several generations. I'm a gun collector. We have NEVER owned any "assult" weapons and have no desire to.

The statement in the original post seems to be correct, and other than fullfiling so macho arrogance to be able to say "I OWN AN AK47", I don't see what purpose they serve.

Can it really be than much fun spraying $30 out of a berrel in less than 30 seconds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Fact time.
>> Can it really be than much fun spraying $30 out of a berrel in less than 30 seconds? <<

The AWB has nothing at all to do with fully-automatic machine guns. That's the "big lie" the anti-gunners are perpetuating, that the AWB keeps machine guns off the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kalian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I'm a hunter...but I'm also a gun collector
Most crimes are conducted with HANDGUNS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Strictly speaking
Most crimes are conducted with HANDS, not guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. Let me help you out with a few facts
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 12:12 PM by slackmaster
The two perpetrators of the North Hollywood bank robbery and shootout were using illegal, unregistered machineguns, real military selective-fire (fully automatic) AK-47 rifles smuggled in from the Peoples' Republic of China. The movie also depicted a G3 assault rifle used by one of the assailants. I don't know where that one came from, but none of those weapons were "assault weapons". They were military firearms. I suspect the G3 was stolen from a military unit or militia member in a Western European country; very few real G3s have ever been sold legally to civilians in the US.

In short, none of the weapons used by the crooks (other than the handgun one used to off himself) were ever in the legal commerce stream of firearms in this country.

Those three military weapons are heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. None of them are covered by the federal "assault weapons ban" or any state AWB. Expiration of the federal AWB on September 13 will NOT make weapons of that type any easier for a criminal to obtain.

BTW - you wrote "Assault weapons make every murder more lethal..." Please explain how someone unlawfully killed with an AW is more dead than someone unlawfully killed by other means.

The blurred distinction between fully automatic military weapons and their much less dangerous civilian semiautomatic counterparts makes the subject of the AWB difficult to discuss with people who have gotten most of their information from anti-gun propaganda sources and news media that seem more interested in ratings and profits than in accurate reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The only thing the expiration of the AWB will do...
...is end the lucrative "pre-ban" high-capacity magazine market and allow folding stocks on semi-auto rifles. It won't suddenly be easier to obtain a machine gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Because I live in California the expiration won't help me much
I will be able to add pre-ban features to my California-registered perfectly legal federal post-ban firearms, but standard magazines will still be unavailable.

Of course I can still get magazine repair kits. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. If your description of AWs is true then why doesn't the NRA
EVER sttate that in any of their arguments? I admit, I haaven't recently listened to much of their protests, but all I ever hear is "they're trying to take my guns away", and "we have a Constitution".

I really believe most people are fairly reasonable and little plain, logical, and rational debate would go far in advancing the cause of letting this AWB expire. All the screaming and wraping yourself in the flag simply causes people on both sides to dig in their heels more firmly and not even listen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I pay little attention to the NRA's rhetoric
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 12:16 PM by slackmaster
They use empty appeals to emotion and distorted "facts" just as much as the hysterical anti-gun crowd.

Here's a link to the text of the actual federal laws that cover machineguns and assault weapons, among other things:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch44.html

Section 921 is a good starting point. Go there and search for the word "assault" to find the basics of the AWB. Note that automatic firearms, called "machineguns" in the code, and "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons", are mutually exclusive.

I really believe most people are fairly reasonable and little plain, logical, and rational debate would go far in advancing the cause of letting this AWB expire.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, but the bullshit is so thick it's hard to be heard when all you have is dull fact to share. Blood and gore and fear are so much more compelling for most people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Agreed, both sides are guilty! Perhaps you should start with
the NRA. They seem to be spending the most money to get their message out.

I suspect they don't want the real message to be heard because a lot of their strong members would view the truth as some kind of sellout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Absolutely.
I'm very pro-gun, and anti-NRA. I think that the way the NRA drapes itself in the flag is every bit as deplorable as the way the Brady people distort the facts.

You're right...rational discussion will go a lot farther than rhetoric. In my opinion, when you actually delve into the content of the AWB, you quickly realize that the law does nothing to make guns less lethal.

The law served two purposes...to appease the anti-gun lobby and to test the waters for more gun control. "Assault weapons" are used in a tiny percentage of gun crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. The plain fact is
that if the AWB were "ineffective" and "only concerned with cosmetics", the gun lobby wouldn't have killed their disgraceful immunity from liability bill when renewal was attached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Liability...
Why should a manufacturer be held liable when their product functions exactly the way it was designed? If I beat someone to death with a bat should their family be able to sue Louisville Slugger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Valid point, but...........
It does make me wonder WHY the NRA and the anti-gun folks are both fighting soooo hard!

I guess I'm missing something, but if this ban hasn't done much, why should I care either way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
45. Gee, there's no reason assault weapons should be on the market...
and the ban should be strengthened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Half agree...
There is no way the ban should be strengthened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. The ban should be strengthened...
Gun makers circumvented the ban...and boasted about it in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Then I totally disagree...
And I thought you had been set free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. You and Cheney and the NRA
Nice playmates, sandman...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. Cheney, no; NRA, infrequently;
Anyone who thinks anything was promised by Cheney to gunowners needs to read a transript. Anyone who would believe such a promise, needs a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. Anybody in the RKBA crowd needs a clue at this point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. You got me there...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Benchley-to-English translation:
"Anyone who disagrees with my viewpoint is a fucking idiot."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. I was, well, awed...
NOT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #73
81. Find that on the stentorian?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasMexican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #47
64. Yes, because following the laws = circumventing the law?
Should I feel ashamed when I drive under the speed limit? How dare I circumvent the laws in such a way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #64
80. I'm beginning to recognize it
I think this must be an example of that RKBA "logic" stuff.

Makes my teeth hurt, it does.

circumvent. evade; find a way around
Now, use in a sentence.

"Should I feel ashamed when I drive under the speed limit?
How dare I circumvent the laws in such a way.


"I circumvented the speed limit by obeying it."

Ah yes. And war is peace, and freedom is slavery, and -- most importantly, it seems -- ignorance is strength.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. Amazing, isn't it...
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 06:03 AM by MrBenchley
And all of this twisted "logic" being employed by the RKBA crowd to defend an industry that's one of the Republican party's staunchest supporters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #80
93. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 09:59 AM by slackmaster
Circumventing the law, exploting loopholes in the law, changing one's behavior to comply with the law; all exactly the same thing. The only difference is what kind of spin the person describing the action is attempting to apply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. I think you say "road apple", actually

Circumventing the law, exploting loopholes in the law, changing one's behavior to comply with the law; all exactly the same thing.

Yup. Tomatoes and horse poop. Exactly the same.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #95
98. Put your money where your mouth is
Let's see if you can explain why gun makers changing their designs to comply with the AWB law is any different from me using a 401k plan as a way of reducing the amount of income taxes I pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #98
100. no, you keep your money out of my mouth
Let's see if you can explain why gun makers changing their designs to comply with the AWB law is any different from me using a 401k plan as a way of reducing the amount of income taxes I pay.

Actually, what *I* said (by necessary inference) was that driving within the speed limit was not "circumventing" speed limits.

