Guns and Pie

[mox 298]

And here you go again Mox, getting trapped up in the media's spin again. (See how pervasive they are at their brainwashing?!!)

From Wikipedia:

An assault rifle is loosely defined as a selective fire rifle designed for combat that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle, AK family, G36, FN FNC, and the Steyr AUG.

Emphasis mine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's carrying an AR-15. What would you like me to call a weapon "designed for combat" to distinguish it from a weapon designed for recreation, hunting, or sport? Let's be honest here: the dude carrying the AR-15 probably has a crapload of guns at home. How come he wasn't exercising his right to carry openly by carrying his .22 long rifle? Because the AR-15 looks (and is) a helluva lot more intimidating, that's why. This was never about exercising his right to bear arms, and it was everything to do with intimidation.

I'm not confusing the events, although the numbers keep increasing every time I look it up. From the linked CNN story:

Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.

(and let me just say, good on CNN for caveatting they were peacefully demonstrating. Praise where warranted.)

Obama is a professed anti-gun advocate. I think it makes sense that gun rights people would demonstrate to the president that they are not giving up their guns easily. What better way then to fearlessly show up carrying guns.

Oh, you must be referring to the fact that Obama promised to ban the use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition. My god, and I voted for this douchebag? Ohhhhhhh...that's right, once again it was the NRA fomenting fear and disinformation in order to advance its own agenda:

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Heh. I love how when you don't like somebody, it's just "rhetoric" when they happen to be on your side of an issue. But it's ok to twist their words beyond recognition and lie about them.

Obama's actual position:

Obama, "Sportsmen": Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.

Obama, "Urban Policy": Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not 100% on board with Obama's position. I don't, for example, support making guns child proof through the mandatory enforcement of trigger locks or anything else that would turn your gun into (as someone else here said) a paperweight. But that's a FAR cry from " ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition."

But the NRA says:

Despite what Obama says, the NRA's material claims that he plans to take such extreme measures as to "ban use of firearms for home self defense" and "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Where does the NRA come up with these? We contacted Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs. He declined to speak to us except to say that the claims are based on Obama's voting record and statements he has made in the media. "We're comfortable with what we put on there," Arulanandam said. "We believe our facts."

So agree or disagree with the President's position on gun legislation, but if the NRA is really on the side of truth, then why do they have to bald face lie? Maybe the NRA thinks you're too stupid to understand the complexities of the issues yourself, and they're just making it easier for us dumb gun-toting hicks to understand? Sorta goes back to my side-argument of allowing a large organization to dictate local club policies. Can we really trust an organization that would out-right lie in order to score political points? That doesn't sound like the NRA I used to know, it sounds like Moveon.org.

[mox 298]

Mox

You make a lot of untrue generalizations. For one thing, the NRA doe snot monopoloize gun clubs.

Out of everyone here, I really only expect Slim to understand where I'm coming from, even though I know he doesn't agree with me. Anyway, here goes. I don't trust big organizations, especially monopolies. I don't trust big government, I don't trust big corporations, and I don't trust big lobbying organizations such as Moveon.org and the NRA. (in the interest of full disclosure, I once contributed to Moveon.org under the misguided belief that they were somehow different. That contribution is front and center on my wall of shame.) That's all I'm saying. No, I don't think it's the NRA's fault that I don't have any choice in clubs. That's a club decision, and often a democratically chosen decision. I respect that, and I respect that it's probably the only way some clubs can stay open. And you're right, some kind of gun club torte reform should be enacted. But I don't think anybody should consider this kind of consolidation a good thing. In fact, the reason that we're 50 states instead of 50 districts is exactly because our founders saw the evils of consolidation (otherwise known as central government), even when it seems to impart helpful benefits.

[visaveteran 1]

Mox, a "select fire" weapon is considered an "automatic" weapon and is not not allowed without special permit, tons of paperwork and money. The "AR-15" you see is a semi-auto civilian version. Wikipedia be damned...congress dislikes bayonet lugs, retractable stocks, flash suppressors and high capacity magazines. Those mechanics constitute assault rifle issues for congress. And some like Obama don't even like semi-autos. When did you last hear someone getting killed with a bayonet attached to a rifle? How is a retractable stock a grave danger? A flash suppressor?

These silly items are targeted to make it tough to get certain types of firearms. it requires importers and US sellers to vastly modify guns to make them legal. It's just harassment of the gun industry and gun owners. If they can't take away the 2nd amendment, maybe they can bankrupt it.

