Obama And McCain: Address Gun Violence In America
Tonight, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama will debate each other in a town hall at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. This time, unlike the other debates, ordinary Americans instead of a national journalist will grill the Presidential candidates about their plans for the next four years.
Many issues will take center stage tonight, and rightly so. The economy is in the tank, America is fighting two wars, and everybody has questions about their retirement security, gas prices, and access to affordable health care. All these issues are of vital importance.
Having said this, I hope that one audience member will stand up and ask both candidates about the 100,000 gun deaths and injuries Americans suffer each year, and what they propose to help reduce this level of violence.
The problem is especially acute in a state like Tennessee.
With some of the weakest gun laws in the country, Tennessee has the second-highest violent crime rate in America. Along with states like South Carolina, Nevada, Louisiana and Florida, Tennessee has been one of most violent states in America since 2000. Tennessee also has the fourth-highest total gun death rate, behind Louisiana, Alaska and Montana. Less often reported is that Tennessee's gun suicide rate is ninth-highest in the country according to the most recent data available. Since 2004, Tennessee's two largest cities - Memphis and Nashville - each have had a violent crime rate higher than Washington, DC.
Since John McCain and Barack Obama are debating tonight in a state with some of America's weakest gun laws, and where gun violence is a grave concern, each candidate should be ready to explain what he will do to help keep dangerous weapons from dangerous people and to help law enforcement protect our communities.
One area both men could explore is their shared position to require criminal background checks for all gun sales at gun shows - known as closing the gun show loophole. Sen. Obama has clearly stated his favorable position on the issue, while Sen. McCain joined Sen. Joe Lieberman to sponsor a bill to close the gun show loophole which passed the Senate in 2000 but failed in the House.
As it happens, the National Rifle Association went ballistic over this bill and called John McCain "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment," showing how out-of-touch the NRA leadership is with Americans on public safety issues.
Both candidates would do the nation a service by addressing the issue of criminal background checks head-on, and talking about what else might make our families and communities less likely to experience some of the 100,000 gun deaths and injuries that Americans suffer every year.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just as Kelli and Paul will not answer questions, so too the Obama camp. You folks who still haven't decided to defend your Constitutional Rights by voting for McCain had better open your eyes before you lose the ability to complain. Obama, Pelosi, and Reed will re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, and while it is being litigated, all non-Left avenues of complaint will be shut, many permanently.
Vote McCain, and tell your friends and families.
Semper fi
The NRA ticket has pulled out of WI and ME.
Gosh, McCain will probably concede before getting the early bird special dinner on Nov. 4.
shedances,
Please, answer as best you can without going off on a tangent:
1. Which is more powerful, an AK-47 or a .30-06 deer hunting rifle?
2. Which is more likely to defeat NIJ Level III body armor, an AK-47 or a .30-06 deer hunting rifle?
3. Since turkey hunters usually shoot from a sitting position and need to fire a single accurate shot, why is it that several turkey guns have pistol grips?
4. What, if any, is the difference between a flash suppressor and a so called "silencer"?
5. If a person has a pistol with a 7 cartridge magazine, will it accept a 15 cartridge magazine?
6. What is the difference between firing one 30 cartridge mag, two 15 cartridge mags, and three 10 cartridge mags?
7. When exactly was the last time someone in the US was attacked with a bayonet affixed to a firearm?
Since Paul is talking about Tennessee, why doesn't he mention the Channon Christian and Chris Newsome murders?
Wait a minute!
Horrible crimes like that don't occur in Bradyland.
In Kelli and Paul's world it's better to just give the bad guy what he wants. Don't fight back! You might get hurt!
From the Brady report: “The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters.” — Jim Zumbo
But the report also has quotes stating that AR's and AK's have 'no sporting purpose'.
Which is it?
You apparently misunderstand the points covered in that much-older blog.
I understand the points completely. The Brady Campaign will say anything, no matter how contradictory, to try and ban more guns.
I take it you support them using half-truths by not mentioning Zumbo's later retraction?
BTW. I wasn't talking about 'that much-older blog'. I was referring to their just released 'report'. Funny that even you re-enforce the fact that it's filled w/ nothing more than regurgitated talking-points that have been debunked over and over.