But speaking of tax, I'll bet that your local income tax laws have something to say about "tax evasion". (The ones I'm familiar with distinguish between "evasion" and "avoidance". The latter is legal, the former is not.) And I'll bet it's something quite different from using a retirement savings account.

I don't know whether anyone said that "circumventing" the assault weapons ban is illegal. I would have thought that what was being said was that it is unfortunately possible to circumvent the obvious intent of the law without breaking it, and that changes should be made to eliminate this possibility.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #100
103. The AWB is bad law based on Goldilocks reasoning
Arguments for the AWB include:

- They're too powerful. Actually they shoot medium-powered ammunition.

- They shoot too fast. But all semiautomatic firearms' rate of fire is limited by the shooter's ability. :dunce:

- They are designed to spray bullets indiscriminately. Which contradicts the next gem of reasoning...

- They're too accurate. Which is also being applied to scoped bolt-action rifles.

- They're too quiet. Threaded muzzle could be used to attach a sound suppressor, but those are highly regulated.

- They can launch grenades. Sure, if you can actually obtain a grenade (controlled like silencers and machineguns)

- No legitimate sporting use. Nonsense, as many AWs are used for target shooting.

- They're too easy to conceal. Yes, that folding stock makes it real easy to hide a rifle in your pocket. :eyes:

- They're too comfortable to shoot. Gee, we wouldn't want someone with a firearm to have any ergonomic creature comforts. He or she might have TOO MUCH CONTROL over the weapon. :freak:

I don't know whether anyone said that "circumventing" the assault weapons ban is illegal.

But that is the basis of the Brady Center's lawsuit against the federal government. http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/200403/0318/brady_a...

The leaders of the gun control movement say the gun manufacturers violated the law. Applying BenchleyLogic(TM) everyone who supports gun control is in bed with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #103
111. durn

I can't open a pdf file right now, and Google has no html cache of it.

If you want to quote for me the part of the complaint you are referring to, I'll have a look ... but first, I have to make this my last post for business hours (ha) as I have work to get done by 3.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #111
145. Here's the Complaint
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 10:29 AM by slackmaster
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE )
UNITED WITH THE MILLION MOM MARCH, )
)
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 )
Washington, DC 20005 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE )
UNITED STATES, )
)
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW )
Washington, DC 20530-0001 )
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )
)
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW )
Washington, DC 20530-0001 )
)
EDGAR DOMENECH, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE )
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS )
AND EXPLOSIVES, )
)
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW )
Washington, DC 20530-0001 )
)
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS )
AND EXPLOSIVES, )
)
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW )
Washington, DC 20530-0001 )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Plaintiff hereby challenges unlawful actions of U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft (Ashcroft) and the other defendants in authorizing and approving the manufacture
and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons banned by the Public Safety and Recreational
2
Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (Assault Weapons Act or Act). 18 U.S.C. 921-923.
The Assault Weapons Act prohibits the manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons and
transfer of those weapons to civilians, but allows for the continued possession of semiautomatic
assault weapons manufactured and possessed prior to enactment of the Act (pre-ban or
grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons). Despite the requirements of the Assault
Weapons Act, Ashcroft and the other defendants have established a policy and practice of
unlawfully authorizing firearm manufacturers to manufacture and transfer new semiautomatic
assault weapons to civilians to replace pre-ban semiautomatic assault weapons that have become
unusable. Defendants actions violate the Assault Weapons Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706.


rest snipped

This suit concerns manufacture of replacement receivers for pre-ban firearms. The law does not specifically say that one cannot make a pre-ban receiver to replace one for a grandfathered pre-ban firearm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #145
147. okay ...
What I said:
I don't know whether anyone said that "circumventing" the assault weapons ban is illegal.
What you said:
But that is the basis of the Brady Center's lawsuit against the federal government.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/200403/0318/brady_a...

The leaders of the gun control movement say the gun manufacturers violated the law. Applying BenchleyLogic(TM) everyone who supports gun control is in bed with them.
Now, what the complaint says is that the government has authorized something that is prohibited by law (yes, that's an "allegation").

Now, this is an area of US law that is weird and wonderful to me -- suing the government for doing (allegedly) illegal things. Here, we still use the old remedies, although they have new names in the Federal Court Act (the Federal Court is what has jurisdiction over actions of the federal government): mandamus and certiorari and prohibition and the like. We make applications to the Fed Ct to compel the federal govt. to do something, or prohibit it from doing something. Ah, do see (page 23) that the relief sought in the action is declaratory and injunctive (duh, right -- there it is right in the heading of the complaint ...): a declaration that the defendants are violating the Act, and an order enjoining them from doing so. So I guess the procedure isn't as foreign to me as I thought.

I gather that the fed. govt. in the US has the authority, under the relevant legislation, to grant authorizations to do things that the legislation otherwise prohibits. Presumably the issue is whether the govt. has properly exercised whatever discretion it has in that respect.

Me, I wouldn't describe getting the govt.'s authorization to do something that (allegedly) is illegal as "circumventing" the law.

Okay ... I had just crashed my netscape anyhow, so starting with a clean slate, I opened IE so I could read the pdf document. I detest pdf documents. And I can't copy and paste out of the damned thing.

So, what I'm seeing is that Brady is alleging that the ATF had no statutory authority for the permission it granted, authorizing "the manufacture of banned semiautomatic assault weapon frames or receivers" (para. 50) "with new serial numbers" (para. 55), and that it "is continuing to authorize manufacturers to manufacture and transfer to civilians illegal frames and receivers, in violation of the Assault Weapons Act" (para. 71). (There are other allegations, but the gist seems to be similar.)

So ... it might perhaps be said that the manufacturers in question are "circumventing" the law by getting the govt. to authorize things that (allegedly) may not legally be authorized.

But the Brady action is against the government: Ashcroft, the federal Justice Department, and the ATF and its director; not against the manufacturers. The allegation against those defendants is not that they circumvented the law, it is that they violated it.

What the manufacturers did could perhaps be characterized as "circumventing" the law -- requesting and receiving permission to do things that the law specifically prohibits. But I don't see what the manufacturers did being characterized as "illegal" -- I gather that as long as they have the necessary authorization/approval for what they do from the appropriate authority, they are not doing anything illegal; the authorization/approval makes it legal.

So ... I'm still not seeing anyone saying "that 'circumventing' the assault weapons ban is illegal". Unless we characterize the defendants' (alleged) VIOLATION of the law as "circumventing" it, which I wouldn't do.

Now, that would certainly not be consistent with the suggestion that obeying the speeding laws is "circumventing" them. ;)

Anyhow, I see a straightforward allegation that the US federal government has violated the law.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #147
149. Good analysis
Anyhow, I see a straightforward allegation that the US federal government has violated the law.

Yes, the suit alleges that the Clinton Administration violated the law. Correspondence between Bushmaster Firearms and the ATF occurred in 1996 and 1997.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #149
150. okay ...
Yes, the suit alleges that the Clinton Administration violated the law. Correspondence between Bushmaster Firearms and the ATF occurred in 1996 and 1997.

So Democrats are/were bad.

I assume that Brady has information to suggest (and I'm not opening the damned file up again!) that the (alleged) violations are on-going, or it wouldn't be naming the present defendants and bothering asking for an injunction.