Every president including lefty John Kerry always come out at same point in the election and state they support the 2nd amendment. They have to or the NRA will rain down on them and they have been burned before. As I said, there is nothing standing between the citizens and gun bans but the NRA.

Obamba's record on guns:

# Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)

# Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

# FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

# April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)

# Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

# Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

# 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

# Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)

# Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)

# Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

# Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

# Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998

[baron555 934]

My M-1 is designed for combat as is the AR-15 but they are designed for two different combat jobs. There is nothing inherently more dangerous between the two. Don't forget that Wikipedia is NOT THE authority on definitions, by design.

Again, the term "assault rifle" came into being for the short barrelled shotguns (WWI) and then German and American short barrelled rifles (WWII) that allow the weapon to be wielded in close-in combat in trenches (WWI) and then in cities (WWII) than the longer barrelled weapons. Long range accuracy was not needed since you were so close to the enemy.

And multi round magazines are very effective is maintaining a high rate of fire but as history shows (Vietnam) they by defintion gave away accuracy of the troops and changed the tactical operation of the combat squad (in WWI and WWII the rifles protected the machine gun, in Vietnam, with everyone having select fire, ie can go full auto, everyone just flung lead, many times with little effectiveness).

And both the AR-15 and the M-1, as well as most combat rifles, have bayonet lugs since those were used and trained to be used. German soldiers in WWI were famously afraid of the Yanks and their bayonets; they'd put up a viscious fight until they got very close and then they'd surrender.

The media has spun up these "assault rifles" giving them supernatural powers over regulat combat rifles. Don;t be taken by that.

Edited December 23, 2009 by baron555

[mox 298]

Well #######, looks like I have to post this over multiple posts, due to the limited on quoted blocks. Apologies in advance.

Every president including lefty John Kerry always come out at same point in the election and state they support the 2nd amendment. They have to or the NRA will rain down on them and they have been burned before. As I said, there is nothing standing between the citizens and gun bans but the NRA.

I'm not gonna defend Kerry. The guy was the wrong candidate for many reasons, the least of which was his 2nd amendment record. But liberal candidates don't have to appease the NRA, because as I've shown, the NRA will just make ####### up anyway.

Obamba's record on guns:

It'd make things easier if you cited your sources. This is from http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm.

# Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)

The incident that was the impetus for this bill was a guy using an illegally owned gun. He was charged with only a misdemeanor, the charges were dropped, and the criminal did not go free.

And I guess I don't see a problem with opposing a bill that encourages the ownership and use of an illegal firearm. Anyone who endorses proper gun safety should oppose it.

# Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

Note that this wasn't any kind of legislation, just his opinion.

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?

Obama: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

Obama: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

# FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

Here's the factcheck.org link: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ta...iladelphia.html

We asked campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor to help us sort out the issue, including Obama's denial last night that his handwriting was on the amended questionnaire. Vietor simply sent us the comments he made to Politico, saying they remain accurate, and he would not elaborate. Here they are:

Politico.com, March 31, 2008: "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires - a staffer did - and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now," Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. "He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do."

I think the very worst you can accuse Obama of in this instance is that he got caught trying to play politics with an interest group, and had to make a hasty retreat. Every politician does it, but it's nowhere near a (pun intended) smoking gun that shows Obama wants to take your guns away.

[mox 298]

Part 2/3

# April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)

Jeez. Bittergate again? A minor campaign gaff that by the way sure has a nugget of truth in it. We keep saying we want our politicians to be honest with us, and then jump their ####### when they say anything that's even slightly offensive to some group. It has zero to do with his stance on gun issues.

# Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

Obama said he believed the ban was Constitutional. The D.C. handgun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court. This is why we have a separation of powers in this country.

# Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

Obama: We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Sounds pretty sensible to me.

# 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

From the article: Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

I agree that limiting handgun (and only handgun, by the way) purchases to one a month doesn't seem to be an effective way to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. As I've said before, I don't think Obama's stance on gun legislation is perfect, but it's also not what the NRA is trying to miselad you with.

[mox 298]

Part 3/3

# Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)

Scandalous!!!

# Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)

This really reads out of context. The full quote:

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

Obama: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now.

I don't know exactly what he's talking about with "unscrupulous gun dealers," but if he means stopping the illegal sale of firearms, then once again that's something we should all be supporting.

# Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

This quote *had* to have been taken out of context on purpose. The actual quote:

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair."

When he says "keeping guns out of our inner cities," it's pretty clear that he means keeping guns out of gangbangers hands.

# Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

Well, this gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter has no problem with the assault weapon ban, and it's a damn shame that Bush let it expire. There's no reason for a Civilian to have a fully automatic weapon whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings. You can't reasonably hunt with them, and they're worthless for home defense. So good for Obama, I'm glad he said this.

# Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998

This is so vague and generic, that it's impossible to respond to. The source for this citation was "1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998," but although it seems to be cited quite a bit--mostly by anti-Obama sites--it doesn't seem to actually exist.

[baron555 934]

Well, this gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter has no problem with the assault weapon ban, and it's a damn shame that Bush let it expire. There's no reason for a Civilian to have a fully automatic weapon whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings. You can't reasonably hunt with them, and they're worthless for home defense. So good for Obama, I'm glad he said this.

And again, you are wrong about that law. Automatic weapons had already been illegal to purchase, except for distinct requirements. The "assault weapon" ban again made subjective decisions based on a crazy listing of weapons. And I know many Civilians who own automatic weapons which they covet for their collections and to shoot in specific events; what's wrong with that?

And how is a full auto any different in it's intended purpose than a screwdriver; both can be used to kill humans. I can come up with many "other' uses, as described for what a full auto could be used for, and none have a human as a target.

You are only, like the media does, trying to give these objects, these tools, a personality and emotions. They have neither. They are objects. A BAR and a screwdriver are only made of steel. There is nothing inherently dangerous with them. They just sit there.

Now how some human uses them is another story.

[mox 298]

A fully armed Sherman Tank is a tool too. So is a Stinger missile. Should we legalize fully armed Sherman Tanks and Stingers for the general population? I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but the "it's just a tool" argument is just too simple an argument for such a complex issue.

And by the way, Bush was for the assault weapons ban before he was against it.

Edited December 23, 2009 by mox

[visaveteran 1]

My source was http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm. I did not cherry pick comments...I cut and pasted what was there. Nobody is always wrong...well almost nobody.

When you see Obama's comments and voting record, you have to see a profile of a serious anti-gun politician. Dance around. Parse and twist and spin words and comments. He's a hard left, anti-gun dude. Like many fearful anti-gun politicians, he's careful not to go too far at this point in time...and frankly, he has bigger issues to deal with. But what a man says when he thinks no one is outside the door listening tells the true story. We all well remember his San Francisco behind closed door comments about "Americans clinging to their religion and guns." How plain does it have to get?

I'd like a dollar for every time some misinformed person states they like the assault ban law to keep "automatic weapons" off the streets. More than a few politicians have done so. SEMI-AUTOMATIC!!! One pull of the trigger, one round goes bang. Just like your handgun.

But Baron is right, why should we not own automatic weapons for various legal pursuits?

[mox 298]

My source was http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm. I did not cherry pick comments...I cut and pasted what was there. Nobody is always wrong...well almost nobody.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean that you were cherry picking. I meant that whoever wrote the article was cherry picking. Sorry about that.

When you see Obama's comments and voting record, you have to see a profile of a serious anti-gun politician. Dance around. Parse and twist and spin words and comments. He's a hard left, anti-gun dude. Like many fearful anti-gun politicians, he's careful not to go too far at this point in time...and frankly, he has bigger issues to deal with. But what a man says when he thinks no one is outside the door listening tells the true story. We all well remember his San Francisco behind closed door comments about "Americans clinging to their religion and guns." How plain does it have to get?

And yet the facts simply don't bear this out. I keep hearing about how anti-gun he is, but all I ever find is examples of his respect for the 2nd amendment, with the occasional misstep and typical politician weasel wording. And I keep quoting them here, but I don't think they're being read. Yes, there are aspects of his approach towards gun legislation I don't like, but then show me a politician who represents 100% of your positions and I'll congratulate you on your decision to run for office.

You guys keep saying how I've been drinking the media kool-aid, but I'm the only person here citing actual in-context facts to back up everything I've been saying. As my favorite ** comedian representative Al Frankin says, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Now, as for what a man says behind closed doors, what of it? Actions speak louder than words, especially imaginary words. When you actually analyze Obama's 2nd amendment record, you see a guy who's seen so much violence on the streets of his city, and has bent over backwards trying to figure out a way to both get guns out of the hands of gangbangers while simultaneously supporting our 2nd amendment rights. He doesn't have a perfect record, but that's a damn hard row to hoe when you're dealing with mothers who have lost their children because they were wearing the wrong colors or got caught in the crossfire of some stupid turf war. You try telling that mother all about how it's just a tool, how having more guns makes us safer and oh by the way you're considering voting yes on allowing people to keep illegal weapons in their homes. That's gonna fly like a pregnant pole vaulter.