It's even funnier that you, one of the Brady's most vocal supporters, have no idea what they are doing.
That's pretty sad.
No Kelli--we understand that the point in all of Paul's blogs is to try to take away more and more of our guns, and it doesn't matter if he has to ignore Heller, Miller, the 2nd amendment or the truth
shedances:"You apparently misunderstand the points covered in that much-older blog."
Okay shedances, if that's true, then why don't you explain how he misunderstood those points and correct him using evidence and facts?
Why is it so difficult to articulate your position? It seems like all you ever do to present your case is copy and paste articles written by the BC or other anti-gun writers.
Your profile says you were a reporter, but you seem a lot more like a stenographer to me.
That reminds me of this old report by the VPC:
http://www
"1. Semiautomatic assault weapons (like AK and AR-15 assault rifles and UZI and MAC assault pistols) are civilian versions of military assault weapons. There are virtually no significant differences between them.
2. Military assault weapons are "machine guns." That is, they are capable of fully automatic fire.
3. Civilian assault weapons are not machine guns. They are semiautomatic weapons.
Notice the VPC report says in point 1 that "There are virtually no significant differences between them" ("them" being military guns vs civilian ones). But in the next two points, the VPC admits that military guns are capable of automatic fire, while civilian models are not. Well, obviously that is a VERY significant difference between the two.
Posting a lie in the first sentence of a report is pretty bad. But admitting you lied in the next two paragraphs is just downright stupid. This is the kind of lying and stupidity that only the anti-gun lobby could come up with (and get away with).
Sheedances: ""the pro-gun crowd can continue to mock the BC's position on such important issues as assault weapons availability & dangers, for example; but it doesn't mean they're correct ..." --Kelli
We're not trying to "mock" anything. If you would actually read our posts, you would read we are carefully reading the BC's newest study and pointing out all the lies contained in it. If anything, you should at least give us credit for being willing to analyze the talking points of people who disagree with us, since it's something you clearly refuse to do (when was the last time you read an article written by a true firearms expert?)
That the BC "report" contains lies is beyond dispute. Again, look at this quote from the study
BC study: "These are guns that can shoot up the 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger.
This statement is a flat out lie. That's not my personal opinion. It's an indisputable fact. Semi-automatic firearms only fire one bullet per trigger pull, meaning that shooting "up the 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger" with a semi-automatic firearm is physically impossible.
I'm not pointing this out because I want to make the BC look bad. I'm pointing it out because its the truth. I understand you like the BC, but you should not be so blinded by your respect for them as to not be able to realize when they are lying to you.
"These are guns that can shoot up the 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger."
Just one of the many lies and mistakes made made by the BC, a group which has re-invented itselfe four times now to try to distance itself from statements made by its founders and previous leaders.
Before the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire ...
... there were several articles published, recommending its renewal; among those, a fine piece by New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof. Along with what the Brady Campaign has detailed on assault weapons, consider what Kristof wrote on "30 round magazines" &"copy cat" weapons, etc. ~ & these will give readers a different (eg., more realistic, IMO) view, than what is being thrown out here recently as fact vs. lies by some in the gun crowd.
In his column, Kristof quotes a gun salesman near Boise stating: "'I've got a ton of customers shooting squirrels with AK-47's ... They're using 30-round magazines and 7.62-milli
"I grew up on an Oregon farm that bristled with guns ... Having fired everything from a pistol to a machine gun, I can testify that shooting can be a lot of fun. But consider the cost: 29,000 gun deaths in America...
"... assault weapons are a special problem in America. They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers."
"If anything," Kristof adds, "we should be plugging the holes in the ban by having it cover copycat weapons without bayonet mounts, instead of moving backward and allowing a new flood of weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The Brady Campaign is the good guys, so to speak, in this fight to save future lives from more unnecessary gun violence (inc. rampages & single murders, easy suicides via guns, accidents esp. those involving kids, etc.). What I honestly see here, Ohio9, is that you & so many others are purposefully taking their views ~ & that of others being quoted ~ entirely out-of-context, & writing up your criticisms here, as though it were fact.
As far as your criticism of my believing what I read ...