Presumably it somehow gained access to the Bushmaster/ATF correspondence specifically. Access to info laws? Leakage? So, what are current practices?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o7

(O7) Are replacement parts for grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices subject to regulation under the law?

No. Parts may be replaced in grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons and grandfathered feeding devices without violating the law. However, if the frame or a receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon is defective, the replacement must be made by the weapon's manufacturer or importer. The replacement receiver must be parked with the same serial number as the original receiver, and the original receiver must be destroyed. However, a manufacturer or importer who is unable to mark the replacement receiver with the same serial number as the original receiver may seek a marking variance in accordance with 27 CFR 178.92. In addition, the permanent records of the manufacturer or importer should indicate that the receiver for the weapon has been replaced.
Same as in the case Brady's complaint named?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. Bushmaster did exactly what the ATF said they could do
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 11:31 AM by slackmaster
So Democrats are/were bad.

I made no such assertion. The Brady Center alleges that the ATF broke the law. I don't agree with them. I think both the ATF and Bushmaster acted properly.

I assume that Brady has information to suggest (and I'm not opening the damned file up again!) that the (alleged) violations are on-going, or it wouldn't be naming the present defendants and bothering asking for an injunction.

All lawsuits against a federal government entity name the present top ranking officer as defendant. I don't know if that's the law or tradition or both, just how things are done. (I personally know someone who has an ongoing suit that is on its third Attorney General as defendant; alleged civil rights violation occurred many years ago.)

Presumably it somehow gained access to the Bushmaster/ATF correspondence specifically. Access to info laws? Leakage?

The Brady Center used a Freedom Of Information Act request to get the data.

Replacement receivers are manufactured with the same serial number as the ones being replaced, and old receivers are destroyed. This merely keeps the number of AWs constant; it does not result in more or fewer AWs "no the streets". The Brady Center alleges that after September 1994 the replacement receivers were required by law to be marked "Government/Law Enforcement Use Only". The ATF's position was that such marking was not required on a replacement part for a grandfathered receiver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #151
152. you missed one

I assume that Brady has information to suggest (and I'm not opening the damned file up again!)that the (alleged) violations are on-going, or it wouldn't be naming the present defendants and bothering asking for an injunction.

All lawsuits against a federal government entity name the present top ranking officer as defendant. I don't know if that's the law or tradition or both, just how things are done. (I personally know someone who has an ongoing suit that is on its third Attorney General as defendant; alleged civil rights violation occurred many years ago.)

Yes, it was pointless of me to mention the naming of Ashcroft, since he is simply the name in the office. But what I wanted to know is why Brady would be bothering with the whole thing if there weren't something still going on that it wanted enjoined.

I don't really have time to examine the merits you go into right now; originally, the question was simply whether someone was alleging that there had been "illegal" "circumvention" of the law, and I gather we're agreed that this is not Brady's contention.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. ATF policy that allowed replacement receivers is unchanged
The Brady Center alleges that Bushmaster made at least 96 replacement receivers between 1997 and 2002. I don't doubt that the Bush II administration has embraced the policy of allowing such replacements.

But what I wanted to know is why Brady would be bothering with the whole thing if there weren't something still going on that it wanted enjoined.

It looks to me like the suit was timed in hope of bringing attention to the whole AWB expiration issue. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't do much for the Bradys' posturing as altruistic crusaders for public safety.

FYI here's the requested relief:

REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully seeks judgment against defendants as follows:
1. That this Court enter a judgment against defendants declaring that defendants are
violating the Assault Weapons Act and APA by their policy and practice of unlawfully
authorizing and approving the continued manufacture and transfer to civilians of semiautomatic
assault weapon frames and receivers banned by these laws;
2. That this Court enter a judgment against defendants declaring that defendants are
violating the Assault Weapons Act and APA by their policy and practice of unlawfully
authorizing and approving the continued manufacture and transfer of semiautomatic assault
weapon frames and receivers banned by these laws without requiring that those firearms be
stamped with the manufacture date and RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/
GOVERNMENT USE ONLY or FOR EXPORT ONLY warning;
3. That defendants, and their employees, agents, attorneys, and all persons acting under
their direction and authority or in active concert or participation with them be enjoined from
authorizing or approving the continued manufacture and transfer of firearms (including frames
and receivers) banned by the Assault Weapons Act;
4. That defendants, and their employees, agents, attorneys, and all persons acting under
their direction and authority or in active concert or participation with them be ordered to inform
manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers and owners of the firearms (including frames or
receivers) banned by the Assault Weapons Act that the firearms are illegal, that such unlawful
firearms are contraband, that they may not be transferred or possessed by persons prohibited
24
from possessing such weapons under the Assault Weapons Act, and that such unlawful firearms
must be rendered inoperable or surrendered to law enforcement immediately;
5. That plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________
Dennis A. Henigan (D.C. Bar No. 951897)
Daniel R. Vice (D.C. Bar No. 465905)
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN
VIOLENCE
Legal Action Project
1225 Eye Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 289-7319
(202) 898-0059 (fax)
Dated: March 18, 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #103
112. Excellent.
Supporters of the AWB often are alarmed when they learn that none of their talking points have basis in reality. That was a great point-by-point rebuttal.

The only argument that holds water is that "assault rifles" resemble their fully automatic counterparts, which is true. So essentially, this law that is so hotly debated is essentially a ban on scary-looking rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malkia Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #80
148. You are right!
How obeying the law can be called circumventing it?
AWB prohibits manufacturing of guns with evil features. Gun makers comply with the law and because of that they are circumventing it?
If this is circumventing, then obeying the speed limit is circumventing too.
Why you didnt mention this to Bench too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
44. Too TOO fucking funny...
Go cry about the lawsuits to somebody who gives a crap, sandman....it sure as hell ain't me. I hope they sue the bastards out of business.

But it goes to show what a flat out LIE that "the AWB is ineffective and cosmetic" crap is....the scumbags in the gun lobby wouldn't have torn up the "get out of jail free" card the GOP was trying to give them over an ineffective and purely cosmetic amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Or maybe, just maybe
The "gun lobby" sees the AWB as a useless and therefore BAD restriction on personal liberty. That's how I see it. Maybe the gun lobby is someone other than me. I don't really know who MrBenchley is talking about here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. AWB is a precedent...
For the ban of entire classes of firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminlib Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Who's wrapping themselves in the flag?
Wrapping myself in the facts of the ban, and logic, I dont understand how any reasonable person would put such emphasis on an ineffective and meaningless bill. In fact, most of the original supporters of the AWB are now running away from it.

The AWB can be summarized by one word, cosmetics. It has NOTHING to do with lethality or even functionality (to the extent that they are MORE dangerous). If you dont want to put a folding stock on your AR, then dont. But dont waste time and money arguing that folding stocks or trigger grips make a rifle any more lethal. Its nonsense.

The reason people are fervent in their defense against more gun control is because it becomes a slippery slope. The more propaganda and lies the gun control lobby spews, the easier it will be to add to it. Make no mistake, the control control zealots DO want to take away ALL guns.

They understand, as well as we gun owners do, that silly restrictions on cosmetic features make no sense and do nothing to prevent community violence. But the more they can convince people that certain features are "deadly", the easier it will become to take away all firearms. One step at a time.