And the quote wasn't "Americans clinging to their religion and guns." Here's the full quote, in context:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

You don't think there might just be a kernel of truth in that statement? There's a reason that the most blighted areas in this country have the most gun violence. But even if you don't agree, the statement in context sure is a lot different than the "Obama thinks Americans cling to their guns because they are all uneducated hicks" ####### that the spin doctors are trying to feed you.

I'd like a dollar for every time some misinformed person states they like the assault ban law to keep "automatic weapons" off the streets. More than a few politicians have done so. SEMI-AUTOMATIC!!! One pull of the trigger, one round goes bang. Just like your handgun.

I'd like a dollar for every time some misinformed person states that Obama is trying to take away our guns. And yeah, there's a lot of misinformation out there, but you do see that one of the biggest sources of misinformation is the NRA, right? I mean, if you (the NRA) have to lie to support your position, how stable is your position really?

But Baron is right, why should we not own automatic weapons for various legal pursuits?

Why shouldn't we own Stinger missiles for various legal pursuits? Seriously, where would you draw the line if you were made King of America? Would you stop at automatic weapons, or are mortars ok? How about land mines to protect your property? Helicopter gunships? Tactical nukes under a certain tonnage? There's got to be a line somewhere, right? The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, so either that means we should all be limited to the technology of the day, i.e. muskets, or there should be no restrictions since no restriction was ever mentioned in the amendment.

And what about the NRA lying and deceiving you, any opinions on that?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Additionally, assault rifles are defined by the military (they that created the term) as being "selective fire" meaning they have automatic and/or burst fire capability. They are, therefore regulated by the NFA of 1934 just as machine guns. The rilfes the media often assaults (pardon the pun) are rilfes that resemble assault rifles in appearance.

As anyone with a functioning brain can imagine, a .223 round is no more powerful or deadly coming from an AR-15 or a Remington M700 bolt action rifle. It is the same cartridge. A 9mm round is the same fired from an Uzi or from a Ruger. Trying to regulate firearms based on physical appearance is just as stupid as it sounds.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Automatic weapons are legal in most states under the NFA of 1934. It IS perfectly legal to own automatic weapons and "other weapons" undre these rules, provideed the weapon is registered as required by federal law.

Knob Creek Gun Range in Kentucky, just south of Louisville, has a twice annual machine gun convention where thousands of regular Americans that own machine guns come to shoot it up for three days (2nd weekends of April and October) Great fun.

Privately owned and properly registered machine guns have never been a problem for law enforcement.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A fully armed Sherman Tank is a tool too. So is a Stinger missile. Should we legalize fully armed Sherman Tanks and Stingers for the general population? I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but the "it's just a tool" argument is just too simple an argument for such a complex issue.

And by the way, Bush was for the assault weapons ban before he was against it.

They are legal. I invite you to the twice annual machine gun fest at Knob Creek Range in Kentucky. There you will see privately owned, legal, cannons, mini-guns (electric gatling guns), missile launchers, flame throwers, anti-aircraft systems and YES, tanks. They are legal for the general population if properly registered under the NFA. Any law abiding citizen can own them except in a few states that do not allow class III weapons. at one time I owned an M1928 and M1 Thompson submachineguns. Great fun but expensive to shoot. I was made an offer I couldn't refuse and sold them about 2003

You can even get the chance to shoot any of these (for a fee, of course, quite a hefty fee, 75mm Sherman main gun rounds are not cheap) and it can be great fun.

[mox 298]

Not what I'm talking about, Gary. Of course there are exceptions, but nobody here is talking about exceptions, we're talking about your average citizen and his right to bear arms, and not just as an exhibition curiosity.

You should be outraged that a special permit needs to be had for these specialized weapons. I should be able to walk into Martin Marietta or Northrup Grummon and buy the latest and greatest helicopter gunships or surface-to-air missile without so much as a freedom-infringing background check. Now I do concede that for people like us, the cost may be somewhat prohibitive, but if I am a naturalized citizen from, say, a wealthy Saudi Arabian family, I should be able to walk straight into my local missile emporium and walk out with as many Stinger missiles as my tricked out Hummer can carry--again, sans background check. Right? And furthermore, said citizen should be allowed to openly carry (or conceal carry with a permit I suppose) his Stinger missile in public, perhaps even around an airport where the President's plane is due to land for a major speech on health care reform, as long as he's packing that Stinger safely. Am I right?

Or are there in fact limits to our 2nd amendment rights?

(but yes, firing a Sherman main gun would be a kick in the asss that even somebody as frugal as me would be tempted to lay out the cash for.)