No, I don't trust everything I read on the Internet ~ including those posts from the pro-gun crowd.
Hope that clarifies your confusion on my prior post!
shedances: "What I honestly see here, Ohio9, is that you & so many others are purposefully taking their views ~ & that of others being quoted ~ entirely out-of-con
Explain to me how I'm taking that Brady quote "out of context'. In what context could the statement "These are guns that can shoot up the 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger" possibly be considered reasonable? That statement is a flat out lie, and there is no context on earth that could make it true.
shedances: "& writing up your criticisms here, as though it were fact. "
I'll say it again. It is physically impossible for a semi-automatic firearm to "shoot up the 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger". That is a fact. I challenge you to find a semi-automatic weapon that can shoot more then one round per trigger pull. You can't, because if it fires more then one round per trigger pull, it's not semi-automatic.
shedances: "No, I don't trust everything I read on the Internet ~ including those posts from the pro-gun crowd."
So you say, yet here you are refusing to admit the BC is lying in their study, even when that lie is explicitly pointed out to you..
Kelli--so far, the Brady tactics of disarming the lawabiding citizen while ignoring the criminals has prove to be a complete failure in D C and Chicago and gun free zones have proven to be failures in places like NIU, VTech and multiple other places so I question your claim that the Bradys are the "good guys". In my book, the good guys do not leave law abiding citizens more vunerable to criminals, which gun bans have a history of doing.
The "trusted source" mode of identifying truth has a notoriously bad track record; even reliable sources are not going to be correct on every issue. FACTS can stand up to honest scrutiny; falsehoods cannot.
Problem is, in this case, the premise (that popular, small-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling are a Menace To Society) is incorrect. All you have to do is compare their civilian popularity to the FBI rifle crime stats, LEOKA data, BATFE YCGIS dataset, etc. to see that the "assault weapon menace" is a fraud.
FACT: several of the (thankfully rare) police-officer murders the BC report cites did NOT involve guns that would have been affected in any way by the Feinstein law or HR 6257.
FACT: ALL NFA Title 1 civilian guns (including all "assault weapons") fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.
FACT: "assault weapons" dominate centerfire target shooting in the USA, and are the most popular centerfire defensive carbines in U.S. homes.
FACT: only 3% of murders in the United States involve ANY type of rifle, "assault weapon" or not.
FACT: police-officer deaths are at their lowest level since 1960, and that only 8 officers were killed with ANY type of rifle in 2006 or 2007.
Inconvenient truths, to be sure, but truths they are.
http://www
kelli:
How can you say the Brady Campaign are the "good guys" in "this fight to save future lives from more unnecessary gun violence" when you and them refuse to consider all options that could save lives?
Like many others here, I have shown numerous examples of how armed citizens (Jeanne Assam and Joel Myrick) have stopped mass murderers (such as Mathew Murray and Luke Woodham).
Once, when asked about the effectiveness of armed citizens stopping crime, Paul jokingly said that most of the people out there weren't like John Wayne or Gary Cooper. Neither Jeanne Assam nor Joel Myrick are like the screen personnas portrayed by Wayne and Cooper. Assam is a retired cop working private security and Myrick was vice-principle of Pearl High School.
You don't need to be Cooper or Wayne to stop crimes as an armed citizen. You just need to be trained and armed.
As has been said before, armed citizens have stopped crime (you have already seen the statistics). If you choose to put you head into the sand, that is your choice.
Michael
How exactly does your post refute the fact that BC lies when it says "These are guns that can shoot up the 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger"?
For the pro RKBA people--it is probably a good idea not to use deceptive Brady terminology in our posts. For firearms with original magazine capacities of 13,15, 17 or more rounds (like most 9mms that have been around a while) the original magazine is a standard or regular mag, while the Brady demanded 7 or 10 round magazine is more accurately a low or reduced capacity magazine.
Very true. Most guns have standard magazines which contain more then 10 rounds. For example, I own a M9 Beretta pistol that has a standard mag of 15 rounds. That's the way it has always been. Ever since the gun has been manufactured, it has been made with 15 round mags. The only time it was made with 10 round mags was during the time that the 1994 AWB was in effect. The 10 round mags made during that time were not "standard". They were unusual mags modified specifically comply with the law.