Dont buy into ineffective legislation. If you want real and effective limits on gun ownership, dont align yourself with propagandists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Feinstein.
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 12:49 PM by OpSomBlood
>> The reason people are fervent in their defense against more gun control is because it becomes a slippery slope. The more propaganda and lies the gun control lobby spews, the easier it will be to add to it. Make no mistake, the control control zealots DO want to take away ALL guns. <<

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Here's one that should get more than a chuckle out of the responsible gun owners here:

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminlib Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Yep... people should know about this.
And similar sentiments. I think alot of people get caught up in the propaganda and dont interest themselves in the facts. Scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #27
79. oh look, it's the "Dianne Feinstein!" dog and pony show again
Last time it came to town, I had the following to say about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What do you do, memorize these things for treats?

<quoted from previous poster> "Diane Feinstein said something about confiscation. I'm not sure whether it was about all guns or some guns. She said something like, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." She said it on CBS."

Compare and contrast:

When Sen. Feinstein says "right now," it has a special meaning. She is already on record supporting gun confiscation, having said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren`t there." -- CBS 60 Minutes, Dec. 5, 1995
Now c'mon, wow me with your prowess ... and tell me that *you* didn't copy, edit and paste your version from http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=14...

Or (clicking randomly on the first page of google results):

http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/040302wheeler...

(The Claremont Institute: "To recover the Founding principles in our political life means recovering a limited and accountable government that respects private property, promotes stable family life and maintains a strong defense." Can ya decode that?)

Oh, well, then there are more NRA sites, and those Pink Pistol gals <sic>, and rkba.org, and something called alphadogweb.com that didn't sound like anywhere I needed to go.

Damn, that's some memory you've got, eh?

And a chorus to boot.

Well at least this time somebody actually provided a source, icky though it was, rather than claiming to be speaking from memory. Lesson learned, perhaps ...?

Same song, different choristers?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #79
84. I'm confused.
You're implying that we're adding some kind of special meaning to Feinstein's quote. I'm not sure where you're getting that from...the woman clearly said that her preference would be to ban all guns, but that the current political climate won't allow her to do so.

I don't see what could be ambiguous about that. Believe it or not, I actually admire her for taking a principled stand on one side of an issue instead of fence-sitting like 90% of the rest of Congress. I just think she's on the wrong side, and I found it particularly ironic that she fancies herself the Senate's expert on "assault weapons" yet has no idea how to safely handle one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #84
89. more of that logic?
You're implying that we're adding some kind of special meaning to Feinstein's quote.

Perhaps you could cut and paste the bit of what I wrote from which you infer such an implication. So far, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I thought my point was pretty clear. But then I didn't expect the people who were the subject of the point to take it, at least not publically.

... the woman clearly said that her preference would be to ban all guns, but that the current political climate won't allow her to do so.

Just imagine all the things that we all might like to do, but don't even try to do. Hell, didn't Jimmy Carter commit adultery in his mind?

Looks like we'll be needing some of those special mind-reading devices in order to decide whom to vote for ... just in case some candidates don't actually tell us what they really think. Never mind that it is perfectly possible to have a utopian wish list and still have an honest, sincere political platform that differs from it.

I found it particularly ironic that she fancies herself the Senate's expert on "assault weapons" yet has no idea how to safely handle one.

And I find unsubstantiated statements (Feinstein quotes seem to be a dime a dozen -- can you give us the one where she says she's the "Senate's expert on assault weapons"?) and red herrings eternally amusing.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. Wow, what a source....
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 01:15 PM by MrBenchley
"How the left wing of the Democratic Party tried to steal the 2000 elections
Keeping Blacks dependent and subservient: the Democrat Left's kinder, gentler slave plantation"

"Keep the Confederate Flag
The Civil War was not about slavery and the Confederate Flag is no more a hate symbol than the Christian Cross."

"The Great Pyramid Scheme
(Social Security) and Bill Clinton cartoons"


"Why Bill Clinton should be impeached"

Does anybody in the RKBA crowd ever read anything decent people read?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Wow, you snagged me!
It was the first site I could find that featured the image of Feinstein mishandling the AK-47. I have no idea what else there is on that site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Says it all, doesn't it?
A bunch of right wing loonies post mindless rubbish, and you parrot it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #42
54. Now, now, bench, remember our conversation yesterday
what are you going to think about next time you get a little upset:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #42
56. Hmm.
There was nothing "rubbish" about the fact that Dianne Feinstein, the self-proclaimed Senate expert on the issue of "assault weapons" was seen handling one in the most dangerous manner possible...with the bolt closed, finger on the trigger and pointed at other people.

Like I said, I was posting the image, not endorsing the site hosting it. But you take your little nugget and run with it.

I'm not parroting anyone. My opinions are my own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. I liked the picture of Dan Quayle holding the RPG-6 backwards better
Sorry, I don't have a link to it.

It's much more comical than the Feinstein AK photo. The look on his face was pure Quayle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. There was plenty of rubbish
from stem to stern....but if you want to pretend otherwise, I doubt you'll fool anyone...

"I'm not parroting anyone."
Well, that IS funny...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Hmm.
Your ability to laugh by yourself must come in handy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminlib Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Troubled
Its the last resort, defense mechanism I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Sad.
Frankly, it's pretty sad that in his eyes, everyone who disagrees with him about guns (i.e., anyone who thinks they should be in any way legal) must be brainwashed secret operatives of the NRA.

I started a thread about a week ago to try to get to the bottom of MrBenchley's hatred of guns and the people who own them. It was immediately locked because you're not allowed to start a thread "calling out" another poster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. I think it's even funnier
that somebody who has to run away from his sources when they're exposed to the light thinks anyone is fooled.

"I started a thread about a week ago to try to get to the bottom of MrBenchley's hatred of guns and the people who own them. "
Funny, I post pretty much every day about what a ton of crap the RKBA crowd dumps here...such as trying to pretend they have no idea what the idiotic right wing sites they link to are about...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Zing!
The only thing I was using that site as a "source" for was the supremely ironic image of Dianne Feinstein handling an "assault rifle" in the most dangerous way possible.

But I've clarified that at least five times, and at this point I understand that you're more concerned with playing "gotcha" than with debating an issue that the rest of us have a real interest in.

You'd rather (pardon the pun) "drive-by" with snide remarks than actually engage in a social discussion and try to get to the bottom of a tough issue. Just face it, you're a Freeper.

In fact, I can't recall once you ever offering your own ideas or solutions to the gun problems in this country. You're far more concerned with attempting to prove how self-evident it is that all gun owners are morons.

What's sad is that there's probably a point to your opinion, but no one can seem to find it because of the way you present it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #70
85. Again...
You waded past all that ignorant right wing horseshit to find that picture...

"the supremely ironic image of Dianne Feinstein handling an "assault rifle" in the most dangerous way possible."
Gee, how many did she kill? We sure don't have any shortage of actual people being shot by imbeciles with "assault rifles" now...and that to me is plenty of good reason to strengthen and renew the ban, with serious penalties for any scumbag gun manufacturer "circumventing" it this time.

"you're more concerned with playing "gotcha" than with debating an issue"
And you want to run away from your source when it's exposed to the light...

