America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by echo4alpha. 8 replies replies.
Fully automatic propaganda
RDC Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 01-21-2000
Posts: 5,874
Fully automatic propaganda
Mike S. Adams

September 15, 2004


“Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our
country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.” - John Kerry, fully automatic liar.
 
“And so tomorrow, for the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure.” - John Kerry,  lying about weapons of mass destruction.

Last week, I was asked to go on a radio show to debate the assault weapons ban, which was passed on September 13, 1994. My opponent was a former New York City police officer who wanted the ban to be renewed because he was opposed to the private ownership of fully automatic weapons.

When I informed the former officer that the bill had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons he indicated that he would re-read it and reconsider his position if he discovered that I was right. In other words, he was a reasonable man who knows that people sometimes make mistakes. He also has the maturity to change his position when he finds that he was mistaken or, more likely, misled about important facts.

But the good natured debate was ruined when an “educator” decided to call in to the show to offer his opinion on the issue. The self-described high school counselor said that he didn’t want the ban to expire because he didn’t want people coming into his school shooting up the place with machine guns. Again, I corrected the error.

Unfortunately, the educator didn’t respond to my correction in the same fashion as the former officer. He said something like “you think you’re better than me because you’re a college professor. Shame on you!” After his momentary hissy fit, he threw out a statistic (from God knows where) saying that 27 heads of law enforcement agencies supported renewing the ban.

The “27 police chiefs” statistic was pretty easy to rebut, given that approximately 17,000 state and local law enforcement agencies report crime data to the FBI on a monthly basis. I simply asked him why more police chiefs didn’t support the ban. The “educator” said that most of them didn’t have time to travel to Washington, DC. I didn’t understand what that was supposed to mean. I still don’t.

Finally, the educator/master-debater suggested that citizens should never be able to own guns more powerful than those the police carry on duty. At least he was honest. Such a rule would eliminate almost all hunting rifles with a single stroke of the pen.

That suggestion is even more radical than one I once heard from a tenured sociologist. Though not opposed to hunting rifles, he thought that it was “unfair” for hunters to use high-powered scopes.  If I were a deer, I guess I would prefer to die a slow death from a bad shot. I wouldn’t want to die quickly from a clean shot in the heart. If I were a deer, I would be a liberal deer constantly thinking about “fairness.” If I were a tree, I would be a liberal tree doing an interview with Barbara Walters.

Of course, educators are not the only ones spewing nonsense about gun control these days. Nightline did a segment last week on the assault weapons ban with fully automatic weapons blazing in the background, nearly drowning out the voice of Ted Koppel (that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing). Such weapons have nothing to do with the 1994 ban. In fact, they have been banned since 1934.

Other news commentators have made reference to the AK-47, the Uzi, and other weapons, which are similarly unaffected by the 1994 ban. Even semi-automatic versions of those particular guns were outlawed under a 1989 import ban. They have nothing to do with the 1994 ban in question.

If none of this comes as any surprise, enter Dennis Miller. Dennis is one of my favorite television commentators. In fact, we have a lot in common. We are both former liberals who are very sarcastic and quite handsome, I might add. (Well, two out of three isn’t so bad).

Unfortunately, on September 13, Dennis Miller joined in with all the other misinformed media elites, saying that we need to keep “machine guns” in the hands of our soldiers, not in the hands of our citizens. Claiming to be “mad as hell” about the expiration of the ban, he made foolish references to the Uzi and AK-47, just like our friends in the liberal media.

Dennis Miller has every right to go on a fully automatic rant on national television, just as my fellow “educator” had a right to make a fool of himself during a live radio interview. But there are certain rights that we should waive by using a little self-control (as opposed to government coercion).

We can’t trust people like Ted Koppel to give us good information on the pros and cons of gun control legislation.  Ted is more than misled (new bumper sticker, anyone?). He will engage in willful distortion (a nice term for lying) to spread his anti-gun propaganda. He would Rather pursue a poorly concealed political agenda than act like an honest journalist.

But we should expect more from the likes of decent people like Dennis Miller. I hope that Dennis will admit to his blunder Rather than freezing like a CBS anchorman caught in the headlights of an oncoming 18-wheeler.

I won’t even get into the quotes by Kerry. He just keeps shooting himself in the foot. No, I didn’t mean that literally, Chris Matthews.



©2004 Mike S. Adams
eleltea Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
Good post, RDC.
Cavallo Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
there's an awful lot of misinformation about the assault weapon ban. it's like an urban legend, and people tend not to check out rumors; they believe whatever it is that they hear first. in a biopsych lab i used to work in, we had a phrase: "what's first is final" about many things human-related, particularly first thoughts, opinions and impressions.
RDC Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-21-2000
Posts: 5,874
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ? Winston Churchill


I will fight til Hell freezes over; then I will fight on the ice. ?
BrianWilson.net
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
I would like to see a list of all the assault rifles that are now legal for me to buy now that the ban has expired.

I understand that fully automatic rifles, or machine guns, have been illegal for a very long time. I understand that foreign-made assault rifles that are deemed to have no sporting value were made illegal under a separate law in 1989 and this includes guns like the AK-47, Uzi, Galil, FN-FAL, HKs, and others but did not apply to guns made in the United States.

With all the rhetoric about the assault gun ban expiring, I am curious as to whether I can go down to my local gun shop and now find a rack full of new models that were illegal a week ago. I'm not sure I'll find anything different except bigger ammo clips.
usahog Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
I know the AR-15 which is the M-16 the military uses is now buy able along with the M-1 Carbine used in WW II and some still today... these Rifles do not have a full auto feature...

I cannot remember what other one's were on the list and now you've got my interest up as to knowing also Hockydad.. LOL

Hog
bullwinkle Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2001
Posts: 1,206
http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

And might I add that every cop I know, and that is quite a few, believe the ban sunsetting was a good thing.
Thom Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2003
Posts: 6,117
Cavallo-

***threadjack***

biopsych lab? That sounds like it could be very interesting. I'd like to hear more on that sometime.

**Threadjack off***
echo4alpha Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2003
Posts: 4,349
RDC is right. The "assault rifles" that were banned only looked like their military predecessors. A true assault rifle is selective fire, which means either burst or fully automatic. A semi auto AR-15, HK-91, SAR-80, they just look like the original, they are NOT full autos!

Just because it has:
1. a pistol grip
2. a protruding magazine
3. a bayonet lug
4. a flash suppressor
does not make it a fully automatic weapon. So why were the rifles banned? In short, because they looked too much like true assault rifles.

I'm glad the ban is dead for the rest of you Americans. Us Kalifornians are still f*cked. :(
It seems that Kalifornia thinks my right to keep and bear arms is not only conditional, but a privledge, not a right.
:(

E4A
Users browsing this topic
Guest