Of course, gun control advocates have never pointed to any study which has shown that restricting the number of rounds in a magazine has any positive effect on reducing crime, let alone restricting rounds in mags to the randomly selected number of 10 (how did they come up with that number in the first place? Nobody knows)
What gun control advocates don't understand is that when a criminal is breaking into your house at 3 am, you usually don't have time to grab extra mags, or any place to put them on your person because you are wearing your bed time clothes. Chances are, the one mag in your gun will be the only one immediately available, so it's good to have as many rounds in it as possible.
Additionally, semi-auto pistol mags holding more than 10 cartridges have been around for over 100 years, nearly as long as semi-auto pistols themselves.
"the pro-gun crowd can continue to mock the BC's position on such important issues as assault weapons availability & dangers, for example; but it doesn't mean they're correct ..." --Kelli
Kelli, how can we mock a position you won't even define?
We have asked you numerous times to say what makes a semi-auto "assault weapon" more dangerous than a semi-auto hunting rifle, which the BC says they aren't trying to ban, and have yet to receive anything close to an answer. Instead, you continue to make claims that you simply can't or won't support.
So, for the readers of this blog, I'll give you another chance to try to support the claim you are making:
Question:
So called "assault weapons" share the same engineering design (w/ same technology) as every semi-auto hunting rifle, meaning the all fire at the same rate of one bullet per trigger pull, but the so called "assault weapons" actually produces less ballistic energy (remember: Power = Energy/unit of time) than most semi-auto hunting rifles. so, WHAT MAKES SO CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" MORE DANGEROUS THAN SEMI-AUTO HUNTING RIFLES THAT THE BRADY CAMPAIGN SAYS THEY AREN'T TRYING TO BAN?
I have noticed that Kelli has a difficult time getting past her hoplophobia and the Brady Campaign lies to understand the basic FACTS that the ARs. AKs and their derivatives are not only less powerful than most hunting rifles, the same characteristics while in semi auto mode that make them useful to police and the military make them useful to civilians for defensive use, rifles in ANY form are rarely used in crime, and lastly--any renewal of the Clinton AWB is not only unconstitutional (simple words Kelii--that means an assault weapons ban is ILLEGAL) but ineffective and unpopular.
Via 45Superman:
"Stephen Liczbinski, a 12-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, executed in May by bank robbery suspects just days short of his 40th birthday. He left a wife, Michelle, and three children, Matt, Stephen and Amber."
Am I remembering incorrectly, or did officer Liczbinski's killer use an SKS, which was not banned by the expired "assault weapons" ban?
From the same press release:
"Janet Jorgensen, 68, mother of three and grandmother of eight, who had just celebrated her 50th wedding anniversary when she was gunned down in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska during the Christmas shopping season in December 2007. At St. James Catholic Church, the crowd for her funeral was standing room only. Robert Hawkins, 19, killed eight before committing suicide."
Again, I may be recalling this incorrectly, but wasn't the weapon used at the Westroads Mall a WASR-90--another firearm not banned in '94?
Remember though. The Brady Campaign follows the Humpty Dumpty school of firearm definitions:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
What Kelli is forgetting that the American public today is not the same American public in 1994. There are far more "assault weapon" owners today than there was in 1994. This is in large part due to the 1994 ban.
Many that had a passing interest in one possible owning one day found the 1994 ban enough motivation to so so while they still could. Then there are the large numbers of people that just wanted to learn what all the hoopla was over these weapons and as such educated themselves on these weapons. Many of them ended up becoming "assault weapon" owners.
And speaking of education, while that little old lady and little old man at the gun range may not own an "assault weapon" they may be shooting in a lane close to someone that is. They see for themselves that these weapons are not the "death machines" that the anti-gun folks makes them out to be.
The end result of the 1994 AWB seems to me to have been to make a weapon that in the 90s was much more of a novelty among many gun owners into a weapon that is today much more mainstream with gun owners.
Yes the scum who murdered officer Liczbinski did use an SKS (The BC tries to hide the truth by calling it an "Ak-47 type assault weapon', even though it is neither an AK47 nor covered by the 1994 AWB)
But more importantly, Liczbinski's killer was a career criminal with 17 prior arrests and 6 felony convictions who had recently been released from prison after serving the minimum amount of time of an 18-year sentence for armed robbery.