"I can't recall once you ever offering your own ideas or solutions to the gun problems in this country."
Gee, maybe if the RKBA crowd would stop telling me what I think, they might find out. But I can't help anyone who doesn't know that I think the AWB should be strengthed and renewed, especially since from time to time I even mention the bills in Congress that I support.

"You're far more concerned with attempting to prove how self-evident it is that all gun owners are morons."
Gee, op, I never tried to make any conclusion about who might,say, post a bit of extremist right wing rubbish and then pretend he had no idea it was extremist right wing rubbish...

But I sure wonder who can even go near at a cesspool like the stentorian or american daily or mensnewsdaily and not notice the odor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. Hmm.
So let me get this straight. It's okay for Dianne Feinstein to recklessly point an AK-47 at a room full of reporters because in the end she didn't kill anyone? If you had bothered to actually look at the picture, you would have noticed that the bolt was closed, her finger was on the trigger and there was a magazine in. This is absolutely the single most dangerous thing anyone can ever do with a firearm.

And you claim (without statistical support) that people are being slaughtered left and right with assault rifles. Please back it up, because I have been meticulous in finding evidence to the contrary.

There are no facts to indicate that banning assault rifles (so defined by cosmetic features that in no way affect the operation of the weapon) has done anything to curtail gun crime. Such rifles were rarely used in crimes to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #86
96. Yeah, hmmmm...
Somebody peddles crap from a fringe right wing nut site, and then wants to debate its content? Fuck that shit, as we used to say in Brooklyn.

"There are no facts. "
Sez you. Next ask me what I think about your credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. I get a lot of practice
with this or that ridiculous piece of shit by the RKBA crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. "RKBA Crowd"
Me, I find it humorous that you refer to us by the very words in the Second Amendment that grant us the rights you so despise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. On what planet?
On this planet the Second Amendment means just what it says...you have the right to join a well regulated state militia. And the courts have backed that up again and again and again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wubbman Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. The definition of a militia
-CITE-

10 USC Sec. 311 01/22/02

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

Naval Militia.


http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+u...

Is this the militia you speak of, Mr. B? By this definition, everyone on this board that is not in the NG or NM and is under 45 is in the militia, albeit the unorganized militia, and thus protected under the 2nd Amendment. But then, who am I to doubt the courts, or, more importantly, you. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #75
83. Tell us, wubbman
You ever going to tell us what you found out about Pratt and Nugent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wubbman Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #83
114. ;) You're pissed again
Thats why you're changing the subject with another attack, yet again. For the record, I only looked up Nugent. I found him to be more of a bigot than a racist and was shocked by his complete lack of common sense. I wasn't interested in his argument (on immigration, the only thing I could really find), but I thought he could have done a much better job of presenting it in a civil manner. Maybe you could use him as an example of how not to argue, Mr. B. ;)

Now, do you have anything civil and non hate-charged to say about my militia post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. No, I'm still laughing my ass off....
Do you enthusiasts ever get near a fact?

"I found him to be more of a bigot than a racist and was shocked by his complete lack of common sense. I wasn't interested in his argument (on immigration, the only thing I could really find), but I thought he could have done a much better job of presenting it in a civil manner. Maybe you could use him as an example of how not to argue, Mr. B."
I'd much rather use him as an example of the sort of scum pushing this utterly fraudulent "gun rights" crap. And you sure didn't do much digging if the only post you could find when you put "Ted Nugent" and "racist" in a search engine.

For example, there's

"MUSKEGON, Mich. (AP) -- Derogatory racial remarks from rocker Ted Nugent have cost him a gig at the Muskegon Summer Celebration.
Festival officials canceled Nugent's concert following an interview last week with two Denver disc jockeys in which the DJs say he used slurs for Asians and blacks. The festival was scrambling to find a replacement."

http://campaign98.staugustine.com/stories/051903/com_15...

"Even better, it's light on the racist rhetoric old Ted usually subjects his audiences to. "

http://www.canoe.ca/JamAlbumsN/nugent_ted_nugity-sun.ht...

"What is it you stand for again? Apartheid, anti-Arab violence, disdain for Mexicans (or "pieces of shit" as you refer to them, Ted), Japanese ("assholes" say you), and all other "foreigners," free use of the N-word and support for the Confederate flag, open season on Hare Krishnas, hunting for the joy of killing, misogyny, gay-bashing, and -- oh, yes -- a bullet between the eyes for anyone who disagrees with you.
Well, gee, Ted, I sure don't want you suing me for calling you (or your remarks) "racist." So let's just call you a violent, hate-filled, xenophobic creep, and leave it at that."

http://blogs.salon.com/0002551/2003/08/23.html

"Apartheid isn't that cut and dry. All men are not created equal. The preponderance of South Africa is a different breed of man. I mean that with no disrespect. I say that with great respect. I love them because I'm one of them. They are still people of the earth, but they are different. They still put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, they wipe their butts with their hands These are different people. You give 'em toothpaste, they fucking eat it ... I hope they don't become civilized. They're way ahead of the game."

http://www.nraleaders.com/ted-nugent.html

"do you have anything civil and non hate-charged to say about my militia post"
You mean other than that it's hooey? Can't imagine why anything needs to be said about such a silly post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wubbman Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. Hooey?
So, US Code is hooey now? I half expected you to launch into a tirade against it. Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. Yeah, that argument is hooey...
but it's hilarious to see it dredged up yet AGAIN by the bullets for brains bunch...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enfield collector Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #69
91. Nordyke versus King says differently. our friends
in the 9th ruled it's about individual rights not collective. did you forget about this already? it only happened 2 weeks ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #91
101. No it didn't...
and we went over you claiming this and it turning out to be untrue a couple weeks ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

From the Nordyke decision: "However, we have squarely held that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia and offers no protection for the individual's right to bear arms"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enfield collector Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #101
120. yes it did,
from the nordyke decision. "I respectfully dissent. I join fully in Judge Gould's supperb dissent, which explains coherently and most admirably why the Second Ammendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #120
130. No it didn't...
""I respectfully dissent."
Have somebody explain to you what a dissent is...and how it differs from the verdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #130
135. 101 uses for lawyers
"I respectfully dissent."
Have somebody explain to you what a dissent is...and how it differs from the verdict.


Now there's something a lawyer could do.

Of course, a dictionary might perform the same function, for less cost, if one consulted it.


The Oxford Concise says:

dissent think differently, disagree, express disagreement
A dissenting judgment would be, like, the opposite of a concurring judgment. When an opinion concurs with an opinion that dissents from the majority opinion, it's still a dissenting opinion -- and it's still the losing opinion.

To cite the dissenting opinion in a case decided two weeks ago as authority for one's proposition shows that one is either too uninformed to be allowed out, or too willing to misrepresent what one knows to be fact to be allowed in. One just never knows which of the two one is looking at.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. And of course, the cherry on the sundae...
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 05:01 PM by MrBenchley
is that the Nordyke decision was handed down in 2003....but then that's the sort of attention to detail and scrupulous honesty one encounters from gun rights supporters everywhere...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enfield collector Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. April 5, 2004. you get years wrong like you get states wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. well congratulations
You appear to have got the date right, while so misrepresenting the decision itself as to represent it as saying the precise opposite of what it said.