Rather then split hairs about the type of gun he used, the real question everyone should be asking is why was he walking the streets when he should have been in prison where he belongs?
Officer Jose Somohano wasn't killed with a "banned assault weapon" either. He was murdered with a Norinco MAK-90, a Chinese-made carbine that would have been imported between 1990 and 1995 or so. (The -90 in the name stands for "1990".)
They did not have threaded muzzles or bayonet lugs, and would not have been affected by the Feinstein law at all. And contrary to the report, they are neither "high powered", nor an "assault rifle".
FWIW, the FACTS regarding police officer deaths and rifles:
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
Police-officer gun deaths are now at the lowest level they've been since 1960, and only 8 officer deaths in 2006 or 2007 involved ANY type of rifle.
Banning rifle handgrips that stick out, or stocks that adjust for length, has NOTHING to do with fighting gun violence; it is about harassing the LAWFUL owners of the most popular centerfire target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States.
Gosh, putting NRA Life Member Sarah Palin on the ticket really boosted McSame's poll numbers, didn't it?
Just like Obama putting a "old traditional white man politician" (the same thing his campaign platform says he wants to change) on his ticket.
2nd posting--John Kerry was just as far ahead in October 2004--last time I checked he is still a senator. Also in terms of the NRA--they still have enough influence to score major wins in such Democratic strongholds as California.
Caseytool hello ~ & now the McCain campaign is in deep water over findings of Gov. Sarah Palin's abuse of powers & violation of ethics in Alaska!
Especially in a time of serious economic troubles, such past behaviors involving getting a former family member fired, etc. may be the final blow to a distressed GOP ticket. It also shows how badly John McCain's judgment is, in choosing a running mate who was under investigation for corruption (eg., would our country trust someone to handle our grave economic situation, our wars, our international problems ... when he can't even pick a decent running mate?).
BTW ~ as you already know (but I'll post for readers generally), the pro-gun crowd can continue to mock the BC's position on such important issues as assault weapons availability & dangers, for example; but it doesn't mean they're correct ... or even effective in their tactics. I mean to say ... just look at John McCain ... he's been using similar-type, low tactics (in that case, where Sen. Barack Obama is concerned & Ayers) & this has been backfiring on both him & his campaign. He's had to, in essence, tell supporters to 'tone it down.'
So Kelli--I find it interesting that you support Obama working with an admitted domestic terrorist, and you are overhyping the report on Palin--especially since the person writing the report has a vested interest in Palin looking bad and a cop that would taser a 10 year old boy who IS BREAKING NO LAW really does need to be fired.
"the pro-gun crowd can continue to mock the BC's position on such important issues as assault weapons availability & dangers, for example; but it doesn't mean they're correct"
Kelli, the "Assault Weapon Menace" is NOT correct, and is indefensible by ANY objective measure:
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
The "assault weapon" meme is an ad hoc rationalization of a fundamentally irrational position. Adjustable stocks and handgrips that stick out do NOT make small-caliber civilian rifles "more deadly".
In actual fact Kelli--the proRKBA people are correct --which means that you, Caseyslimptool, Paul, the Brady Campaign, the VPC, the AHSA, Josh Horwitz, Josh Sugarman and Ray Schoenke are WRONG.
Shedances, all we've been doing is exposing the lies and deception used by the BC in their latest report on "assault weapons". I fail to see this could be considered "low tactics". Since when is telling the truth a "low tactic"?
Kelli--sorry to tell you, but Obama's long term association with William Ayres (admitted domestic terrorists/bomber), Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Pfleger are legitimate concerns in this campaign. I know you want the topic ignored (just like Obama's support for unconstitutional gunbans), but the logical reason for ignoring these associations and Obama's gun control record is that that if they became big campaign issues--Obama would lose.
"They are military-style offensive weapons designed to slaughter human beings."
So that's why the police have them? Or do they need to defend themselves by using offensive tactics and slaughtering human beings?
"Moreover, assault weapons have never been “in common use” at any time."