It is perfectly acceptable to say that one prefers a dissenting judge's reasons, particularly when the judgment is of a court below the court of last resort. Of course, it's to be expected that one would be able to defend that choice.

Over time, it may even happen that dissenting reasons become more persuasive, as a society changes. (That's why I referred to the recent nature of the judgment; had it been more antique, there might have been better reason to prefer the dissent.)

But really, to say that a court said the precise opposite of what it said ... was that a retraction I heard?

Or maybe it was just crickets.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enfield collector Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. not misrepresenting at all.
just because it blows your collective argument away doesn't mean it's wrong. the tide of oppinion is changing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #139
140. blahblahblahblahblah
Blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah.


not misrepresenting at all.
just because it blows your collective argument away doesn't mean it's wrong. the tide of oppinion is changing.


Translation:

Just because I falsely stated that a court had decided the exact opposite of what the court actually decided and I was caught doesn't mean I can't duck and weave and change the subject and cover my ears and go wah-wah and puff myself up and act self-righteous and pretend that it doesn't matter what the court actually decided when I get caught saying the court decided the exact opposite of what it actually decided.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #140
141. Pot, I would like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle
"act self-righteous"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #140
142. Once is ignorance, twice is stubborness
but three and four times betokens nothing but willful disregard of reality...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enfield collector Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #140
154. too f*cking funny!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #135
155. Comedy is universal...
In spite of the side of this argument I'm on, I too found it funny that this guy didn't know the meaning of a dissenting opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #120
143. and now the judges in question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_App...

The court is considered by some to have an overly liberal bias, but arguably a majority of its judges are conservatives. While 17 judges have been appointed by Democratic presidents, 5 of those are solid conservatives. Thus only 12 of the Democrat-appointed judges are liberals or moderates, potentially leaving the remaining 15 as conservatives. It is often cited as "the most overturned appeals court in the United States", but this is mostly a product of its high caseload. On a percentage basis, the circuit is not overturned much more than any other.
Gould, who wrote the main dissent in Nordyke v. King, was appointed by Clinton.
Kleinfeld, who concurred in that dissent, was appointed by George H. Bush.

http://www.hayekcenter.org/prestopunditarchive/001639.h...

Perhaps Judge Kozinski sums it up best in this paragraph from an article that appeared in USA Today back in February 2003:

Four of President Clinton's 14 appointees to the 9th Circuit have turned out to be "really excellent, conservative jurists," says Kozinski, who was appointed by President Reagan, a Republican.
I gather that Gould is one of them. Now, that's just one Republican's opinion, of course.

Opinion also seems to be that the challenge to the recall in California was guaranteed defeat when the panel to rehear it was picked; that panel included Gould and Kleinfeld, who were part of the unanimous bench that rejected the challenge and allowed the recall election to proceed:
http://www.thinkinglinks.info/converted_legal_docs/cali...

A smaller panel of what seem to be regarded as "liberal" judges had earlier delayed the recall election:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/sout092403.htm

The 11-member en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a decision issued last week by three of the most liberal judges on the court.

The three judges had postponed the election until perhaps March to give six counties more time to switch over to electronic voting systems from the error-prone punch-card ballots that caused the recount mess in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. The three-judge panel repeatedly cited the Supreme Courts Bush v. Gore decision that effectively decided the 2000 election.
(I haven't completely familiarized myself with the merits of the case; just reporting.)


Now, I'm just a furriner with Google. But it strikes me that the judges in question are not the ones I'd be likely to siding with most often.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. So now the question is
<sarcasm>why are these ultra-liberal judges oppressing poor honest antique collectors? (snicker)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #56
78. ain't it just too bad
Like I said, I was posting the image, not endorsing the site hosting it.

... too bad that -- while parroting the Feinstein quote that is squawked from so many icky soapboxes on the internet -- you didn't manage to read down the page a bit? Or if you did, you didn't think it necessary, in the interests of the integrity of your discourse, to mention what it said? (The mayor's comments are numbered, the site owners comments added in points below them; emphasis added.)

Important note: reply from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown

I received a reply on 3/13/2000 from Mayor Brown re: my letter about this incident.

He states that:

1. Ms. Feinstein voluntarily relinquished her pistol permit and weapon a long time ago.

- I play hard but fair. If she no longer has the permit and the weapon, my other pages, leaflets, and so on will be modified accordingly.

2. The firearm shown above was "unloaded, disabled, and 'locked.'"

- "Unloaded" does not, of course, make it safe to handle as shown. If, however, "disabled" means it was rendered unable to fire under any circumstances, e.g. firing pin removed, breech disassembled, or something similar, I am willing to conclude that it was no more dangerous than an inert theatrical prop (such as one actor might safely point at another).

- Nonetheless, I think Ms. Feinstein set a poor example by handling the weapon in this manner. ... The idea that "the safety is on" makes it all right to point any weapon (even a science fiction one) at another person should not be propagated by any media.

Sounds like the author has a whole new career opportunity open to him -- wandering theatres and movie sets where people are wont to be aiming unloaded, disabled and locked firearms around, for some kind of effect, and lecturing them about what a terrible example they're setting.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #78
88. Ever been on a movie set?
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 07:50 AM by OpSomBlood
All "prop" weapons are locked and guarded, and triple-checked prior to use on a set. But maybe I'm the only one who notices the subtle difference between what happens in the movies and what happens in reality.

The irony is that the "don't worry, it's unloaded" mentality exhibited by Feinstein accounts for most of the accidental gun deaths in this country. The same deaths she is supposedly trying to reduce with her legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. ah yes, and were you present at the press conference?

Ever been on a movie set?
All "prop" weapons are locked and guarded, and triple-checked prior to use on a set.


Duh. What *do* you imagine my point was?

Does someone have some reason to believe that the firearm that Feinstein was handling had NOT been locked and triple-checked prior to her handling of it? I'd say it was pretty obviously being guarded ...

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #90
92. Movies vs. reality.
She was providing a demonstration of a confiscated weapon in an attempt to promote anti-gun legislation. In her effort to show people how dangerous such rifles are, she handled the rifle in the single most dangerous way possible.

If you went to a gun range and unloaded a rifle, triple checked it, then pointed it at another person with the breech closed and your finger on the trigger, you would be banned from the range for life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #92
97. and yet
Amazingly enough ...

If you went to a gun range and unloaded a rifle, triple checked it, then pointed it at another person with the breech closed and your finger on the trigger, you would be banned from the range for life.

... Feinstein wasn't at a shooting range!!

In her effort to show people how dangerous such rifles are, she handled the rifle in the single most dangerous way possible.

Gosh. And I'll bet that there are some people who think that this might have made for a pretty effective demonstration of exactly what she was intending to demonstrate.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #97
99. Weakest defense of Feinstein's gaffe yet
... Feinstein wasn't at a shooting range!!

The rules of safe gun handling apply everywhere, all the time. Being at a press conference does not exempt one from behaving responsibly.

Senator Feinstein fucked up and got caught on camera. That scene will follow her for the rest of her political career.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #99
102. when something needs defending
I'll let you know. And if I defend it, you will be able to quote my defence of it.

I haven't yet seen anything done by Feinstein that needs defending.