Except for the past 20+ years.
"Congress finally passed a nationwide ban on assault weapons in 1994."
No, they passed a ban on the manufacture of firearms w/ certain cosmetic features that didn't effect basic function.
One could spend days fisking this and still not debunk anything new. Guess the BC is following the Goebbels principle.
"They are military-style offensive weapons designed to slaughter human beings."
They are firearms that are functionally designed (engineered) using 100+ year old semi-automatic technology. Then some models are given cosmetic features to give them the outward appearance of a military weapon. However, they are still functionally the same as every other semi-automatic rifle.
This is much like designing a street legal Chevy Monte Carlo coupe then putting a spoiler, hood scoop and NASCAR paint job/stickers on it. It may "look like" a NASCAR race car but it is still has the same engine, exhaust, transmission, etc as every other coupe at the dealership.
Or like banning all subcompact cars with a rear mounted flat four air cooled motor to keep people from owning racing Porches, while forgetting that you also ban the original VW beetle and every other early VW but the bus.
Hey everyone, check out the biggest lie in the new BC "assault weapons" study (which is saying a lot)
Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline: "These are guns that can shoot up the 30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger. And it puts our police in grave danger out there. So we'd like to see some kind of ban, either by the state or federally"
Uh, first of all, you would think a police superintendent would have better grammar. Even an elementary school student should know you don't start a sentence with the word "And".
But more importantly, the first statement of his sentence is a flat out 100% lie! The guns he is talking about are semi-automatic weapons, meaning they only fire one bullet per trigger pull. Thus it is not possible to fire "30 rounds with a couple of pulls of the trigger". In order to fire 30 rounds, you would have to pull the trigger 30 times!
It's pretty sad to see a police superintendent resorting to the same lies and deception of the BC and VPC (that's the only explanation, either that or he doesn't know anything about guns, which would be even more disturbing). But I guess that shouldn't be too surprising seeing as its coming from the people's republic of Chicago, which is probably the most anti-gun city in the nation.
Sadly, that's what many high ranking law enforcement officers have to do in order to move up in rank. They have push the agenda of the status quo, whether it's wrong or right. If you want to be chief of police in the town of an anti-gun mayor, then you have to push those types of lies.
Some of the comments I get a kick out of in that polemic: 1st point, the claim that ARs, AKs/clones and related rifles they want to ban "are not in common use" which has been debunked here; 2nd, the mistaken claim that the 7.62X39 and 5.56 Nato are super powerful (both rounds are significantly less powerful than the cartridges they replaced;3, the complaint about "military ammo" which is common on the civilian side (including 9mm, 45 Colt and ACP, 303 Brit, 30/40 Krag, 30/06 (plus several rounds based on case), 308 Winchester , 6.5 7 and 8mm Mausers, 45/70, the 7.62 round for the Mosin Nagant, 38 special (plus the 357 mag--a direct descendent), the 44mag (derived from the 44 Russian by way of the 44 American and 44 special). This rather incomplete list shows how far the Brady Campaign and complicit LEOS are willing to go to support gun control--and I am sure that Paul and company are praying very hard that noone is so crass to mention the fact that every single civilian hunting and defensive firearm owes much of its design to the military demand for better rifles. In terms of using military rifles for hunting and sport--rifles like my m1917 enfield (or the 1903 Springfield), the British Enfields, the Mausers in any of the military calibers (almost every bolt action hunting rifles use elements of the Mauser design) are well proven in as issued condition.
Once again the BC is up to their usual tricks and lies
BC: "Since the federal assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, assault weapons have again flooded our streets, causing mayhem and forcing many police departments to invest in expensive assault weapons to keep from being outgunned by criminals.
Um no, many police departments began upgrading their weapons in response to high profile gun crimes such as the North Hollywood shootout, which occured while the AWB was still in effect (1997). Furthermore, the North Hollywood Shootout involved criminals armed with illegal fully automatic rifles, which were not even covered by the AWB.
Also, many police departments are arming up with rifles simply because they maximize their chances of surviving a shootout against ANY weapon, proving that such weapons are not only effective for "military combat", but also for individual self-defense, weather in the hands of a cop or a citizen.