The rules of safe gun handling apply everywhere, all the time.

"The rules." Ah, yes. The rules as set out ... where, in the Old Testament? And breaking those rules incurs a penalty ... prescribed by Moses?

Ah, the penalty incurred is, of course, the wrath of "honest law-abiding gun owners" everywhere. The ones who would support what Feinstein was campaigning for if only she hadn't "mishandled" a non-functional firearm while making a point.

Yeah, imagine how many more people would vote for Bush if only he could get his nouns and verbs to agree. His bad grammar is the only thing standing between us and the apocalypse. Conversely, if only John Kerry had better hair.

And here I thought that the RKBA crowd were the ones constantly on the alert for attempts to defeat the message by discrediting the messenger ...

Senator Feinstein fucked up and got caught on camera. That scene will follow her for the rest of her political career.

Sure nuff. At least, if the right-wing scum who want her out of office, on all of whose internet sites it is so conveniently located, keep using it to try to discredit her.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. That's the difference between people who know about gun safety
And those who don't.

I haven't yet seen anything done by Feinstein that needs defending.

Your failure to recognize the senator's error does not mean it didn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #104
106. nooo
Your failure to recognize the senator's error does not mean it didn't happen.

Your allegation about what I have done does not mean that I did it.

I don't give a flying fuck whether Feinstein made an "error" in handling the firearm in question.

I think that her handling of the firearm in question is so utterly irrelevant to her policy position that I cannot in my wildest dreams think of a reason why anyone would raise it in a discussion of the policy position in question.

I see no more need to "defend" her handling of the firearm in question that I see to even mention it.

And the fact that someone thinks that there is a reason to raise it, and criticize it, in a discussion of the public policy in question does not mean that I see a reason to defend it, or that I do defend it.

I just think it is supremely irrelevant to any discussion of the policy position in question, or even of any arguably germane peripheral matters such as the sincerity of her adherence to that position.

Of course, I have to admit that when I say I cannot in my wildest dreams think of a reason why anyone would raise it in a discussion of the policy position in question, I'm being ever so slightly facetious.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. No, it IS relevant.
A major selling point of the AWB is the "safety" factor. That these are inherently dangerous objects that accidentally kill too many people.

Then she proceeds to engage in the EXACT behavior that results in nearly every accidental gun death.

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that "dont point a gun at anyone" is RULE #1 in gun safety. Period. She took it three steps farther by having the breech closed, a magazine in and her finger on the trigger. Whether or not the gun is unloaded or disabled makes no difference whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. oranges and road apples

A major selling point of the AWB is the "safety" factor. That these are inherently dangerous objects that accidentally kill too many people.

Then she proceeds to engage in the EXACT behavior that results in nearly every accidental gun death.


I see we have a new competitor in the sophistry sweepstakes.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #106
146. Thanks for clarifying your position
I don't give a flying fuck whether Feinstein made an "error" in handling the firearm in question.

I do.

I think that her handling of the firearm in question is so utterly irrelevant to her policy position that I cannot in my wildest dreams think of a reason why anyone would raise it in a discussion of the policy position in question.

Your lack of imagination is not my problem.

I see no more need to "defend" her handling of the firearm in question that I see to even mention it.

Feel free to ignore discussions about the incident. By participating in this manner it does appear that you are defending her actions.

Of course, I have to admit that when I say I cannot in my wildest dreams think of a reason why anyone would raise it in a discussion of the policy position in question, I'm being ever so slightly facetious.

Then why don't you come out and say what you really think?

FYI I'm no fan of Diane Feinstein. She's much more right-wing/authoritarian than left. She lost me several years ago when she co-sponsored a bill to outlaw use of strong data encryption of Internet transmissions by individuals. She never passes up an opportunity to grant the police more power.

Senator Boxer is a real liberal. Feinstein is conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #102
105. The rules...
...weren't handed down by God. They were handed down by firearms experts who have developed mannerisms that make accidental gun discharges (and therefore injuries and deaths) mechanically impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. and oddly enough
The rules...
...weren't handed down by God. They were handed down by firearms experts who have developed mannerisms that make accidental gun discharges (and therefore injuries and deaths) mechanically impossible.


It's nigh impossible for there to be an "accidental gun discharge" from a firearm that IS INCAPABLE OF DISCHARGING ANYTHING, as it has pretty conclusively been shown that the firearm being handled by Feinstein was.

All I want to know is when violating the rules of firearms handling (EVEN IF she had done that, which I do not concede) became grounds for rejecting the policy position of the person who committed the "violation".

And IF IT IS NOT grounds for rejecting that policy position, WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT?

Was Jimmy Carter's admission that he had lusted in his mind after women other than his wife grounds for rejecting his position on tax policy?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #107
109. Her ignorance on guns is troubling...
The point is that we shouldn't consider Feinstein to be an expert on how unsafe guns are when she herself has no idea how to handle them safely.

The point is that if she had ever bothered to actually learn about how guns work and how to handle them, she would likely have a far different opinion on how safe they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #109
113. Troubling to whom? The stentorian?
Tom deLay?

"we shouldn't consider Feinstein to be an expert on how unsafe guns are "
Why the hell not? Are you telling us a cardiologist without heart problems is unfit to practice medicine? I sure as hell would take the word of Feinstein over any of the brain-dead shitheels trying to keep the ban from being renewed.

"if she had ever bothered to actually learn about how guns work and how to handle them, she would likely have a far different opinion on how safe they are."
Or else she might not. This "had they but known" horseshit has got to be about the lamest argument around...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #113
119. Following your analogy...
I think a cardiologist who advises his patients to eat lots of cholesterol and not exercise is unfit to practice medicine.

I'm a brain-dead shitheel. I need to start writing these down. The way you know when you've won a debate is when your opponent has to resort to name-calling and creative interpretations of past events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. look out -- it's another road apple
I think a cardiologist who advises his patients to eat lots of cholesterol and not exercise is unfit to practice medicine.

So ... a legislator who advised her constituents to go and buy a bunch of assault weapons would be unfit to represent those constituents. Kewl.

Now, what that has to do with Feinstein's handling of an assault weapon -- let us remember that she has apparently never advised anyone to handle an assault weapon -- eludes me.

Nonetheless, what I would see would be analogous to a cardiologist who smoked and never exercised advising his/her patients not to smoke and to get lots of exercise. Good advice. Advice whose goodness or badness has precisely nothing to do with who is giving it out. Just like the goodness or badness of the advice given by a legislator about public policy has precisely nothing to do with how she (allegedly) handled a disabled firearm.


Road apple. Watch yer step; they're getting pretty deep around here ... or ya just might end up being a shitheel indeed. :P

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. I can't explain it to you any simpler.
It is difficult for me to convey to you how forbidden it is (to responsible gun owners) to point a gun at another person with your finger on the trigger.

Sorry I'm not connecting with you guys here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. all you need to do
It is difficult for me to convey to you how forbidden it is (to responsible gun owners) to point a gun at another person with your finger on the trigger.

... is explain WHAT THE BLEEDING HELL that has to do with the validity or value of legislation restricting access to the weapons in question.

It's a really simple question. I've asked it several times. It's a really simple question.

The ISSUE is WHETHER ACCESS TO THE WEAPONS IN QUESTION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED BY LAW.

The QUESTION is what Dianne Feinstein's handling of a firearm has to do with that issue.

Any chance anybody'd like to ANSWER THE QUESTION?

And if anybody should decide to answer it correctly, by saying "Dianne Feinstein's handling of a firearm HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the issue of whether access to the weapons in question should be restricted by law", then perhaps s/he could tell us why s/he has chosen, or will in future choose, to regale us with tales of Dianne Feinstein's handling of a firearm.

I've had my fill of road apples for the day.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. Too TOO funny, op...
"I think a cardiologist who advises his patients to eat lots of cholesterol and not exercise"
Wow...sounds almost as dangerous as putting assault weapons in gun stores, like the gun lobby "advises".

Tell us, what does it tell you about who won a debate when your opponent dredges up shit from some right wing cesspool and then starts trying to run away from it ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. Really.
If I were running away from it, I would delete the reference and pretend I never made it. I was referring to the image and everyone else here knows it. If I was referring to the content elsewhere on the site, I would have quoted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. Really...
Go ahead and try to delete...

"I was referring to the image and everyone else here knows it."
And we know what a pantload you're trying to convey with it too....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #125
127. and maybe some day you'll tell us

I was referring to the image and everyone else here knows it.

... WHY you were referring to the image.

WHAT the image has to do with the subject of this thread.


If I keep asking, will you answer some day?

If not, maybe you could just let me know, so I won't keep thinking you have somehow managed not to understand the question and keep trying to make it ever simpler for you.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. I also wonder
how somebody comes to find that image in the cesspool without noticing the other turds bobbing in the muck...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #128
132. please

the other turds bobbing in the muck

Shurely you meant "apples".

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. vbg
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 04:34 PM by MrBenchley
Appalling isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #127
129. The answers you seek.
I referred to the image because flaminlib (post 21) mentioned the AWB as a "slippery slope" to further gun control. I posted Feinstein's "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" then posted a link to the famous image of Feinstein mishandling the AK-47.

And if you're trying to find some deep underlying meaning as to why I chose the Stentorian site, type "feinstein ak-47" into Google and it's the first result that contains the image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #129
131. which prompts the question
And if you're trying to find some deep underlying meaning as to why I chose the Stentorian site, type "feinstein ak-47" into Google and it's the first result that contains the image.

... why there are no nice upstanding decent folks displaying that photo on their web pages.

Maybe they'd scratch their heads, if asked that question, and respond with the same one I've been asking: WHY WOULD WE?

Still no answer.

We know HOW you found the photo. We still don't know WHY you went looking for it.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #129
133. Too fucking funny for words...
"type "feinstein ak-47" into Google and type "feinstein ak-47" into Google"
And you get a bunch of right wing horseshit, all of which screams right wing horseshit.

As for the deep underlying meaning, I suspect your inabiltiy to answer iverglas' question shows us how little anyone should care...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
115. Yep.
Very well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
24. A couple of other factoids about the North Hollywood shootout
If the same situation occurred today, those out-gunned cops would not be able to go to a gun store and pick up a shopping cart full of AR-15 semiautomatic rifles:

California's stricter AWB has made those unavailable since 2000.

And that famous gun store in Hollywood, which you have seen in many movies, has been out of business for a couple of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Good factoid.
But nowhere near as telling as your earlier point that the weapons used in the NH shootout were not "assault weapons" as defined by the AWB.

I didn't see any bayonet mounts or grenade launchers on those rifles...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. But doesn't LAPD carry AR's now,
At least in supervisor's cruisers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. I thought they got some slightly used M16A1s from the DoD
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 01:03 PM by slackmaster
For about $150 each. :eyes:

LAPD SWAT officers already had M16s at the time of the incident. So did the LA County Sheriff's Department. I used to work with a man who was a former LA Co. deputy. He had qualified on M16, flash-bang grenades, and other goodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
26. The AK's would have been much less effective...
If the criminals had no body armor. Why not include that in a ban. It isn't as if a civilian has any reason to own something that will decrease the effectiveness of police bullets.

BTW, If that cop really told the gun store owner,"I can't believe (civilians) can ban all these," that gun store owner should have said, "Just fill out these forms and come back in ten days." (If CA has a waiting period.)

Police were obviously upset at a gun store in the neighborhood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Amazing for all the hundreds of rounds they fired
They didn't manage to kill anyone.

Careful aimed fire is much more effective if you care about hitting your target. Automatic fire is great for suppression but not much else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. But, what about the ease of aiming from the hip...
with the pistol grip stocks?

Remember Alvin York. Aimed fire was very effective for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Ask Carlos Hathcock
I'm sure he always fired from the hip.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. On full auto...eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. It's already illegal.
It's a violation of federal law to wear body armor while committing a crime. If I'm not mistaken, that law was on the books prior to the AWB.

The AWB has no pertinence to the events of the North Hollywood shootout, except as Slack pointed out that cops are now unable to walk into a gun shop and acquire AR-15's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. Since that law is so ineffective...
Then we should ban clothing that might slow down police bullets.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
36. WTF?
They had an M-16, too? I thought they only had AK's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
37. *More Lethal*????
How can something be "more lethal"? It's either lethal or not.

Your post is nothing but serious flamebait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. More lethal murder.
Yeah, I was a little amused with the concept of murder being "more lethal" too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Ever see Hot Shots:Part Deux?
"Now, I am going to kill you until you die from it"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a560 Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
50. more lethal
as in more rounds, or easier to hide. Sounds like a pretty easy concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Oh, so my Nokia phone is more lethal than my old Motorola was?
Much easier to hide. In fact I keep losing the damn thing because it's too small.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Or how about this one
ArmaLite AR-50 target rifle, caliber 50 BMG. Weighs close to 100 pounds including the tripod and scope. Impossible to conceal. Holds only one round at a time - no magazine.

Must be less lethal than my little S&W Airlite revolver, eh?



Pay no attention to the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in the background.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. What M-249?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. The one silouetted in the background, upper left frame
I believe that's an M249.

Please post corrected GPDs(TM) if I am mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #60
87. I was saying "What M-249"
as in "No, I don't see no stinkin M-249"

sarcasm doesn't x-mit very well over the internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
49. I don't need a reason. Im an American.

Freedoms do not require justification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Yep.
That's basically what I (harshly) said in post #3. I like my "assault rifle" and until I use it to harm someone else, it's no one's business if I choose to own one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OpSomBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
76. It's funny...
That this entire thread is based on a completely false interpretation of the AWB. The nutshell recap:

"Ban assault weapons...see what happened in North Hollywood?"

"The weapons those guys used were illegal before the AWB."

"How fun could it possibly be to shoot a machine gun?"

"The AWB has nothing to do with machine guns."

"Gun manufacturers are guilty because they don't want to be sued."

"What company doesn't try to avoid being sued?"

"Gun makers are scum just like the tobacco companies."

"The tobacco companies intentionally produced an addictive product that can not be used safely. It's not the same."

"You're a Glocksucking moron, just like anyone else who disagrees with me."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wubbman Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. HA HA HA-nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #76
94. One of the best thread digests ever written
Kudos to OpSomeBlood!

:toast:
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 Wed Aug 27th 2014, 06:49 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