If it wasn't for the price factor, almost every police department in the nation would be armed with "assault" rifles. Also some departments are reluctant to do so because of the negative public view of them, a view mainly caused by groups like the BC, who lie and deceive the public into believing weapons like the AR-15 are "military rifles". In reality, they arn't. In fact, the AR-15 (the primary rifle used by police) is manufactured SPECIFICALLY FOR POLICE AND CITIZENS. Military personnel don't use them. They use the M16 and M4.
Oh boy. Everyone look busy. There's a new Brady Report out.....
If anyone wants a good laugh on this Friday, you have to check this out. Complete with all the usual talking points, misrepresentations, references to "traces" when trying to prove actual crimes, etc...
http://www
Is it me, or does there seem to be a renewed sense of desperation by Paul and the BC? "We lost SCOTUS, we lost CCW, we're continually losing Castle Doctrine, we're losing emergency confiscations, we're losing on preemption, our presidential hopeful dances around the gun issue better than Fred Astaire; what's left? Oh yeah, lets demonize weapons representing less than 2.9% of murders annually. Baaaaaaa, baaaaaaaa.
"assault weapons “are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”
Except for the fact that they are the most commonly used firearms in target competitions and are regularly used in varmint hunting.
"These findings were confirmed in a second study performed by ATF under the Clinton Administra
Ah, that explains it.
"Assault weapons are weapons of war that are sought after and used by street
gangs, drug dealers, and terrorists, but are of no use to law-abiding persons who own
guns for sporting purposes and self-defen
HAHAHAHAHA
Less than 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, regardless of how the stock is shaped.
http://www
The MOST POPULAR TARGET RIFLES IN AMERICA have "no sporting value", even though more Americans own them than hunt? LOL.
"can shoot up to 30 rounds with a couple pulls of the trigger"? No, that's a lie. The fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, just like any other civilian rifle.
"Since the federal assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, assault weapons have again flooded our streets, causing mayhem." Umm, AR-15's and civilian AK's were just as legal to manufacture, sell, and possess 1994-2004 as they are now, and per-capita rifle crime has been going DOWN since September 2004, not up.
"forcing many police departments to invest in expensive assault weapons to keep from being outgunned by criminals.
"Assault weapons...
"assault weapons have special appeal to terrorists
Another advantage is it is easier to train people (especially those of small stature) with a carbine in 223 than it is a 12gauge because of far lower recoil.
I think my favorite part is the diagram of the semi-auto AK-47 where it points to the front sight and calls it a flask suppressor.
I'd like to know who the editor of this was.
It's fuzzy but looks like an h to me.
Flask suppressors? Well, how else are you going to keep your beer from getting in your eyes while spray-firing from the hip?
Don't you know that the evil gun lobby advocates alcohol consumption and shooting?
"Even the NRA tells its members never to consume alcohol before shooting," Mrs. Brady commented. "Shooting ranges, many of which are run by NRA instructors, prohibit alcohol on the premises. So according to their logic, it?s not OK to go to a shooting range with a can of Budweiser in your pocket, but it?s fine to go into a Kansas City bar with a loaded handgun. The new Anheuser-Busch advertising slogan should be: Drink now, shoot later."
http://www
The stupidity and misrepresentation is everywhere. In every presser, every report, every anti-rights advocate. It's simply amazing
Oh lord. They even included Zumbo in it. Nevermind that he admitted he was 'living in a vacuum' and retracted his statements made in ignorance.
But ignorance is the bread and butter of the Brady Campaign.
As amply demonstrated by a certain "journalis
From the BC report: "The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters." -- Jim Zumbo
Huh? The BC has been telling us that these types of guns are rarely used for hunting, yet they quote a prominent hunting writer who said that they "have a rapidly growing following among hunters."
Who is lying?
"suggesting that the longer the statute was in effect, the less available these guns became for criminal misuse."
No, actually it 'suggests' no such thing. One would only infer that if they intentionally ignored the continued rise in semi-auto firearms during the period.
Not to mention that according the the '06 ATF trace statistics, the average time to crime was what, 3-11 years?
That is, even if you DO decide to give any of those statistics credibility by perusing right over the disclaimer about using the trace statistics at all.
Sad.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
